Commons Sitting of 26 April 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Great Central Railway Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Harrow Road and Paddington Tramways Bill. As amended, considered; a

1175
clause added; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No.1) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
Commons Regulation (Morrow) Provisional Order. Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, relating to Merrow Downs, in the parish of Merrow, in the county of Surrey, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes and Mr. Victor Cavendish.
Commons Regulation (Oxshott) Provisional Order. Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, relating to Oxshott Heath, in the parish of Cobham, in the contry of Surrey, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes and Mr. Victor Cavendish.
Commons Regulation (Merrow) Provisional Order Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order under the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, relating to Merrow Downs, in the parish of Merrow, in the county of Surrey," presented, and read the first time: to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 163.]
Commons Regulation (Oxshott) Provisional Order Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order under the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1899, relating to Oxshott Heath, in the parish of Cobham, in the county of Surrey," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 164.]
Motherwell and Bellshill Railway (Abandonment) Provisional Order Bill. Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee on the Motherwell and Bellshill Railway Bill, in Session 1900, be referred to the Commissioners appointed under the Private
1176
Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, to inquire into the Motherwell and Bellshill Railway (Abandonment) Draft Provisional Order.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
Municipal Corporations Bill. Second Reading deferred from Monday next till Friday, 6th May.
London, Camberwell, and Dulwich Tramways Bill. Reported [Preamble not proved]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Various Powers) Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Doncaster Corporation Bill. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee; Report to lie upon, the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Auchterarder, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND VALUES (ASSESSMENT AND RATING) BILL.
  Petition from Middleton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES (RENEWAL).
  Petitions against alteration of Law from Builth Wells (two); Northumberland Heath; Toynton St. Peter; Rugely Lower Edmonton; Turvey; Sale (nine) Enfield; Bowes Park; Ashton-on-Mersey (three); Sawtey; Brighton; Bradfield; Hackney; Deptford; Radcliffe; South-sea; Southwark (two); Stafford; Paignton; Wood Green; Portslade; and Hammersmith; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Galashiels, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Paisley, against; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petition from Croydon, against; to lie upon the Table.
  RE-VACCINATION BILL.
  Petition from Seedley, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF BUTTER BILL.
  Petition from Taunton, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) ACT, 1898.
  Paper [presented 25th April] to be printed. [No. 141.]
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) ACT, 1898 (SCOTLAND) 1899.
  Paper [presented 25th April] to be printed. [No. 142.]
  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
  Copy presented, of List of Agricultural Correspondents of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, with a Copy of their Instructions as to Procedure and a Prefatory Memorandum [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  County Courts Act, 1888, and Supreme Court of Judicature (Officers) Act, 1879. Copy of Order made by the Lord Chancellor, dated 20th April, 1904, directing that the Registrar of the County Court of Yorkshire (West Hiding), held at Wakefield, shall not practise as a solicitor, and that Section 20 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Officers) Act, 1879, shall not apply to the office of Registrar of the said County Court [by Act].
  EXCHEQUER BALANCES.
  Return ordered, "showing how the Exchequer Balance has been strengthened or depleted in each of the five years ending the 31st day of March, 1904."—(Mr, McCrae.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  London Telegraphists—Hours of Duty
  MR. LOUGH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that at an office in Highbury telegraph clerks are compelled to perform duty from noon to 10 p.m. one day and 7 a.m. to 1 p.m, the next; and, if so, whether, seeing that the Tweedmouch Committee expressly stated that telegraphists were to have nine clear hours at home in between duties, and in view of the fact that London clerks are compelled to live some distance from their homes, he will direct an alteration of duties which will permit the rules of the Department being complied with.
  (Answred by Lord Stanley.) The arrangement in question has been in force for many years at Highbury and elsewhere, and is in many cases preferred by the staff. If the counter clerks and telegraphists at Highbury wish for an alteration, they should apply in the ordinary manner', and there will be no difficulty in rearranging the hours of attendance so as to bring them into conformity with the recommendation of the Tweedmouth Committee.

  Patent Office — Proposed Branch in Ireland.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that there is no branch of the Patent Office in Ireland for Irish business, he is prepared to favourably consider a proposal for the setting up of such a branch for the convenience of Irishmen.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am not prepared to consider this proposal. There are serious administrative difficulties), and as only 1·6 percent, of the total number of applicants for British patents during the last nine years were resident in Ireland, it is clear that the amount of fees that would be received from Irish patentees would not be sufficient to justify the expense of establishing a separate branch of the Patent Office in Ireland.

  Board of Trade — Proposed Branch in Dublin.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that there

  1179
  is no separate branch of the Board of Trade for Ireland, he is prepared to favourably consider a proposal for the establishment of such a branch in Dublin.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I do not know of any circumstances which would render such an arrangement desirable.

  Dealing in "Futures"—Suggested Stamp Duty.
  MR. FIELD: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of imposing a stamp tax on all future option and warrant contracts concerning foodstuffs, cotton, metals, commodities, or shares which are non-existent; and whether he has any official information which will show whether the imposition of such a tax would provide revenue sufficient to enable him to remove the proposed increase of taxation on tea.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) After carefully considering this Question, I have come to the conclusion that it would be impossible to distinguish in a tax between those contracts which the hon.

  Common Fund.

  In respect of sales of glebe and other trust accounts.

  Total.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Year ending 31st October 1894.

  7,887

  11

  1

  4,640

  18

  4

  12,528

  9

  5

  Year ending 31st October 1895.

  7,424

  4

  9

  3,371

  4

  0

  10,795

  8

  9

  Year ending 31st October 1896.

  9,853

  2

  2

  2,573

  18

  2

  12,427

  0

  1

  Year ending 31st October 1897.

  7,097

  11

  11

  3,068

  14

  10

  10,166

  6

  9

  Year ending 31st October 1898.

  6,543

  12

  5

  2,592

  7

  2

  9,135

  19

  7

  Year ending 31st October 1899.

  7,352

  5

  2

  2,437

  3

  7

  9,789

  8

  9

  Year ending 31st October 1900.

  6,576

  7

  1

  2,675

  13

  4

  9,252

  0

  5

  Year ending 31st October 1901.

  7,158

  19

  5

  2,660

  0

  1

  9,818

  19

  6

  Year ending 31st October 1902.

  10,136

  10

  0

  2,030

  4

  4

  12,166

  14

  4

  Year ending 31st October 1903.

  8,540

  10

  1

  3,037

  14

  6

  11,594

  12

  5

  16

  7

  10

  Payment of Grant to Evening School Teachers in Queen's County.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when the
  Member wishes to discourage and those which ought to be exempt from the duty, for the difference between the two classes of transaction is not in their form but in the minds of the parties concerned.

  Legal Expenses of Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: To ask the hon. Member for West Salford, as Church Estates Commissioner, whether the sum of £8,540 10s. 1d., entered in the Common Fund Account of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England under the head of legal expenses, includes the sum of £3,037 14s. 6d. entered in the summary of trust accounts as cash paid for legal expenses: and whether he will state the total legal expenses of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in each of the ten financial years last past.
  (Answered by Sir Lees Knowles.) The following Table contains the amounts paid by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England for legal expenses for the ten years ending 31st October, 1903, as shown in the Reports to Parliament.
  grant to teachers of evening schools in Borris-in-Ossory, Castletown, and Rathdowney, Queen's County, will be paid: and whether he is aware that the examinations were held last February, and that no payments have yet been made.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am in formed that the grants have now been paid.

  War Office and Cottages in Wiltshire.
  LORD EDMUND FITZMAURICE: To ask the Secretary of State for War if fifty of the cottagers resident in the villages of Netheravon, Fittleton, and Figheldean (Wiltshire) have received notice to quit their cottages from the War Office, and if he is aware that there are no other cottages to which these people can remove, and that a feeling of alarm exists in consequence throughout the district: and if he will undertake that no immediate step shall he taken to compel these people to leave their homes.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) No such notice has been given from the War Office. Certain War Department cottages are required to accommodate pensioner grooms employed at the Yeomanry School at Netheravon,and it has been decided in consequence that, while expulsion should not he resorted to, compensation would he given to such of the tenants as would he willing to give up possession by the '21st June, 1904.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Railway Companies' Liability.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the effect of the decision of the House of Lords in "Manchester Railway Company v. Brown" upon the provisions of the seventh Section of The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, which enacts that every railway company shall be liable for the loss or injury to goods occasioned by the neglect of such company, and that every condition made by a railway company contrary thereto shall be null and void; and, if so, in view of the losses which traders are suffering as the result of this decision, will he state whether the Government contemplate legislation in the matter.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): If the case to which the hon.
  1182
  Member refers is that of "Brown v. the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company," I would point out that the decision of the House of Lords thereon was given more than twenty years ago. The Legislature has expressly provided by the Act mentioned that it shall be for the Court to determine the reasonableness of the conditions of contracts modifying the-liability otherwise imposed upon Railway Companies by Section 7 of that Act, and the Government do not contemplate amending legislation.
  MR. PIRIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the President of the Board of Agriculture recently promised a deputation that he would look into the matter with a view to rectifying the grievance?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Swan-wick Colliery Accident.
  MR. JACOBY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the accident at the Swanwick Colliery, Derbyshire, on the 29th March, by which three men lost their lives, and to the verdict of the jury at the adjourned inquest on the 12th April; and, if so, will he state what course he intends to take in consequence of the defects in the apparatus, as found to be the cause of the accident, owing to the omission of duty by those appointed to supervise and keep in proper order such apparatus; and whether he will undertake in the future to issue instructions to prevent such negligence.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE,): Yes, Sir; and a report on this accident has been received from the mines inspector for the district, from which it appears that there had been no omission of any statutory duty on the part of the management of the mine—i:i particular the examination of the machinery, conductors, ropes, etc., required by the rules had been duly made. The accident appears to have been chiefly due to the fact that the conductors and

  1183
  other gearing in the shaft were old and worn though not to such an extent that they could have been condemned as unsafe. The inspector states that the necessary steps have been taken to put the shaft and gearing in a satisfactory condition and that cages of an improved pattern are to be substituted for the old type previously in use.

  Scottish Board of Manufactures.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what action he has taken, or proposes to take, to carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the Board of Manufactures.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): I can only refer the hon. Member to my answer given on 4th February of this year to a Question by the hon. Member for Glasgow College Division.† Inquiries are in progress as to the best method of giving effect to the several recommendations of the Committee but they have not reached the stage in which I can give any more definite information to the hon. Member.

  Mullingar Resident Magistrate and Lunacy Cases.
  Mr. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. P. D. Sullivan, the resident magistrate stationed in Mullingar, some months ago gave instructions to the clerk of petty sessions and the police authorities there to notify him of all cases of lunacy occurring in the petty sessions district requiring investigation before magistrates in order that he might attend same; whether there were various other magistrates in the township who, as a rule, had hitherto conducted such inquiries; and, if so, will he say whether Mr. Sullivan is entitled to sit in every such case; and whether he is aware that Mr. Sullivan takes the chair at every petty sessions at Mullingar without consulting the other magistrates present, although some of them may be senior to him; and, if so, will he say if he is entitled to do so.
  † See (4) Debates, exxix., 350.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,: At my right hon. friend's request I will reply to this Question. The resident magistrate was made aware some months ago that the local justices complained of the inconvenience of being required to investigate these more or less formal matters out of petty sessions. He, thereupon, requested the clerk of petty sessions to inform him when applications for the committal of lunatics to be made out of petty sessions were about to come on, in order that he might attend and dispose of them. This was done to convenience the local justices. It is not the fact that the magistrates in the township of Mullingar have, as a rule, investigated such cases; the resident magistrate has always taken part in such investigations. It is not the practice to formally elect a chairman at every Court of petty sessions at Mullingar. All the magistrates who attend the Court have expressed to Mr. Sullivan their wish that he should preside when present.

  President of Queen's College, Cork
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the exact amount of time during each term in the past three years spent in the college by the President of the Queen's College, Cork.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): There is no official record kept of the absences of the Presidents of the Queen's Colleges. I have already stated that the President of the Cork College has made it a rule to be in Cork during term except when public business connected with the National Board of Education, or business connected with the Royal University (of the Standing Committee of the Senate of which he is a member), or considerations of health, have obliged him to be elsewhere.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if it is not the fact that this gentleman resides almost entirely out of Cork, and [is very seldom there at all?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have said it is the case that he is frequently absent.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: What salary does he receive?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I cannot say.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Does he take any part whatever in the teaching. Has he any degree for any University?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: He does nothing at all.
  MR. JOYCE: He just lives in Germany.

  Land Purchase in County Fermanagh.
  MR. EDWARD MITCHELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that some years ago two holdings in the townlands of Knockma-noul and Drumconnis, near Rallinamal-lard, in the county of Fermanagh, were sold to the tenants under the Land Commission and that the landlord has not yet received the purchase money, although the tenants are paying their instalments to the Land Commission; and, if so, will he state the cause of this delay.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The sum advanced for the purchase of these holdings was £375. The guarantee deposits amount to £79, and the balance was absorbed in the redemption of head rents, costs of sale, and payment of charges affecting the lands sold. No residue remained for the vendor, who remains in occupation of the remainder of the property.

  Arms Act in County Fermanagh
  MR. EDWARD MITCHELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether county Fermanagh is still proclaimed under the Arms Act; and, if so, will he now withdraw the proclamation, having regard to the peaceable state of the community.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The proclamation in force in Fermanagh extends only to the carrying, not the keeping, of arms. A person of good character who requires to carry a gun for legitimate purposes
  1186
  experiences no difficulty in procuring a licence. Out of 190 applications for licences in the past twelve months only seven were refused. The reply to the concluding inquiry is in the negative; the proclamation is simply a measure of police regulation.

  Grants to Irish Fisheries.
  MR. EDWARD MITCHELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland has recently made an annual grant of £100 towards the conservators of the Bann fisheries at Coleraine, and that the Department has arranged to shortly turn some 85,000 Loch Leven trout into the tributaries of Lough Neagh; and whether he will recommend the Department to lay down young trout in the River Erne also.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Department has granted a sum of £100 to the Coleraine Board of Conservators in aid of the protection of the fisheries of Lough Neagh. It has also contributed a sum of £20 towards the purchase of trout ova for the lake, on condition that an equivalent sum be raised by voluntary subscription. The Department is quite prepared to consider an application for a similar grant in the case of Lough Erne, should the conditions be found to warrant it.

  Persecution of the Jews in Limerick
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can give information as to the steps being taken by His Majesty's Government to ensure protection of life, property, and freedom of trading to the Jewish population in Limerick.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The position of the small Jewish population in Limerick has engaged the most careful and anxious consideration of the Government. When the exhibition of hostility to the Jews first manifested itself the police received special instructions to use their best efforts to protect them in their person and property, and in a

  1187
  number of cases the police have prosecuted to conviction individuals guilty of the offence of molesting them. The Limerick Jews are a well-conducted section of the community, engaged for the greater part in small trades or businesses and dependent for their livelihood on the goodwill of their customers. They have been visited from time to time by the police who have encouraged them in every possible way. The police will spare no effort to check disorder and put a stop to any overt acts of illegality directed against the Jews which may come under their notice.
  MR. LUNDON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cause of the trouble is to be found in the usurious exactions of these Jews?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Irish Estates Commissioners.
  MR. LEAMYI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that a number of originating applications and requests are lying in the office of the Estates Commissioners unexamined and not formally received owing to the insufficient staff; and whether steps will be taken to secure that they shall be examined and formally received on the day on which they are brought in, as was always done in the Land Judge's Court and formerly in the Land Commission.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There has been some little delay in dealing with such applications. But such delay is unavoidable and incidental to the working of a Department so recently constituted. The question of the sufficiency of the staff is at present under consideration.

  Government Building Contracts in Ireland.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whether he is aware that contracts are given away to English and Scotch firms for the building work and other operations in connection with the Board of Works in Ireland, with-out being put up to competition or advertising for tenders for the work; whether the new supper room at Dublin Castle, the
  1188
  servants' rooms at the Viceregal Lodge, Dublin, and the new stationery offices at the Custom House, Dublin, have recently been executed by contractors outside Ireland without competition or tender; will he explain why this practice is being carried on; and will he say whether he has seen the correspondence between the Master Builders' Association and the Board of Works protesting against the continuance of this treatment of Irish contractors.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,: The usual rule is to obtain competitive tenders, but circumstances of urgency arise from time to time, and make it necessary to depart from this rule. The facts as to the temporary supper rooms and servants' rooms were explained by my predecessor on the 14th July last.† The annexe required for the stationery office was urgently needed, and was obtained from a Glasgow firm, which was in a position to supply it promptly, as it deals specially in this kind of building. I have not seen the correspondence referred to.
  MR. NANNETTI: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the same thing has been going on for the last four or five years, and that thousands of pounds have been thus expended which might more advantageously have been devoted to Ireland.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I can add nothing to my answer.

  Railway Season Tickets and Income-Tax Deductions.
  MR. SLACK: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the fact that the holders of railway season tickets who reside in the suburbs or towns near London, and who are assessed for the payment of income-tax upon their salaries, are not allowed to deduct the cost of such tickets from their annual assessment, whilst persons in business and assessed for income-tax upon their business profits are allowed to include
  †See (4) Debates, cxxv., 570.

  1189
  the cost of season tickets between the same towns and London in the amount of their business expenses, and thus obtain relief in respect of this outlay; and, if so, whether he will make provision to enable all such season ticket holders to secure exemption.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The Courts have held that expenses incurred in traveling from the place of residence to the place of business cannot be allowed as deductions from income for purposes of assessment to income-tax. But expenses incurred in travelling from the place of business to places at a distance for the purpose of effecting purchases or other subsidiary transactions clearly stand on a different footing and are rightly recognised as trade expenses.

  Tea Duty in Ireland.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if ho will state the total amount received from the tea duty in Ireland up to 31st March, 1904, or next nearest possible date.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not quite clear as to the meaning of the hon. Member's Question, but I may tell him that the total amount of duty received on tea in Ireland for the financial year 1903–4 was £340,022.
  MR. LOUGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman happen to have the amount of the Treasury estimate of the tea duty on the tea consumed in Ireland?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, I have not the figures, but if the hon. Member will put a Question down I will try and get him the information.

  Evasions of Stamp Duty by Railway and Shipping Companies.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to cases in which the payment of the stamp duty on the forwarding notes used by railway and shipping companies has been evaded by such companies;
  1190
  and, if so, whether, seeing that under the heading agreement or memorandum of any agreement in Schedule 1 of the Stamp Act of 1891, where the subject-matter is of the value of £5 and above, forwarding notes are liable to a stamp duty of 6d. each, he will say what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have received a letter calling attention to one case of alleged evasion, and the matter is now being inquired into. If the hon. Member will give information as to any cases which have arisen within his knowledge, I will have them looked into and see how they should be dealt with.
  MR. PIRIE: Is it not the case that there is systematic evasion?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it is, but if the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of systematic evasion I shall be glad to be furnished with it.
  MR. PIRIE: I will do so.

  War Office Contracts for Arms and War Material.
  MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what quantity and value of arms and war material has been given to contractors during the last financial year that could have been produced in the Government workshops.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): Detailed information concerning the allocation of orders as between the Ordnance Factories and the trade has always been treated as confidential and I am not, therefore, in a position to give the hon. Member a reply to his Question, but, generally speaking, these orders were in the proportion of one-third to two-thirds.

  Machinery Standing Idle in Government Workshops.
  MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what the productive power is of

  1191
  the machinery now standing idle in Government workshops; if he will consider the possibility of arranging to keep all Government machinery at work before allotting work to contractors; and if he will state how many men have been discharged or suspended, and the number on short time, in consequence of orders being placed with contractors.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Taken as a whole the factories at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, are producing slightly over one-third of their possible output when fully employed in time of peace. The Waltham Gunpowder Factory is fully employed. As regards the Small Arms Factories I am not able to reply as the current year's orders will modify the existing conditions. As regards the general policy it is an established principle, well supported by the experience of recent years, to utilise the resources of the trade as well as those of the Government factories and to reserve for an emergency the full productive power of the latter; the policy advocated by the hon. Member would certainly involve us in a very dangerous situation during a great war. As regards the last part of the Question, since the 1st April, sixty-nine men have been discharged, 185 suspended, and seventeen men are working short time in the Gun Factory, but it is not possible to assign the reductions of particular individuals to the placing of orders with the trade.

  Yeomanry Inspection.
  MR. PEEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the number of Yeomanry regiments officially inspected by the Inspector-General of Yeomanry in the years 1902 and 1903; and what is the amount of the salary, allowances, and travelling allowances of the Inspector-General and his aide-de-camp during the same years.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: In 1902 the Inspector-General of Yeomanry inspected seventeen Yeomanry regiments and twelve in 1903. The figures referred to in the second part of the Question are as follows:—1902, £1,015 5s.; 1903, £950 2s.
  MR. PEEL: As these figures show the cost of inspection to come to something
  1192
  like £100 per regiment will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to modify the system?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I think the later Return shows that there is a modification.

  The German Emperor's Visit to Gibraltar.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the German Emperor, during his stay at Gibraltar, was allowed to visit galleries, forts, or defences which ordinary English visitors are not allowed to inspect; and since when have English visitors been allowed to go up to the signal station; which of the galleries did the Emperor inspect; and how many of the lower galleries have been open to English visitors.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTR: Under paragraph 2, Appendix V. King's Regulations the responsibility for ensuring the secrecy of works of defence is vested in the General Officer Commanding on the spot. No information, therefore, on the points raised in the Question has reached the War Office, and it is not proposed to question the discretion of Field-Marshal Sir George White in the matter.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: Then where can I get the information?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The hon. and gallant Member will find all the information he requires in the Regulations I have quoted. It is a matter which rests entirely in the discretion of Sir George White.

  The Director of Personnel.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what are the duties and the emoluments of the Director of Personnel; what is the number of the stag which he will have under him in his department; and how many persons were employed under the former scheme upon the same work, and what was their total remuneration.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The duties of the Director of Personnel are very similar to those hitherto performed by

  1193
  the Deputy-Adjutant-General and the emoluments will be the same. As regards the staff, as the work of the Adjutant-General's department is now being rearranged, any comparison, such as that suggested cannot be made at the present time.

  Northern Nigeria.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will lay upon the Table the despatches relating to the fighting in Northern Nigeria, in July, 1903, which resulted in the capture of Burmi and the death of the ex-Emir of Sokoto.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): I am informed by the High Commissioner that I may expect to receive at an early date, a further despatch on this subject. When that reaches me I shall be in a position to consider the question of laying Papers on the Table of the House.

  Gold Output of, and Native Labour available for, the Rand.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, what has been the gold output from the Rand for March in quantity and value, and how does it compare with that for February, also the amount of native labour on the Rand mines for March and for February.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The gold output for March was 308,242 ounces, value £1,309,329; for February 289,502 ounces, value £1,229,726; the amount of native labour for March, 72,340, for February, 69,966.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Then why do you want the pigtail?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Education in Ceylon.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will say what is the number of children of a school-going age of Mohammedan parents in Ceylon: bow many of such children are receiving instruction; also how many children in
  1194
  Colombo do not attend school, and what are the reasons for their non-attendance.
  MR. LYTTELTON: Neither the census report for 1901 nor the departmental report classify children receiving school instruction in Ceylon under the head of religion. The census report shows that in Colombo there were, in 1901, 35,405 children between the ages of five and fifteen, of whom 9,747 were receiving instruction. Education is not compulsory in Ceylon.

  Prosecution of Mr. Tilak.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, looking to the expenditure of public money upon the criminal prosecution of Mr. Tilak, he will state whether, before undertaking this prosecution on the recommendation of Mr. Aston, the district Judge, the Bombay Government took the advice of their law officers; and whether he is aware that Mr. Aston's civil decisions, in the case out of which the criminal prosecution arose, were upset by the High Court.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): As I stated in my answer to the hon. Member on the 14th inst.,† I have no official information in regard to this case; but if he will refer to the reply which I then gave, he will see that, as I have every reason to think, the prosecution was not undertaken by the Bombay Government on the recommendation of Mr Aston, but was instituted by the direction of the Judge himself. This direction, as I said, he had power to give under the Act which I cited.
  MR, SCHWANN: May I offer the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the Judges' decision which I have just received from India?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Congo Free State—Trade Difficulties.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that persons trading in
  † See page 188.

  1195
  the Congo Free State, under the provisions of the Ordinance of the 29th August, 1896, have had their property and merchandise confiscated; and if, in view of the fact that the guarantee of the Congo Free State to foreigners of the right of navigation, commerce, and industry has been rendered null and void by the Free State having declared the country private property, he will state what steps the Government propose to take in conjunction with the other Powers that were parties to the Convention.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,: We have received no information of the character described, but an inquiry is being made. As the hon. Member is aware, the question whether the system of trade now prevailing in the Congo State is in harmony with the provisions of the Berlin Act is one of those to which the attention of the Powers was drawn in the British Circular of the 8th August last.

  British Traders in the French Congo.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state how it is that the definite proposals of His Majesty's Government as to the claims of British traders in the French Congo, and the hardships wrought by the concessionaire regime, which have long been under the consideration of the French Government, are not dealt with in the recent arrangements with France; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to press for early action by the French Government in reference to the concessionaire system in the French Congo.
  EARL PERCY: It was not found possible to include in an agreement dealing with general questions of an international character, the private claims to which the right hon. Baronet refers. We understand, however, that the claims of the British firms are in principle admitted by the French Government, and advantage was taken of the opportunity afforded by the recent negotiations to
  1196
  express to the French Government the earnest hope of His Majesty's Government that an equitable settlement of the questions in dispute might speedily be arrived at.

  East Africa—Jewish Colonial Trust.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Papers relative to the cession of territory in East Africa to an alien race will be laid upon the Table of the House.
  EARL PERCY: I have again referred to the correspondence relating to the proposed grant of land to the Jewish Colonial Trust; much of it is of a confidential character, and while the question is still undecided it would be undesirable to publish the Papers.

  Irish Sub-Postmasters' Remuneration.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether any complaint has been made to him of the inadequacy of their remuneration by sub-postmasters in Ireland; whether any Departmental Committee has inquired or is inquiring into the matter; and, if not, will any such inquiry be undertaken.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): No such complaint has at present reached me. The question of the remuneration of sub-postmasters generally, especially at the smaller offices, has recently been under review and an improved scale of pay, including a higher minimum, has been brought into force. No Departmental Committee has inquired nor is inquiring into the matter and I do not propose to institute such an inquiry.

  Port of London Bill.
  MR. PEEL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to proceed with the suspended Bill for the Port of London.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to my hon. friend I have to say that the Government Amendments to this Bill are ready and will be put down shortly,

  1197
  and I hope to have at no distant date an opportunity of proceeding with the measure.

  The Recommendations of the Esher Committee.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he intends to lay before the House a Memorandum showing how far the recommendations of the Esher Committee have been adopted; and whether opportunity will be afforded of discussing that or a similar statement.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The recommendations of the Esher Committee for the creation of an Army Council with an establishment of directors and other departmental officers have been adopted, and all steps necessary to giving effect to the reorganisation consequent thereon have been taken. The recommendations of the Committee for the rearrangement of the military commands and administrative districts within the United Kingdom, and the devolution of work to those commands, are being examined by a Committee which will shortly Report to the Army Council. I take it there will shortly be an opportunity for discussing the subject on the War Office Vote.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Will some reasoned statement be made for the guidance of the Committee, so that we may know exactly what recommendations have been adopted.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am quite prepared to consult with my right hon. friend as to that. At first sight it would appear, however, to be an unusual and inconvenient proceeding. I think the explanation will be found in the Papers already in the hands of hon. Members. Still, I will leave the matter in the hands of my right hon. friend.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Is the righthon. Gentleman satisfied that the recommendations of the Committee can be properly discussed under the Vote for the War Office.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not consulted the authorities of the House on the point. I have merely thrown out the suggestion that the question could properly be raised on the War Office Vote.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any statement to make as to the business for the rest of the week?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, as my hon. friend the Member for the Wellington Division announced on the adjournment of the House last night, to-morrow will be devoted to the Report of the Budget Resolutions. On Thursday Part I. of the Civil Service Estimates will be taken, and on Monday I trust we shall be able to conclude the proceedings upon the present stage of the financial proposals of the Government.
MR. BUCHANAN: Is there to be the usual Resolution about the permanent debt charge?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. I do not recollect any such Resolution being habitually moved, and it certainly is not necessary this year as I do not propose to make any alteration in the fixed debt charge.
MR. LOUGH: Why is the Report of the Income-Tax Resolution being taken before that of the tea and tobacco duties?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is done in the supposed interests of the convenience of the House.
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has yet made arrangements for taking the Second Reading of the Licensing Bill.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot fix a date at present, but I think it will be a very early one.
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will kindly give us ample notice of the date?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hereby give notice that I will bring it on at the earliest date I can contrive.
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: That is very vague.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection. That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure, the following fifteen Members in respect of the Weights and Measures Bill: Mr. Gerald Balfour, Mr. Bousfield, Sir John Brunner, Sir Joseph Dimsdale, Sir Walter Foster. Sir Michael Foster. Sir Fortescue Flannery. Mr. Kearley, Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Mr. McCrae, Sir Albert Rollit. Mr. Herbert Robertson, Mr. Spear, Mr. Stuart Samuel, and Mr. Toulmin.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had nominated the following Member to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Bills relating to Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, which may, by Order of the House, be committed to such Standing Committee: Mr. Hunter Craig.
Report to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  SHOP HOURS BILL.
  "To provide for the Early Closing of Shops," presented by Mr. Cochrane; supported by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas and Mr. Bonar Law; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 165.]

  VALUATION BILL.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,: I rise to ask for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law with respect to valuation authorities and the effect of, and procedure for, making valuation lists and for making certain amendments in the law relating to valuation which are necessary for the purpose of promoting uniformity of valuation as between valuation authorities. The subject is very complicated and very dry, but more important than those Members who have not found it necessary to give their personal attention
  1200
  to local government may suppose. Both political Parties are committed to the reform of local taxation, but it would be impossible successfully and satisfactorily to carry out that object unless we first deal with the law which governs the valuation of the property upon which local rates fall. I do not think that I need do more than briefly explain the present system. Excluding London, which has a law of its own, there are in all counties two assessment authorities which assess for different purposes—the county authority which assesses for the county rate, and the union authority which assesses for the poor rate. In addition there are powers held by the borough councils, so that there might even be a third assessment authority for the same area. Consequently there are several authorities charged with the duty of assessing, they have no means of consultation and joint action, and thus there are the widest possible variations in practice. The assessments themselves vary in a most remarkable degree, and often in the same county they differ greatly, so that in adjoining unions you may have properties precisely similar in their character and in their surroundings contributing to the similar rates on different assessments. The inequities which have thus resulted led to the appointment of the Royal Commission. In addition, perhaps, I ought to say that these inequities also occur in county and other boroughs. The City of Liverpool embraces three or four unions, the City of Birmingham certainly includes more than one, and thus you have this extraordinary injustice that within the same municipal area where the expenditure is presumably for the same purpose, three or four different valuations are made by different union assessment committees. These are some of the inequities which, as I said, led to the appointment of the Royal Commission.
  In the Bill the Government have adopted in the main, with some slight modification, the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The Report of the Commission recommended the application to the rest of the country of the system existing in London with certain alterations. That system is one which has worked with considerable

  1201
  success, and the Government propose to apply it to the rest of the country, modifying it to suit the needs of different parts of England and Wales, and slightly altering it in London, so as to make the new system uniform. We propose that there should be, in the first place, a single authority for valuation and assessment purposes, instead of the numerous authorities which now exist, and, in the second place, we propose to bring about uniformity of valuation and assessment. We propose that the valuation authorities should be the county council, and in the case of county boroughs, the county borough council. That will give a single valuation authority. In order to secure uniformity, we propose that the Surveyor of Taxes shall have the right to be present at the meetings of the valuation committees, which I will presently refer - to. We propose that the valuation list shall be submitted to him, and if he has reason to believe that the valuation is an improper one he will be entitled to make his own valuation, which will stand unless it can be shown on objection to be unjust and improper.
  MR. LOUGH: Shown to whom?
  MR. WALTER LONG: To the valuation Committee Under the London Act there is a scale of deductions. It is desirable that the deductions to be made from gross estimated value should be general and established by this House rather than left to the discretion of local authorities, who view the question from such various standpoints. Therefore we propose to adopt the London system as far as possible. We put in the Bill a schedule of deductions to be made from the gross estimated value, and give power to the valuation authority to vary those deductions only in special cases where exceptional reason can be shown. It will be within the power of the valuation authority to divide their area into districts and to appoint valuation committees for such districts. Those districts will have to include one, or more, urban or rural district, and in certain cases, where local conditions require it, there is power to give representation on the valuation committees to boards of guardians within the area. The Bill proposes that valuation committees shall be appointed for areas containing a population of not less than 50,000,
  1202
  and in the case of a non-county borough or urban district that a population of 50,000 shall be a separate district area for the purposes of the Act. Probably this question of population will give rise to more difference of opinion than many other provisions of the Bill. While I should be glad to see the number adhered to, I do not regard it as a fundamental part of the Bill, but I ask the House to give it their friendly and careful consideration, having regard to all the circumstances. The majority of the district committee must be representatives of the valuation authorities, and, in the case of county boroughs, they must be members of the town council, but, in the case of a county, the county council may, if they please, select persons to represent them from outside their body. There is an additional power to include the guardians if necessary in certain cases, and for a county to appoint joint committees in adjoining valuation districts. In London the County Council will be the authority and the metropolitan boroughs and the City will be the valuation districts, and the numbers of the committee will be fixed by the County Council. The majority of the members of the district committees will be drawn from the borough councils, and the guardians in London are to be represented on the committees. The valuation and assessment will be quinquennial. The valuation list will be conclusive for all purposes. The deductions will be set out in the schedule to the Bill. The only other two points I need mention are alterations in the law of appeal and the law as regards railways and canals. The appeal to quarter sessions will remain but the appeal to special sessions will be abolished, and the Government propose to deal with railways and canals in a separate measure if necessary and feasible.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law with respect to Valuation Authorities and the effect of, and procedure for, making Valuation Lists, and for making certain amendments in the Law relating to Valuation, which are necessary for the purpose of promoting uniformity of Valuation as between Valuation Authorities."—(Mr. Waller Long.)
  SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that everyone who was interested in the question of local taxation must agree that the first step to be taken was an alteration in the law of assessment. Nothing was more unsatisfactory in our municipal and local government at present than the contradictions, the anomalies, and the inexplicable difficulties which arose with reference to assessment. He had no opposition to offer to the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman had given for an alteration of the law. He hoped that the House would approach the question without Party feeling, as it was a measure of local reform which ought to be carried out. Differences of opinion would doubtless arise as to details, and the progress of the measure through Committee would have to be carefully watched, but in its general principles he thought the House should grant leave for the Bill to be introduced.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr, Walter Long, Mr. Attorney-General, and Mr. Grant Lawson.

  VALUATION BILL.
  To amend the Law with respect to Valuation Authorities, and the effect of, and procedure for, making Valuation Lists and for making certain amendments in the Law relating to Valuation, which are necessary for the purpose of promoting uniformity of Valuation as between Valuation Authorities; presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill l66.]

  EDUCATION (LOCAL AUTHORITY DEFAULT) BILL.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,)said he desired to ask leave to introduce a Bill to make provision for the case of default on the part of local authorities in the performance of their duties as respects elementary schools, and to introduce a procedure in addition to that which existed under the Act of 1902, but more prompt and effective and cheaper. He hoped to explain the measure in no
  1204
  acrimonious or controversial spirit. Before the Act of 1902, the Board of Education possessed the power in the case of voluntary schools to take measures for the establishment of a School Board if the managers showed themselves unable or unwilling to conduct a school in the way in which an elementary school should be conducted. If a School Board failed to comply with the conditions under which elementary schools should be conducted, the Board of Education could declare the School Board in default and appoint other persons to do the duties of the School Board —persons whom they nominated and could displace at their pleasure—until the default was made good. What were the circumstances now? A local education authority, from motives which he did not question or criticise, determined that it would not appoint managers on the board of management of elementary schools. It declined to sanction or to consider the appointment of teachers, to make provision for the supply of coal, books, and other necessaries of the school, and it did these things without alleging the schools to be unnecessary, or offering to provide a substitute. The managers complained to the Board of Education; the Board of Education communicated with the local authority; and correspondence of some length took place unsatisfactory to all the parties concerned. After a time the Board decided that a public inquiry should be held. Notice had to be given, and this occupied time. The Commissioner held a public inquiry, which also occupied time and cost money to the local authorities. In due time the Commissioner digested the evidence and sent in a Report to the Board of Education. The Board then had to consider what order should be made in the circumstances. Having made their order, the local authority next considered whether it would obey the order. If it determined not to obey the order, the Board had then to consider whether the severe penalties available in the circumstances should be put in operation. In the meantime, what was happening to the schools and to the children? The schools had no properly constituted body of managers, and the children were going without teachers, without coal, without books, and

  1205
  without apparatus. It was obvious that such a state of things could not be allowed to exist. He therefore asked the House to give the Board of Education the powers necessary to meet the facts he had described.
  In the first place, the Bill gave power to the Board, where the local authorities were in default, to make an order which would render valid the things done, such as the appointment of a teacher, which, owing to the default of the local authority, would be invalid, and where the managers, in order to satisfy the necessary requirements of the school, incurred expense, to repay to the managers the money they had expended. The money so repaid to the managers would be a debt due to the Crown, and without prejudice to any other remedy, might be deducted by the Board from the amount of Parliamentary grant payable to the local authority. The remedy had those advantages: to was prompt and effective, it involved the minimum interference with the action of the local authority who had the whole area of education open to them, except in so far as the Board intervened to do certain acts and order certain payments; it had this further advantage, that it stopped automatically as the evil stopped. As soon as the local authority made good the default and supplied the necessaries for the school, circumstances would resume their ordinary course. This mode of remedy for this kind of default would be necessary at any time in respect of any school in any part of the kingdom; but it would be childish to ignore the fact that the matter had been brought home to the Government by what had recently happened in Wales. The Board knew what the cause of the trouble was. It was the religious difficulty which haunted and troubled our system of elementary education. In a debate which took place before Easter a desire was expressed on both sides of the House that some settlement of their religious difficulty might be found. He could not say how earnestly he echoed that desire. He endorsed every word that had been uttered on the previous evening by the President of the Board, speaking at Carnarvon, and in the debates on this Bill no word would fall from him which would kindle one spark of ill-feeling or
  1206
  prejudice a settlement such as would meet the wishes of all. But differences of old standing could not be settled in a day, and he had to think of the schools and the children. The Government could not stand aside: and while religious parties were settling their differences the House would not wish and the Welsh Members surely would not wish to see the children of the poor going without the small comforts and appliances in the elementary schools, and thereby losing the benefit of the system of elementary education which the House had done so much to further.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the case of default on the part of Local Authorities in the performance of their duties as respects Elementary Schools."—(Sir William Anson.)
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it was a remarkable thing that within a couple of years of the passing of the Education Act a Coercion Bill of this kind had to be introduced to enforce it. They had been told that the Education Act was working smoothly in all parts of the country, but here was the admission being made by the Government that the Act was a failure as far as Wales was concerned. He had not a word to say as to the tone of the speech of the hon. Baronet, but he was bound to take note of the character of the Bill and to take exception to certain statements which had been made. The hon. Gentleman said there were parts of Wales in which no teachers had been appointed, where there was no fuel supplied to the schools, and he asked how it came about that this was not done? As a matter of fact there was no part of the country where that was done and where the schools were not better off than they were prior to 1902. The county councils had faithfully administered all the funds placed at their disposal by Parliament, which meant that the schools were in a much better position than they were in 1902, because they were getting in addition the grant in aid, every penny of which was paid to the schools. It was exceedingly unfair on the part of these managers that they should ask the House

  1207
  of Commons to believe that the Welsh county councils were withholding funds which Parliament had placed at their disposal for the benefit of these schools. If the children were left without fuel all he could say was it was a disgrace to the managers and not to the Welsh county councils.
  Undoubtedly there had been a misunderstanding with regard to some counties. He thought personally that the county of Carmarthen ought to have appointed managers and superintended the appointment of teachers. At the same time it was perfectly well known what the feeling was in Wales. Even Churchmen were prepared to accept the decision come to by the county councils. Having regard to the fact that there was a state of considerable bitterness and that the present law was not agreeable to the bulk of the Welsh people, they were disposed to allow matters to remain in statu quo until Parliament considered the full question. That was the view of certain Bishops with the exception of one. In Carmarthenshire practically the whole of the council were prepared to accept that policy except three, and even the leaders of the Church party were prepared to accept it. He, therefore, asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be better to leave matters as they were. When the hon. Gentleman announced his intention to send down a Commissioner to Carmarthen to hold an inquiry he appealed to him to instruct the Commissioner to inquire into the whole of the educational condition of the county, and he was under the impression that the Commissioner would do so. The Commissioner was an exceedingly able man and was perfectly fair, but when the county council wanted to present the whole of their case he said he had no instructions. When the county council appealed to the Commissioner to hear the case on behalf of the Nonconformists who were the great majority of the population, the Commissioner said he had no instructions. The hon. Gentleman, therefore, did not know what was the state of things in Carmarthenshire. The hon. Gentleman said the county councils were acting thus without alleging that the
  1208
  schools were unnecessary, but they did allege after a careful report by a competent surveyor that all these schools were insanitary and the Board of Education did not challenge that assertion. The bulk of them were insanitary and not fit to send children to. One of the points of the county council was that the Board of Education ought not to administer the Act until the managers had put the schools in a sanitary condition. Would hon. Members believe that the Commssioner actually refused to hear evidence as to whether the schools were fit to send the children to, or not, although the county council was prepared with expert evidence. Was it surprising that in Carmarthen the county council was unwilling to accept the responsibility of enforcing an Act which was driving children to schools which were insanitary and unhealthy and not fit for the purpose for which they were designed.
  That was the situation. The Government would have been better advised if they had faced the real situation. There was no demand in Wales for the enforcement of the Act as it stood. He desired to call attention to the state of the Government Benches, for there was only one Welsh Member sitting on the Ministerial side, and he was retiring at the next election. Did that show a real demand for this Bill? Would it not have been better if the Government had inquired into the real facts, for they were dealing with a population which was sincerely desirous of working any Education Act which would advance education and administer it fairly between all classes. The Intermediate Education Act had been administered in Wales without a single complaint from Churchmen and the country councils were appointing Church teachers and also Catholic teachers. The Government were simply wasting the time of Parliament by a Bill of this sort which would simply convert the Board of Education into a debt-collecting agency. It was an undignified and unstatesman like proceeding, and he appealed to the Government to get the whole facts of the situation and introduce legislation that would

  1209
  settle the question upon terms which would be acceptable to the vast majority of people of all creeds and all sections in Wales.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 262; Noes, 110. (Division List No. 93.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dorington, Rt Hon. Sir John E.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Aird, Sir John

  Doughty, George

  Kimber, Henry

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Laurie, Lieut-General

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Leamy, Edmund

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

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

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lowe, Francis William

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lundon, W.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Macdona, John dimming

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Forster, Henry William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Foster, Philip S. (Wanvick, S. W.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

  Fyler, John Arthur

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Bignold, Arthur

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Blake, Edward

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Garfit, William

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

  Boland, John

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

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.)

  Bond, Edward

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

  Meygey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Brassey, Albert

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Bull, William James

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Gretton, John

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Murnaghan, George

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Murphy, John

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hamilton, Marq, of (L'nd'nderry

  Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute-

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc.

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Chapman, Edward

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Give, Captain Percy A.

  Heaton, John Henniker

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

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

  Helder, Augustus

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

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

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  O'Doherty, William

  Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C.R.

  Hobhouse. Rt Hn H. (Somers't, E

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hogg, Lindsay

  O'Dowd, John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  O'Malley, William

  Crean, Eugene

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm, Henry

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Delany, William

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Percy, Earl

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Samuel, Sir H.S. (Limehouse)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Sheehy, David

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

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

  Rankin, Sir James

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Whiteley, H(Ashton und. Lyne

  Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

  Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Reddy, M.

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

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

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Reid. James (Greenock)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

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

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Stewait, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

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

  Ridley, Ha. M.W.(Stalybridge)

  Stock, James Henry

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn.Chas. Thomson

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Wylie, Alexander

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Roche, John

  Talbot, Rt. Hn., J. G. (Ox f 'd Univ.

  Young, Samuel

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Thompson, Dr. E C (Monag'h'n, N

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Thornton, Percy N.

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Tuff, Charles

  NOES.

  Allen, Charles P.

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

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rose, Charles Day

  Brigg, John

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Russell, T. W.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Bryee, Rt. Hon. James

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Burt, Thomas

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Caldwell, James

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Slack, John Bamford

  Cameron, Robert

  Leng, Sir John

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Levy, Maurice

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Crombie, John William

  Lloyd-George, David

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Crae, George

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Tomkinson, James

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Toulmin, George

  Edwards, Frank

  Middle-more, John Throgmorton

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Ellice, Capt E C (S. Andew's Bghs

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Ure, Alexander

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wallace, Robert

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John(Montrose

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Moss, Samuel

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Grant, Corrie

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

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

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

  Price, Robert John

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Harcourt, Rt Hn Sir W (Monm'th

  Rea, Russell

  Harwood, George

  Reckitt, Harold James

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

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Rigg, Richard

  Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Anson, Mr. Walter Long, and
  Mr. Attorney-General.

  EDUCATION (LOCAL AUTHORITY DEFAULT) BILL.
  "To make provision for the case of default on the part of Local Authorities

  1213
  in the performance of their duties as respects Elementary Schools," presented accordingly, and read the first time: to he read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 167.]

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Continuance of additional customs duties on tobacco, beer and spirits.
1. Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the additional customs duties on tobacco, beer, and spirits imposed by sections two, three, four and live of the Finance Act. 1900 (including any increased duties imposed by section five of that Act), shall continue to he charged until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and five."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
MR. LOUGHsaid there were some important Questions which he desired to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at this stage of the Budget. He thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the consideration he had given to the Committee in extending the time they had to look into the matter raised by the Resolutions. He had touched on some of these questions in the very interesting statement he made in introducing the Budget, but all he said was only enough to stimulate their curiosity. The right hon. Gentlemen had a very depressing statement to give with regard to the produce of those duties which were the great branches of revenue on which the country depended. Wine was not included in the Resolution now before the Committee, but he might be allowed to mention it as an illustration. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the wine duty had been unsatisfactory for some years past. What was the reason of this? It was because the increased duty which was imposed at a moment of emergency had been continued for many years afterwards. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might learn from
1214
this the lesson, often taught in finance, that if they raised a duty too high it would cease to be productive. The example that had been set in the case of the wine duty was only too likely to be followed in respect of those other duties with which the Resolution dealt. The duties put on in 1901 were to be continued. Why were they put on? They were put on to meet the expenses of the war. The war had been over now for two years, and yet the duties were to be continued. In the case of tobacco the war duties were to be increased by other proposals which the Committee could not discuss at this stage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the Committee that Customs and Excise had fallen £1,500,000 short of the estimate formed by the Treasury at the commencement of the year. That was a terrible falling off in one branch of the revenue, and he thought there must be other explanations of it than the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given. He told them chat so far as the beer duty was concerned the not summer had tended rather to stimulate the consumption of tea, but it might also have stimulated the consumption of spirits, yet the spirit duty had realised £850,000 less than the estimate. When these duties were raised to an extreme point they ceased to be productive. Had the Treasury any reason to suppose that if these duties were restored to the old level of three or four years ago they would produce a better revenue than they did now? Had the Treasury fully considered the proposed increases from the revenue point of view, and was the Chancellor of the Exchequer perfectly sure that he would get more money out of them? The Government were pursuing a different course from that which any previous Government had pursued at a time of this kind. Taxes hitherto put on for a war were taken off as soon as they were not wanted for that special purpose. This was the proper stage to receive from the Chancellor of the Exchequer any explanations he had to give with respect to these striking features of the year's finance.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the Committee would possibly have remarked with regard to the tobacco

1215
duty that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, as it were, making two bites of a cherry. The Resolution passed on 20th April raised the permanent duty on tobacco. The right hon. Gentleman had already told them that he intended to raise the duty on cigars from 5s. 6d. to 6s., and this Resolution authorised the raising of the additional (id. He confessed he had been puzzled to understand why the tobacco duty had been put into two Resolutions, but he thought he saw the reason now. The intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to add to the permanent duty imposed by the Act of 1898, which was 5s. 6d. a lb. on cigars, an additional duty of 6d. as a temporary or annual addition. But he did not see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had any Resolution in regard to the provision for the drawbacks. He presumed that all the drawbacks which were allowed under the Act of 1900 were intended to be allowed under this year's Act; and, if so, the Resolution, as it stood, was incomplete and required additional words referring to the drawbacks being allowed. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would satisfy him on that point. Or was he to understand that that portion of the clause could be put without a Resolution? That might be so; at any rate he wished to be assured that the drawbacks were to be provided for this year as in 1901. He came now to the merits. It was true, as stated by the hon. Gentleman opposite, that this tax was imposed as a war tax in 1900. He remembered very well the speech of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for West Bristol, when introducing the additional duties on beer, spirits, and tobacco. The right hon. Gentleman stated that they were imposed by the necessities of the State arising out of the war, that he meant the war taxes to be paid for, so far as he could, by all classes of the community, that the additional duties imposed were temporary, and that they would be remitted when the war was over. It was for that reason that the right hon. Gentleman made them not permanent but annual. Well, two years had elapsed since the war was over, and it was proposed to continue these duties for another year. The effect would be
1216
that they would have existed not for one year but for three years after the war was over and done with. He did not think that that was according to the original contract. He recognised the difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but these duties were very considerable. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer made any calculation as to the amount altogether of these additional duties last year? If the right hon. Gentleman could tell the Committee that, they would see what extra amount he was asking the Committee to give him in a year of peace. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to afford some justification for the continuance of these duties under the present circumstances.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he wished to call attention once more to the fact that they were brought down to the House year after year without knowing what Resolutions were to be proposed. He had never known any defence offered for that practice. There might be good reason for withholding the first or second Resolution on the Budget night; but why they should be asked to go blindfold into the debate on the other Resolutions he had never been able to understand. He wished to call attention to the fact that these taxes were imposed as war taxes. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in 1900 was that they were meant to meet a temporary necessity, to meet war expenses. But they had been continued from that time to this. They were being made permanent by mere repetition. Annual repetition continued for ever was equivalent to a permanent tax. The hon. Member for Lynn Regis asked what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had got from these taxes last year; he asked what the right hon. Gentleman expected to get from them this year. He knew that the right hon. Member for West Bristol in 1900 estimated that the additional duties would yield £1,750,000. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer know how far that had been realised last year? It was well that the original character of this taxation should be kept before the Committee, because it reminded the House and the country what it had had to pay for the disastrous expedition in South Africa. They were paying now

1217
in peace, and were going to continue to pay, a contribution which, in fact, was made for a war, the cost of which had been £250,000,000 sterling and which had resulted in the acquisition of two territories which involved £4,000,000 additional expenditure. So long as this clause appeared in the Budget Bill the country would not be without a reminder of the crime and folly of which it was guilty in the year 1900–1.
There was another point to which he wanted to call attention on this Resolution. He admitted that he did not challenge the moral reasons which were given for this kind of taxation on intoxicating liquors. Apart from the moral question, he regarded the tax on spirits, with which he was concerned, as a bad tax because it was indirect taxation on commodities consumed by poor people. All such taxation was, to his mind, unjustifiable; poor people had not the means to pay it. He held that no householder who was not in receipt of £1 a week was able to bear taxation; but when their tea, sugar, tobacco, spirits, and beer were taxed, these poor people were taxed without their knowing it. Although there might be good moral reasons why the consumption of beer and spirits should be taxed for war purposes, that did not relieve such taxation from the odium that it was indirect and pressed on the poor. There was special cruelty in that sort of taxation, because it was imposed on the consumers of the commodities and passed by persons who lived better. Was it tolerable that the House should place heavy duties on beer and spirits at the very moment that they were asked to make to the vendors of beer and spirits a present of a vast monopoly value caused by the fact that licences were being restricted in number? The licence duties had not been altered for nearly a quarter of a century. During that period the number of licences had been enormously increased, but in the last ten years they had fallen to 1 in 279 per head of the population from 1 in 331 per head of the population. Licences were being restricted in number, and the monopoly value was accordingly increasing; yet there was no increase in the licence duties. That was an anomaly which ought not to pass without obser-
1218
vation; and it was mainly to call attention to it that he had asked leave to address the Committee. He wished to bring out the difference in treatment between the commodities themselves and the vendors of those commodities. Twenty years ago publicans' licences yielded £1,500,000; last year the yield was only £1,750.000, notwithstanding the development of the country during that period. Twenty years ago the combined Excise and Customs duties on beer and spirits amounted to £27,000.000; last year they produced £39,000,000. or £12,000,000 more, which was taken out of the pockets of the people. The monopoly value of licences increased as they became more and more restricted in number, and yet they only yielded an increase of a £250,000. That was unfair and unjust in every way; and he hoped that an opportunity would be given at some stage of the Budget Bill for proposing in substitution of this tax, or the tea tax, or the income-tax, a scheme of licence duties which would take the monopoly value out of the licences and hand it over to the Exchequer. The Licensing Bill now before Parliament proposed to perpetuate this abominable state of things; and, if that Bill passed, the House would not have that free hand in dealing with the licence duties which they now possessed. Therefore every opportunity should be taken of proposing that the House should definitely consider whether it was fair to the people that this vast source of public revenue should be left in private pockets, and whether the time had not come for the State to say that it would take the value of the monopoly which it itself had created. That would add £8,000.000 or £10,000,000 to the revenue without any further taxation at all.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)dissented.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Did the right hon. Gentleman himself make an estimate?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I have.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he was extremely glad to hear it, as it was

1219
the first time he ever had such an admission from a Chancellor of the Exchequer. Both the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors admitted the anomaly, but refused to inquire into it. The right hon. Gentleman himself said the other day that no further inquiry was necessary, from which he assumed that, since the right hon. Gentleman's accession to office, an inquiry had taken place, which, however, had not been divulged to the House. He hoped before the Second Heading of the Budget Bill the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to lay before the House the results of that inquiry, and would be able to state how much revenue would be added to the income of the State if a duty were imposed on licences which would exhaust the monopoly value. Mr. Caine, who was for many years a Member of the House, undertook an inquiry himself; and he came to the conclusion that the monopoly value of publicans' licences, instead of being £1,500,000, the sum which they now yielded, approached £9,000,000 or £10,000,000; and the anomaly became simply grotesque when the Government, after asking Parliament year after year to load the poor with taxation and to load the middle classes with taxation, now persisted in making a present of millions a year to one class of the community which could not be credited with the monopoly of patriotic feeling. [Ax HON. MEMBER: Oh!] That class had a monopoly of the liquor traffic, but they had not a monopoly of patriotic feeling. He was endeavouring to enter a caveat on behalf of the State for the vast revenue which was derived from the one great monopoly which now existed in this country, and which should not be left in the private hands into which it had fallen.
MR. MCCRAEsaid he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer should really give the Committee some statement of the policy which the Treasury intended to pursue. The extra beer and spirit duties which were imposed originally for war expenditure produced in 1903 nearly £3,000,000. The extra tobacco duty produced in the same year about £1,400,000, making a total of nearly £4,500,000. He wished to know why the Chancellor of the Exchequer now asked for that amount. All the
1220
expenditure which now devolved on the country with regard to the war was that which was included in the fixed charge for the National Debt; and that had only increased £4,000,000. They had already agreed to duties imposed ostensibly for war expenditure amounting to the large sum of £20,500,000. If they took the duties imposed for war expenditure alone they amounted to£25,000,000 a year, of which the £5,000,000 now asked for was a very small part. Of the larger amount the extra income tax produced £10,000,000, the remainder being taxation on the consumer. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer why in reimposing taxation this year he did not take into consideration that last year, when taxation was remitted, a remission of £10,500,000 was given to the income-tax payer and only £2,500,000—the corn tax—was remitted on indirect taxation. In reimposing taxation the right hon. Gentleman had adopted the very curious plan of reimposing £2,500,000 on the income-tax payer, leaving him a gainer by £8,000,000, while ho reimposed the whole of the £2,500,000 remitted last year, on the indirect tax payer. To propose that the income-tax payers should be relieved to the extent of £8,000,000, while the indirect tax payer received no relief at all, was not a fair financial plan to put before the Committee. When the right hon. Gentleman asked them to impose this extra £4,500,000 of taxation in addition to the £20,500,000 to which they were already committed, the Committee wore entitled to demand some statement of policy from the Government, and some further explanation of this extra taxation of £25,000,000, of which, he submitted, only £5,000,000 were due to war expenditure, while £20,000,000 were required to meet the increase in the ordinary peace expenditure of the country. If that submission were correct, the position seriously demanded the attention of the House and the country? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would to-day let the Committee see that he realised the gravity of the position, and that it could be alleviated only by a reduction in the ever-increasing ordinary expenditure of the nation.
MR. AINSWORTHasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could give any reason why the

1221
amount of revenue derived from the licence duty was so small. Every Member of the Committee knew how valuable a licence was, and how small was the annual income received by the State directly from that source. Was there any reason for that anomaly other than the fact that a licence had always been looked upon as an annual property.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is anticipating the debates on the Licensing Bill.
MR. AINSWORTHthought the point was germane to the question raised by the hon. Member for Dundee. It was well that the Committee should constantly keep in mind how much of the present taxation was due to the late war, and on that point he asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could not in some more rapid fashion get rid of the necessity for extra taxation arising from that source. Could not some portion of the expenditure of £250,000,000 be recovered in the shape of cash?
THE CHAIRMANintimated that the hon. Member's remarks were not relevant to the Resolution before the Committee.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,in reply, said he was asked why it was now necessary to continue this taxation, which in the first instance was undoubtedly imposed as war taxation during the continuance of the war. If hon. Members bore in mind the observations of his right hon. friend, his predecessor in office, in 1901, the continuance would not take them by surprise. His right hon. friend at that time gave notice that, supposing the war came to an end at an early date, the ordinary expenditure would not permit him to remit the additional taxation imposed for war purposes, which included, by the way, an income-tax of 1s. in the £.
MR. McCRAE: In the following year additional taxation was imposed.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINagreed that that was so, but it was imposed with knowledge of the fact that the great expenditure was not wholly due to the war but to a permanent increase in the ordinary peace expenditure.
1222
The calculations of the hon. Member for Edinburgh were substantially accurate. In was true that in the main the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to provide for peace expenditure upon a higher scale than was necessary twenty, or even ten, years ago. Hut the earlier complaint of the hon. Member was not that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was too severe in continuing existing taxation, or even in imposing fresh taxation, but that be took too lax a view of his duties as Chancellor of the Exchequer. The complaint was that he raised too little, rather than too much. That being so, it was surely not too much to ask that when he was raising taxation the hon. Member should not make the task more difficult by criticism which did not represent his true views. The hon. Member agreed that, our expenditure being what it was, this money must be raised; and he did not suggest that, so far as the money involved in this Resolution was concerned, it was raised unfairly.
MR. McCRAE: I deny the necessity for the expenditure.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was coming to that point. It was said we ought to reduce our expenditure. But the proper place to advocate and support reductions of expenditure was in Committee of Supply, and not in Committee of Ways and Means. The latter was simply the follower of the former. Having voted the money in Committee of Supply, they must be prepared to provide the ways and means. The expenditure being what it was and the revenue such as he forecast last week, it was impossible to find the money in any way less injurious to the consumers. The hon. Member for Dundee spoke of the particular Resolution as being an irremediable injury to the poor. He should like to hear what the hon. Member for Camborne thought of that. The hon. Member further laid it down as a canon of sound finance that all incomes below a certain very modest sum should be absolutely exempted from taxation in any form, direct or indirect.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I did not say quite that. What I said was

1223
that incomes below £50 could not bear taxation, in the sense that there was no margin for it. £1 a week may be taken as the minimum wage, and taxation upon that sum involves the irremediable wrong of taking from the poor that which is necessary for their sustenance.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that taxation upon beer and spirits, with which the present Resolution dealt, would not be a less irremediable evil if imposed directly instead of indirectly. If the views of the hon. Member were to prevail they would prevent the raising of any indirect taxation at all except upon articles of pure luxury used only by the well-to-do. He invited the hon. Member to devise a tariff imposing indirect taxation exclusively on articles of luxury used by the well-to-do without incurring the censure of his friends around him, and without infringing the doctrine of free trade or the principles of our present financial system. He thought that the hon. Member would find this to be a very difficult, not to say an impossible, task. The hon. Member proposed to exempt all very small incomes without giving effect to the old Liberal maxim that taxation and representation should go together. It would be dangerous in these days, when political power was more widespread than ever before, to give effect to the doctrine that taxation and responsibility dependent on the exercise of political power should be more limited. Whatever system of taxation were adopted indirect taxation would be necessary. He did not believe that any responsible person on either side, of the House would suggest that they could do without indirect taxation, least of all upon such articles as beer and spirits. As to the Resolution referring to the duties and the drawback, he pointed out that the Resolution was necessary, because the imposition of the duty placed a charge on the taxpayer. No Resolution was necessary for the drawback, because it involved no charge.
A raising of the licence duties had been advocated, but he thought that the question would be more conveniently discussed on the Licensing Bill.
He could not add anything to the explanations he had already given as to the
1224
fall in the revenue. There was no doubt that the character of the seasons had a good deal to do with the receipts from beer and spirits. Recent licensing legislation and increased care on the part of all concerned in the trade had also done something to decrease the consumption. But when full allowance had been made for both these causes they must set the rest of the change down to people having had less to spend in the past year than in previous years. That was never a satisfactory thing, but it would probably be some consolation to hon. Members that if the people had to retrench their expenditure it had been carried out on articles like beer and spirits, but not much on tea, sugar, and tobacco. A Question was asked why, as the income-tax payer received a greater portion of relief last year, he had not put the whole burden on him this year. In his opinion that would have been a gross injustice, and would not have been an even division of the burden among the people. The income-tax payer paid during the war a larger portion of the whole year's expenditure than he would have paid if the peace ratio had been preserved. He was, therefore, entitled in proportion to the sacrifice he made during the war to the first relief in peace, and his predecessor had recognised that need. The effect of his proposals this year was to restore the proportion of direct and indirect taxation to what it was in the year before the war. So far, therefore, from altering the basis adversely to the indirect taxpayer he had actually put both the direct and indirect taxpayer in the same position of proportion as existed in the year before the war. But the real fact was that all were indirect taxpayers in a greater or less degree, and it certainly was a great mistake to speak of the income-tax payer as if he were universally well-to-do. The pressure of taxation on the man with a small income was very heavy, and he was entitled to relief in regard to the direct as well as the indirect portion of that burden. He believed that in the present financial situation the advisability of passing this Resolution was not seriously questioned.
MR. BUCHANANsaid this was one of the very few occasions upon which they could criticise effectively the finances of the country. Many hon. Members would remember occasions when the Government were defeated upon proposals similar to these, and it was recognised that criticism had a more direct effect upon the financial policy of the Government in Committee of Ways and Means than in Committee of Supply. With regard to the particular Resolution under discussion he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had rather missed the main point which had been raised by the speakers who had addressed the House from the Opposition side. They thought that these particular additional duties stood in quite an exceptional position as compared with any other part of the extra war taxation imposed from the year 1900 onwards. The right hon. Gentleman quoted an extract from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol delivered in 1901, but he did not quote what he said when he originally imposed the duty. No language could be stronger than the words used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol upon that occasion, because he said distinctly that the indirect taxation he proposed in 1901 was a temporary addition to the existing taxation. The duties they were now discussing had ever since occupied the exceptional position in which they were placed by the Member for West Bristol when he imposed them. What they complained of now was that neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor his predecessor made any statement to the House on which the country might look forward to getting rid of the bulk of the war taxes or to reducing substantially the vast debt placed upon the country by the South African War. These additional duties were imposed for war taxation and they were given their limited duration on that account. Upon this question he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had gone a step backwards, and they were disappointed to find that not only were the taxpayers to continue to bear this additional war taxation, but also to bear an increase in the tea duty. Besides this, the right hon. Gentleman had practically told them that they could not look forward to these taxes
1226
being considered as special war taxes in the future, and that they must be looked upon as being required for the ordinary financial necessities of the year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had also told them that they must make up their minds that the scale of national expenditure had permanently increased, and that for the purposes of meeting that permanently increased charge the taxpayers must look forward to these war taxes becoming part of the permanent burdens of the country. That was a serious outlook for the taxpayers, and it was a great disappointment in view of the promises held out by the predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the point raised by the hon. Member for Dundee was not the matter of increasing the cost of a licence, but whether taxation should not be transferred from the beer duty to the licence. That was a point of some importance, although he did not think it was so important as his hon. friend made out, because very soon the duty on the licence would fall upon the consumer, or a great part of it at any rate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this was not the proper place to talk about economy, and that they ought to do it by moving reductions in Committee. There was, however, one thing which they could not do in Committee by moving reductions, and that was to impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the very important duty he had to perform in putting pressure upon the various spending departments to curtail their extravagance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had more power to curtail the expenditure than hon. Members had, because he could employ men to investigate the proposals made to him in a way they could not possibly do. The House had always relied upon the pressure which the Treasury could put upon the spending departments to reduce expenditure. When a private Member found a case of extravagance, as was the case with regard to the War Office the other night, and when they appealed to everybody to help them to obtain a reduction, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not support them, but, on the

1227
contrary, said the extravagance was quite proper. The right hon. Gentleman not only opposed them when they asked for a reduction in expenditure, but when the proposals of the Government came forward in Committee of Supply he backed up the spending departments. The result was that when they moved a reduction the Government majority was called in and they were voted down. This was the only time when they could really enforce the necessity for economy upon the Government. However earnest private Members might be in their desire for economy, the only way they could secure it was by compelling the Treasury to put pressure upon the spending departments, and the only time they could do that effectively was when the Government were asking for money. Not only was he of the opinion that duties put on in time of war ought to be taken off as scon as possible, but he believed that such duties would be unnecessary if the Treasury would exercise proper control over the various spending departments.
MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid he agreed with the hon. Member for Lichfield that it was in Committee of Supply action should be taken to enforce economy, but, however strongly those who were in favour of economy protested, in specific instances, in Committee of Supply, the Government were always bound to carry their point. It was practically unheard of that in Committee of Supply Members of the House were able to effect the slightest-economy. In the debates on the Budget questions in regard to extravagant expenditure could be raised and discussed, and when the Government found the impossibility of raising money they would themselves enforce economy on the departments. He had no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be an efficient instrument in so doing. He wished to impress on the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should pay more attention to the vast reservoir of taxable wealth that existed in the monopoly value of licences. Reference had been made to the matter, but he did not think that sufficient attention had yet been paid to it. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had been considering the matter and that
1228
he had appointed a Departmental Committee to inquire into it.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the hon. Member had misunderstood him. He did not say that a departmental inquiry had been instituted.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I put a Question specifically and definitely whether there had been an inquiry into the value of these licences.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid there was no departmental inquiry of any sort. He had made an inquiry himself, the steps being taken on his own account. Nothing of the nature of what was known to the House as a departmental inquiry, had taken place. Of course the results of the inquiry would form the basis of the proposals in the Licensing Bill.
MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid it would be satisfactory if the House were informed of the result of the inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman had made, and also whether those of whom he had made inquiry had expressed any opinion as to the value of these licences. There was not a Member of the Committee who did not know of specific instances in which enormous sums over and above the structural value or the business value of licensed houses had been obtained. They wanted to know what was the accumulated value of the whole of the licensed houses in the Kingdom, because that was absolutely a pure gift by the State to "the trade." Not only was it property that was properly taxable, but it was property that belonged to the State in its entirety. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who made this inquiry, should inform the House of the value before the Bill came on for discussion.
MR. BROADHURSTasked if he would be in order in calling attention to the tobacco duties at this stage.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that that Motion had been passed by the Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: Speak on the Report stage.]
MR. BROADHURSTsaid that the increase of two years back was a very hard tax on the users of common tobacco, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would carry out some system of taxation on values instead of on weight, there would not be such just cause for complaint. The two right hon. Gentlemen who preceded the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when at the Treasury, gave him some reason to hope that efforts would be made to vary the taxation of tobacco on its values. He received a statement the other day from a firm which did a great deal of trade in tobacco and the manufacture of cigars, and he had had many communications since the Chancellor's Budget on this question, and he wished he could induce the present Chancellor to give some promise that he would have further investigation made, at his leisure, to see if something could not be done to adjust the tax.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that he thought he had made a step in the right direction by the changes he proposed in regard to foreign cigars and cigarettes this year. He was not averse to putting a higher tax on what was an article of greater value or greater luxury. Of course, the difficulties were administrative difficulties of collection. Any attempt to convert duties into ad valorem instead of leaving them as specific duties was opening wide the door to fraud. He would look into the matter, however, though he did not think there were any of his predecessors who had yet seen their way to carry out the wishes of the hon. Gentleman.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid the empty state of the House would not lead one to understand that they were discussing a very serious matter. It was surely a very remarkable thing that in a time of profound peace they should be renewing the war duties and practically making the admission that it cost as much to govern this country in time of peace as in time of war. Surely something must be wrong on the face of it when such a position as this was brought before the House of Commons. As to these duties he was not quite sure whether he was not the person referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few
1230
minutes ago. Very likely he was, but he was not personally affected by it. The Government could put any amount on these articles without affecting him, but they did affect Ireland, which felt the strain of taxation far more than England did. They were taxing a poor country when they taxed Ireland; they were taxing a rich country when they taxed England. The whole question would have to come up on the Second Reading of the Budget Bill. Why should the Chancellor of the Exchequer not face the question of the licence duties? Why was it that that particular class of the community were exempt? They did not pay the taxation on spirits and beer. They would imagine to hear them talk at their meetings that they did. He wished they did. It was the people who paid. Here was a source of taxation ready at the Chancellor's hands. It was admitted that the licences in connection with this costly and valuable monopoly —valuable to them; costly to the country—were not high enough, and that the country did not get a fair return for the monopoly. Why did not the Government see that they got some return? Then they could spare the people of the country taxation of some of the articles which pressed very heavily on the poor. But no; that monopoly was not to be touched. On the contrary it had to be enriched, and he hoped that on the the Second Heading of the Budget the whole question would be threshed out, and most assuredly the Chancellor of the Exchequer might make up his mind that the Irish question would be seriously dealt with on the Second Reading.
MR. LOUGHsaid that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there was no extravagance and the Prime Minister cheered him. The country was in a situation of the greatest gravity, and the Committee had got no explanation of it. His point was that when taxes were suddenly raised for an emergency, the House had to accept them. The House did accept these taxes, but under the promise that they would be taken off after the war. Another objection to such emergency taxes was that they were not thoroughly thought out; and they were not suitable

1231
to become part of the permanent fiscal system of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to look to the fact that the yield of the duties on tobacco, beer, and spirits was falling off. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he hoped the yield would be better next, year; but how did he know that the decrease might not be greater? His contention was that these emergency taxes were of too high a character and he was not in the least satisfied with the answer the right hon. Gentleman had given. The hon. Member for Dundee had suggested one remedy, but his remedy was economy all round.
MR. DALZIELsaid that before the division was taken he should like to explain the reason why he would vote against the Resolution. It was not a question whether these taxes ought to be continued on the present occasion, because he thought beer and spirits were properly subjects of taxation. It was certainly true, as had been said by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, that it was not the licensed interest that paid these extra taxes; it was the consumers. The protest which, in his judgment, ought to be made was against the somewhat alarming statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That right hon. Gentleman's position now was different from that of his predecessor in office. Then
they had violent protests against an increase of the beer and spirit duties from the licensed victualling and brewing interests. They were silenced by the statement that it was only a temporary measure; that these taxes would be taken off as soon as the war was over. It seemed to him a remarkable thing that one Chancellor of the Exchequer should throw over the declarations of a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were told that night that there was not likely to be any reduction in these taxes, because public expenditure had increased to such an extene that the word "economy" must be taken out of their vocabulary. That was the danger. Where was this expenditure going to end? They were going on almost doubling national expenditure, and there was not very much hope, so far as the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was concerned, that there was going to be any material reduction. He protested against this absolute closing of the door to economy. The question was whether war taxes were to be continued as peace taxes. To many Governments that would be a direct inducement, on some occasions, to set aside any question of peace in order that war might be lightly entered upon.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 249; Noes, 119. (Division List No. 94.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bignold, Arthur

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Bigwood, James

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridgo

Allsopp, Hon. George

Black, Alexander William

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Crombie, John William

Amold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Bond, Edward

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Asher, Alexander

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Brassey, Albert

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Davenport, William Bromley

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Caldwell, James

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Carlile, William Walter

Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

Baird, John George Alexander

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Balcarres, Lord

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

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

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Doughty, George

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Wore

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Balfour. Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Chancing, Francis Allston

Duke, Henry Edward

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Chapman, Edward

Elibank, Master of

Hartley, Sir George C. T.

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Ellice, Capt E C. (S. Andrw'sBghs

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Coates, Edward Feetham

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

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

Fardell, Sir T. George

Bell, Richard

Coghill, Douglas Harry

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

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Loveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lewis, John Herbert

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Flower, Sir Ernest

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Forster, Henry William

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

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

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Furness, Sir Christopher

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

Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse

Gardner, Ernest

Lowe, Francis William

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Garfit, William

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

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

Macdona, John Cumming

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Gorst, Rt. Hn. sir John Eldon

Maconochie, A. W.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Graham, Henry Robert

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Grenfell, William Henry

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Gunter, Sir Robert

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Majendie, James A. H.

Smith, H. C (North'mb Tyneside

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

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

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

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M' Taggart

Harris, Dr. Fredk. K. (Dulwich

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Harwood, George

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Stock, James Henry

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Milvain, Thomas

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Stroyan, John

Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

Moon. Edward Robert Pacy

Taylor Austin (East Toxteth)

Heaton. John Henniker

Morpeth, Viscount

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Helder, Augustus

Morrell, George Herbert

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Helme, Norval Watson

Morrison, James Archibald

Thompson, Dr. EC (Monagh' n, N

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Mount, William Arthur

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Mowbray Sir Robert Gray C

Thornton Percy M.

Hickman, Sir Alfred

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

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somers't, E

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Tuff, Charles

Hogg, Lindsay

Newnes, Sir George

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nicholson, William Graham

Valentia, Viscount

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E H (Sheffield

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington

Wallace, Robert

Houston, Robert Paterson

Pemberton, John S. G.

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Percy, Earl

Wattle, Colonel C. E.

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Perk's, Robert William

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

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Pierpoint, Robert

Whiteley, H (Ashton und.Lyne

Hunt, Rowland

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Plummer, Walter R.

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

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks

Kearley, Hudson, E.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop.

Pym, C. Guy

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

Kimber, Henry

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Rankin, Sir James

Wylie, Alexander

Kitson, Sir James

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Knowles, Sir Lees

Rea, Russell

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Reid, James (Greenock)

Yoxall, James Henry

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

Rensbaw, Sir Charles Bine

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Ridley, Hon. M.W. (Stalybridge

Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks, N. R.)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

NOES.

Abraham. William Cork, N. E.)

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Ainswoth, John Stirling

Brigg, John

Cawley, Frederick

Allen, Charles P.

Broadhurst, Henry

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Austin, Sir John

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Craig, Rober Hunter (Lanark)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Burke, E. Haviland

Crean, Eugene

Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

Burns, John

Dalziel, James Henry

Blake, Edward

Burt. Thomas

Delany, William

Boland, John

Cameron. Robert

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

1234

1235

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Pirie, Duncan V.

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Power, Patrick, Joseph

Doogan, P. C.

M'Crae, Ceorge

Price, Robert John

Dunn, Sir William

M'Fadden, Edward

Reddy, M.

Edwards, Frank

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

M'Kean, John

Rigg, Richard

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

M'Kenna, Reginald

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Farrell, James Patrick

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Robson, William Snowdon

Ffrench, Peter

Mansfield, Horace Kendall

Roche, John

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Runciman, Walter

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

Russell, T. W.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Mooney, John J.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Schwann, Charles E.

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

Moss, Samuel

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Murnaghan, George

Sheehy, David

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Murphy, John

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Hemphill, Rt Hon. Charles H.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Horniman, Frederick John

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

Soares, Ernest J.

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

Jacoby, James Alfred

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Strachey, Sir Edward

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Sullivan, Donal

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

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

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Kilbride, Denis

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Tomkinson, James

Labouchere, Henry

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Toulmin, George

Law,Hugh Alex, (Donegal, W.)

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

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

White, Luke (York, E R.)

Leamy, Edmund

O'Dowd, John

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Leng, Sir John

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Young, Samuel

Levy, Maurice

O'Malley, William

Lundon, W.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

Lyell, Charles Henry

Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Partington, Oswald

Continuance of Additional Excise Duties on Beer and Spirits.
2. Motion made, and Question put, "That the additional Excise duties on beer and spirits imposed by sections
six and seven of The Finance Act, 1901 shall continue to be charged until the first day of August. 1905."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 255; Noes, 116. (Division List No. 95.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bignold, Arthur

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

Aird, Sir John

Bigwood, James

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Black, Alexander William

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Allsopp, Hon. George

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bond, Edward

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Arold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Boulnois, Edmund

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Asher, Alexander

Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex

Crombie, John William

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Brassey, Albert

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Aubrey- Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Davenport, William Bromley

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Baird, John George Alexander

Butcher, John George

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Balcarres, Lord

Caldwell, James

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

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

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

Dickson. Charles Scott

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

Dimsdale.Rt.Hon.Sir Joseph C.

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Carlile, William Walter

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch,

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Doughty, George

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Wore.

Duke, Henry Edward

Bartley, Sir George C. T,

Channing, Francis Allston

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Beach, Rt. Hn., Sir. Michael Hicks

Chapman, Edward

Elibank, Master of

Bell, Richard

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Ellice, Capt E. C (SAndrw's Bghs

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Coates, Edward Feetham

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Fardel, Sir T. George

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Lewis, John Herbert

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Kinlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Fisher, William Hayes

Lorkwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward are Algernon

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

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

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Flower, Sir Ernest

Lowe, Francis William

Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse

Forster, Henry William

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland

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

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Furness, Sir Christopher

Lyttleton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Schwann, Charles E.

Gardner, Ernest

Maconochie, A. W.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Garfit, William

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

M'Calmout, Colonel James

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

Majendie, James A. H.

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Malcolm, Ian

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Graham, Henry Robert

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Grenfell, William Henry

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

Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside

Gunter, Sir Robert

Maxwell, W. J. H. Dumfriesshire

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

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

Milvain, Thomas

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

Stroyan, John

Harwood, George

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Taylor, Austin (Fast Toxteth

Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.

Morpeth, Viscount

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Heaton, John Henniker

Morrell, George Herbert

Thompson, Dr EC (Monagh'n, N

Helder, Augustus

Morrison, James Archibald

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

Helme, Norval Watson

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Thornton, Percy M.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Murray, Rt. Hn A. Graham (Bute

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Newnes, Sir George

Tuff, Charles

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Nicholson, William Graham

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Hobhouse, Rt Hn H. (Somers't, E

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Valentia, Viscount

Hogg, Lindsay

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffield

Holland, Sir William Henry

Pemberton, John S. G.

Wallace, Robert

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Percy, Earl

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Perks, Robert William

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Pierpoint, Robert

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

Howard, J. Midd., Tottenham)

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Plummer, Walter R.

Whit more, Charles Algernon

Hunt, Rowland

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Pryce-Jones Lt-Col. Edward

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

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Pym, C. Guy

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Kearley, Hudson E.

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop)

Rankin, Sir James

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Kimber, Henry

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Wylie, Alexander

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Rea, Russell

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Knowles, Sir Lees

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Yoxall, James Henry

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

NOES.

Abraham William (Cork N. E.)

Boland, John

Cameron, Robert

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Allen, Charles P.

Brigg, John

Cawley, Frederick

Atherley-Jones, L.

Broadhurst, Henry

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Austin, Sir John

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Crean, Eugene

Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

Burke, E. Haviland

Dalziel, James Henry

Blake, Edward

Burt, Thomas

Delany, William

1238

1239

Devlin, Charle Ramsay (Galway

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Pirie, Duncan V.

Doogan, P. C.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Dunn, Sir William

M'Crae, George

Price, Robert John

Edwards, Frank

M'Fadden, Edward

Reddy, M.

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Farrell, James Patrick

M'Kean, John

Rigg, Richard

Ffrench, Peter

M'Kenna, Reginald

Robson, William Snowdon

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Roche, John

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Runciman, Walter

Griffith, Ellis, J.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Russell, T. W.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Mooney, John J.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

Harcourt. Lewis V. (Rossendale)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Sheehy, David

Hayden, John Patrick

Moss, Samuel

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Murnaghan, George

Soares, Ernest J.

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H

Murphy, John

Spencer, Rt Hn C R (Northants

Horniman, Frederick John

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

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

Sullivan, Donal

Jacoby, James Alfred

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Tomkinson, James

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Toulmin, George

Kilbride, Denis

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Labouchere, Henry

O'Brien, Kendal (Tippuary Mid

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Weir, James Galloway

Layland-Barratt, Francis

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

White, Luke (York. E. R.)

Leamy, Edmund

O'Dowd, John

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

Leng, Sir John

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Young, Samuel

Levy, Maurice

O'Malley, William

Lough, Thomas

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

Lundon, W.

Palmer, Sir Charles M.(Durham)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Partington, Oswald

AMENDMENT OF LAW.
Moved to Resolve, That it is expedient to amend the law relating to the National Debt, Customs, and Inland Revenue."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
MR. GIBSON BOWLESconsidered that this was a most proper Resolution to propose. He remembered one year when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol attempted to do without it but in the end he had to bring it forward. He should vote for it with the greatest possible pleasure.
MR. MCKENNAasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell them what this Resolution, meant. He understood that they could discuss upon it any business of a financial character.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the object of this Resolution was to enable changes to be proposed in their financial system which were not covered by the Resolutions which had already been proposed. If they did not pass this Resolution it would be impossible for
1240
hon. Members interested, and who had given notice to discuss certain questions, to make any proposals such as a Motion to repeal the coal duty. This Resolution simply enlarged the scope of the debate in the subsequent stages of the Finance Bill, but he did not imagine that on this Resolution which was merely an enabling Resolution, that it would be in order to discuss their financial system at large.
MR. McKENNAasked if they could discuss the coal tax now upon this Resolution?
THE CHAIRMAN: It is obvious that it would not be possible upon this Resolution to move any Amendment the effect of which would be to abolish the export duty on coal. The proper time to do that would be on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has quite accurately interpreted the meaning of this Resolution, which is that it places it. within the power of the House when the Bill reaches the Committee stage to move such Amendments as those which the right hon. Gentleman has described; although such matters may be discussed now the

1241
Committee cannot come to any decision upon them.
MR. J. H. LEWISasked if this Resolution was intended to cover, and did it cover, the introduction of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. He wished to know if the Government proposed to introduce any Amendments to the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill this year.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid this Resolution referred only to the ordinary Budget Bill. He was not quite sure what Amendments the hon. Member was referring to. He did not think he should have to propose a new Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, and probably it would be for the convenience of the House that he should bring in an omnibus Bill dealing with the various points connected with the revenue, but that question would come on at a later stage. This was an ordinary formal Resolution enabling hon. Members to make proposals in Committee on the Budget Bill upon questions not included in the Resolutions which had already been passed.
MR.GIBSON BOWLESpointed out that the Finance Bill of 1894 embraced all that was included in the old Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, and although the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to throw some doubt upon the matter, he supposed the measure would still be called the Finance Bill.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is so.
MR. GIBSON BOWLEScontended that the Finance Bill must contain not only the proposals of this Bill but also the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. He did not 'understand his right hon. to say that he absolutely intended to introduce a second Bill. He hoped he did not mean that.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid this Resolution was for the Finance Bill which was framed entirely upon the model of its predecessors. There were some matters connected with revenue, Excise, and Customs, which were from time to time brought to his notice. Into some
1242
of these matters he had not yet been able to go with the care which the circumstances demanded, but what he did know was that he had received strong representations from chambers of commerce and other bodies, that certain amendments of the law were necessary, quite apart from his Budget proposals of this year. All he wished to do was to reserve to himself the right to deal with these matters if, upon proper examination, he found it necessary or right to make proposals to the Committee. He was certainly nursing no designs for upsetting our financial system.
MR. LOUGHhoped the hon. Member for King's Lynn would not allow himself to be turned from his purpose by tin-gentle speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Committee were not accustomed to having two Bills in one year. It was true they had a second Bill last year, but—
THE CHAIRMANsaid that question hardly arose on this Resolution, which clearly would not enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring in any Bill but the Finance Bill. The time to raise the question of the undesirability of bringing in a Customs and Excise Bill in addition to the Finance Bill would be when the former was brought in.
MR. LOUGHhoped that, if there was any intention of bringing in such a Bill this year, the measure would be introduced at an earlier period than was the case last session, when a Bill was passed, under protest, in the middle of the last night of the session.
MR. BUCHANANwas understood to say that the object of this Resolution was to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make certain alterations in the present system for which Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means were unnecessary. If hon. Members desired to discuss those changes in Committee of Ways and Means, now was their opportunity for doing so. Ho was not aware that any such changes had been adumbrated or suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, but he thought the Committee ought to reserve their right of discussing the proposals, if necessary, on a subsequent occasion.
MR. MCCRAEremarked that in his Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when dealing with the National Debt, placed the amount of the contribution to the Sinking Fund at £5,149,000, whereas the estimate given by his predecessor last year was £6,600,000. In reply to a Question recently the right hon. Gentleman had named yet another figure. It would probably save a considerable discussion on the Finance Bill if the right hon. Gentleman could now make it clear how-much the contribution to the Sinking Fund in the year just closed really was.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that last week he had to give the Committee a great Dumber of figures, and he could not trust his memory to repeat. them without notice. It was to the advantage of the Committee that whatever he stated should be accurate; therefore he hoped they would excuse his answering off-hand. He would look the matter up for the hon. Member.
MR. McKENNAsaid that in his Budget speech the right hon. Gentleman said the amount under the fixed debt charge devoted to the payment of debt was £5.149,000, but since then, in reply to the hon. Member for Lynn Regis, he had put the amount at something over £6,000,000. Doubtless the two statements could be reconciled, but, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not be cross-examined on the Question Paper, he pressed the right hon. Gentleman to explain from memory, if possible, how the discrepancy arose.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid there would be plenty of opportunities for referring to this matter. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh placed a Question on the Paper he would endeavour to explain the matter, but it was not desirable that he should give the figures from memory.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out that it had been ruled over and over again that Questions referring to former debates in this House could not be placed on the Paper. Was there any way by which they could get round that Rule?
THE CHAIRMANsaid he could not be a party to "getting round" any Rule of the House.
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the law relating to the National Debt, Customs, and Inland Revenue.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.
Committee to sit again to-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS [21ST APRIL].
Resolution reported.

INCOME TAX.
"That Income Tax shall be charged for the year beginning the 6th day of April. 1904, at the rate of one shilling."
Resolution read a second time.
Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
MR. DALZIELthought the present opportunity might with advantage be taken of asking for some fuller explanation of the action of the Government in reducing the income-tax by fourpence in one year and imposing another penny in the next. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon must have imagined that he would have a much stronger following in the Cabinet than proved to be the case. In the case of the ordinary man in the street the first impression he had about the matter was that the Government did not know their own minds, because one year they reduced the income-tax to 11d. and then, without any good reason, another penny was placed upon the income-tax. He thought they ought to have some fuller explanation in regard to this unsteady attitude of the Government. He wished to know what the attitude of the Government was with regard to graduation. Almost invariably the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed his sympathy with the general principle of the graduation of income-tax, and they had had the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol in favour of

1245
taking some action in regard to it. Wore they now to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had closed the door altogether so far as any inquiry with regard to this matter was concerned? The occasion was more opportune now because the right hon. Gentleman had announced the appointment of a Committee to consider the income-tax question. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol was to be Chairman of that Committee, surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer might extend the reference to the Committee so as to enable them to inquire also into the question of graduation. He wished to know were they to regard the right hon. Gentleman as a friend of graduation? He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do something in the direction of having some investigation with a view to a still further extension of the principle of graduation.
MR. McKENNAsaid he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would again make some reference, based upon the income tax returns, to the general prosperity of this country as compared with other countries. The income-tax figures afforded a striking illustration of our prosperity as compared with Prussia, but our figures were not complete. The returns of the Inland Revenue showed that 792.000 persons were individually assessed to income-tax, but the amount paid by them was only one quarter of the whole amount raised. There was no means of estimating from the Report of the Inland Revenue Commissioners what the total number of persons paying income-tax was. It was possible that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be able to give to the House some estimate. It was an extraordinary thing that in Prussia, which had a population very nearly the same as our own, there were only 400,000 income-tux payers with an income of over £150 a year, whereas in this country 792,000 persons paid but a quarter of the total income-tax, and many income-tax payers had an income over £1G0 a year. They had got in this country a taxable income out of all proportion to the taxable income in Germany. With regard to the question of graduation in Prussia, a very
1246
stringent system of graduation was adopted which carried the tax down to incomes of £15 a year. In spite of the assessment being so low there were only a little more than 3,000,000 persons assessed altogether, which was an indication that the bread-winners of at least half the population did not reach an income of 17s. 3d. per week. It was conceivable that they might compel every person to make an individual return of his total income. If they published the return it would be more or less true, and upon that basis it would be possible to graduate the income-tax, but unless the returns were published they would have no guarantee that the statements would be accurate. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that he should consider the possibility of publishing the income-tax returns so that they could all take an interest in seeing that their neighbours gave accurate returns of their incomes. It would be astonishing to find how in certain trades incomes would go up by leaps and bounds if the returns were published. There were certain trades which at the present time scarcely came under the income tax law at all, and did not make any return. He did not think the surveyors of taxes pursued people home sufficiently, they did not inquire as to what rent they paid because they might very well assess upon the basis of their rent. He knew of cases in which £45 and £80 a year were paid in rent and no income-tax had ever been paid. He had been told by a surveyor that £50,000 a year was lost to the income-tax in. London alone through builders foremen not being assessed. He thought the ordinary income-tax form ought to be more intelligible. It should be an offence for which a man should be made to suffer if his form was not properly filled in. Where no form was filled in inquiries should be made as to the amount of rent which the assessable person paid. If those methods were pursued they would get a more or less accurate individual return.
MR. TREVELYANsaid he had taken some interest in the question of the income-tax and the speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the year 1902 he himself

1247
raised the question of the graduation of the income-tax and he got a vague sort of suggestion from the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect that if possible the question should he inquired into by the Committee which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol was then going to appoint. Next year the subject was raised by his hon. friend the Member for Flint Boroughs, and on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said he did not wish to refer the question to the same Committee which was going to be appointed, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, who was to be the Chairman of that Committee, said he hoped to offer an opportunity of taking evidence on that subject. Now the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon was to have the Chairmanship of the Committee which was not yet in existence. They were now told that the Committee was not to inquire into the question of graduation. He thought they had been rather put off with expectations during past years. This time, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had come to the conclusion that the matter must be looked at seriously. He supposed that what had brought him to that opinion was the speech made the other day by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, If the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so certain that his officials could prove the inutility of attempting a graduation of the income-tax he might as well have an inquiry into the subject, and let it be proved to everyone interested that the scheme was impractical, for, after all, they were faced with the rather serious situation that in peace time the income-tax was to stand at a shilling. It had actually been raised from the lower point to which it got after the conclusion of the war. It was really a very important circumstance that the small income-tax payer knew that in peace time there would be a shilling income-tax without any prospect of it being reduced, and that, in war time it would be raised to something very much above the normal. It began to look as if a shilling would be the normal unless some way could be found of relieving the small income-tax payer. Under these circumstances it would be well that the small income taxpayer should feel some certainty that the large income-
1248
tax payer could not out of his luxury pay more than he was doing at present. The arguments of the right hon. Gentleman in the speech in which he put forward the official view that a graduation of the income-tax was not desirable were not convincing. He said that it would be inquisitorial. That was an old argument, but after all there were classes in the community who had to declare their incomes as it was. He could not think that there would be any serious objection to making people belonging to a class who obviously possessed large means declare their possessions. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that they would offend powerful interests by it, and that it would be unpopular. Perhaps they would offend powerful interests, but they would hardly make it unpopular, because if they were to succeed in levying the tax it would only result in increasing the popularity of the tax, by making it unnecessary in time of peace to lay this excessively heavy burden on the small taxpayer. The last argument the right hon. Gentleman used was that he did not think it would be worth doing. He thought the figure the right hon. Gentleman named as the money which would be got out of the graduation of the income - tax was £1,500,000. He did not wish to discuss at this point the deductions which he proposed to make in reaching that figure.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That was the maximum without deductions.
MR. TREVELYAN: I thought that was after deductions.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have made no estimate of deductions. I said that was the highest figure we expected to get, and that you must make allowance for evasions.
MR. TREVELYANsaid that assuming £1,000,000 would be got in the first instance from the tax, it did not seem to him that this was a sum to be altogether despised. Of course in the finance they had had in recent years when £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 were spent on new battleships at a time when our supposed possible enemies were in such a condition that if they

1249
entered into war they would be unable to tight with their full force, the Government thought nothing of £1,000,000, but in the good old economic days the addition of that amount from any tax would have been thought a considerable matter. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might give a little more consideration to the feeling which was very largely prevalent in the House that this tax would be a desirable one if it were possible, and would put it to the test of examination by the Committee he proposed to appoint.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he had always entertained the opinion that although a graduated income-tax was very beautiful in theory it was really almost impossible to cany it out. He would not say that it was entirely impossible, hut it would be very difficult to accomplish. They had at present in the death duties a kind of deferred or accumulated income-tax that was graduated, He wished that, instead of putting a penny on the income-tax at the present juncture, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had raised the death duties, as he thought they would in some measure bear raising. It would be a much less objectionable system if some Government official were appointed to hear and decide appeals, and a further appeal might lie to a higher referee. At present it often happened that a man who appealed against his assessment had to show his books to his trade competitors, which was a great injustice. He would hail with delight the appointment of such an official. He thought the poorer class of people1 frequently suffered great hardship by paying income-tax which they ought not to pay. This arose from their ignorance of the way to appeal against the tax He hoped the procedure in this connection would he shortened and made more easy so that persons who were not liable would be able to get remissions without the long procedure to which they had been accustomed in the past.
MR. LABOUCHEREheld that if graduation was a sound principle in the case of the death duties it was sound in the case of the income-tax. At present rich men did not pay proportionately so much as men who were only moderately well off, and a distinction ought to be made between income from investments and income
1250
from trade or professional sources, as the spending power of the latter income was less than that of the former. A person who derived his income from a trade or profession would wish to lay by something for his wife and children, whereas one who derived his income from investments was not obliged to do so. It seemed to him that the question of graduating the income-tax should not be absolutely excluded from the inquiry which was to take place under the Chairmanship of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon. The inquiry should be of the broadest and widest character. His hon. friend had suggested that the incomes ought to be published. Why should they not be published? Why should a man be ashamed to let his income be known, unless he wanted to defraud his creditors. In most, eases these incomes were got honestly, and in some cases dishonestly. Many people followed the advice of Sir Pertinax Macsycophant to "make money honestly if you can, but make money." There were a very great number of persons who are called by the common term "snobs." They were ostentatious people, and delighted in being thought wealthy. He believed that the revenue would profit considerably if such people were obliged to state their incomes publicly: they would put themselves down as being worth a great deal more than they were. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had always opposed letting the public know what was the income derived from land. These sort of people lived in swaggering style in large country houses, when they had mortgaged the whole thing, and had nothing to bless themselves with. The consequence was that when a man wanted to buy an estate he had to spend large sums of money which went into the pockets of the lawyers in investigating titles. It was on that account the present bad land system was maintained. There were other cases in which the revenue would profit. Very often when a person's income was going down hill, be was rather inclined to increase his credit by wishing it to be believed that he was making a great deal of money. He remembered fifteen or twenty years ago the case of the failure of a private bank in London. The private banker had

1251
been insolvent for a long time, and made a good thing out of it. When he was dying he said to his sons, whom he had taken into partnership. "Do as I did, always. Do not tell anybody about the true condition of affairs. Directly the breath is out of my body go and pay a large amount of probate duty." The sons followed this advice, and lived in wealth and splendour for many years.
In the same way there might be a gain from taxing persons who wanted to keep up their credit, It was done in the State of New York, where there was a tax upon capital which was practically an income-tax. Suppose a man had got £100.000 invested in perfectly good securities which yielded him £4,000 a year he was taxed on the produce of the £100,000. But the man who got £4,000 a year from his profession or trade was only taxed according to the number of years value of that£4,000, which might be ten years or something of that sort. The whole thing worked out infinitely better than the English system, where no distinction was made between incomes derived from investments and money derived from trade profits or the exercise of a profession. He thought accumulations should he taxed far higher than they were, because, after all, why should a man have money from his father or his mother? There was no particular reason for it. While a man was on this planet he was the owner of his own money, but when he went out of the planet he had nothing more to do with that money. The State said in this country "We will carry out your testamentary disposition of your money": but in other countries the State said. "We will oblige you to leave it to your children." As a matter of strict right, all that money ought to go entirely to the State. The existing practice was a concession made to those who disappeared out of this world.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is getting a good deal beyond the income-tax.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he was afraid he was; but from the discussion which had taken place between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Member for King's Lynn, he seemed to
1252
gather that upon this Resolution hon. Members might talk on everything they liked.
MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that by general agreement the discussion on the income-tax is on the footing that it is a continuing tax.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he was glad that the Speaker had given that ruling. He had been getting tired of the vague and general observations of hon. Members. Therefore he said. "Let us get to business." He regretted he had been somewhat out of order; although he would have liked to have gone on and explained to the House the primary principles of property.
MAJOR JAMESONsaid that while he cordially agreed with the suggestion that there should be a graduation in the income-tax, he differed from the hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject as to the method. So far he agreed with the hon. Member for Northampton that a man dependent on a professional income, and who had children to provide for, should pay less than a man who had no family. He would say that bachelors who could spend their money as they liked, or waste it, should be handsomely taxed; that a married man with a large family, say, of ten children, should pay less than a married man with only two children; while a married man who had no children should be taxed very severely indeed. Hon. Members might laugh, and he knew that bachelors would not like his plan; but he believed that it would have the support of the vast majority of the people of the country. He wanted this system of a graduated income-tax to be brought home to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if the right hon. Gentleman wished to being in a perfect income-tax graduated so as to be approved of by every member of the community. He made a present of the suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and hoped the right hon. Gentleman would bring it before the Committee which was to be appointed to investigate into the whole question.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the hon. Member for Northampton desired rather to postpone meeting his obligations to the State until he went to another planet- He confessed he preferred to keep the income-tax as at present, and to take the contributions of the hon. Member for Northampton at once. In Committee he explained the reasons for which it appeared to the Government impossible to refer the question of graduation to the Committee which they were appointing. He did not believe that the proposals for graduation or differentiation which had been put forward were practicable, or would bring any appreciable relief to the revenue. Mr. Gladstone argued strongly against differentiation, and the Member for West Monmouthshire only a couple of years ago said that the objection to graduation was not so much on principle, but that as a matter of administration it was impossible. It would, the Member for West! Monmouthshire observed, make it necessary to call upon everybody to declare the whole of his income, and that was an extremely disagreeable thing. If we took such a step we should find it impossible to ascertain whether taxpayers made a true return or not. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire pointed out that the great advantage of the income-tax at the present time was that so much was collected at its source. That was our safeguard. If we destroyed it or largely increased the extent of the inquisition which we now had to make into the means of individual taxpayers, the measure would be most inimical to the continuance of the income-tax and most damaging to its yield. The hon. Gentleman below the gangway had asked whether he could supplement the comparison which he had drawn between the wealth of the country in the present year and its wealth twelve or fourteen years ago. He was afraid he could not add anything to that comparison, which he believed to be perfectly accurate. The hon. Gentleman raised some further question with reference to the evasion of the payment of the income-tax by some of those who should pay it. The question of evasion was the first point in the reference to the Committee over which his right hon. friend the Member for Croydon would preside. Of course there was a certain amount of evasion. It took place in those cases where it was
1254
not possible to catch the income at its source, and where it was necessary to some extent to rely on a personal return. In some of those cases he believed there was very considerable evasion. His right hon. friend gave an instance which was of a sensational character, and he himself had heard of similar instances from friends of his own. They must not, however, expect immediate results in this matter from the recommendations which the Committee might make, nor must they put their ultimate expectations too high, because, after all, of the whole amount of income liable to tax only a small portion was self-assessed and liable to evasion. He hoped his right hon. friend and his colleagues on the Committee would be able to do something for the revenue in that respect, and also, perhaps, to do something to alleviate or remove the grievance of income-tax payers in other directions.
MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid he regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not see his way to refer the question of differentiation and graduation to the Committee, all the more as they had had some encouragement from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol the other day. Although a year or two ago the right hon. Gentleman refused to consider the question from a practical point of view, he now thought it was worthy of consideration; and he hoped the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the matter. He did not understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that the principle of differentiation and graduation was wrong if it could be applied; and as they now asked only for an inquiry he regretted the question was not to be referred to the Committee. He even yet hoped that the right hon. Gentleman might take that course. If he refused because it might have the effect of deferring a decision on the other questions submitted to the Committee, that was a reasonable ground; but the Committee could be reappointed and given a mandate to consider the question. The other day the right hon. Gentleman told the Committee that in his judgment the effect of attempting to graduate the income-tax was to be disastrous to the tax as a great

1255
instrument for yielding revenue; but he would point out that the tax was already graduated by the present system of abatement. He would suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should consider, if he had an opportunity of introducing another Budget—and he would prefer the right hon. Gentleman to have that good fortune to any other right hon. Gentleman opposite—whether the present system of graduation as shown in the principle of abatements might not be usefully extended. They were all agreed as to the desirability of graduation; the only question was how far it was practicable. It was a matter of equity, as rich men were better able to pay a larger proportion than poor men. The present was not an inappropriate time at which to follow the lead of such an able and experienced financier as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, especially as indirect taxation was being increased. The principle of abatement might well be extended from £700 to £1,500 or £2,000.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he objected on principle to the graduation of the income-tax. To his mind it would be most unjust to the taxpayer and most injurious to the State. He also believed it would interfere with the collection of the tax, now one of the easiest and cheapest of taxes to collect. He would point out to the hon. Member that a rich man might have children, relations, and a number of other persons dependent on him, although he himself would not consume a greater part of his income that would be consumed by a man with £500 a year. After all, a rich man could only eat one breakfast, and from that point of view alone it would be unjust. Further the Income-tax Commissioners pointed out in their Report for 1902–3 that the gross income brought under the review of their Department was £866,000,000, and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, that was only about one-half of the come of the country. The income of the country might, therefore, be taken at £1,800,000,000, all told. Of that £1,800,000,000 only £600,000,000 was taxed at all. In other words, two-thirds of the income of the country did not pay income-tax at all. Therefore, as it was, it was bad enough on the third that paid; but if graduation were adopted the
1256
only result would be that a greater burden would fall on a third of the one third that now paid, and a larger proportion of the tax would be paid by a smaller number of people. That would be extremely dangerous, as the object was to have as largo an area and as small a tax as possible. The hon. Gentleman said truly that there was a certain graduation already in existence: but it was very small indeed; and only affected small incomes, and a comparatively small proportion of the entire yield of the tax. The difficulty would begin when they proceeded to apply graduation to the larger incomes. During the last four or five years this graduation had had precisely the result he had anticipated. As a matter of fact, only about one-third of the income of the country paid the tax, and if graduation were introduced, the tax would fall on a much smaller number of people. His belief was that they would have a further decrease in consequence of the graduation which was recommended by the hon. Member opposite. His suggestion would be to make the rate smaller, and extend it over a larger area. Exemptions and abatements of income-tax already extended too far. The way he would increase the yield of the tax was to reduce it in rate and spread it over a much larger area. If they decided to make everybody declare the whole of their income before making the reduction, they would enormously increase the expense of collection.
SIR BRAMPTON GURDONthought hon. Members who had asked for an inquiry with reference to the graduation of the income-tax, must have forgotten the powerful speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire when he first introduced the death duty. At that time the right hon. Gentleman made a most searching examination into all the circumstances attending the possibility of a graduated income-tax, and he concluded that it would be almost impracticable and would be attended with such enormous cost, that it would swallow up any gain there might be to the revenue. They never could get over the diffculty that they would never be able to compel a return of the whole income. The whole force of the Inland Revenue officials could not do this, and it was for

1257
that reason that the death duties were imposed and were graduated. He agreed that graduation of the death duties might be carried further, but he thought that was the only way in which they could have graduation at all. His hon. friend the Member for Northampton had talked of the difficulty of discovering Incomes derived from land. He could tall his hon. friend that land yielded no income.
MR. LOUGHthought they ought to be given a little more information by the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon this question. If the right hon. Gentleman had given them such a promise at an earlier stage the debate would have been shorter. There were many difficult points connected with this question which would make it impossible for them to discuss the matter properly until they had placed before them the Report of a Committee of inquiry. The limit of exemption now was £160, but he was disposed to agree with the hon. Member for King's Lynn that this was too high a figure. He thought the time had come when that point also might be inquired into by a Committee. He agreed that it was rather futile for a few Members of the Opposition to declaim against direct taxation because when they took a division the Opposition were divided, and twenty or thirty of their number generally voted with the Government. He preferred that they should be solid when they voted and they ought to discuss more and divide less. It was simply nonsense to think that the poor were relieved by exemption from income, tax if that exemption were purchased by great increases in the taxation on the necessaries of life. When they put taxes upon such articles as tea, tobacco, beer, and sugar, the poor man did not know exactly what he paid. The standard of exemption in Germany was £45 a year, and at a time when they were putting on taxes in such a lavish way it was not altogether outside the pale of discussion to consider whether the working classes would not be relieved if they had to pay their taxes directly. He would like his hon. friends to define what they meant by this system of graduation and where the limit was to be fixed? He was pretty familiar with the tables of incomes given in the
1258
Inland Revenue returns and he was amazed at the vast amount of income which was caught between £1,000 and £5,000. Above the latter figure incomes were few comparatively and if they went beyond £10,000 he questioned whether they would have a large field at all. In Ireland they could count upon their fingers the incomes above £10,000 and in a lesser degree the same state of things existed in Scotland. Even the number in England above £10,000 were very small. He thought during the interval the Chancelled of the Exchequer might consider the advisability of appointing a Committee. The proposal now made to the country was that we should submit to an increase of one penny upon the income-tax, but he remembered two years ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol spoke with horror of an income-tax of 1s. in the £. The right hon. Gentleman made all his speeches on economy down at Bristol, but he never supported proposals in the direction of economy in the House of Commons.
And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  LIVERPOOL AND LONDON AND GLOBE INSURANCE COMPANY BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEYrose to move "That this House is of opinion that before any further alterations are authorised in the memoranda and articles of association of life insurance companies, it is desirable that the whole subject be considered by a Select Committee with a view to safeguard the interests of policy-holders and others, who are often largely affected by proposed alterations, but who are not consulted, and are not considered to have any voice in alterations thus proposed."
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is my duty to toll the hon. Member that this Amendment is not, in order because it proposes to raise and discuss the general question of policy with a view to the alteration of the existing law. That is not permissible, but the hon. Member may have an opportunity of arguing against the Rill on those lines.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEYaccordingly moved that the Bill be road a second time that day six months.
  MR. DALZIELseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Sir George Bartley.)
  Question proposed. "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question.'"
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid that possibly there was a certain danger attaching to all companies—not merely those which had a policy-holders, but those which contained largo number of shareholders—in (the Alteration of memoranda and articles of association. It was quite possible for changes of that kind to be made where there were a large number of shareholders, without the full importance of the changes being brought within the cognisance of the shareholders; but they were dealing now with a company which did not desire to alter its memorandum and articles of association, because it did not possess them. The gigantic property of the company was regulated by private Acts of Parliament and elaborate laws and regulations, with the result that the company suffered very serious disabilities in carrying on its business. All its property and investment-, amounting to £10,000,000, were held in the name of trustees, all documents had to be signed by the directors or by persons authorised by them, and all legal proceedings by or against the company must be taken in the name of the chairman or other officer on its behalf. The consequence of this was that very great inconvenience had been from time to time experienced and heavy
  1260
  expense incurred by the company. Naturally those interested in the company desired that it should be modernised and its constitution brought up to date. The Bill provided for its registration under the Companies Acts, and for its incorporation with a common seal. It would get rid of its laws and regulations and of four of its five Acts of Parliament. The company would in future be regulated by a memorandum and articles of association. Ho did not think that under Clause 9 there would be that enormous extension of the company's business which the hon. Member for North Islington feared, and he directed attention to certain limiting words which had been introduced, and which would keen the agency and trust business strictly within the objects of the company generally. It was not the desire of the promoters to alter or enlarge the company's sphere of operations, but rather to endow it with a constitution which would enable it better to carry out the original objects and purposes for which it was formed. There was no intention of launching out into vast undertakings or new developments, or trenching in any way upon the reserves which had been laboriously built up over a course of years. The promoters had obtained the opinion of Mr. Palmer, probably the greatest living authority on company law, and he had expressed the opinion that the new objects were in no material degree wider than the existing objects of the company.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEYinterposed to say that he had discovered that during the passage of the Bill through the House of Lords, Clause 9 had been materially modified, and trust and agency business would only have to be undertaken in connection with any of the purposes of the company."
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORpointed out that these qualifying words were introduced by the promoters, who were anxious to prevent any misconstruction on the point. They had further shown their good faith by scheduling the memorandum and articles of association in the Bill, so that it might be submitted to the scrutiny of the House. He hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,)said that he was not concerned either to support or to deny the general proposition of the hon. Member for Islington. The hon. Member said it was possible that a policy-holder might be injuriously affected by alterations made in the memorandum and articles of association; but he did not claim to show that this would be the case under this Bill. The last speaker showed that the somewhat sweeping provision of Clause 9 had been modified so as to limit and to bring the articles of association strictly within the trusts and deeds now operating with regard to the company. Under these circumstances the hon. Member would probably not deem it necessary to press his Motion. The Unopposed Bill Committee were indebted to the hon. Member for calling attention to the matter, and when the Bill came before the Committee the point he had raised would be considered, and explanations asked for from the promoters.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEYasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

WAYS AND MEAN'S [21ST APRIL] REPORT.
Order read, for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [26th April],"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution, 'That Income-tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and four, at the rate of one shilling.'"
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 121; Noes, 83. (Division List, No. 96.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gardner, Ernest

Markham, Arthur Basil

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Middlemore, John Throgmorton

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Milvain, Thomas

Balcarres, Lord

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynemouth

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)

Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

Morpeth, Viscount

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Heaton, John Henniker

Mount, William Arthur

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Helder, Augustus

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

Bigwood, James

Helme, Norval Watson

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hermon- Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Brigg, John

Holland Sir William Henry

Nicholson, William Graham

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Norman, Henry

Caldwell, James

Hoult, Joseph

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Campbell, J.H.M. (Dublin Univ.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hunt, Rowland

Percy, Earl

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Plummer, Walter R

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

Crooks, William

Laurie, Lieut-General

Reid, James (Greenock)

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Davenport, William Bromley

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N. R

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Russell, T. W.

Duke, Henry Edward

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Duncan, J. Hastings

Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cum. Penr.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Macdona, John Cumming

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

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

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Maconochie, A. W.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Finch, Rt Hn. George H.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Smith, H C. (North'mb. Tyneside

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

M'Crae, George

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

Flower, Sir Ernest

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Stock, James Henry

Forster, Henry William

Majendie, James A. H.

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Foster, Philip S. (Warwick S. W.

Malcolm, Ian

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

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

Valentin, Viscount

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Tomkinson, James

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

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

Tuff, Charles

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Wylie, Alexander

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N E.

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Horniman, Frederick John

Power, Patrick Joseph

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Humphreys-Owen., Arthur C.

Rea, Russell

Bell, Richard

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Black, Alexander William

Kilbride, Denis

Rickett, J. Compton

Boland, John

Lambert, George

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Burke, E. Haviland

Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.

Roche, John

Cameron, Robert

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Levy, Maurice

Sheehy, David

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lough, Thomas

Slack, John Bamford

Crean, Eugene

Lundon, W.

Sullivan, Donal

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Delany, William

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Toulmin, George

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

M'Fadden, Edward

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Weir, James Galloway

Doogan, P. C.

M'Kean, John

White, George (Norfolk)

Ellice, Capt. E C (S. Andr'wsBghs

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Moss, Samuel

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Murnaghan, George

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Farrell, James Patrick

Murphy, John

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

Fenwick, Charles

Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

Ffrench, Peter

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

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Young, Samuel

Gilhooly, James

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

Yoxall, James Henry

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Dalziel and Mr. Joseph Walton.

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

O'Dowd, John

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Malley, William

Bill read a second time and committed.

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

WAYS AND MEANS [19TH APRIL].
Resolutions reported.

CUSTOMS—TEA.
1. "That in lieu of the duty of Customs now payable on Tea, there shall be charged on and after the twentieth day of April, nineteen hundred and four, until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and five, the following duty (that is to say):—
"Tea, the pound Eightpence."

CUSTOMS—TOBACCO.
2. "That the duties of Customs payable under Section I. of The Finance Act, 1898, on manufactured tobacco shall, on and after the twentieth day of April, nineteen hundred and four, be increased, in the case of cigars, by sixpence per
1264
pound, and in the case of cigarettes by one shilling per pound, and the duties payable under the same section on unmanufactured tobacco shall, on and after the same date, be increased, in the case of stripped tobacco, by threepence per pound."
Resolutions read a second time.
First Resolution.
MR. LOUGH,in moving to reduce the duty to sixpence, said that this immense tea duty marked a stage in the fiscal development of the country which ought to be recognised by every means that the House could devise. The country was more agitated over this feature of the Budget than by anything else it contained, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would certainly hear a great deal about the tax in the future. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham had alluded sneeringly to his "disinterested" opposition to this tax. He thought that the expression might

1265
have been dispensed with. So far as he knew his interests, they were not opposed to this tax, but were in favour of it. He desired to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the serious nature of this tax, first of all, from the grower's point of view. In one of his earlier speeches the right hon. Gentleman had made an interesting comparison between the Budget of 1864 and that of the present year, but the one thing he omitted to state was that the tea duty in that year was brought down from 1s. to 6d. As a matter of fact, in the seven years ending 1864, the tea duty was reduced from 1s. 7d. or 1s. 9d. to 6d. What was the condition of things in 1864? The consumption of tea per head of the population was 2½lbs., and the total amount of British grown tea was represented by the 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 1bs. received from India. In Ceylon tea-planting had not started. To-day the British Empire produced 350,000,000 lbs. of tea per annum, and there was at least £30,000,000 of British capital invested in the industry. That was a striking testimony to the wisdom of the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1864. In few other countries in the world was the duty on tea so high as that now proposed. The right hon. Gentleman was suspected of leanings towards Colonial preference, but what a contrast was afforded by his actions and his theories! The Opposition generally were against giving the Colonies a preference, but they were not against giving them fair play, and that was just what this duty denied them. Instead of giving either preference or fairplay, the right hon. Gentleman was dealing one of the deadliest blows that could be given to a great Colonial and Imperial interest. As a result of the last increase of the duty the consumption of tea had been somewhat checked, and the right hon. Gentle-man's comment on that point was simply that the people of this country were "saturated" with tea.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say that we could not expect a further increase in the consumption of tea. I said that whether the tax were increased or not you could not expect the rate of consumption to go on as fast as it had done in recent years. When asked "Why," I used
1266
a picturesque phrase suggested to me in saying that the consumption had reached the saturation point. You cannot wash in tea, and there is a limit to the amount of any beverage that a population can consume
MR. LOUGHsaid he was delighted with the right hon. Gentlemen's explanation. He thought that these mistaken ideas were clue to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had not yet set up housekeeping. He could prove by a very simple case that there was still room for great development in the consumption of tea. When a family went away from home, it was usual to allow each servant left behind a ¼ lb. of tea a week. That was 13 lbs. a year; and vet the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the consumption must be checked at 6½ lbs. per head a year. In China the consumption of tea was 15 lbs. per head of the population. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to have argued so lightly that there was no room for further development in the consumption of tea, and at any rate he could not expect growers to adopt that view. When selecting this particular tax the right hon. Gentleman alluded to one or two other articles which he said must be left out. and he mentioned sugar. With regard to sugar the Government had already given that trade a blow, and so they had decided to leave it alone in order that it might recover. Owing to the policy of the Government contained in the Brussels Sugar Convention the Russians had put a tax of l¼d. per lb. on tea from British possessions, and this had also affected the tea industry. He believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already heard from the Governor of Ceylon in regard to this tax, and he would also hear from the Government of India. This great and flourishing British industry which had been set up during the last forty years felt itself outraged at the idea of a huge tax of this kind. What they ought to do was, he would not say to give these Colonies or any part of the Empire a preference, but at least give them fairplay, which this tax denied them.
He would now turn to the effect of the tax in this country. The right hon.

1267
Gentleman ought to have a more kindly feeling for the traders engaged in distributing tea. This large class were engaged in collecting his revenue for him. If the right hon. Gentleman chose to get his revenue by indirect taxation, the least he could do was to be polite to these traders. He had hinted that the tea distributors were a very bad lot and that they lived by efforts to cheat the Chancellor of the Exchequer out of his duty when he was going to alter his tax. Of course the way out of that difficulty was not to alter the tax, for how could a trade be conducted when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was altering the tea tax almost every year, Tea was distributed by over 60.000 grocers throughout the kingdom. Through them this huge revenue of £6,000.000 was paid, and they would pay this £8.000.000 which the right hon. Gentleman now hoped to raise by this tax. The new rate of duty meant a complete alteration in prices, and he did not think the business of these people should be unnecessarily disturbed, but the right hon. Gentleman might at any rate speak sympathetically to them. In dealing with a great article of consumption like tea, these constant changes ought not to be made in the price, and some stable system should be observed.
He would, in conclusion, say something on the question from the consumer's standpoint. This tax would be felt in every household at morning and evening. It was possible to raise the country from one end to the other about a shilling tax on corn, but corn did not occupy a different position from tea in the diet of the people. Tea was just as important as bread. This House could always be excited about a shilling tax on corn, but why should they take this tax of 8d. per lb. on tea lying down? To the consumers, this additional tax meant that they would have to pay about 4d. per lb. more for tea than six years ago. The poor consumers generally bought tea at the same price, no matter what the duty was, and they would either obtain worse tea now or consume less than they did before. Therefore the consumers were being extremely badly treated. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford had pointed out that no less than £300,000 would be paid by Ireland
1268
in consequence of this additional 2d. per 1b. on tea. It was estimated by the Treasury that the revenue from tea in that country now reached £900,000 per annum. So this tax would make it £1,200,000, a totally ruinous burden. In Ireland the poorest inhabitants depended upon tea, because it was the cheapest drink, and therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer by this tax had hit those who were most dependent upon this form of food. In Ireland they consumed 8 lbs. of tea per head of the population, and this tax, with the 2d. imposed in 1900. would place upon the people of Ireland an additional burden of 2s. 8d. per head per annum. In the case of a family of six this meant 16s. per annum upon some of the poorest families in the United Kingdom, and that was a very serious imposition. Therefore he thought the House ought to resent the action of the Government in this matter. His opinion was that the Government, by some economy in the expenditure of the great spending departments, might have avoided this additional tax. He begged to move the Amendment he had placed upon the Taper.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the words 'Eight pence,' and insert the words 'Six pence'—(Mr. Lough) instead thereof."
Question proposed, "That the words 'Eight pence' stand part of the said Resolution."
MR. SWIFT MACNETLLsaid if he did not intervene at this time, when such a tax was being placed upon an article which was an important part of the food of the people of Ireland, he should be altogether unworthy of his position. His hon. friend the Member for Islington had told them that about 86 per cent, of the tea consumed in this country came from our Colonies, and only about 14 per cent, from foreign sources. Under these circumstances it was very strange that the Government had decided to strike such a blow at colonial trade. Had he been so disposed in reference to this Budget he could have shown a glaring disregard for the poor and a desire to protect the rich. Every Irish Member except those Gentlemen who were the paid agents of the Government on the Ministerial Bench would vote

1269
for this Amendment as a protest against this tax. It they had an Irish Parliament which resolved by a majority of one that this tax should not be imposed the tax-would cease, but now when united Ireland protested the tax would be laid upon Ireland, and under such circumstances resistance to the laws of this country would not only be the privilege of Irishmen but it would be their duty. Perhaps the House would allow him to quote from a letter in reference to this tea tax which had been sent to him by one whom he might describe as one of the merchant princes in Dublin, who differed from him in all matters of politics. This merchant had told him that an increase of 2d. per lb. upon tea would mean to the poor in Ireland an increase of 4d. per lb. because in Dublin 90 per cent, of the tea sold was retailed at 1s.4d. per 1b. duty paid, which was just 1d. per oz. This extra duty would drive this tea out of the market, and the poor people would now have to pay 1¼ per oz. or 1s. 8d. per lb. When the tax on tea was raised from 4d. to 6d. per lb. it was done with many apologies, and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer promised the tea drinkers that it was only a war tax, and acknowledged that it pressed upon the poor people of Ireland most severely. His hon. friend who opened this debate had stated that the consumption of tea in the United Kingdom was 6½ lbs. per head of the population, but in Ireland it was 8 lbs. per head. In Donegal, which was one of the poorest districts in Ireland, the budget of a well-to-do peasant in the congested districts with a family of five would be about £23 a year, and out of that sum £5 10s. would be spent upon tea. He had seen the details of another budget where the man's income was £12, and out of that £3 went for tea. Many of those people were so poor that they were unable to buy ordinary bread, and they had to live largely upon Indian meal. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol imposed his tax on corn the Irish Members resisted it as far as maize was concerned on the ground that such a proposal would entail a tax on the food of the very poor in Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman had the grace to take the tax off that article. He had little hope, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take this extra 2d. off the tea tax.
His hon. friend the Member for Islington had spoken of the effect this tax would
1270
have upon the poor consumers in England. Let them go into any of the abodes of misery in Ireland, and they would always find a teapot there whatever else there might be. Tea was the cheapest drink of the poor, and it cheered them without doing any harm, but now this drink was to be made almost dearer than whisky in order to produce £2,000,000 for the Exchequer. While the effects of adding 2d. to the tax would scarcely be seen in the case of the English people, it would produce ruinous results in the cottagers' homes in Donegal. It was a cruel, heartless, and shameless tax, and at another stage of the Budget the Irish Members would avail themselves of the opportunity of going into the whole question of the financial situation in Ireland, He had intervened in this debate simply for the purpose of protesting against a tax which would produce a state of things in his constituency bordering on starvation. It was a scandalous thing for this Government to take a course which would produce in the poorer parts of Ireland a condition of artificial famine, but the Government were inaccessible to shame or human feeling in these matters. At the beginning of last century Ireland had a Chancellor of the Exchequer of her own, and speaking in the House of Commons against the Union he told Mr. Pitt that the object the English Ministry had in destroying the Irish Parliament was that the power of the purse might be taken out of the hands of the representatives of the Irish people and put into the hands of an alien Parliament. He had expressed his feeling strongly in this matter, but he would be unworthy of his position if he did not protest in this House that money was worth nothing if it was produced from the blood and tears of the poor.
MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid the hon. Member need not be alarmed about his vote on this tax. He had voted for an additional penny on the income-tax. He did not like it, but he thought that those who shouted for war ought to be made to pay for it. It was the only way to bring home to those gentlemen who clamour for expenditure every day the results of their views. But when it came to tea it was a wholly different thing. It was a tax that would go into every poor man's home in Ireland. It would affect the poor woman more than

1271
the poor man, and the poor woman was not represented in that House. He challenged any English Member to deny or contradict the fact that the House was laying a heavy burden of taxation upon the Irish people by means of this tax, and he said unreservedly that if they reverted to the position of things at the beginning of the last century—if they could have a separate Exchequer for Ireland like that which existed between the years 1800 and 1817—the Irish Government could be carried on, on the Scotch basis of expenditure, for £3,000,000a year less than it was. The Local Government Board of Scotland cost £20,000 a year, whereas in Ireland the Local Government Board cost £80,000and the judiciary of Scotland cost half of what it cost in Ireland. It was a burning shame that the House should insist upon putting a load of taxation upon these poor people which was ruinous to England and absolutely destructive of decent life in Ireland.
MR. HEMPHILLsaid he protested four or five years ago against the raising of the tea duty from 4d. to 6d., and he wished to protest against this further imposition. He had been brought up in a school of economy whose first article of faith was "a free breakfast table for the poor." That article of faith was based upon the principles of humanity and justice, and it was an extraordinary thing that the Government which had involved the country in enormous debt for the purposes of an unnecessary and fruitless war should find no other means of raising revenue to meet their extravagant expenditure than by adding 2d. to the poor man's tea. He spoke on this question from the point of view of Irishmen, knowing that, from the failure of the potato and the time of the famine, tea had been one of the principal means of sustaining life among the poor of Ireland. It was the cup of tea which enabled them to swallow the yellow meal on which they were obliged to depend for subsistence. It would be perfectly impossible to use the yellow meal were it not for the help of tea. It was the women and children who would suffer most from this addition to the price of tea. The tea tax was increased four or five years ago as a temporary measure. It was a case of
1272
grinding the faces of the poor. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not like to be reminded of these home truths, and he turned away in order to show indifference. His objection to the tax was not based on statistics, or fiscal or non-fiscal policy. It rested on the principles of humanity. This increase in the tea duty was an intolerable thing which would render the Government more unpopular than it already was throughout the length and breadth of the country. The attempt to raise £2,000,000 a year at the expense of the poorest class of the population would react upon themselves. The result would be that people would drink adulterated and deleterious tea, and he believed that at the end of the year it would be found that the 2d. increase would fail to produce the additional amount on which the right hon. Gentleman seemed confidently to rely.
MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid he wished to enter his strongest protest against the increase of the tea duty on the ground that if the Government had earnestly turned their attention to retrenchment in the national expenditure the addition would have been totally unnecessary. Last year, in a time of peace, the normal expenditure of the country was nominally £9,000,000 in excess of that of the previous year, but as the expenditure was under-estimated to the extent of £3,000,000, the expenditure last year was £12,000,000 in excess of that of the previous year. This year the country's whole financial condition was such as to demand every possible retrenchment of expenditure. They were face to face with a Budget which only provided a reduction of £1,500,000 on last year's expenditure. He voted against the 1d. increase on the income-tax because he believed it was unnecessary, and he would vote against the 2d. additional on the tea tax for the same reason. He opposed this additional imposition on another ground. It was a violation of the equitable principle of the fair distribution of taxation. When the 2d. per lb. was added to the tea tax they were told that it was essentially a war tax which would be removed at the earliest possible moment. Last year

1273
the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in a position to remit taxation to the extent of £10,500.000. During the war enormous increases of taxation had been imposed, practically in equal amounts as between the direct and indirect taxpayers. Why was not the remission last year given in the same ratio? Last year four-fifths of the £10,500,000 was remitted in favour of the direct taxpayer, and only one-fifth in favour of the indirect taxpayer, in the remission of the corn tax. Therefore, on this occasion, if additional taxation was necessary, equity required that the injustice inflicted last year should, at least, have been redressed, and that the indirect taxpayer should not have been called upon to pay an additional 2d. in the 1b. for tea. It would press hardly on the masses of the people.
MR. CATHCART WASONassociated himself with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Islington as to the injurious effect this tax would have on the tea growers of India and Ceylon. This was the only article on which it was proposed to charge duty in excess of the price of the commodity except of course, strong drink. Tea could be produced for about 6½d. or 7d. per lb. and less. That was a serious matter, both from the point of view of the grower and the consumer. Why was it put on? Was there no reason except that it was for the purpose of obtaining revenue He did not like to suggest reasons, but he was not sure that there were not other reasons. Wherever they found tea drinkers they found a temperate people. He knew this to be the case in Australia and Japan. He hoped that the result of putting on this tax would not be that people would be driven to drinking something else than tea. This was a Scotch question as much as an Irish one, and perhaps more so, because he was certain that in many districts of the Highlands and Islands, especially in parts of the country represented by the Member for Inverness, there were people living under circumstances of as great poverty as in Ireland. The people had the greatest difficulty in drawing a meagre subsistence from the soil, and tea to them was not only a necessary of life,
1274
but it was also their one luxury. They did not drink beer, and they never saw whisky. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done a cruel wrong and injustice to those poor people in putting on this extra tax. If more money had been wanted, it might have been got in the many ways that could have been suggested by the hon. Member for Islington and others without taxing this prime necessary of life, and also the one luxury of the poor. In the far North of Scotland they did not drink beer, or even whisky, at any rate in his constituency; and he felt that this tax would press very heavily on the poor; nor would the result be satisfactory to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the consumption would largely decrease. If the people could get tea as easily as intoxicating drinks there would not be the same amount of crime and drunkenness as at the present moment. He wished to express most emphatically the opinion that this was not at all a purely Irish question. Its general effect upon the poor would be most disastrous.
MR. J. A. PEASEsaid that as representing one of the poorest constituencies in the country he desired to associate himself with the protest that had been made against this tax. In his constituency there was no other industry but agriculture, and hon. Members who had any knowledge of agriculture must realise that in the county of Essex farmers had had a very depressed year, so much so that it was almost impossible for both the farmers and the labourers to make ends meet in their weekly budgets. When it was realised that the consumption of tea in the average household had increased during the last forty years from 2½ pounds to 6½ pounds, the severity of the tax on the agricultural labourer with a large family of five to seven children, who paid 2s. or 3s. a week of cottage rent and had no luxuries, would be understood. It meant a good deal if these poor people were to be deprived of a necessary of life. This was a tax which would oppress the poor; it was an intolerable tax, and could not be justified by anyone who thought out the whole subject of our fiscal system. He was opposed personally to indirect taxation. It

1275
was wasteful, and promoted extravagance on the part of the Government. In the North of England the average income of a wage-earner was from 25s. to 30s. a week, and by indirect taxation he paid practically an income-tax of 19d. in the £ to the revenue of the country. Many on his side of the House, and he hoped many on the other side, believed that taxation ought to be imposed on the people in proportion to their ability to pay it. If that principle was to be adopted it was simply preposterous that any individual should be compelled to pay an income tax of 19d. in the £ when rich people only paid one shilling. The millionaire was only taxed to the extent of 1 or 2 per cent, on his income, whereas the wage-earner was taxed to between 5 and 10 per cent, on his income. It was because he believed that this tax was unequal in its effect upon the poor that ho protested against it. There was no justification for an increase in the tax on tea, and it would retard the physical development of the poorer classes of the people.
MR. TOMKINSONsaid he also wished earnestly to protest against the proposal to increase the tax on tea. It was in all senses a graduated tax, but it was graduated in the wrong direction. This tax would be wholly unfelt by the rich and little, if at all, felt by the middle classes; it would be seriously felt by the better-to-do working people, and most severely felt by the poorest of the poor, who lived practically on bread and tea. When they had to pay 7d. for tea for which they had formerly to pay 6d., they would have to forego one-seventh of the tea they at present consumed and it must be seen, therefore, how unjust this tax was.
MR. HUGH LAWsaid that when his right hon. friend the Member for North Tyrone used the expression "grinding the face of the poor" he heard some expressions of dissent from the other side of the House. He desired to say that the phrase was not at all too strong. It was generally admitted that the larger proportion of this tax would be borne by the poorest families and
1276
that the increased duties on tea imposed on account of war expenditure amounted to 16s. a year per family of six persons. Many hon. Members might say that that was a very trifling sum, but it should be remembered that a burden of 16s. must be heavy on families whose total income was from £12 to £20 per annum. This was a matter in which there need be no jealousy between different parts of the House; but Ireland had a sorrowful pre-eminence, inasmuch as, whilst this tax would fall heavily on all the poor in the United Kingdom, there was in Iceland a greater proportion of poor to the total population than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Apart from that, the Irish Members were in a very curious position in regard to this question of taxation. The English Government always called the tune, and they in Ireland were compelled to dance to it. The English Government pursued a policy against which the Irish Members continually protested; and when the day of reckoning came the Government turned round and said that liabilities had been incurred, and must be paid. The Irish Members had never lent themselves to sanctioning or calling for this expenditure, and they had a good claim to a hearing in this House when they protested against the whole system of this extravagant expenditure. It was a very strange thing that when they protested against the policy which produced this enormous expenditure, they were told sometimes that they were ungrateful, because some months ago they had obtained a loan out of the common Exchequer for a purpose which it was admitted was of Imperial urgency, and that in addition a free grant had been given them. But the liabilities for making good any losses consequent upon the working of the Land Act of last session rested entirely upon Irish funds. On all these grounds he joined in protesting most strongly against this proposal.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford had given notice of his intention of calling attention to the special case of Ireland with reference to the Budget proposals at a later stage. It was true that that case had special reference to the tea duty, but it would be more

1277
convenient to discuss the financial relations of Ireland with England on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill than to scatter the discussion over each Resolution in turn, and he hoped hon. Members for Ireland would not consider it any lack of courtesy on his part, therefore, if he dealt at present with the question of the tea duty as it affected the whole of the United Kingdom. In dealing with these matters it was impossible to please all his critics whose remarks were often quite irreconcilable. For instance, the hon. Member for Saffron Walden objected to all indirect taxation, while other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite declared not infrequently that indirect taxation was as necessary to any financial equilibrium as direct.
MR. J. A. PEASEsaid he would like to explain that, while be believed all indirect taxation tended to waste and lack of economy, he admitted that it would be impossible for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose a Budget which would not. to a certain extent. tax intoxicating liquors and tobacco.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINthought that neither the hon. Gentleman nor himself would live to see a Chancellor of the Exchequer propose a Budget in which indirect taxation was confined to intoxicating liquors and tobacco. [An HON. MEMBER: Why?] He would not be dogmatic, but if such a thing happened he fancied they would enjoy such long lives that the insurance companies would be almost ruined. There was nothing more difficult than to frame an accurate estimate of the proportion of their income which any class of the community was called upon to pay in taxation. But one thing was perfectly clear, and that was that the hon. Gentleman's calculations on the subject were wrong. The hon. Gentleman had calculated that a millionaire paid only from 1 to 2 per cent, of his income in taxation. Why, the millionaire's income-tax alone was 5 per cent. of his income. It must be remembered that the income-tax payer also paid indirect taxation in proportion to his expenditure. How much of the wine duties were contributed by the classes which did not come within the circle
1278
of the income-tax? At any rate they did not pay as much of these duties as he would wish. If he thought that by raising the wine duties he should get more money, he certainly would have made the proposal in his Budget. As a matter of fact, any further rise in the duties on wines would, by decreasing the consumption, result in a loss of revenue to the Exchequer. It is by no means a pleasant duty to have to impose new taxation. I am not insensible as to what is to be said against an increase in the tea duty. But it is not to the tea duty alone that hon. Members opposite object. Every tax conies under their censure. Earlier in the sitting the beer and spirit duties were described as an irreparable injury to the poor. Thro years ago it was said that the sugar duty was a tax on the poorest of the poor. Two years ago it was complained that the corn duty was even worse than the tax on sugar. To-night we are told that the tax on tea has nothing to recommend it over the tax on corn. The hon. Member for Islington has said, "Tea is just as important to the poor as bread." I remember another Member of this House was taken to task for having suggested that tea might be as important an item in the budget of the poor as bread. There is one observation of the hon. Member for Islington to which I must take strong objection. The hon. Member has said that I. at the instigation of mv right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol, have charged tea dealers with cheating or chiselling the revenue. I never made any suggestion of improper conduct against any gentleman in the tea trade. All I said in reply to the Member for West Bristol was that tea lends itself to forestalment, and that on this occasion I had been fortunate in preventing any forestalment. as I had taken precautions which would make it difficult for the trade to hold back the tea duty by making it end in August instead of the end of the financial year. No imputation could be cast on any one if they, knowing that a tax was to be imposed, withdrew tea from bond. It is a mere business matter, and the process is one which the hon. Member opposite would have pursued if he had obtained the information. But there would have been nothing dishonest in the matter,

1279
and there is no aspersion on the trade. The expression generally used by the trade is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has caught us napping. One trader said that if he had had the slightest idea that there was going to be an increased duty he would have withdrawn thousands of pounds worth of tea, and the trade could have withdrawn millions of pounds worth in a short time. In desiring to get revenue it is desirable that there should be no great fore-stalment of the duty.
After all, the serious question is. what effect is this tax going to have upon consumption-is is really going to be a check? Many hon. Gentlemen who have spoken to-night have complained at least as bitterly of the increase made by the hon. Member for West Bristol when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. What has happened? Has the consumption fallen in the past? I will not take a single year, for with regard to a particular year changes might have been anticipated. I will take a series of three years. In 1859–6l the average consumption of tea per head of the population was 2·685 lbs., in 1871–73 the consumption had risen to 4·01 in 1892–94 it was 5·45; in 1898–1900it was 5·95; and in 1901–3, since the new tax was imposed, it was 6·08 lbs. per head of the population. The consumption of tea. therefore, has steadily increased over periods of three years throughout the last forty or fifty years. Now let us look at other countries. The consumption of tea per head of population is 0·2 in Germany, 1·4 in Holland. 0·42 in Belgium. 0´4 in the United States, and 6·08 in the United Kingdom. These figures are in correction of the statements of the hon. Member for Islington, and they are subject to explanation in consequence of the habits of the people in reference to the consumption of coffee and other articles.
MR. TOUGH: I do not differ from you regarding tea.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Then we are both agreed that the consumption of tea has progressed here very satisfactorily in spite of additional taxation and I believe it will not be reduced by the addition now proposed. The hon. Member for Islington is more sanguine
1280
than myself as to the capacity of our people to consume tea. I do not venture to calculate upon such a great increase in the consumption of tea in this country as he thinks possible, if his anticipations are realised nobody will be better pleased than myself. I treat this tax as one affecting both rich and poor in the United Kingdom and Ireland. It is not lightly that I ask the Committee to add to a burden which falls upon the poor, but no small part of our expenditure is directly for the benefit of the poor and the rest of it is for the benefit of rich and poor alike. It is with the mass of the people that political power rests, and the consideration of what the taxes ought to be cannot be separated from the question of who has control of expenditure and the purposes for which it is incurred. Taking these considerations into account, it is not unfair to make this addition to indirect taxation having regard to the circumstances of the year, and I do not think I could have made a wiser or fairer proposal than this increase on the tea duty.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he understood that if all the Members on that side of the House had voted against the Government in the last division, the Government would have been defeated. Although he for one believed that the income-tax ought to remain, he thought they could do without it rather than with the present Government. On the question of the tea duty the Opposition were agreed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had pointed out that there had been no falling off in the consumption of tea owing to the last increase of the duty. He would not estimate whether there would be any falling off in consequence of the present proposal, but if there was not, there would be a considerable addition to the privations of the poorest classes. It would practically deprive them of tea on one day of the week. He agreed that at the present rate of expenditure it was necessary to put large taxes on the indirect taxpayer. The object the Opposition had in view was to revert to the position they were in not many years ago when they were getting near a free breakfast table, and he hoped that before long public opinion regarding expenditure would so advance

1281
as to enable them to do so. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was proposing to add £2.000,000 of taxation to a necessity of life pecially for the poorer classes. During he past three or four years they had added a burden of £9,000,000 by the imposition of the tea, tobacco, and sugar duties, and during the past five years they had taken out of the pockets of the indirect taxpayers £40,000,000 sterling. That ought to give them pause. If the Government thought it necessary to obtain this additional revenue, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of putting an extra tax on tea, should have put an additional penny on the income-tax.
MR. CROOKShad listened with considerable interest to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for his reply to the criticisms was an apology for not taxing those who could afford to pay. Why did he raise the question of wines? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if he thought he was likely to get a little more he would certainly have taxed wine. He did not attempt to do so because he was not likely to get much out of it, for the poor did not drink wine. Rich people drank wine, and wanted quality, and there could be no attempt to manipulate wine. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the consumption of tea would be the same in the future as in the past, but he said nothing about the quality. Why should the poor always be compelled, if they wanted to drink, to drink muck? Why did he not have some consideration to a man's limited income. The eight-penny tax on tea would mean 4s. a year, taking the consumption at 6 lbs. per head of the population. That was a tall order out of a small income. The fact remained that the tax on tea fell disproportionately on the poor. There was a lot of talk about the amount the rich man had to pay, but he had the money with which to pay. He knew many a working man who looked at the piper to see the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Budget, and then examined his own exchequer to consider whether it was possible for him to invest a halfpenny to see
1282
what went on in Parliament or whether he should keep the halfpenny to buy a cup of coffee to keep himself warm when he went to work in the morning. No doubt it represented a small sum, but it represented all the difference between having and going without. If Members of the House could live the lives of some of these people, they would soon compel the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring in a revolutionary Budget. A duty of 8d. per lb. on tea sold to the consumer at Is. 4d. per lb. was a serious matter and must have serious effects on the quality. He doubted if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would run the risk of drinking it. but the poorest of the poor had to drink it or go without. When they imposed these heavy duties they took it out of the poor man in quality. It was all very well to say that a little but was being taken off the millionaire at the same time, but he did not think that fact would be any cheering consolation to the working man. The Government had better by far have put a penny extra on the income-tax. The people who paid income-tax could afford it. When money was to be raised it was always the poor who were to be taxed. Why? Because they did not grumble. They were not heard in the House of Commons because they had no votes. If the right hon. Gentleman would substitute an increase of the income-tax for this tea duty, the popularity of Birmirgham would go up at least 50 per cent.
MR. O'MALLEYsaid he also desired to enter his protest against this tax. It would press most heavily on his constituency and on the people in the West of Ireland generally. They were all very poor there. Thirty or forty years ago a tax upon tea would have made no difference to the people in the West of Ireland, for in those days tea was a luxury drunk only by the better class of people. But now it had become an absolute necessity; it was practically an article of food, of which they partook morning, afternoon, and evening. He would put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—was it fair that these people, struggling for

1283
existence, and always in a chronic state of poverty, should be called upon to pay this additional tax. They had no responsibility for the extravagance which had led to the need for increased taxation: they were not responsible for the additional expenditure on the Army and Navy. On the contrary, they were absolutely opposed to it. and therefore they were entitled to object to this extra duty on what was practically a necessity of life.
MR. HUNTsaid the necessity for imposing the extra duty on tea was entirely the fault of those gentlemen who were so tied down to the rotten system of what they were pleased to call free trade that they had bullied the Government into promising that they would do nothing in the way of taxation, for the present, at any rate, which could possibly help either our own Colonies or our own working men. If it had not been for that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have had the slightest difficulty in raising the money without affecting the poor. At the same time, speaking personally, he would much rather have had another penny put on the income-tax than the extra twopence on tea.
MR. WEIRsaid tea was now becoming a popular institution throughout the whole world. This extra duty of 2d. would be very keenly felt by the poorer working classes who had for years been able to get a very good tea for 1d. per oz. Now they would only be able to get tea of poor quality at that price. Why had not the Chancellor of the Exchequer sought to raise the money in other directions? Why had he not put a tax on the deer forests?
1284
Thus he might have made the millionaires find the necessary money. He might, too, have taxed the salmon fishings and thus have relieved the thousands of suffering poor.
And, it being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (WALES) BILL (SELECT COMMITTEE).
Ordered, That the Select Committee on the Private Legislation Procedure (Wales) Bill do consist of Eleven Members.
The Committee was accordingly nominated of Mr. Cripps, Mr. Vaughan-Davies, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. Henry Hob-house, Mr. Jeffreys, Mr. Brynmor Jones, Mr. William Redmond, Mr. Parker Smith. Mr. Eugene Wason, Mr. Worsley-Taylor. and Colonel Wyndham-Quin.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That five be the quorum.
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that (before going through the Bill) they shall inquire and report upon the working in Scotland, under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, of the scheme proposed in the Bill, and upon the expediency of extending the provisions of the Bill, with or without modifications, to other parts of the United Kingdom.—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
Adjourned at seven minutes after Twelve o'clock.