Commons Sitting of 18 July 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the ease of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Hamilton Gas Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.

  249
  Bournemouth Corporation (Tramways) Bill [Lords]; Holywood Tramways Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Metropolitan District Railway Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; An Amendment made; Bill to be read the third time.
  West Riding Tramways Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  Buxton Urban District Council Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Leith Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Caledonian Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Glasgow and South Western Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Govan Corporations Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Canal Rates and Charges (Regent's Canal) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No 5) Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Aberdeen Joint Passenger Station Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Dumbartonshire (Vale of Leven) Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Considered; to be read the third time upon Wednesday.
  Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. l3) Bill. As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Amendments to, Llanelly Harbour Bill [Lords]; Tynemouth Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order relating to Stroud, Nailsworth, and Dursley not confirmed; remaining Orders confirmed] [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

PETITIONS.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Alderley Edge; Bacup (three); Balgownie; Bath; Beeston; Beverley; Bierton; Caldbeck (two); Cardiff; Facit; Fortrose; Kendal; Kilmarnock; Larkhall; Montford Bridge; Romford; Stacksteads; Strathaven; Thirsk; Thorn; Wigston; Wigton; and Winlaton; to lie upon the Table.
VALUATION BILL.
Petitions for alteration; from Bridport; and Great Yarmouth; to lie upon the Table.
VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS ACT, 1897.
Petition from Longton. for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACTS, 1879 AND 1884.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 12th July; Mr. Cochrane]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 267.]
PAWNBROKERS' RETURNS (IRELAND).
Copy presented, of Returns from the City Marshal of Dublin for the year ended 31st December, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1)BILL [LORDS].
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 5th July; Mr. Bonar Law]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 268.]
IMPERIAL REVENUE (COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE) (GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND).
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 21st March; Mr. J. A. Pease]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 269.]
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 3220 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [LORDS].
Copy ordered, "of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords]."—(Mr. Bonar Law.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Importation of Vegetables and Fruit grown on French Sewage Farms.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the sale of vegetables or fruit to be eaten uncooked has been prohibited in France when they are grown upon sewage farms; whether the attention of any of the Board's inspectors has been called to the importation of such fruit and vegetables from France; and if he will consider the advisability of taking steps to afford some greater security to the English consumer who may purchase them.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have not received any representations as to the importation from France of fruit and vegetables grown upon sewage farms, and it appears to me that there would be considerable practical difficulty in identifying any produce so grown. I am advised that, speaking generally, vegetables and fruit grown upon sewage farms would not be unfit for food, though uncooked, unless they had been allowed to be in contact with the sewage; and I understand that one of the model regulations issued in France last year would forbid the disposal of matters from cess-
  252
  pools or sewers on land on the surface of which are cultivated vegetables and fruit intended to be eaten uncooked.

  Compensation to Boers—Account of Expenditure.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any account has been furnished to the Colonial Office of the expenditure of the £3,000,000 voted by this House for compensation to, and repatriation of, the Boers; whether such expenditure has been audited by any authority responsible to this House; if not, what safeguards have been adopted to secure the application of all the moneys to the purposes for which they were voted by this House.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The account of the expenditure of £3,000,000 has not yet been furnished. The expenditure will be subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, in accordance with the terms of the Vote, but this has not relieved the local Auditor-General of the duty of auditing these accounts in detail, and owing to the fact that the expenditure on repatriation includes very large amounts of loan money in addition to the grant, and to the exceptional circumstances, such as drought and cattle plague, which have greatly prolonged the work, it has not, understand, been possible to complete this Colonial audit. The hon. Member will find explanations in regard to this expenditure at pages 11 and 12 of Cd. 2104.

  Tenders for Supplies to Irish Public Institutions.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state what is the nature of the new arrangement under which the Board of Works in Ireland proposes to obtain tenders for the supplies for public institutions.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) As at present advised, the Board do not propose to alter the arrangements for advertising contracts except in the case of supplies of fuel in the smaller towns. Instead of inserting advertisements in local papers they intend to send notices

  253
  to the local firms, whose names will be supplied by their officer resident in the district. In this way the necessary publicity will be secured and the expense of advertising avoided.

  Irish Ancient Monuments.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the secretary to the Treasury if he will state the number of ancient monuments in Ireland inspected by the Board of Works during the last twelve months; the condition in which they were found; the number on which money has been spent in that period and the amount spent on each; and the number of ancient monuments that have come under their charge, or are likely soon to come under their charge, through the operation of the Land Purchase Act of last year.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) One hundred and seventy-three ancient monuments in Ireland were inspected by the Board of Works during the year ended 31st March last, and were found to be in a generally satisfactory condition. £942 19s. 6d. was spent upon forty-two of the monuments in varying amounts. A list of the buildings repaired each year is published in the annual Reports of the Board. 206 monuments are now under their care. The Act of last year has not yet resulted in any addition to this number, and it is not expected to do so to any large extent, as county councils are empowered by the Local Government Act of 1898 to preserve ancient monuments of local interest.

  Site of New Post Office at Gorey.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Postmaster-General if the Gorey Towns Commissioners have objected to the proposed site for the new post office at Gorey; if so on what grounds; also if he will state where it is proposed to build the new post office; and if any alternative site has been suggested by the Towns Commissioners.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I have received a resolution from the Gorey Town Commissioners objecting to the site suggested by the local postmaster for a new post office at Gorey on the ground that it is not sufficiently central. No alternative site has been suggested by the Commis-
  254
  sioners, but the fullest consideration will be given to their views before any site is selected. The site already suggested is about 100 yards from the main street in the road leading to the railway station.

  Overcoats for Auxiliary Postmen in Ireland.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: To ask the Postmaster-General why the auxiliary postmen in Ireland are not supplied with overcoats as is the case with the men on the regular staff.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) It has not hitherto been considered necessary to provide overcoats for rural auxiliary postmen who work less than five hours a day or for town auxiliary postmen who work less than three hours a day. The rule applies to the United Kingdom and not to Ireland only.

  Memorial of Mr. Richard Meagher, junior, of Ratmacan.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received a memorial from Mr. Richard Meagher, junior, of Ratmacan, Tullaroan, county Kilkenny, recently; and whether any reply has been forwarded to the same; and, if not, whether he would state the reason why.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) A memorial relating to the postal arrangements of Tullaroan was received in the Dublin Post Office a few weeks ago. This is perhaps the memorial referred to by the hon. Member, though the name of the gentleman by whom it was forwarded does not correspond with that mentioned in the Question. The inquiries on the subject are not yet complete. The surveyor has been called upon for an early report, and I hope soon to be in a position to reply to the memorial.

  Rules for Delivery of Letters to Persons of Similar Name in the Same Locality.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will state what is the custom of the Post Office in regard to the delivery of letters the address on which might entitle them to be delivered to any one or more persons of the same name residing in a particular locality; and whether he has received

  255
  any complaints from Ireland in regard to steps have been taken to prevent their the custom referred to.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) A letter bearing an address which applies equally to two or more persons or firms, and leaves it a matter of doubt to whom the letter ought to be delivered, is endorsed "Insufficient Address" and returned to the sender, unless the persons or firms concerned have agreed that all such doubtfully addressed letters should be delivered at the same address. If the hon. Member will be good enough to give me particulars of any special case which he has in mind I will have the matter looked into.

  Proposed Reduction in Class of Glasgow Telegraph Office Staff.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to proposals for a reduction of the class of clerks in the telegraph department, Glasgow, substituting the work of these officers by the employment of messenger inspectors in the delivery branch; and, seeing that representations were made by members of the staff showing the need of additional clerkships on certain duties, to which the late Postmaster-General promised sympathetic consideration, and in view of the stagnation of promotion, whether he will take steps to provide, in the event of reductions in superior appointments taking place, adequate compensation to the staff for the loss of promotion and the abolition of their opportunities to proceed to a higher salary.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am having inquiry made, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Charges for Letters Addressed to Tain Post Office "to be called for."
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will explain why the officials at the Tain Post Office required persons calling for letters on the 7th instant to fill in a form and pay a charge of threepence before they would undertake to search the caller's box; and, seeing that a similar error was recently proved to have been made at the Cromer Post Office, will he state how these irregular charges originated and what
  256
  steps have been taken to prevent their recurrence.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am having inquiry made and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Conditions for Supplying Brass Castings to the Admiralty.
  MR. WHITE RIDLEYTo ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that forged steel, supplied to the Admiralty for ships purposes under contracts with British firms, is stipulated to be of British-made billets, the Admiralty will take into consideration the desirability of similar practice in respect of brass castings for the same purposes, and stipulate that they be made from copper and tin of British manufacture.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) This matter has been considered by the Admiral00ty; but, in view of the large demands which would be made upon the inspecting officers in securing the actual carrying out of such a stipulation, the ease with which it could be evaded by contractors, the impossibility of verifying the origin of all materials used by them for such work, and the enhanced cost involved, the Admiralty are not prepared to adopt the course suggested.

  Employment as School Attendance Officers of Persons Employed by Boards of Guardians or District Councils.
  MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE,: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can now state in what cases he will be prepared to sanction the employment as school attendance officers of persons who are also employed by boards of guardians or district councils.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The question chiefly arises, I think, as regards relieving officers. The general principle upon which the Local Government Board have always acted has been that it is undesirable that a relieving officer should also be an officer of another local authority. Where, however, a relieving officer was a school attendance officer under a board of guardians, and has been transferred to a local education authority, I am willing that the arrangement should

  257
  continue, subject to its being determined if it should be found to work unsatisfactorily in the particular case. As regards new appointments, whilst I approve of the general principle above mentioned, I do not propose to insist on it where two appointments would involve undue expense, and where, apart from the objection referred to, there seems to be no substantial reason why the two offices should not be held by the same person. I should propose in these cases only to assent in the first instance for a limited time. As a general rule the relieving officer should not be called upon to discharge duties outside his relief district.

  Alien Sailors on British Ships.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Seamen's and Firemen's Union calculates that some 2,000 British and Irish sailors are now out of a berth in the United Kingdom, while in the last six months no less than 6,407 alien sailors arrived to ship on British boats; and if he can state how many of them were acquainted with the English language and the Merchant Shipping Regulations of the Board of Trade.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I have no knowledge of the estimate attributed to the Seamen's and Firemen's Union, and I do not know on what materials it is based. Monthly returns published in the Labour Gazette indicate that the number of British seamen engaged at the chief ports of the United Kingdom in the first half of the present year has largely exceeded those in the corresponding period of any of the four preceding years. The number of alien seamen arriving in this country, as stated in the Question, includes sailors arriving to ship in foreign as well as in British vessels. The number of these is unknown, but is probably a considerable proportion of the whole. The Answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

  Rules under Railway Employment (Prevention of Accidents) Act.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state how the matters stand of mak-
  258
  ing of rules under Section 1, the inspection of railways under Section 13, and the making inquiries and experiments under Section 15 of The Railway Employment (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) In my reply to a Question by the hon. Member on the 8th of February,† I mentioned certain experiments to be conducted in connection with the rule proposed as to either-side brakes on goods waggons. These experiments have now been carried out, with the result that none of the brakes tested proved thoroughly satisfactory. Further experiments are in contemplation, and I hope a satisfactory either-side break may be found. A Rule granting the Taff Vale Railway Company some exemption from No. 8 of the Rules of 1902 has been prepared in accordance with the decision of the Railway and Canal Commissioners, and certain objections and suggestions which have been received are being dealt with in the manner prescribed by the Act. Since the 8th February inspections have been ordered of seventy-two stations and sidings in connection with either the lighting thereof or the operation of propping and tow-roping.

  Custody of Children under Remand.
  MR. TALBOT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give instructions that all children apprehended in London shall be sent to remand homes pending the disposal of their cases by the magistrates, and in no case be permitted to remain in the police stations, as frequently happens at present.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I cannot give the instructions suggested in the Question. As the law stands a child arrested after 5 p.m. cannot be taken to the remand homes until he has appeared, next morning, before the magistrate; and, even if the law were different, I doubt whether it would be desirable to send a child a long journey across London in police custody and often at a late hour in order that he might spend one night in a remand home. When a child has to remain for a night at a police station he is always wed treated, and arrangements are made to
  † See (4) Debates, cxxix., 583.

  259
  prevent his coming in contact in any way with ordinary criminals. It is when the child is remanded for several days by the magistrate that full advantage can be taken of the remand homes, in establishing which the Metropolitan Asylums Board have done a most useful public service.
  SIR JOHN GORST: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his power over the Police Courts of the Metropolis extends so far as to enable him to issue orders for children to be conveyed to remand homes immediately on being charged instead of being detained at the Police Court, and to provide that the charges against them should be heard at a separate time and place from the ordinary police cases, as is done in many of the British Colonies and States of America.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) In reply to the first part of my right hon. friend's inquiry, I would refer him to my Answer to the previous Question, No. 68, in to-day's Paper, asked by my right hon. friend the Member for Oxford University, and the second part was dealt with fully in reply to a Question asked by the same right hon. Member, and circulated with the Votes for the 18th May last.†

  Children Employed in Street Trading in London.
  SIR JOHN GORST: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the increasing number of children of school age engaged in street-selling in the City of London; whether the City has made by-laws under The Employment of Children Act, 1903; and, if so, at what date they were submitted to the Home Office; and whether there is any special reason for delay in giving effect to proper by-laws under The Employment of Children Act within the City of London.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I am informed on inquiry that there has been no appreciable increase in the number of children engaged in street trading in the City. Draft by-laws under the Employment of Children Act
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxv., 163.
  260
  were submitted to me by the Court of Common Council at the end of March; there were various points in the by-laws on which I desired to have information or which appeared to me to require amendment, and my observations with regard to them are now before the council.

  Specialists called in by Coroners to perform Post-mortem Examinations.
  MR. KIMBER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will grant a Return of the inquests held during the last year in which coroners have called in specialists to perform post-mortem examinations in place of the medical men specified in Section 21 of the Coroners' Act, namely, the medical man in attendance on the deceased or some medical man in actual practice in or near the place where death happened, and a Return of the coroners so acting; and whether he can take steps to insure an uniform practice by coroners in this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have no materials in my possession from which such a Return could be framed, and I do not think I ought to ask the coroners throughout the country to make a Return on the subject, which would involve much labour. I have no power, even if I thought it desirable, to require coroners to follow an uniform practice in this matter.

  Land Concessions to East Africa Syndicate—Rights of the Masai—Wages of Native Labourers.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the 500 square miles in the East Africa Protectorate leased to the East Africa Syndicate, or any part of this land, includes grazing land over which the Masai have been in the habit of pasturing their flocks; and, if so, whether the Masai have acreed to surrender this right and have assented to the sale to the East Africa Syndicate; whether, in view of the report of Major Burnham to the East Africa Syndicate that the Kikuya furnish a fairly good quality of labour at the rate of four rupees per month per man, it is intended to lay clown a minimum rate of wage when natives are employed by the East

  261
  African Syndicate equal at least to that paid to Chinese in the Transvaal.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) If the hon. Member will refer to Africa, No. 8 (page 7), he will find that the Answer to the first two paragraphs of his Question is in the affirmative. The Answer to the last paragraph is in the negative.

  Proposed Alteration of Income-Tax Districts.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the circular, recently issued by the chief inspector of taxes to surveyors, suggesting the division of all districts where the collectors of income-tax cannot complete their collections before the 30th April (instead of 30th June as formerly) has been issued with his approval; and whether, in view of the fact that such earlier closing of accounts will involve increased pressure and the making of a number of distraints, arid having regard to the present rate of the income-tax and the depression of trade, he will consider the advisability of postponing any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) No such circular has been issued.

  Petitions of Pandit Adya Prasada Misra, Bandaru Appala Charyulu, and Muthia Gounden.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, having regard to the fact that on the 12th April last a petition from Pandit Adya Prasada Misra for the redress of grievances was laid upon the Table of the House, will he state what action has been taken in the matter.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, having regard to the fact that petitions from Bandaru Appala Charyulu and from Muthia Gounden for redress of grievances were laid upon the Table of the House on the 3rd February last, will he state by whom the petitions have been considered, and what decision has been arrived at.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) So far as I am concerned no action has been taken in regard to these petitions, which were not addressed to me. I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Special Report of the Select Committee on
  262
  Public Petitions, ordered by this House to he printed on the 29th June last.

  Removal of Headquarters of London Recruiting District.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: To ask the Secretary of State for War when it is proposed to move the headquarters of the London Recruiting District from St. George's Barracks; and whether, if there is no prospect of early removal to a new building, some suitable temporary quarters could be procured.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Negotiations in reference to a site for the new headquarters of the London Recruiting District are now in progress. I have every hope that this will render any provision of temporary quarters unnecessary.

  Acreage of Land and Rental Value of Realty held by War Office in Malta.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the annual rental value of the realty held by the War Office in Malta for barracks, officers' quarters (including the auberges), and Governor's palaces, for which no rent or other payment is made to the Malta Government; and what is the acreage of land, including bastions and fortifications now disused as such.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) As the Colonial Government have not valued or considered the rent of buildings held by the military authorities without payment no reply can be given to the first part of the Question. As regards the acreage, the area of the old fortifications may roughly be estimated at about 560 acres, but no further detailed information is readily available.

  Sums Voted by Imperial Government for Railway Development, etc., to Canada, Australia and South Africa.
  MR JOHN ELLIS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the total sums which have been voted by Parliament by way of loan or free grant respectively since the year 1850 to the States now comprised in the Dominion of Canada; to those making up the Commonwealth of Australia; and

  263
  also to the two self-governing Colonies of South Africa for purposes of railways, or agricultural or mineral development.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) Assuming that the last nine words of the Question apply to the whole of the rest, it is believed that apart from certain Parliamentary grants for "British Columbia," "Vancouver Island," and "Northern Australia," all made previous to the year 1865; some portions of which may have been devoted to the objects specified by the hon. Member, the advance of £400,000 made to the Cape Government in 1885 for the completion of the Kimberley Railway under the authority of the Imperial Act (48 Vict., cap. 7), is the only sum voted by Parliament, either by way of loan or as a free grant, which comes directly within the terms of the Question.

  Home Office Vote.
  MR. TENNANT: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Home Office Vote will be taken.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I do not think it is possible to make this Vote first order on either of the next two days of Supply; but, subsequently, I will do my best to see what arrangement can be made to meet the hon. Member's request.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Corporal Punishment in the Royal Navy.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state the number of floggings by caning inflicted on board the ships of war and training ships of the Royal Navy in the years 1900, 1901, 1902, and 1903, with a classification of the offences for which the floggings were inflicted and the age of the offenders who were thus punished.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): I regret to be unable to accede to the request of the hon. Member. As intimated in my reply of the 5th July.†.
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxvii, 636.
  264
  the advantage of obtaining such a Return would not justify the very considerable labour entailed in preparing it.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Does the hon. Gentleman understand I ask only for classification and not for particular offences?
  MR. PRETYMAN: Yes, but the hon. Member does not realise that what he asks for would involve an examination of the punishment returns of every ship in the service for a period of four years—a very great labour indeed.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Then is this punishment resorted to for very minor offences?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Then I will put a Question which is perfectly orderly. Why does the hon. Gentleman refuse this information when he has granted it in regard to other kinds of punishment?
  [No Answer was returned.]
  MR. FLAVIN: Has the hon. Gentleman ever experienced this kind of punishment.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  The Mission to Tibet—Negotiations with Russia.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an understanding has been arrived at between the British and Russian Governments regarding the British expedition to Tibet, on the basis of an undertaking by Lord Lansdowne that the Mission will be withdrawn from Tibet as soon as its object has been accomplished; that no attempt will be made to enter Lhasa if an agreement can be arrived at before that capital has been reached; that the Russian Government has been assured that if the object of the Mission can otherwise be obtained no occupation of Lhasa is intended; and that the British officials will be withdrawn as soon as they have obtained an agreement on the questions of the delimitations of the boundary and the facilities that will be offered in the

  265
  future; and whether the Russian Government is understood to be satisfied with these assurances.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): With a view to preventing any misunderstanding the Russian Government was informed on June 2nd that His Majesty's Government still adhered to the policy laid down in a telegram to the Government of India of 6th November, 1903 (published at page 294 of the Parliamentary Papers relating to Tibet), though it was obvious that their action must to some extent depend upon the conduct of the Tibetans themselves, and that His Majesty's Government could not undertake that they would not depart in any eventuality from the policy which then commended itself to them; His Majesty's Government stated, however, that, so long as no other Power endeavoured to intervene in the affairs of Tibet they would not attempt either to annex it, to establish a Protectorate over it, or to control its internal administration.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the correspondence between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Russian Government. I now ask will he lay it.
  MR. BRODRICK: I do not propose to lay any Papers.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: This a matter of order.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is quite obvious that it is not necessary to lay the Papers referred to.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: But it is usual to publish in extenso Papers which are referred to by Ministers in this House and that should be done in this case.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have come to a different conclusion.

  The March on Lhasa.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the officer in command of the Tibetan expedition has definitely decided to at once begin the march on Lhasa; and, if so, has the Chinese Government, as
  266
  the Suzerain Power, been communicated with, with a view to give its sanction to the advance.
  MR. BRODRICK: The advance of the Mission to Lhasa has begun, the Tibetans having failed to send competent negotiators to Gyangtse. The Chinese Government has been kept duly apprised of the action of His Majesty's Government in Tibet.
  MR. FLYNN: My Question is, have the Chinese Government sanctioned this advance or not?
  MR. BRODRICK: It is not a case for obtaining Chinese sanction. The negotiations are being conducted with the Chinese and Tibetan representatives and the advance has begun because of the failure of the Tibetans to send competent representatives.
  MR. FLYNN: But is not China the Suzerain Power
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, it is true China is the Suzerain Power, but it has committed its interests to the Amban, who is taking part in the negotiations.

  Indian Contribution to the Imperial Institute.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state whether the various contributions and donations made from India to the Imperial Institute amount altogether to £150,000; whether of this total the sum of £41,309 was appropriated to the endowment fund, the balance having been expended in construction; and, if so, will he state what the income of the endowed sum of £41,309 is per year and in what way it is being spent for the benefit of India; and will he, in future, allocate that sum towards the annual contribution of £1,525 which is now required from the Government of India for the Institute.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The contributions from Indian sources to the Imperial Institute (including those paid into the general fund and

  267
  subsequent donations for specific purposes) amounted roughly to the sum named in the Question. The contributions to the general fund, amounting to £114,528. were devoted in common with those received from other sources to the erection of the building and the formation of an endowment fund, but I have no knowledge of any definite apportionment of the Indian contribution as between these two objects. The income from the endowment fund is devoted to the general objects of the Imperial Institute as laid down in its Charter, from which it is believed that India derives a substantial benefit. There is no income available for allocation as suggested in the last part of the Question.

  Indian Contribution for Research Work at the Imperial Institute
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the annual contribution of £1,525 now made from the Indian Exchequer for the research work done at the Imperial Institute was volunteered by the Government of India, or whether they raised any objection in regard to it; and will he place the Papers relating to this payment upon the Table of the House.
  MR. BRODRICK: The Government of India were consulted, and the amount of the grant was settled with their concurrence at £1,725 a year, since reduced to £1,525 in consequence of establishment changes, for five years ending March, 1906. It provides only £200 a year for research work, the balance representing the establishment and maintenance charges of the Indian section. Papers on the subject are contained in the Annual Report for 1901–2 of the Indian Section, Imperial Institute, presented to Parliament in 1902.

  Training of Indian University Graduates in the Imperial Institute Laboratories.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in consideration of the contribution amounting to upwards of £150,000 made by the Government, princes, and people of India to the Imperial Institute, and of the annual payment now made by India, he will
  268
  move the Board of Trade to arrange for the reception and training of three or four graduates of Indian Universities in the laboratories of the Institute in such chemical research work as is now performed there for Indian purposes.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not aware that graduates of Indian Universities desire to be trained in the laboratories, and I have no reason to believe that the laboratories are adopted for instructional purposes. I consequently do not feel it necessary at present to move in the matter.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the head of the laboratories?
  MR BRODRICK: I have no objection to communicating with the authorities, but I should first require to be assured that the graduates do desire this training,

  East Africa Protectorate Service—Sub— Commissioner Bagge.
  MASTER or ELIBANK: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sub-Commissioner Bagge of the East Africa Protectorate Service, whose views in regard to land grants in the Masai Country were recently sustained by Lord Lansdowne as against those held by Sir Charles Eliot, had, immediately previous to the latter's resignation as Administrator, been removed from his post at Naivasha to the less desirable district of Kisumu; and, if so, whether that official will be reinstated in his former post if, in the opinion of Sir Donald Stewart, there was no adequate cause for such transfer.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): The collector at Kisuma was in ill health and he was therefore sent to Naivasha, which is a healthier station than Kisumu. Mr. Bagge was sent temporarily to take his place.

  Russian Warships and British Vessels in the Red Sea.
  GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that a Russian warship, the "St-

  269
  Petersburg," has overhauled and searched British vessels in or near the Red Sea; and, if so, can he state whether this is the same vessel, also named the "St. Petersburg," that recently passed through the Bosphorus under the Russian commercial flag; and, if so, whether it is in conformity with international law that the same vessel can at one time fly the commercial flag and at another time assert the authority of a warship; and whether this transformation cm take place on the high seas, or whether it is obligatory that a vessel holding a commission as a warship should be commissioned as such in a port of the nation to which she belongs.
  EARL PERCY: The subject to which the hon. Member draws attention is one of the utmost importance and is engaging the earnest attention of His Majesty's Government. As. however, our information is still incomplete on certain points I should be obliged to him if he would postpone the Question.

  Buckland Friendly Society and the Treasury.
  MR. A. K. LOYD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the correspondence which passed in May, 1902, and June of the present year between the secretary of the Buckland Friendly Society and the Treasury, in which the former complained of income-tax being deducted from the dividends on the society's investments, although the total income was below the statutory limit of £160; and whether any decision has been arrived at by the Treasury as to the exemption of the income of unregistered friendly societies from income-tax where the total income is below £160.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUE (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,: I am consulting the Law Officers of the Crown on the subject. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put the Question down for a later date.

  Stony Stratford Postmastership.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that the weekly
  270
  official Post Office Circular states that candidates for postmasterships are reminded that they are strictly prohibited from applying except through their immediate superior officers, and that applications through any other channel are calculated to defeat rather than promote the object in view; and that the postmaster of Stony Stratford secured his promotion by the help of Lord Kitchener, who is unconnected with the Civil Service, he will direct that when vacancies for postmasterships are next advertised the regulation shall be withdrawn in order to provide equality of opportunity for all postal servants.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): The name of the officer who is now postmaster at Stony Stratford was brought officially before the Postmaster-General in 1902 by direction of Lord Kitchener, it respect of services rendered in South Africa under Lord Kitchener's orders, and without reference to any application for a postmastership. The rule to which the hon. Member refers was in no way infringed, and I have no intention of altering it; on the contrary, I mean to enforce it rigorously.
  MR. NANNETTI: But does the noble Lord consider—in the case of men who cannot get such influential friends to recommend them—that—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Southampton Postmastership.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the reason for the transfer of Mr. Kent, postmaster of Cork, to Southampton.
  LORD STANLEY: The Southampton vacancy was advertised in the Post Office Circular in the usual way, and I selected Mr. Kent from among the candidates who applied for the post as being in my opinion the best qualified for the appointment.
  MR. SLOAN: Will the noble Lord see that an Irishman gets the vacant position at Cork?
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir. These positions are open to the whole service—English, Irish, and Scotch—and I shall always endeavour to select the best men I can for promotion.

  West Ham Police Station Birch.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state what is the weight of the birches used in the infliction of twelve strokes each, in accordance with the sentence of the magistrate at West Ham Police Court on Wednesday last, on two boys for altering a railway signal at Silvertown Tunnel, which passes through the Royal Albert Docks, the signal being altered from danger to all clear, with the result that the driver entering the tunnel would not lessen speed.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): The weight of the birch used on this occasion has been ascertained to be 4¾ ounces.

  Workmen's Compensation, Bill.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, after disposing of all the stages of the Bill which gives compensation to brewers and licence-holders, he will introduce his promised Bill to give compensation to workmen for injuries received in their employments where no compensation is now recoverable.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I have not yet received the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Workmen's Compensation Acts, and considering the period of the session we have reached, I can hardly hope to introduce, much less carry, any measure this year.

  Alien Immigration.
  MAJOR EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the inaccuracy of the statistics admitted by the officials of the Board regarding the number of alien immigrants coming to reside in and of transmigrants passing through this country, he will take steps
  272
  to improve the method of collecting the figures and classifying the duff rent categories of persons included in the Returns.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The statistics of alien immigration published by the Board of Trade cannot properly be described as inaccurate; they do not profess to show the number of alien immigrants coming to reside in, and of transmigrants passing through, this country, there being no power at present to require these particulars to be furnished. Pending fresh legislation giving additional powers to the Board of Trade, I fear that the method of collecting the figures cannot be materially improved, but the Department is considering the possibility of modifying slightly the form in which the statistics are published, so as to obviate any misunderstanding as to their basis.

  Motor-Bicycles in Dublin—Inefficient Means of Identification.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the shifting of motor-bicycle numbers that the riders might escape in case of an accident, and to the evidence in the case of "The King v. Flood," tried by Sir Frederick Falkiner. K.C., the Recorder of Dublin, on 9th July, in which a boy was seriously injured by a motor-bicycle on which there was a fraudulent number; and whether he will, in accordance with the recommendation of the jury in that case, in which the Recorder concurred, initiate legislation to remedy defects in the law regulating the numbering and registration of motors, and to provide that the numbers be incised in or enamelled on the metal portion of the motor.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): At my right hon. friend's request, I will reply to this Question. There would be much practical difficulty in giving effect to the suggestion made by the Recorder. The numbers if marked as proposed would not be visible when the motor bicycle was in motion. They would, therefore, have to be in addition to the plate now required to be carried, and if the ownership of the bicycle changed the latter

  273
  might be altered and would not correspond with the incised or enamelled figures. The penalty for conviction of the offence of using a false number is very heavy and I have no doubt acts as a deterrent.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the practice is growing in Dublin and that several persons have been injured lately.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I quite agree that every effort should be made to render these persons amenable to justice, and the suggestion has been referred to the Local Government Board. There are other checks.

  Land Purchase in County Kerry—Landlords' Applications to the Congested Districts Board.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in reply to applications from landlords in Kerry offering to sell their estates, the Congested Districts Board has contented itself with sending a printed acknowledgment of the landlord's communication and has done nothing further; and whether the Contgested Districts Board is prepared to negotiate when the price asked by a landlord is a sum which, invested in any of the stocks which trustees are at Liberty to invest in, would produce an income to the landlord equal to his net income from second-term rents, in view of the fact that such an offer has been made.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Where such an offer is made to the Board, the case is referred to the inspector for investigation and report. The price to be paid for an estate is only one of the elements for consideration in determining whether an offer shall be accepted or rejected. Account is also taken of the circumstances of the tenants and the need, if any, that exists for the enlargement of their holdings.

  Land Purchase in County Sligo—Mr. Webber's Skreen Estate.
  MR. WILLIAM McKILLOP: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr.
  274
  William D. Webber, of Mitchelstown, county Cork, landlord of an estate at Leekfield, Skreen, county Sligo, has applied to the Estates Commissioners in connection with the sale of his property; and whether, seeing that the estate in question comprises a large grazing farm which the bailiff, Mr. J. Higgins, is endeavouring to secure for himself, steps will be taken to secure that this farm will in case of sale be used for the enlargement and improvement of uneconomic holdings adjoining it; and whether he will see that in this matter the intentions of Parliament in passing the Land Act of 1903 will be carried into effect.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir; this property is before the Estates Com, missioners. They have satisfied themselves that Mr. Higgins has been a bon a fide tenant in occupation for many years, and are aware of no sufficient reason for dealing with his application differently from other similar applications for advances.

  Land Purchase in County Clare— Westropp Estate.
  MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the reply to the request of the Estates Commissioners for particulars of the Westropp Estate, county Clare, by the Judge of the Land Court, was a recital of the steps taken by the Court regarding this estate under the 40th section of the Act of 1896; whether the Commissioners did receive the particulars for which a request was made; and, if so, what steps do the Commissioners propose taking with the view of purchasing the estate.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The particulars have not been received, and the Commissioners are now considering what further steps, if any, they are empowered to take.

  Evicted Tenant's Farm in County Meath.
  MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have considered the application of Frederick Morris, an evicted tenant from a farm in Collierstown, county Meath;

  275
  whether the farm is untenanted; and what action, if any, the Commissioners have taken with the view of purchasing the farm on behalf of the evicted tenant.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The estate containing this holding has not yet come before the Estates Commissioners. An application has been received from the evicted tenant and will be duly considered.

  Kilbride Canteen Licence.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has considered the action of Mr. James Shanks in signing a licence certificate for a canteen situated in the county Wicklow, Mr. Shanks not being a magistrate for that county, and the local magistrates having refused to grant the licence on the ground that the canteen had been conducted in a disorderly manner; and whether he can now state what decision the Lord Chancellor has come to in regard to Mr. Shanks' action.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The correspondence in this matter is not yet concluded.

  Irish Political Prisoners and the Bertillon System.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any, and, if so, what arrangements have been made for the introduction of the Bertillon system into Irish prisons; whether it is intended to apply it in the cases of untried prisoners and of political prisoners; and, if not, whether steps will be taken to expressly warn untried prisoners that they are not bound to submit to the tests.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The system of taking measurements and finger prints has been adopted in Irish as in English prisons. In the case of an untried prisoner the statutory regulations provide that if no objection is made by him the measurements and finger impressions may be taken in the prescribed manner on the application of a policy officer. There is no class of prisoners known as "political prisoners" and the regulations
  276
  in force are identical with the English regulations. First-class misdemeanants are exempt from the regulations. The object of the system is to establish the identity and antecedents of prisoners. The identity of persons charged with offences falling within the category to which the hon. Member presumably refers is not a matter of doubt, and obviously, therefore, it would be unnecessary for the police to ask that their finger prints should be taken. There are no such prisoners in Ireland and the question of warning them, or the police, in the sense suggested, does not arise for consideration.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Will steps be taken to expressly warn untried prisoners that they are not bound to submit to the test
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think any such action is necessary.
  MR. FLAVIN: Then will the right hon. Gentleman see that instructions are, given to the prison warders not to take photographs of untried prisoners. It can be done whether the prisoner consents or not. The police are very expert at that.
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Ex Sergeant Sheridan and Constable Anderson, Royal Irish Constabulary,
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieuten ant of Ireland where is Constable Anderson, who was one of the three constables who received an indemnity at the secret investigation which preceded the dismissal of Sergeant Sheridan for procuring by perjury the conviction of innocent men for crimes perpetrated by himself, who was allowed to remain on at the depot of the Royal Irish Constabulary and discharge the duties of a constable of that force, not withstanding the fact his being Sheridan's accomplice in the fabrication of perjured evidence and the perpetration of crime; why was not Anderson compelled to resign like the two other accomplices of Sergeant Sheridan, Keegan who received a compassionate grant of £200; and Reid who received a compassionate grant of £50:

  277
  does Anderson still wear the uniform of the Royal Irish Constabulary and receive the pay of a constable of that force, and under what circumstances has he been permitted to retain his position; and what safeguard have the public against this person.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This constable is still serving at the depot in Dublin under the conditions previously explained by me. The hon. Member will find information on the other matters in the numerous statements made by me in the session of 1902.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman gave a pledge that this man should not be associated with young recruits.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Any undertaking given by me is being adhered to. I gave no such pledge, however.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man is brother of the Anderson of Kiltimore fame?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I will put that Question down.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not put down an irregular Question.

  Catholic Head Constables at Cork.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the four head constables stationed in Cork are Roman Catholics; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of enforcing the regulation that at least one of them should be a Protestant.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It was recently arranged that one of the head constables should be transferred to another county, and the man selected to replace him is a Protestant. There is no regulation to the effect stated in the Question.

  Father Gleeson and the Irish Police at Roundstone.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ire-
  278
  land whether he is aware that the written statement of the Reverend Father Gleeson to Sir Antony MacDonnell demanding the transfer of Sergeant Ryan and Constable Laidley from Roundstone was refused to the latter in the first: instance; and that, after repeated appeals from the men to be heard, the district inspector was ordered to hear them; and, if so, will he state the result of their evidence.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Reverend Father Gleeson, P.P., of Roundstone, county Galway, wrote a statement to Sir Antony MacDonnell, and demanded the removal of Sergeant Ryan and Constable 1Laidley from his district; and that a secret inquiry was held by the district inspector which resulted in the transfer of Constable Laidley and the sergeant being threatened with reduction from his rank; and, if so, will he cause an inquiry to be held in this case.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Both Questions refer to the same incident which occurred nearly a year ago. The Rev. Mr. Gleeson wrote to the Under-Secretary on the 17th August last, and complained of the conduct of Sergeant Ryan and Constable Laidley in respect to a display of flags and banners from licensed premises at Roundstone. The rev. gentleman did not demand the removal of the men. The Under-Secretary referred the complaint to the Inspector-General. The district inspector to whom the complaint was referred by the Inspector-General, made a report on it, and the county inspector in submitting the report recorded his personal opinion of the action of the sergeant and constable. The Inspector-General saw no reason to differ from the view of the county inspector, and his opinion to this effect was communicated to the men concerned. The sergeant was at the same time informed that if ho acted in a similarly indiscreet way in future the Inspector-General would consider him unfitted for his rank. The constable was not warned for removal in connection with this incident. As a matter of fact, the Inspector-General's decision to remove the constable was written on the 15th August, two days before the Rev. Mr.

  279
  Gleeson made his complaint. The sergeant and constable represented to the district inspector that he had not given them an opportunity of explaining their action, and the county inspector of his own motion considered their explanations. These were forwarded to headquarters, and as a result the sergeant was exonerated from blame by the Inspector-General. In reply to the concluding query, I do not propose to intervene in a matter affecting discipline, with which the Inspector-General is competent to deal, and with which, as a matter of fact, he dealt nearly a year ago.

  Major Fox's Estate in King's County.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the promised inspection of Major Fox's estate at Ballymacrossin, King's County, will be made; and whether due notice will be given of such inspection to the evicted tenant, Miss Masterson, who is claiming reinstatement under the Land Purchase Act of last session.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A date cannot be fixed. The Inspector will make his inspection as soon as possible. He will inform the evicted tenant of the date.

  The Estates Commissioners and the Ballymacrossin Evicted Tenant.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have approached Langford, who is in possession of the farm upon the estate of Major Fox, Ballymacrossin, King's county, from which Miss Masterson was evicted in 1884, with a view to his surrendering the holding upon payment of reasonable compensation; and if he can state how long Langford has been in possession.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the negative. Langford's tenancy is described as a leasehold created prior to 1st January, 1901; I am unable to say how long he has been in possession. He has lodged an agreement to purchase the holding, and the inspector will report
  280
  what arrangement can be made to provide the evicted tenant with a holding.
  MR. DELANY: Was this farm sold with the other property in order that they might grab Miss Masterson's farm?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no knowledge of that.
  MR. DELANY: It is the fact.

  Processions in the Moy Townlands.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the recent police inquiries in the district, he can state if, in the four town-lands along the road leading from Moy to the station at Trew and Moy, the population consists of thirty-four Catholic families, including 134 persons, and fifteen families, including fifty-four persons, of all other denominations; whether he is aware that on 15th August, 1898, two Nationalist bands proceeded by this route and that no disturbance occurred; whether he can state on what grounds the road has been closed against processions since that date; and whether, in view of the inconvenience to which some of the contingents will otherwise he put on 15th August, he will give Instructions to have the road open on that date.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There are ten town-lands between Moy and the station known as Trew and Moy. The proportion of Catholics to persons of other religious denominations in this area is as one to five. The proportion is reversed in two other townlands which adjoin the road, but in the aggregate the Catholics are in a minority. One Nationalist hand proceeded to the station in August, 1898. But the intention to do so was concealed, and a large hostile crowd assembled at Trew in the evening. The band returned, however, by road from Dungannon. With this exception, I understand that no Nationalist demonstration has either entrained or detrained at Trew during the past forty-five years. The hon. Member is doubtless aware of the melancholy fatality that occurred in a railway train at this station in 1875. In reply to the concluding inquiry, I have nothing

  281
  to add to my statement in answer to his previous Question of Monday last.†

  Belturbet Artisans' Dwellings' Scheme.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Belturbet Urban Council applied for a loan to erect artisans' dwellings in the year 1899, and made a second application last year; and, if so, whether, seeing that the usual inquiry has not yet been held, and having regard to the want of suitable housing accommodation in Belturbet and the delay in dealing with this matter, he will take steps to secure an early inquiry.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The housing scheme of 1899 was accompanied by proposals for a water supply and street improvement. The carrying out of the latter works would have almost exhausted the council's borrowing powers, and the Local Government Board suggested a reconsideration of the proposed housing scheme. In the opinion of the Board, the provision of a proper water supply to replace the polluted water at present in use, is of primary importance to the district. The Board is in communication with the council on the subject.

  Economic Holdings for Herds on Grazing Lands purchased under the Land Act of 1903.
  MR TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have, in the case of the division of grazing lands or untenanted lands, made any provision for economic holdings for the herds, or members of the families of the herds, who worked on those grazing lands; and, if so, if he can state in how many cases such provision has been made since the passing of The Irish Land Act, 1903, up to the 30th June last.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Advances have been made in two such cases. Other cases are under consideration.

  Fair-Rent Appeals in County Tipperary.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxvii., 1212.
  282
  to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the cause of delay in the hearing by the Land Commission of some sixty fair-rent appeals which have been lodged on the Earl de Montalt's estate, county Tipperary, for upwards of three. years; and whether, seeing that the tenants whose appeals are pending have been threatened with proceedings for the recovery of the half-year's rent recently due, by reason of their refusing the landlord's demands for the sale of the estate, steps will be taken by the Land Commission to expedite the hearing of the appeals.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Land Commissioners hope to be able to arrange a sitting for the hearing of appeals in Tipperary during the present year. I am informed that no threats have been held out to tenants such as alleged in the Question.

  Dr. Starkie.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Dr. Starkie, who is in receipt of £1,500 from the Irish Primary or Education Board as a paid commissioner, acted with his sanction in absenting himself from his duties in the Education Office, Dublin, while accompanying Messrs. Dale and Stephens over the country on the business of another, the Intermediate Board; whether Dr. Starkie, during the period of such abstention from the duties of his office, drew his salary out of the National Education Vote, together with his expenses of support and locomotion; and, if so, to what extent from May last to the present date.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Dr. Starkie mentioned to the Under-Secretary that he had been invited by Messrs. Dale and Stephens to accompany them. As a member of the Board of Intermediate Education he had a right to visit intermediate schools, and the sanction of Government is unnecessary to his making such visits. The reply to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative. I have no information as to the duration of his absence from Dublin.

  Hastings v. Beegan.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of

  283
  Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been directed to the recent decision of the Court of King's Bench in the case of "Hastings v. Beegan"; whether the Local Government Board can explain why the Application of Enactments Order applying to this matter differs from Sub-section (c) 2, Section 46, of the 56 and 57 Vic., cap. 73; and whether it is the intention of the Local Government Board to issue an amending order assimilating the law of the two countries in this respect.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The case intended to be referred to is presumably "Hastings v. Cogavin." The decision turned on the interpretation of the expression "Public work" in the concluding lines of Article 12 (4) (e) of the Application of Enactments Order. These lines do not occur in the corresponding English enactment, Section 46 (1) (e) of the Local Government Act, 1894, because the procedure in relation to public works is quite different in England. The law, therefore, does not require assimilation, but in any case there is no power vested in the Board to amend the Application of Enactments Order.

  Imprisonment for Cruelty to Animals in County Roscommon.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state in how many cases during the last five years sentences of imprisonment without option of fine have been imposed by benches of magistrates in the county Roscommon, on charges preferred by the police for alleged cruelty to animals; and who was the resident magistrate chairman at the petty sessions Court where such a sentence was imposed.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This information will be procured, but some days must elapse before it is ready. It will be communicated to the hon. Member.

  Dungan School Attendance Committees.
  MR. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that one of the committees, composed of five
  284
  Catholics and five Protestants, appointed to administer the provisions of the Compulsory Education Act in Dungannon Rural District, has, after a number of meetings, failed to agree as to the choice of a chairman; and that, as a means of solving the difficulty, the secretary of the Tyrone County Council suggested the casting of lots for the position, which suggestion the Protestant members refused to adopt; and if he will state what action is proposed to be taken to remove the deadlock at present existing to the working of the Act in this portion of the district affected.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It is a fact that the school attendance committee failed to agree in respect to the selection of a chairman. The local authority for the purposes of the Irish Education Act, 1892, is the county council, and in February last the Commissioners of National Education informed the council that it was competent to that body to submit for approval a regulation designed to provide a settlement of the difficulty. No reply has been received from the council in the matter and the Commissioners have no authority under the Act to determine the question.

  Telegraphic Delays in the North of Ireland.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he has received a joint protest from the proprietors of the Northern Whig and the Belfast News Letter, complaining of delay in the transmission of their telegrams by the Post Office; and, if so will he order an inquiry to be made into the circumstances of these delays.
  LORD STANLEY: The communication referred to has been duly received and the matter is under investigation.

  Female Learners in Irish Post Offices.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will state what is the period of probation for female learners in the post offices in Dublin and Belfast; what is the remuneration given to such learners during the probationary period and afterwards; whether the same conditions as to probation and payment apply to the rest of

  285
  Ireland outside Dublin and Belfast, or, if not, in what the difference consists.
  LORD STANLEY: The situation of female learner in Dublin and Belfast is not an established one, and the appointment is not, therefore, subject to a fixed period of probation, but the whole service as learner is regarded as probationary; promotion to the established class of sorting clerks and telegraphists is not made unless the service as learner is satisfactory. The pay of female learners is 5s a week. On obtaining an established appointment the pay is increased to 10s. a week or upwards, according to length of unestablished service and qualifications. The same conditions apply to the paid learners at all other offices in Ireland and elsewhere.

  Sunday Letter Delivery in Johnstown Sub-District, Kilkenny.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there is no Sunday delivery of letters in the district of Galway and Crosspatrick, county Kilkenny; that there is no delivery there from Saturday morning till Monday morning, and that letters reaching Johnstown by the midday and night mails on Saturday, and by the mail on Sunday morning, have to lie in the post office until Monday morning before being delivered; and, if so, whether, seeing that other districts with a smaller population have the benefit of a Sunday delivery, and in view of the small extra expense involved, he will endeavour to meet the wishes of the people of the Johnstown sub-district by instituting a Sunday delivery forthwith.
  LORD STANLEY: I will have inquiry made on the subject, and will acquaint the hon. Member with the result. May I ask that in such cases as this I shall have more notice. I cannot possibly investigate the facts at such short notice.

  Shamble Barracks, Galway.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what regiment now occupies the Shamble Barracks, Galway; and how many men live within the building.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,): Ten non-commissioned officers and men of the Connaught Rangers live in these barracks with their families.

  Anglo-French Convention.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is proposed to exchange the ratifications of the Convention between England and France of 8th April, 1904, relative to Newfoundland, the Gambia, the Isles de Los, the Niger and Lake Chad; in case the Convention should not be ratified, will the stipulations it contains in Articles IV. to VIII. as to the Gambia, the Isles de Los, the Niger, and Lake Chad become inoperative as well as the stipulations in Articles I. to III. as to Newfoundland; and have any steps been, or are any being, taken to carry out the Articles IV. to VIII.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): As soon as the necessary legislation has been passed between the two countries steps will be taken with a view to ratification as contemplated in Article IX. of the Convention. The Answer to the second Question is in the affirmative—that is to say, the stipulations will become inoperative. The Answer to tile third Question is in the negative, no steps have been taken.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury are the two Declarations, one respecting Egypt and Morocco and the other concerning Siam, Madagascar, and the New Hebrides, essential parts of the Agreement with France represented by those two Declarations and by the Convention of 8th April. 1904, relating to Newfoundland the Gambia, and the Niger; and is it understood between His Majesty's Government and the French Government that the two Declarations will retain their effect and be carried into execution even in case the Convention fails to be ratified.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it will be very desirable to discuss a contingency which is not, I think, probable—which I firmly believe will not arise.

  Newfoundland Fisheries.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury have the Government of Newfoundland made any representations to His Majesty's Government or raised any difficulties affecting the rights conceded to the French under Article II. of the Anglo-French Convention of 8th April, 1904, in respect of Newfoundland local regulations as to bait, fishing, or access to ports on the so-called French shore, or in respect of the policing of the fishing; and was any agreement come to by His Majesty s Government with the Government of Newfoundland on these points before the Convention was signed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No representations have been made to His Majesty's Government. The concurrence of the Newfoundland Government was obtained during the course of the negotiations.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Was any agreement come to with the Government of Newfoundland on these points before the Convention was signed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have said that the concurrence of the Newfoundland Government was obtained.

  The Colonial Vote.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now say definitely when the Colonial Office Vote will be taken.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman a definite answer. I rather think, from rumours which have reached me, that he suspects me of some sinister intention to postpone this Vote unduly.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I have no such idea.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can assure him I am anxious to consult the convenience of hon. Members.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Take it on Thursday, then.

  Criminal Aliens Bill.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the general support on both sides of the House accorded to the Criminal Aliens Bill he can provide the necessary facilities for its passage.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that in the course of the proceedings of the Committee upstairs some sort of compact, not distantly resembling this, was suggested, but that it was rejected by the Committee. It was understood that the very lengthy, talkative opposition to the Bill would cease if some kind of compact of a character resembling this was accepted, but that suggested transaction was rejected by the majority of the Committee. [OPPOSITION cries, "By the Government."] By the majority of the Committee. I also understand that this particular proposal is objected to by some Gentlemen on the ground that it goes too far and by others on the ground that it does not go far enough; in these circumstances to expect the passage of the Bill in the course of the present session appears to me hopeless.

  The Port of London Bill.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the magnitude of the public and private interests involved and of the grave injury arising from uncertainty and delay, he will now say definitely whether the Port of London Bill will be proceeded with or whether it may be considered as abandoned, and in that case when its discharge from the Order-book will be moved.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that the prospects of this particular Bill seem to me exceedingly gloomy, but I cannot give him the date when we shall remove it from the Order Paper.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say something more definite in view of the fact that the uncertainty is a very grave matter from a commercial point of view?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I do not think the uncertainty has any ill effects. I think the non-passage of the Bill may

  289
  have ill effects, but not the uncertainty, which does no harm whatever.

  Shop Hours Bill.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state when the Report stage of the Shop Hours Bill will be taken.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSON: May I also ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Shop Hours Bill passed through Grand Committee in two sittings; and whether he can say when the Report stage can be taken.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: While I cannot fix a date when the Report stage of the Shop Hours Bill will be taken, I should hope that opportunity will be found for taking the remaining stages of what I believe to be wholly an uncontroversial measure.

  Mr. Kruger's Burial Place.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the desire expressed by the late President Kruger that his body should be interred in the burial place of his family in the Transvaal will be allowed by the British Government to be fulfilled.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No request of the kind alluded to has been received from President Kruger's family, but I need hardly say that were it received we should do our best to give effect to it.
  MR. POWERHave the Government considered the desirability of offering a warship for the transport of the body to South Africa?
  MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! That Question hardly arises.

  Army Reform Debate.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state when the consideration of the proposals of the Secretary of State for War for the reduction of the land forces of the Crown will be resumed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope to take both this Vote and the Colonial Vote in the course of next week, but I cannot give any pledge at present.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I presume the right hon. Gentleman intends to give an entire day to the Army Vote.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I certainly cannot give a pledge of that character, but it will be put down as the first Order.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that, owing to the discussion of a very important private Bill last Thursday, the War Office Vote only occupied four and three-quarter hours, of which two and a quarter hours were occupied, very properly, by the Secretary for War himself?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no grounds for doubting the hon. Gentleman's calculation.

  The Post Office Wages Committee's Report.
  MR. FORDE RIDLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, having regard to the fact that the Report of Sir E. Bradford's Committee has been laid upon the Table, when the Post Office Vote will be taken.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I must give as unsatisfactory a reply to my hon. friend as I have given to an hon. Member opposite. I am not yet in a position to fix the date. I believe a certain interval has been promised before the debate is taken.
  MR. FLYNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that this Report was in the hands of the newspapers last Friday, although it is not yet available for Members of this House?
  LORD STANLEY: I think I can explain that. There was one advance copy in print, and I sent it down here to the Vote Office believing the House would order the printing of the Report at once. I find I ought to have sent it to the Stationery Office and have had it printed from there. Having discovered my mistake I have given instructions to the

  291
  Stationery Office to print it as soon as possible and place it in the hands of hon. Members. I hope my right hon. friend will carry out the pledge that the discussion on this Vote shall not take place until the Report has been in the hands of hon. Members a fortnight.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this practice of ignoring the claims of the House to see these Reports is growing more and more, and that hon. Members are thus ignored?
  LORD STANLEY: In this case it is entirely my own fault. I sent it down here myself under the impression that I was doing something for the benefit of hon. Members.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: You sent this copy to the Vote Office, but how did the public Press get access to it?
  LORD STANLEY: I am afraid that I am not responsible for what happens in the Vote Office. I sent it there, and I should have recalled it before anybody had seen it, had I known it was wrong to send it.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Do I understand that the copy which was sent to the Vote Office was the one which was sent to the representatives of the Press?
  LORD STANLEY: That was the only copy that I know of that came down.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: How did it get to Printing-house-square?
  MR. FORDE RIDLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give approximately the date when the discussion will be taken?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should be very glad to satisfy my hon. friend if I could, but he will see that in the present state of public business I can give no pledge.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: In view of the difficulty of preventing the Press getting these Reports, would it not be better to remove the restrictions altogether?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Army Scheme—No Resolution to be Submitted to Parliament.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intends to follow the same course of procedure with regard to their present Army Organisation Scheme as they did with regard to their last scheme of 1902, and to submit a Resolution of approval for the consideration of the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I imagine the Question in which the hon. Member is interested would be in order upon the War Office Vote, end I hope an opportunity on that Vote will be found to deal with it.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman invite the opinion and the Vote of the House upon the merits of this scheme as was done in regard to the last?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Member is suggesting that I should devote a day outside Supply and put down a separate Resolution, my reply is that I do not propose to take that course.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate fixing both the War Office Vote and the Colonial Vote for the same day?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. I said there would be two days.

  The Government and the Taxation of Food—A Vote of Censure.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I would ask the Prime Minister whether he will give a day for the discussion of a Motion, which will be placed on the Paper in the course of this evening, calling attention to and complaining of "The action of certain members of His Majesty's Government who have accepted official positions in an association which has formally declared its adhesion to a preferential fiscal policy involving the taxation of food."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, it is not for me to judge as to whether the subject of the vote of censure which I understand the right hon. Gentleman

  293
  proposes, is wise or unwise, in accordance with practice or the reverse. I raise no objection to that. Such Motions must obviously be in favour of the side which is least divided on matters of important policy. While I am not at all puzzled as to whether I should or should not accede to the right hon. Gentleman's request, I am a little puzzled as to the method in which I can most conveniently carry it out in the present position of public business. I think it is in the highest degree important that we should finish the Licensing Bill so as to send it up to another place by the 26th inst. at the very latest. It is necessary that the Budget should be passed by the House of Commons on the 29th, and even if it passed its last stage on the 29th, that would involve a Saturday sitting on the part of the House of Lords.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Oh! [Ironical cries of "Shame" by hon. Members.]
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It would involve a Saturday sitting on the part of the House of Lords in order that it might become law before 1st August, which is necessary. We must also take two days in Supply in the course of the present fortnight. I do not see how I can take Thursday in this week for that purpose; it will have to be devoted to other business, and it will therefore be necessary to take two days for Supply in the course of next week. If the right hon. Gentleman will consider all these facts together I think he will see that I am driven to one of two alternatives. If the House will consent to finish the Committee stage of the Budget Bill to-night ["Oh"]—it is but a hypothesis—then I could give Thursday for the vote of censure. But I am afraid, if the Committee does not take that course, I see no alternative but to put off the vote of censure till the first week of August.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked whether, before the vote of censure came on, the Prime Minister would circulate the memorandum with reference to dear food which he laid before the Cabinet.
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Canada and Lord Dundonald.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I desire to ask the Secretary for War a Question of which I have given private notice—namely, whether the name of Lord Dundonald is on the active list of the War Department, whether his services were dispensed with by the Canadian Government, whether it has come to the knowledge of the War Office that Lord Dundonald has been making inflammatory speeches in Canada against the Government of Canada at meetings, largely attended by the Opposition, at which he was cheered and hooted by the various Parties.
  MR. SPEAKER: I hope the hon. Member's Question does not continue in the same tone, because these controversial expressions are not admissible.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I only desire further to ask whether the Secretary for War was warned that the action of Lord Dundonald would be resented and would greatly endanger the loyal feeling of the Dominion towards this country.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: The hon. Member must feel that his Question is one which cannot be answered without fuller notice in the absence of my right hon. friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what are the arrangements for business this week?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sure it would be a pity to put off the vote of censure, and I hope we may come to some arrangement about it to-night. ["No, no!"] Well, then it must be put off. If the Committee on the Budget is not concluded to-night it will be continued to-morrow, and the Report on the Licensing Bill will be taken on Wednesday and Thursday. If, on the other hand, we finish the Budget to-night, then the Licensing Bill will be taken tomorrow and on Wednesday, and the vote of censure on Thursday.
AN HON. MEMBER: Why not take the vote of censure on Friday?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should be glad, but I am afraid objection would be raised to that, as it is a short sitting.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNER1VIAN: There is an important private Bill to-night?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope a very small one.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I point out that the amount of time spent on the Finance Bill depends not on the Opposition, but on the proposals of the Government.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am making no complaint of two days being devoted to the Budget, but on a more fitting occasion I may complain of the general course pursued. I am only saying if we do not complete the stage to-night, I am afraid we cannot take the vote of censure this week.

ERITH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL v. CAPTAIN MILES BARNE.
Petition of Parish and Hickson, of 6, Laurence Pounteney Hill, in the city of London, solicitors for the plaintiffs, praying for leave for the proper officer to attend before the Court of summary jurisdiction for the petty sessional division of Dartford, in Kent, and produce plans and books of reference, etc.—(Sir W. Bart Dyke.)
Leave given to the proper officer to attend accordingly.

NEW BILL.
  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL.
  "To provide for the regulation of Wireless Telegraphy," presented by Lord Stanley; supported by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster, Mr. Gerald Balfour, and Mr. Pretyman; to be read a second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 275.]

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 2:—
Amendment again proposed—
"In page 2, line 3, to leave out from the word 'pound' to the end of the clause."—(Mr. McKenna.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'and the duties payable under the same section on' stand part of the clause."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)said that several questions were put to him in the last debate with reference to the tax on stripped tobacco, on which Amendments stood in the names of the hon. Members for the Kirkdale and Exchange Divisions of Liverpool, and the Rotherham Division of Yorkshire. The deputations which waited upon him, and which were, as he was told, fully representative of the interests concerned, thought that his proposals dealt harshly with the owners of strips in bond as at the date when the Budget was introduced, as, of course, they had no notice of the intended change; at the same time, they did not complain of his proposals as a whole. Since then he had had interviews with several hon. Gentlemen, but he had thought it only courteous to the Committee that they should have the first information of any change or modification in the original proposals. He hoped the Committee would appreciate how much he regretted the delay which had occurred. Nothing could be more disconcerting or injurious to trade than uncertainty as to the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or of the House. He very much regretted that the trade should have so long suffered from that uncertainty. The Amendments on the Paper referred to the case of the importers, not of the manufacturers, and their apprehension was that, while the manufacturers might be quite able to protect themselves by increasing the price, the importers were not in an equally fortunate

297
position, and that they could not raise, at any rate to the full extent, the price of their goods. He thought there was some force in their argument, and he was prepared at the proper time to move the following Amendment as a new sub-section to Clause 2—
"A rebate at the rate of 1½d. for every pound of tobacco shall be allowed on any increased duty under this Act paid on or after 19th July, 1904, in respect of any stripped tobacco which is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs to have been deposited in a bonded warehouse before the 20th day of April, 1904."
The Committee would see that while in one respect he went less far than the Amendment on the Paper, in another respect he went further. He was not prepared to admit these stocks at the old rate of duty, but he would allow a rebate of one-half the additional duty. His hon. friends proposed to limit this relief to stocks in merchants' hands. He thought there would be extreme difficulty in defining what were stocks in merchants' hands, and it would be undesirable to leave that matter to subsequent litigation, whilst it would not be satisfactory to the trade if in a matter of so much importance and perplexity the discretion of the Customs were absent. He proposed to make the rebate general as regarded stocks in bond previous to the announcement of the increased duty.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: What is the exact date?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The 20th April, 1904. I made my Budget statement the evening before.
SIR FREDERICK WILLS: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned in his Resolution the 19th July.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he thought hon. Gentlemen were under a misapprehension on this point. It was the importers who certainly had a claim to relief, but the difficulty in confining it to the importers would be very great indeed. He did not recommend that course, and he proposed to make the rebate as from the next day. Probably the Committee was familiar with the fact that there had been no sales of strips since the Budget announcement, and during the time the uncertainty had prevailed; therefore, by
298
making the rebate begin to-morrow they would not he deprived of any relief which they thought they were entitled to. If they had made no sales there could be no duty on which a rebate could be made. If be dated the rebate back he would be making it not to the importers, but to the manufacturers, who probably had already been able to recover it by an adjustment of their prices. It was a custom of the trade that tobacco should be sold by the importer in bond and that the manufacturer who bought it should pay the duty on withdrawing it from bond. If, therefore, the manufacturer had purchased and withdrawn any tobacco from bond it was to the manufacturer that relief would have to be given; but if the manufacturer had guarded himself by offering a smaller price for the strip he would, if he received the rebate, get relief twice over. He had felt it his duty to make this explanation at the earliest moment, although it was not immediately germane to the Amendment under discussion. He hoped that this very considerable concession, a rebate of no less than 50 per cent. of the duty imposed, would be felt by those interested to be a sign that he had given not unfavourable and even not ungenerous consideration to the arguments which had been placed before him. He hoped even that he might not be too sanguine if he trusted that it might somewhat ease the discussions in Committee and relieve him of some part of the burden which would otherwise fall on his shoulders in that House. But he wished to impress on the Committee that he had made the concession out of a desire to do no injustice to any section of any trade, and at the proper time he would commend it to the careful consideration of the Committee.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked what was the estimated cost of the rebate.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he would not like to speak definitely on that point, but from the proposals as a whole he originally anticipated an additional revenue of £550,000; if the rebate now proposed was accepted, he estimated roughly that the net gain to the revenue would be £350,000. The calculation must, however, to a certain extent be a matter of conjecture, and his proposals must be considered as a whole.

299
The Committee was entitled to the best information he could give, but he hoped he would not be pressed too hard as to the accuracy of those figures.
MR. LOUGH: On a point of order, is it possible for such a change as this to take place to-morrow. Would it not be necessary first to have a Resolution in Committee?
THE CHAIRMAN: No. This proposal so far from imposing a fresh charge relieves an existing one.
MR. LOUGH: It is a change in the law.
THE CHAIRMAN: No.
MR. LOUGH: The duty is now being collected at 3d., so it amounts to a change in the law, which should be brought in in the manner I suggest.
THE CHAIRMAN: No; if that were so it would be impossible at any time to make any reduction or any change, and surely the hon. Member would not wish that.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONasked if it had been possible to ascertain how much the holders of stocks would suffer under the amended proposals. The duty represented £15 per hogshead in bond, and the right hon. Gentleman only proposed to remit £7 10s. It seemed to him that their loss would still be very serious in view of the large stocks they held. No doubt the concession of the right hon. Gentleman was a step in advance, and in view of the serious effect of the original proposals on a small class of merchants no one would regret that the discussions had been prolonged. He would give the right hon. Gentleman a concrete example of the effect of his proposal. There was a firm in his constituency which held very large stocks of stripped tobacco; and the effect of the duty in their case would simply have been ruinous. It was noteworthy that a Government which professed itself so solicitous for the interests of other forms of property—such as licensed houses—should in the case of the tobacco trade come forward with a proposal little short of confiscation. The
300
speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Bristol and the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee had shown that the original proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been a great injustice to the importers of tobacco. As, they stood the proposals were purely protectionist. There was no question of raising revenue, but there was a question of differential duties in order to give British employment. It was extremely doubtful if even in their modified form they would give much employment, and undoubtedly more would have been secured by a small increase of the drawback. This first attempt to introduce protection in the Budget was not only a violation of the understanding that there should be nothing of this kind during the present Parliament, but the right hon. Gentleman's proposals had given rise to a general feeling of insecurity, had stopped trade, and were still a gross injustice to a certain class of traders.
MR. ROBSONsaid that the Committee would no doubt be glad to hear the announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The rebate would no doubt be of great value to the importers. But the question raised by the Amendment was of far wider import than any question of transient injustice, however severe, on any particular class. The Amendment under discussion did not relate simply to the incidence of the tax upon importers or manufacturers; it dealt with the tax as a whole, and he was inclined to think that the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman helped their arguments against the tax as a whole, although it did diminish the injustice upon a particular class of persons. During the past fortnight there had been a startling corroboration of the arguments advanced against this tax. The right hon. Gentleman introduced the tax first of all as a non-protective tax. He said that so far as his intention was concerned he did not mean it to be protective, and in order to accept that statement they were obliged to suspend the application of the well-known rule, that a reasonable man must be taken to foresee the obvious consequences of his own action. Those obvious consequences had been shown again and again, and beyond all doubt

301
and argument the tax had been proved to be pure protection. There had been the case put forward by the Tobacco Section of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, which had proved that statement to an extraordinary degree.
It was worth while to review briefly the history of this matter. It might be called almost a "Comedy of Errors" were it not for the widespread loss and misery which the tax had already imposed and was likely to produce. They had, therefore, better call it a "Tragedy of Errors." First of all the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced it as a revenue tax. The statement he had made that afternoon had an important bearing on that argument. It was a disadvantage to the revenue that stalks should not be imported; but that argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's was disposed of before he had finished his Budget speech, because it turned out in the latter part of the speech that he was providing for an increased drawback on these very stalks. Instead of the import of stalks being an advantage to the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman was so far misinformed as not to know that the import of stalks was a loss to the manufacturer and to the State because of the drawback. He made these remarks not out of any desire to paint out errors into which the right hon. Gentleman might have fallen, but in order to draw the attention of hon. Members opposite, who were opposed to protection, to the fact that they had been led into voting for this tax under the mistaken impression that it was a non-protective duty. The next argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that, although it was desirable to have stalks in order to increase the revenue, it was necessary that he should establish a parity between the whole and the stripped leaf in the matter of duty. Here again the right hon. Gentleman forgot his drawback. He forgot that, although the whole leaf was said to have been at a disadvantage, that disadvantage was wholly removed by the increased drawback which he was prepared to give. The Tobacco Section of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce had declared that the revised scale of drawbacks was not advantageous. Let the House observe the situation. The right hon. Gentleman brought in a Budget in
302
which he revised the scale of drawback and enlarged it so that, according to the opinion of his own Committee and his own experts, he left stalk tobacco under no kind of disadvantage as compared with stripped tobacco so far as the drawback was concerned. The drawback was put at a figure which not merely covered any disadvantage which might attach to stripped tobacco but actually tended in the direction of a bounty. And now on the top of the drawback the right hon. Gentleman proposed to put a tax of 3d. on one of these kinds of raw materials. The reason he advanced was that he wished to establish parity between the two kinds. What had happened? Trade in strips had been paralysed; it had been absolutely stopped as if by a ukase. That was a remarkable result of an effort to establish parity. And the right hon. Gentleman that day actually relied on those circumstances in order to show how generous was the concession he was giving to the importers.
The trade in strips had ceased. The average import in June for five years past was 2,459 casks, whereas in June this year the quantity was only 344 casks, and even that was imported under contracts previously made. Hence the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his first essay in scientific taxation had not merely hampered, but actually paralysed and stopped a great branch of English trade. And what was likely to be its effect in the future? Could anybody believe that any substantial revenue would be drawn from the tax? The import had stopped; it was to the shipment of strips the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to look for his revenue, but he would be unable to induce merchants to resume shipment. What did free-trade Unionists think of all this? The tax was not a revenue or a continuing tax. Was it likely that people would continue to import strips with a differential duty of 3d. against it, when the drawback upon unstripped had been raised to such an adequate figure as to bring both classes upon an exact par? The wholesale cost of tobacco was 6d. or 7d. per pound, so that the duty on strips represented about 50 per cent. upon its wholesale price. As the cost of stripping was only about ½d. per pound, the duty of 3d. was absolutely prohibitive

303
to the import of strips. What could be the Chancellor of the Exchequer's conception of business that he should believe it possible to put a tax on a commodity, equal to half its value, without affecting its price in relation to other commodities of almost the same class? On a previous occasion the right hon. Gentleman greatly impressed the Committee by reading quotations from certain price lists to show that the relative prices had not changed. It was pointed out at the time that the figures could only be upheld upon the assumption that there had been no sales of strips, and hence no alteration of price, and that had turned out to be the fact. According to the Tobacco Journal the sale of strips had been at a standstill since the introduction of the Budget, and the quotations referred to sales prior to that date.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINwas understood to say that the Tobacco Journal gave the prices under the heading "Latest Market Sales," which in the circumstances was a misleading description.
MR. ROBSONsaid he had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman himself was misled. He had no desire to cast the slightest reflection upon the ability, vigilance, or intention of the right hon. Gentleman. The whole strength of his argument lay in the fact that it was impossible for any Chancellor of the Exchequer safely to interfere with the movement of trade. As soon as a Minister began to interfere with trade for the purpose of giving more employment or for any other purpose, he entered a sphere to which the ability of any human being was wholly unequal. That was one of the fundamental propositions of the free-trade belief, which was traversed by protectionists who believed that they could tap a source of enormous wealth by the burden which they placed upon the shoulders of the people.
Let the Committee apply business instinct to the question. According to the Tobacco Section of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, there had been practically no business in imported strips since the introduction of the Budget, and merchants were unable to find buyers for their existing stocks except at a reduction in
304
price of 3d. per pound, which, on the old figure, meant a loss of hundreds of thousands of pounds sterling to a small group of importers. It was the tobacco trade that was hit to-day; it might be the shipping trade tomorrow, and the iron trade after that. No single trade was safe when once ideas of this kind found place in the proposals of statesmen. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had based his calculations upon a statement that the whole leaf came into this country substantially moister than the stripped leaf. The tobacco trade declared that statement to be inaccurate, and that if there was any difference at all, it was rather in favour of there being a slight theoretical excess of moisture in the leaf as compared with the stalk. That being so, the Committee were entitled to know from whom the right hon. Gentleman obtained his information. The statements were those of people interested in the creation of a fiscal burden, who had come forward not in the capacity of business men hoping to make a profit for themselves, but as public advisers. Who were they, and what was their interest in the matter? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in a letter had stated that "many manufacturers" had been advising him. Who were the "many manufacturers? They must not lurk behind the fiscal throne of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The conduct of Mr. Gallaher bore favourable comparison with that of the "many manufacturers;" because he stepped boldy into the arena of public controversy and challenged comment on his action. He claimed to have outlined the idea of a differential duty which should have the effect of encouraging stripping in this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement to the effect that Mr. Gallaher had given no such advice, while hardly consistent with that gentleman's own assertion, made no difference to the proposition which he (the hon. Member) had made both in the House and elsewhere in regard to fiscal morals. He entirely disputed the right of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that he was acting upon the advice of gentlemen whose names he refused to give to the public. In a technical constitutional sense the right hon. Gentleman was doubtless the responsible

305
person; but in the real sense, which alone was of importance in this controversy, the responsible persons were those who had advised him and supplied the information upon which he had acted.
In view of the present protectionist agitation and the policy inaugurated in the Budget it was necessary for the Committee to consider their standard of fiscal morals. The tobacco trade declared that no important manufacturer would give such information to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That disposed of Mr. Gallaher, because he certainly was a manufacturer of importance. It was necessary to know who these many manufacturers were, and what was their interest in the matter, in order that the Committee might test the value of their opinions. All protectionist taxes were put forward on high-sounding pleas of patriotism, Empire, and so forth. If those who advocated such taxes were absolutely disinterested, he was prepared to listen to their perorations about Empire; but if their object in suggesting fiscal burdens was simply to make private profit he preferred that they should keep all their talk about Empire to themselves. Was the advice given by these people real patriotism, or a mendacious travesty of patriotism inspired by greed? Was it or was it not fiscal corruption against which the country ought to be on its guard? He was afraid the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce would ask in vain for the names of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's advisers. Personally, he would not press the right hon. Gentleman further, but he did ask free-trade Unionists to take note of this the first example of protectionist methods.
MR.CHARLES McARTHURwas understood to say that he had always held that the prospective loss to which a number of gentlemen were rendered liable was an obstacle which had to be removed before the proposal could be considered on its merits. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had previously held that no loss whatever would fall on the holders of strips. He had now abandoned that position and offered a compromise to the extent of one-half of the tax. That was an entire abandon-
306
ment of his former position, and no ground whatever had been given for the change. The right hon. Gentleman had not adopted the principle for which the merchants had contended; he had taken up a new position for which there was no support whatever.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was quite prepared to go back to his former proposal.
MR. CHARLES McARTHURsaid it was impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to go back after the statement he had made that day. He fully recognised the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had made his offer, but it was, after all, an arbitrary proposal based on no ground or reason. The right hon. Gentleman had put forward certain calculations showing that one pound of strips made from imported leaf would pay 3s. 4d., while each pound of strips imported would pay 3s. 3d, and, therefore, instead of imported strips being penalised to the extent of 3d., strips made from imported leaf would pay a penny more. Both statements could not be true. Having, with all the expert advice he could obtain, gone into the matter thoroughly, he believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer was mistaken. The right hon. Gentleman had assumed as the basis of his calculations that there was more sand in leaf than in strips, whereas experience showed the contrary. Experience showed that the amount of moisture in leaf and in strips was about equal. In support of that he would quote the Government Blue-book which gave various samples of Virginia leaf compared with Virginia strips, and Western leaf compared with Western strips. They showed in each case that there was more water and more sand in strips than in leaf. His own feeling was, that although the holders of strips might be disposed to accept the offer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, yet they recognised that the offer was not a fair one. It did not free them from loss, but rather divided the loss between them and the revenue. Why should innocent merchants be placed in the position of having to bear part of the loss themselves? Why should they be subjected to a compromise of that character. He ventured to point out

307
that in connection with all previous Budgets, there had been full allowance made in cases where the tax could not be passed on from the person who paid the tax to the consumer. He instanced the case of the export duty on coal. In that case an allowance was made in the case of pre-Budget contracts, the amount refunded being not merely sixpence but a shilling. Why should not an equally generous course be taken in this case? Why not say if the merchants or manufacturers could prove satisfactorily to the Customs officials that, having incurred this loss of threepence and being unable to recover it, they should be allowed the amount in full. He thought it would have been far more satisfactory if this tax had been withdrawn altogether. The difficulty would then have been removed. That was the opinion of the whole of the tobacco trade. They would be thankful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, instead of dividing the loss with them, he would withdraw the tax.
This tax was proposed with two objects. The first was to add to the revenue. He thought it had been clearly shown that in this respect it had been a failure. During the present year the tax could not be raised without inflicting a very unjust burden on certain persons who did not deserve to be treated in that way. But with regard to the future it was generally admitted that the differential duty would be entirely protective, and for this reason. It would put an end to the importation of strips, and, of course, when the importation of strips ceased, the differential duty would cease. The second object of the imposition was to transfer the business of stripping tobacco from the United States to the United Kingdom. He admitted that that object would be to a certain extent attained. It would not be entirely attained. Of course, when the importation of stripped tobacco was put an end to, the business of stripping, as far as was necessary, would be done in the United Kingdom. It would give employment to British labour, and to that extent the tax would attain its object. It would only succeed partly, because it would probably lead to stems being ground in by manufacturers, and accordingly the quality of tobacco
308
would become degraded. Tobacco would become a mixture of stem and leaf. It was clear that the tax would become entirely protective in its nature, and that it would fail for the purpose of raising revenue. It was only useful as a tax for the purpose of fostering a home industry. Therefore it seemed to him to be entirely inconsistent with the declaration of the Government when they introduced the Budget that it was entirely a free-trade Budget. It was not entirely a free-trade Budget if this particular tax was in its essence of a protective nature. He believed this proposal was intended to be an object-lesson of the advantages of protection, but instead of that it was an object-lesson of the evils of protection. It showed how very dangerous it was to attempt to interfere with trade by fiscal arrangements. Although the trade might be compelled to accept the offer which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made—and he acknowledged the spirit in which it was made—he could not pass from the subject without placing on record his opinion that even the modified tax would involve substantial injustice, and that the tax should be removed altogether.
MR. McKENNAsaid he desired to associate himself with everything that had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. With him he gladly accepted the offer made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what it was worth, because to some extent it did save something from the wreck of the fortunes of the merchants. But there were some obvious questions which he thought the Committee ought to ask for itself. Why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer make this reduction of l½d. a pound on stocks in bond? If it was true, as the right hon. Gentleman alleged when this question was last debated, that the duty cost on strips was 3d. more than the duty cost on leaf—the phrase was the Chancellor of the Exchequer's—it was clear to everyone that there was no reason for taking anything oft stocks in bond, because the owners of strips in bond had agreed to give him 3d. on the existing duty. Why then relieve them? Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer admit that the duty

309
cost on stocks was not 3d. but 1½d.? Was that the reason for giving the exemption of 1½d. a pound on stocks in bond? If that were the right hon. Gentleman's reason it was an admission that to the extent of 1½d. a pound this duty was a protective duty. The point was well worthy of the careful attention of this Committee. They had to decide what the financial proposals for the year were going to be, and if the case put forward by the Tobacco Section of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce were true, this Committee would become responsible for a gross injustice, and the inflicting of undeserved hardship upon some twelve or twenty men. The hardship, it was true, would be reduced by the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer — a hardship which would unfortunately, if his statements were true, amount to something like £150,000. It therefore became their duty to examine with the utmost care what ground the Tobacco Section of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce had for the case put forward.
What had been the answer made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The right hon. Gentleman alleged that the difference in the duty cost on leaf and strips was 2½d. a pound in the case of ordinary tobacco, and 4d. a pound in the case of bright Virginia. He based his case upon samples which he had taken in four cases of bright Virginia. Ai regarded the other class of tobacco the right hon. Gentleman had not given the Committee any case at all up to the present. In regard to bright Virginia the right hon. Gentleman said there was an additional cost of 4d. a pound, and if that was so why on earth take 1½d. off the pound? The right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to prove this by stating that in 100 pounds of strips there was more smokable tobacco than in the corresponding weight of leaf. The duty of 3s. a pound on stripped remained, and the duty of 3s. on leaf became 3s. 4d. The right hon. Gentleman justified his case by the samples he had taken. He appealed from the right hon. Gentleman's samples to the Report of his own Committee. Anyone who took the trouble to read that Report would find in it absolute proof, so far as proof could be given, that the case put forward by the Chan-
310
cellor of the Exchequer was a mistaken one. The right hon. Gentleman had declared that the moisture in the strips was less than the moisture in the leaf, and quoted from examples in support of that contention. There were forty-three samples of American tobacco mentioned in the Blue-book, and he supposed that they were taken by the same gentleman who took the four samples. The four samples showed more moisture in the leaf than in the strips, but the forty-three samples, which covered a much wider area of American tobacco, showed the exact contrary. The case that the Chancellor made out—based on the excess of moisture in the leaf—therefore fell to the ground.
As to the case of sand he admitted that in bright Virginia there was considerably more sand in leaf tobacco than in the strips. He was glad that statement was confirmed by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Bristol, than whom they could find no greater authority on this matter. The Chancellor had quoted a difference of upwards of 4 per cent. in sand on his four samples. There was a series of about forty samples taken for sand in bright Virginia leaf, and these showed, not upwards of 4 per cent. of sand, but only just a little over 3 per cent. But how about other leaf tobacco? The Committee had got to remember that bright Virginia was a special article, but the great article of commerce in the tobacco trade was Western leaf. It was from Western leaf that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have taken an example. He found from the Blue-book that out of sixteen to twenty samples of Western strips, the percentage of sand was 5·05 and of Western leaf from corresponding samples only 2·19 per cent. So that on Western leaf the exact reverse was the truth to what was put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—viz., that there was more sand in the leaf than in the strips. Now they had it on evidence, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not find it necessary, between this and the next stage of the discussion, to reconsider his attitude, it would become necessary to bring before the Committee in detail that evidence given before his own Departmental Committee, to prove up to the hilt

311
that he could not make out a case, except a protective case, for this differential duty. Witness after witness before that Committee came forward and said that all they asked for was for a fair chance to be given to the industry of stripping in this country, for leaf and strip to be put on an equal footing, and that an amendment should be made in the drawback, and this the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done. That being so, were they not entitled to turn to the arguments of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce—arguments which were supported by the whole course of business for the last fifty years?
What did the Chamber of Commerce say? They maintained that if it were true that there was a difference in the duty cost, on the average, of 3d. per lb., that duty cost would be a mark of the price more than the cost of the duty on strips. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not attempted to answer that. It was quite obvious that nobody would buy leaf at 3d. per lb. more than duty cost except there was 3d. per lb. less duty than on strips. All the tobacco dealers for the last fifty or 100 years would have been fools to go on importing leaf with this additional duty coat when they. might have had strips so much cheaper. As he had shown from the evidence in the Blue-book there was no ground for the belief of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his four samples represented either the average facts in regard to bright Virginia tobacco or the actual facts in regard to all other kinds of tobacco. Was it not more reasonable to suppose that the tobacco merchants and manufacturers had known their own business and that there had been no such differentiation in price between leaf and strips as the difference in duty cost would justify? Was it not reasonable to suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was mistaken and that the difference in duty cost was not what the right hon. Gentleman suggested it was; that such difference in duty cost as might exist had been shown by the difference in price, and that difference in price had been five-eighths of a penny in the lb., and that that difference was absolutely taken away by the Amendment as to drawback in the Bill. If
312
that were so—and it ought to be inquired into—was this Committee going to be a consenting party to the plunder of a number of innocent gentlemen, who had carried on a trade for numbers of years under the sanction of Parliament, of from £150,000 to £200,000? It was only they who would bear this loss. They had stocks in bond sufficient to last for two years. The remaining 1½d. per lb. would have to be paid by them, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have got a certain amount of revenue, not from the public, but out of their pockets. Was it reasonable that the Committee should consent to this protective duty, when they had been assured on the highest authority, on behalf of the Government, that no protective legislation would be introduced in this Parliament? They ought not to. He was convinced that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to give his attention to the subject; if the right hon. Gentleman were really to take the trouble to understand what were the true facts about the tobacco duty; if he were even to master the contents of his own Blue-book and its Appendices, the right hon. Gentleman would discover that there was no justification for the case put forward by him. That being to, it was nothing but a gross injustice to the nation and the trade to continue this tax at all.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid that the discussion naturally divided itself into two sections. First, that which concerned itself with the unfortunate position of the holders of strips in bond, and second, the general question as to whether the differential duty on strips and whole leaf was a desirable departure in our fiscal system. As to the position of holders of strips in bond, whether merchants or manufacturers, he was inclined to think that the concession which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had announced was, on the whole, not an ungenerous appreciation of the position in which the holders of strips in bond were placed. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for the Exchange Division that it would by no means recoup them for the loss to which they were at present exposed; but he thought it would go a certain distance in that

313
direction, and possibly, for a Chancellor who was on the look-out for revenue, it was as much as they could expect. Therefore, he hoped they would not look a gift horse too closely in the mouth, but as far as they were concerned, would accept this concession as on the whole, an alleviation of a position which by unanimous consent was altogether intolerable. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to concede to holders of strips something like a quarter of a million of the revenue he anticipated, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would say how he proposed to make up the deficiency.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that he proposed to sacrifice that part of the revenue.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he gathered that the calculations of a surplus which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made at the beginning of the financial year would be sufficient to justifiy him in making that sacrifice. He thought the holders of strips in bond would be well advised to accept this concession.
But, with regard to the differential duty which was proposed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer rested his whole case upon the alleged excess of moisture and sand in the whole leaf as against imported strips. On this point his right hon. friend and his experts were at issue with the tobacco trade, and the question naturally arose whether the tobacco trade knew its business. He had been himself in business for a good many years, and on such matters he would be much more disposed to take the evidence of a practical man who had been handling a particular article from the profit and loss point of view, than the evidence of the most careful experts in the most elaborately organised Government Department. From that point of view, the differential duty fell to the ground. Even on the analysis of the Departmental Committee it was perfectly clear that in strips, as against leaf, there was often rather an excess of moisture and sand than a deficiency, and, taking the evidence of that Committee as a whole, he did not think there was any-
314
thing whatever to make out the necessity for the imposition of a differential duty of 3d. per lb. in order to place stripped tobacco and leaf tobacco on the same footing. The fact that for a long course of years whole-leaf tobacco had been imported into this country at a similar rate of duty with strips was conclusive evidence that there could not have been that enormous difference in favour of strips which his right hon. friend seemed to think prevailed. One point had been omitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his calculation — namely, the fact that the cost of whole leaf tobacco was from a penny to twopence per pound less than the cost of strips imported. That was a natural handicap in favour of leaf as against imported strips, which made it still more unnecessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come to the rescue of whole leaf and put on that differential duty. Therefore they were driven to the conclusion that the differential duty was, in fact, a protective proposal. It was quite true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer disavowed any intention of advocating or illustrating protectionist principles when he first introduced the differential duty, but the proof of the pudding was in the eating. It was perfectly well known that large firms of tobacco manufacturers on this side of the water had already made arrangements to cease to carry out the operation of stemming in the United States. It might be considered a good thing from the point of view of employment in this country that colored ladies in America should no longer strip the tobacco plant, but they had no security that, even if this were the case, there would be an increase of employment here. He was given to understand that manufacturers would be able by means of their machinery to utilise stein and stalk for the purpose of tobacco manufacture. Therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having displaced the labour of coloured persons in America, would have the melancholy satisfaction of knowing that the only increase in labour in this country would fall upon the smoker, who instead of smoking leaf would have to go to the additional trouble of smoking stems and stalk as well.
If protection was to be tried he would prefer to see it tried on a large

315
scale. Personally he did not want to see it tried at all. He was an entire opponent of a protective system for the country in any shape or form. But let them not have peddling experiments, let them not have what was called "the thin end of the wedge" introduced in a popular free-trade Budget. If the controversy was to be fought out on some practical and complete scheme of protection in this country, he preferred to have to face a large and concrete effort emanating from that home of protection, Birmingham, where it was understood the forges were already at work. He was glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had seen his way to meet the case of those unfortunate individuals who held stocks of strips in bond in this country. He regretted that the tax had been introduced, because he thought it was entirely needless. The extra threepence now proposed would merely prevent the import of strips into this country, and possibly would displace labour in America without really leading to an increase of labour in this country. Then from the point of view of revenue, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at the beginning of the session was his main object as Chancellor, he ventured to predict that Mr. Chamberlain would have reason to remember before many years had passed the warning given by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer who solemnly cautioned him as to the danger of meddling with such a delicate subject as the tobacco duties. He earnestly trusted that even yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer might reconsider this proposal. It was evident that the revenue he anticipated from it was a diminishing quantity. The more it was examined the less fruitful it would be found. It introduced an element of discredit and doubt into the fiscal policy of the Government as agreed upon during the present Parliament, and if it were swept away it would leave them more free to deal in future Parliaments with larger controversies, about which so much was said at the present time.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he must traverse all the plausible arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and endeavour to show the Committee that the right hon. Gentle-
316
man had not the slightest ground for his. proposal. In his opinion the right hon. Gentleman ought either to give back the whole amount on the uncleared stocks in bond or nothing at all. It was quite clear that if he did not give the full rebate the right hon. Gentleman would only take out of the pockets of one class money he was not justified in taking. It was nothing more nor less than robbery. Before this proposal the right hon. Gentleman was able to say, "I have not injured any one," but that was not so now. In his opinion there was no real fiscal reason for this tax in regard to what the right hon. Gentleman had called the fiscal gap between the raw material and the manufactured article. Such a gap was non-existent because there was no system in this country whereby the duty was so arranged as to accord with the amount of manufacture given to the raw material. The right hon. Gentleman had founded his case for the differentiation of these duties upon the practice of other countries, but in France, Germany, and Austria no such differentiation was made; in the case of Belgium the excess of duty was nine-tenths of a penny more, and in Holland it was one-twenty-eighth of a penny. If that could be done in Holland the right hon. Gentleman could have arrived at the result desired equally well by the imposition of an extra penny where he had imposed 3d. A penny at the outside would have covered all the cost of the manipulation of the tobacco. But putting aside the question of the threepence, it would afterwards be practically within the free choice of the importing merchant and manufacturer to decide whether he would buy stripped or unstripped tobacco. And that was the whole position, beyond which the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to go. He had said that the drawback would adjust itself to the various qualities of tobacco, the proportion varying from 18 to 32 per cent. After the Report of the Departmental Committee and the evidence of the witnesses—who, without exception, when asked the question; said they would be satisfied if the drawback was brought up to the proper amount—he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no argument in regard to the question of disability. If he was going to support the tax he must do so on different

317
grounds. He was aware that it was quite within the power of the right hon. Gentlelman by continuing the tax to create greater employnment. This proposal practically gave a differential duty in favour of unstripped tobacco, it followed that this would not only bring a larger amount of stripped stalks into the country but that althought we should give more employment we should get worse tobacco.
Coming next to the primary object of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, that of revenue—a laudable object, especially with the present expensive Government—the right hon. Gentleman had to prove that this gratuitous change, and what they regarded as a protective change, would produce a considerable and permanent source of revenue. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed a uniform addition of threepence to all raw tobacco there would have been no particuhr objection. He would have had a permanent £1,000,000 a year, whereas now he would get only £500,000 and give away £250,000, and in subsequent years at the outside he would get £100,000 to £150,000. Putting it roughly, the additional threepence duty on raw tobacco brought in about £1,000,000. That would be a revenue duty. It was clear from the figures already given by the right hon. Gentleman that this was not a revenue tax for the reason that if it had been instead of £500,000 he would have estimated it at £750,000. If it had been a revenue tax without any ulterior object—as any tax ought to be—threepence on the whole of the raw material would have produced about £1,000,000, as the percentage at the present moment of strped tobacco was about 70 per cent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had this been a revenue tax might have anticipated £750,000 instead of £500,000. Even on the basis of the gross amount of his tax it was not in the least likely that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get the £100,000 that he had estimated. Before the Budget was introduced the proportion of imported leaf tobacco was something like 23 per cent. and stripped tobacco 77 per cent. Last April those figures were almost reversed; the imported stripped tobacco was 35 per cent., the leaf was 65 per cent. In May the leaf imports had risen to 71 per cent. whilst
318
the stripped had fallen to 29 per cent. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated that he would get £500,000 on the 70 per cent. proportion of stripped tobacco, which then came in with certain deductions, he could not possibly have anticipated the enormous fall that had been caused by the tax. It was clear that if threepence would produce £1,000,000 on the whole of raw tobacco imported, and there was only going to be 39 per cent. of stripped tobacco, the gross amount that he could expect would only be £300,000 and not £500,000. There was the further fact that in the last few weeks the falling off had been still more remarkable. Whilst last year in the same month the number of imported casks of stripped tobacco to London, Liverpool, and Glasgow was 2,460, this last month it was only 344 casks.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: You omit Bristol.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid it was admitted that there had also been a decrease with regard to Bristol, but the figures he had given were enough for his purpose. If that falling off were to continue there would be no revenue whatever from this tax in the coming year, as the gross amount would be only £250,000, and the right hon. Gentleman was going to give away the whole amount. This tax would damage the position of the tobacco trade and yet at the end of the year it would yield no revenue at all. The right hon. Gentleman presumably desired to keep stripped tobacco out of the country in order to give additional employment to home workers. If he was successful in that endeavour he would get no revenue. The only way to get a revenue would be for his plan to be unsuccessful, and if that was a good free-trade fiscal system he (Mr. Buxton) could not understand it. As a rule a trade cried out before it was hurt, and as a rule it managed to throw off the duties imposed upon it on the consumer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was bound to admit that this could not be done in the present instance, and he proposed to give them a rebate of £250,000, whereas in justice he ought to give them £500,000. What was the position of these unfortunate importers? The money was not

319
going into the pockets of the taxpayers. it was only passing from the pockets of one set of taxpayers into those of another set. There would be something to be said in favour of this proposal if the tax would form a good permanent basis which could be used in the future, but it would only injure one section of the trade to give a benefit to another section, and no revenue would be received from it.
Then looking at it from the point of view of a protective duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was very indignant at their allegation that this was a preferential or protective duty. The right hon. Gentleman had had a long correspondence with the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce in regard to this matter. He (Mr. Buxton) was not very competent to deal with the complicated figures that had been stated, but at all events, he thought they were entitled to, say with reference to those figures that the Report of the right hon. Gentleman's own Departmental Committee showed the fallacy of his argument, and that the whole of the trade was entirely against him. The speech of the right hon. Baronet the other night absolutely knocked out the whole case for the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. If it were true, as the right hon. Gentleman had argued, that stripped tobacco had a benefit of from 2½d to 4d. per pound at present, he could hardly believe that there would be any leaf whatever in the country. But whatever basis was taken, any existing disability would be met by the drawback. An infinitesimal amount of revenue would be derived from the tax, and he strongly objected to a proposal which upset and, to a large extent, destroyed a flourishing branch of industry for the miserable return which the right hon. Gentleman would obtain in the present case.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the contention of the hon. Gentleman was that if there was a proper and adequate drawback there was no reason whatever for a differential rate of duty as between the different stages of manufacture. He ventured to say, however, that the two questions, the drawback and the difference of duty, were quite distinct. The drawback was given in respect of tobacco exported; but for the purposes
320
of that discussion it was more important to note that it was given in respect of offals returned to the Customs in order that the duty paid upon them might be paid back. The drawback had been confessedly inadequate hitherto, and they were making it much more adequate; but he did not think they should in cases even now return to the manufacturer the full amount of duty, because if they were to make their scale high enough to do that it would be too high in other cases, and people would set to work to import those tobaccos out of which they could make a profit on the rebate. They were therefore obliged to keep the rebate at a moderate but, he thought, a reasonable figure. Now came the question whether it was right to have a differentiation between raw tobacco and tobacco which had undergone a process of manufacture. If there were no difference they would protect not the manufacturer here, but his competitors abroad. They would, in fact, penalise the home manufacturer and make it impossible for him to compete with the manufacturer abroad. As to the principles, therefore, they were agreed; it was only a question of degree.
The process of manufacture took time. Before it could be carried through in this country the manufacturer must already have paid duty. He would be out of pocket with regard to the interest on his duty, not merely for the time that he would have been if he had manufactured straight from the strips, but for the additional time required to convert the whole leaf into stripped tobacco, and he would be out of pocket with regard to the interest on the money he had paid in duty on stalks and offals for a still longer time until he could recover that duty from the Customs. Then they came further to the question of moisture and sand. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were extremely suspicious of statistics which he gave them, and he did not know that anything he was likely to say would carry conviction to minds which did not desire to be convinced, but he would say that the figures upon which he had gone were the result of samples fairly taken, not for the purpose of this particular tax, by the Customs authorities and analysed in the Government laboratory. Samples had been quoted from which very different results were

321
obtained. But those samples were of a particular class of tobacco not characteristic of the tobacco which generally came into the country. It was extremely improbable that fair samples of stripping would contain more sand than whole leaf, because the process of striping would shake loose a certain amount of the sand contained in the whole leaf. They had in this matter to make allowance for the loss of sand and for the loss of moisture in regard to the great bulk of the tobacco imported. As regarded sand, hon. Members thought that his figures were too high, and they rightly attributed great weight to what his hon. friend the Member for North Bristol said. But he thought his hon. Friend would accept the evidence of the Imperial Tobacco Company before the Drawback Committee, in which it was shown that the percentage of sand in Virginia leaf was no less than 6·63 and in strips 3£·56.
MR. McKENNA: You have put it at 2·08.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the figures he had given were the result of experiments made by the, Drawback Committee themselves. But he differentiated altogether the drawback question from the rate of difference between strips and the whole leaf. The fact that they had made the drawbacks fair was no reason why the difference between the leaf and the strip should not be marked and that the process of manufacture should not be marked, just as the difference between the fully manufactured tobaccos and the raw leaf from which they were made was marked. His contention was that hitherto strips had received a preference and whole leaf had been penalised. He thought from the first that, if they treated both fairly, the natural result would be that a greater quantity of the whole leaf would come in and a smaller quantity of strips. He never ventured to say exactly what the proportions would be, but it was quite obvious that if they removed the disabilities under which the whole leaf had suffered it would be more able to compete in this market with strips than it had been in the past.
MR. SIDNEY BUXTONsaid he was dealing with the question of revenue. The effect of the additional duty would be to destroy the importation of strips, and hence no revenue would be derived from the tax.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he had refrained from forecasting what the ultimate importation of either strips or leaf would be, and had said that the additional revenue must be dependent on the extent to which strips held their own. He himself believed that, though they would cease to enjoy the unnatural favour they had enjoyed in the past, there would still be room for a considerable importation of strips. The concession he had proposed to make in reference to strips in bond at the date of the Budget statement had been received in a spirit that was not encouraging, and that certainly would not tempt another Chancellor of the Exchequer to try and meet the representations made to him with fairness or even with generosity. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last said that all he had done by making this concession was to show that he was wrong, and that he ought to give up the whole duty. That, the hon. Gentleman said, would be following the precedent of the coal tax, which excluded pre-Budget contracts for the sale of coal. He thought the hon. Gentleman hardly carried in his mind what the coal tax precedent was. It relieved of the duty a man who had contracted to sell coal to the foreigner before the date of the Budget and who had covered that contract by actually purchasing the coal. That was because in the case of the foreigner he could not, with regard to a pre-Budget contract, add the price of the tax to the contract price. That was in order to put him in the same position in which any trader, who had a contract to sell a dutiable article, was here when the duty was raised. He was able to add that duty to the price in such a case. It was difficult, if it was not impossible, to adjust a duty of this kind so that it should he in all cases the exact additional dutiable cost of the article and nothing more. It must be a rough-and-ready adjustment. He had desired to meet those Gentlemen who felt that they had a great grievance and whose friends in the House apparently thought that

323
they had a great grievance. He had not tried to discover exactly to what extent they might be unable to recover the tax or to limit the relief to the exact amount by which they would be the losers. He had attempted to deal with them fairly and generously, so that they might not have a sense of injustice left in their minds, and he hoped they would receive the concession he had offered in the spirit in which it was made. He did not think the attempt to put him on the horns of a dilemma was in the interests of those on whose behalf the hon. Gentleman was speaking. After all, the proportion which the tax would bear, when it was in full force, to the value of strips was less than the proportion which the tax bore to the value of the whole leaf. The Liverpool Chamber of Commerce informed him that the value of a pound of leaf might be taken at 5d. On that the duty would be 3s. The value of a pound of strips they put at 6½d. On that the duty he proposed was 3s. 3d.—3s. 1½d. as regarded stocks already in bond. It would be seen, therefore, that, while the duty on the whole leaf was 720 per cent. greater than its value, the value of the duty on the new strips was not more than 620 per cent. He did not think that that bore out the contention that he had put on an unduly high duty in proportion to the value of the article, nor did it suggest to him the ruin which had been predicted. He ventured to hope that, whatever their differences, the Committee would facilitate further progress and enable them to deal a little more rapidly than they had done with the consideration of this Bill.
MR. REAsaid the Chancellor of of the Exchequer, while possibly making the tax less oppressive, had made it more illogical and more protective by making it less productive. The controversy as to its merits stood where, it did before the rebate was announced, and that controversy was doubtless a difficult one for the Committee to judge of. The arguments depended upon abstruse arithmetical calculations which were difficult to follow, and upon delicate experiments which the Committee had not the means of testing. The right hon. Gentleman had no doubt made two or three dialectical points in his argument
324
with the trade, but they were extremely small when compared with the general principle of the tax. The points which the Committee could not judge were vital, and upon them rested the decision whether or not the tax was protective, whether or not individual firms were about to be ruined, and whether or not the tax would be abortive as a productive tax in future. But though the Committee could not judge on the technical argument involved in this matter, they could judge what the effect of the tax on the trade had been, and to his mind that was a convincing argument. From 20th April this trade had ceased—it had been killed. No strips had been taken out of bond except small quantities, which had gone mostly to the Continent and to America. This kind of taxation rather reminded one of the mixture of dentistry and taxation that was practised upon the Jews in the time of King John. What was the unfortunate owner of stocks of tobacco to do? The best thing appeared to be for him to take his stripped tobacco out of bond, and to ship it to some country where they had not yet learned to discriminate between stripped and unstripped tobacco. There would be a temporary revenue from the imposition of this tax, but no permanent addition to the Revenue. There would, however, be a great disturbance of trade, and an enormous loss to individuals. There might also be the disappearance of a great part of our two years selected stocks of tobacco. If that happened some Members of this House would ask what they were to smoke for the next two years.
It was said that there would be one net gain from this tax, and that was the rise of a greatBritish industry. He had his own idea as to the wisdom of importing parasitic and exotic industries at the cost of the taxpayers. What kind of industry was going to be imported through the operation of this tax? One of the very lowest classes of industry, below that practised by any of our pauper aliens. He was told that the stripping of tobacco was at present done by old black women and small black children, who got about ¼d. per lb. for it on an average. The policy of the Government with reference to coloured labour was really wonderful. In one direction they were importing the yellow man to help the black man to do

325
the work which the white man would not condescend to do; on the other hand, they were taking over an industry which was too low for the black man, who left it to the old women and children, and giving it to the white man. These were not the first fruits—the Sugar Convention was the first fruits—but the second fruits of the new economics. The proposal involved great economic injustice, and was a fiscal futility.
MR. LOUGHsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to complain that the offer he had made was ungratefully received by the Committee. That was an unfair complaint to make. They were not there to discuss what consideration should be given to the unfortunate merchants in Liverpool. They were engaged in the consideration of the question whether they would have this tax as a whole. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not hurry the Committee to a conclusion on that question. The right hon. Gentleman told them three months ago that there was no hurry and that the merchants of Liverpool were not suffering at all.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I said exactly the opposite.
MR. LOUGHsaid the right hon. Gentleman explained that there was no urgency for bringing forward the Bill. He did not then make any case for relieving the pangs of the people on whose behalf he now appealed to the Committee. The Amendment as a whole raised the question as to this new tax and he wished to ask two questions in regard to the matter. First of all was it of such a protective character that the House should refuse to touch it? He knew that in discussing this question they were told that all tobacco duties in this country were protective; to some extent that was true, but they were not so protective as this tax would leave them. The defence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was remarkable, for he seemed almost to have abandoned the idea that this was a tax to produce revenue. The right hon. Gentleman said he wished to mark a stage in the manufacture of tobacco, and he had done so by a piece of pore and undisguised protection. He did not think
326
this was the time when the Committee should allow a proposal to pass which was commended on such grounds. The hon. Member for South Shields had said that tax was suggested by Mr. Gallaher, the tobacco manufacturer. He did not find that that was absolutely proved by Mr. Gallaher's evidence, but he gave some very remarkable evidence. In Question 2121 he used these words—
"Lord Goschen said "the people of this country were all for free trade…. I said the sooner we drop the idea of free trade the better."
"(2147) They might give employment… which is just the very same thing that the Chamberlain Commission is proposing to do."
"(2148) (Chairman.) Your arguments all tell in favour of encouraging the importation of tobacco in the leaf in order that the stripping may be done in this country? (Mr. Gallaher.) Yes."
That evidence was given before the Committee by Mr. Gallaher, and when they were considering this proposal they should remember in the first place that it had a purely protective origin. It had been defended in this House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a protective tax. If the Committee's Report was carefully read, hon. Members would see there ww3no other reason for the tax. It was their duty to recall the simple free-trade arguments against the tax. It was assumed that if it did not do any good it would not do the country any great injury. He believed it would tend to diminish exports. It would be far better to allow this industry to be carried on by the old negro women who were at present engaged in it. Let our merchants import tobacco from where they pleased. The Committee ought to have a little more regard for the argument as to the revenue side of the question. What were they there for? They were there simply to get revenue. The hope of the tax producing revenue was gone already. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not accept the argument that no more stripped tobacco would be brought in. If the right hon. Gentleman maintained the tax, it was as sure as day that no more of it would be brought in. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had asked the Committee to agree to the tax on the ground that there was an inequality between whole-leaf and stripped tobacco, and that the trade in whole-leaf tobacco was unfairly handicapped. The

327
argument against that was that for fifty years there had been a great importation of whole-leaf tobacco into this country. During that time the duties had been the same on both classes, and they did not find that whole-leaf had been banished from the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that the difference between the two was 3d. a pound. That was 50 per cent. of the value. If it was true that the whole-leaf trade had been labouring under this disadvantage there would have been evidence of it in the state of imports. The truth was that every year 16,000 hogsheads of this whole-leaf tobacco was imported. A duty of 3d. a pound on that quantity would give something like £200,000 a year which our foolish silly merchants and manufacturers had been throwing away. This showed that the origin of this tax was something quite new for the Committee of this House to consider. The impost was not required for any purpose of equalising or stimulating the trade; there had been a large trade done in whole-leaf tobacco up to this time, and that trade could very well be left alone. It was a purely protective tax, and as such he did not think the Committee should have anything to do with it.
SIR FREDERICK WILLSrecognized that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had endeavoured, from his point of view, to meet the case which had been presented to him on a former occasion in stating the concessions the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make to merchants, and the rebate proposed to be given to manufacturers with stocks. At the same time the right hon. Gentleman was still going to place a heavy fine on the tobacco merchants—not so heavy as he proposed originally — a fine, however, which, instead of being £300,000 or £400,000, would now be £200,000. He could easily understand the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who wanted to get money; but was it a right thing for the right hon. Gentleman to try to get money in this way? Would it not be even safer for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he hoped the general revenue of the country would turn out better than his expectation, and that he would forego an additional £200,000, rather than introduce a measure which would impose a fine
328
on a really deserving body of men to whom the country was to a very considerable extent under obligation? They were men who, by their enterprise, had imported three or four years stock into this country without which the manufacturers would not have been able to carry on their business, and without whose enterprise the Government could not have collected a revenue of £12,000,000 a year. It was a very serious matter for the Government to interfere with that trade. He, himself, was placed in a very difficult position, for he was there as a supporter of the Government; but he could not see this act of injustice done to these men who really did not deserve it. Of course he would rather that they were fined £150,000 than £300,000; but he did not like that they should be fined even £150,000. He was very sorry that his right hon. friend had not seen his way to do away with this extra taxation altogether. His right hon friend had upset the tobacco trade to a very considerable extent. All the prices had had to be readjusted as between retailers and the manufacturers, and the trade in stripped tobacco had become absolutely stagnant. The merchants were at their wits' end. They had blank ruin staring them in the face. He did not suppose that all of them would go into the Bankruptcy Court, for some of them were rich men. But if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not made the concession he had done now, several of the merchants would have found their way into the Bankruptcy Court. That was a thing which, he was sure, his right hon. friend would thoroughly deprecate. He appealed to his right hon. friend to see whether he could not find a way to abstain from altering these tobacco duties altogether. He knew that that might involve a loss of £250,000 to the revenue; but, after all, that would not be a very heavy loss, while his right hon. friend would avoid placing a loss of from £150,000 to £200,000 on innocent people who had served their country exceedingly well, and who, through their trade, provided the country with a revenue of £12,000,000 a year. To judge from the expressions of opinion on both sides of the House, he was sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be justified in not carrying out his proposal

329
in regard to the alteration of the duties on tobacco.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the Committee that everyone in the trade had suffered from the uncertainty caused by the proposal contained in the Amendment to strike out the extra duty of 3d. per lb. on stripped tobacco. That was, however, a very strong condemnation of the proposal of the Government. It was not the fault of the Opposition that the Budget had not been pushed on; but of those who were responsible for arranging the business of the House. The whole arrangement was made with the object of pushing the Licensing Bill forward. So far as he could gather from the Report of the Departmental Committee, the grievances in the tobacco trade could have been amply dealt with by drawbacks. No grievance had existed in that respect, from the days of Mr. Gladstone, which could not have been met by drawbacks. He gathered from page 10 of the Report of the Departmental Committee that they were of opinion that had the drawbacks been adjusted with this object in view, it would have cost the Chancellor of the Exchequer only £7,000 a year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, having to face this position, set himself to devise some way of counterbalancing this loss. But the effect of the new duties showed that the right hon. Gentleman could have little understood the circumstances of the trade with which he was dealing. The men engaged in the importing business in stripped tobacco might not only lose £150,000 to £200,000, but the whole of their business, built up by many years of effort, might be wiped out by a stroke of the pen of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. To sum up the grievances, the tax damaged the importers; it caused great confusion and uncertainty; and it was not worth the trouble it caused.
What were its effects on the financial arrangements of the country? It had been shown that had the duty been placed on the whole of the tobacco imported the tax would have yielded considerably over £1,000,000. The Chancellor the Exchequer had now made the sacrifice of £250,000 on the year's
330
revenue, so that the surplus he had anticipated was almost wiped out. He did not want to trouble the House with any remarks on the general financial situation. It was serious enough, he knew, but let this be taken as an example of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer would experience if ever he had to deal with a protective Budget. He had found that when he came to deal with drawbacks, which were essential to protection, he would have a battle of wits with those engaged in the trade, and he thought that those who studied the papers would find that he would come off second best. Such a battle of wits would not always be to the advantage of the country. In the United States, when an industry was fighting for its life, it frequently happened that its leaders were ingenious enough to get to the windward of the Government officials, however great their devotion to the public interest. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was hardly likely to find himself better equipped in the details of a business than those who had studied it all their lives. He hoped the country would take notice of the fact that in the first example of this kind of strife the Chancellor of the Exchequer had got distinctly the worst of it and had made a hopeless bungle of it.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid he ventured to point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given no answer to the point he had endeavoured to raise as to the justice of the tax. If it was unjust to tax the importer or to confiscate the property of the importer of stripped tobacco to the extent of £15 per hogshead, why was it just to confiscate it to the extent of £7 10s., which was what the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do under his amended proposal? When the tobacco was rendered unsaleable the right hon. Gentleman proposed to bear one half of the loss. If it was just to take off one half, justice demanded that the other half should be taken off. The tax would only be raised on stocks available for taxation; the trade in strips would be killed, and the only good purpose served by the debate would have been to show the preposterous character of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 223; Noes, 173. (Division List No. 242.)

AYES

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Fisher, William Hayes

Lucas,Reginald J.(Portsmouth)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fison, Frederick William

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Macdona, John Cumming

Arrol, Sir William

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Maconochie, A. W.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh,W.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Flower, Sir Ernest

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Forster, Henry William

Massey-Main waving, Hn. W. F.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Galloway, William Johnson

Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire

Baird, John George Alexander

Gardner, Ernest

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Balcarres, Lord

Garfit, William

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Baldwin, Alfred

Gibbs, Min. A. G. H.

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

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

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

Milvain, Thomas

Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W.(Leeds

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Mitchell, Edw.(Fermanagh, N.)

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

Gorst, Rt. Sir John Eldon

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Graham, Henry Robert

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Greene, Sir E.W(BurySEdm'nds

Morgan, David J.(Walthainstow

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Morrison, James Archibald

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Gretton, John

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Mount, William Arthur

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Gunter, Sir Robert

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Bigwood, James

Hall, Edward Marshall

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Bill, Charles

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Murray, Rt. Ho. A. Graham(Bute

Bingham, Lord

Hambro, Charles Eric

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G.(Midd'x

Myers, William Henry

Bond, Edward

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Bousfield, William Robert

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Nicholson, William Graham

Brassey, Albert

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

O'Niell, Hon. Robert Torrens

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Bull, William James

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Butcher, John George

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

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

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

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

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

Helder, Augustus

Percy, Earl

Carlile, William Walter

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

Pierpoint, Robert

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire)

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

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hope, J.F(Sheffield, Brightside

Purvis, Robert

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

Horner, Frederick William

Pym, C. Guy

Chapman, Edward

Houston, Robert Paterson

Ratcliff, R. F.

Charrington, Spencer

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

Richards, Henry Charles

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Ridley, Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge)

Coates, Edward Feetham

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

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

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Coddington, Sir William

Hunt, Rowland

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Kerr, John

Samuel, Sir Harry S.(Limehouse)

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Davenport, William Bromley-

Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R.)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants. Fareham)

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Leveson-Gower, Frederick, N.S.

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

Duke, Henry Edward

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

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

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset)

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

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

Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Stroyan, John

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Lowe, Francis William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Thornton, Percy M.

Tollemache, Henry James

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

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

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

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Whiteley,H. (Ashton und. Lyne)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Tuff, Charles

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Valentia, Viscount

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

Vincent,Col.SirC.E.H.(Sheffield

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

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Webb, Colonel William George

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

NOES.

Abraham,William (Cork, N.E.)

Fuller, J. M. F.

O'Connor,James(Wicklow,W.)

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Gordon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Dowd, John

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale)

O'Kelly,James(Roscommon,N

Allen, Charles P.

Harcourt,Rt.HnSirW(Monm'th

O'Malley, William

Ambrose, Robert

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Asher, Alexander

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Parrott, William

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Partington, Oswald

Barlow, John Emmott

Higham, John Sharpe

Paulton, James Mellor

Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Beaumont, Wentworth C.B.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Philipps, John Wynford

Bell, Richard

Horniman, Frederick John

Pirie, Duncan V.

Benn, John Williams

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Boland, John

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Price, Robert John

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Jacoby, James Alfred

Rea, Russell

Bowles, T.Gibson(King's Lynn)

Joicey, Sir James

Reckitt, Harold James

Broadhurst, Henry

Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

Rickett, J. Compton

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Joyce, Michael

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Kearley, Hudson E.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

Robson, William Snowdon

Burke, E. Haviland-

Kennedy, VincentP.(Cavan,W.)

Runciman, Walter

Burt, Thomas

Kilbride,Denis

Russell, T. W.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Kitson, Sir James

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Caldwell, James

Labouchere, Henry

Schwann, Charles E.

Cameron, Robert

Lambert, George

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Langley, Batty

Shaw, Thomas (Hawiek B.)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Causton, Richard Knight

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Sheehy, David

Cawley, Frederick

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Channing, Francis Allston

Leamy, Edmund

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Leese,Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Clancy, John Joseph

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Soares, Ernest J.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lewis, John Herbert

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Lloyd-George, David

Strachey, Sir Edward

Cremer, William Randal

Lough, Thomas

Sullivan, Donal

Crombie, John William

Lundon, W.

Tennant, Harold John

Crooks, William

Lyell, Charles Henry

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Cullinan, J.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Thomas,DavidAlfred (Merthyr)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

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

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Tomkinson, James

Delany, William

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Toulmin, George

Devlin,CharlesRainsay(Galway

M'Kean, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Tully, Jasper

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Wallace, Robert

Dobbie, Joseph

Markham, Arthur Basil

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Donelan, Captain A.

Mooney, John J.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Doogan, P. C.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Dunn, Sir William

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Weir, James Galloway

Edwards, Frank

Morley, Rt. fin. John (Montrose)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Elibank, Master of

Murphy, John

Whiteley,George (York, W. R.)

Ellice,Capt.E.C(SAndrw'sBghs

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Newnes, Sir George

Wills, Sir Frederick

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

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

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

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersf'd

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nussey, Thomas Williams

Young, Samuel

Flynn, James Christopher

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

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary,Mid

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

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

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

MR. McKENNAsaid the Amendment he now proposed to move was to reduce the duty on strips from 3d. to 1½. per lb. After the announcement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made he would have supposed that it would hardly be necessary for him to support this Amendment by argument. The right hon. Gentleman in the announcement he made admitted that the duty on strips in bond should be reduced to l½d. per lb. and all that was now asked was that all strips on which duty had not been paid should be subject to the same reduction. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to have based his argument on the ground that as there was less smokable tobacco in leaf than there was in strips, there ought to be some differentiation, and that differentiation he had put down at 3d. on the lb. If that difference was necessary to put these two kinds of tobacco on an equality, why was this rebate now given to the merchants. This rebate had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman as a concession to the merchants and manufacturers in response to protests on their behalf by Members of this House. But if this 1½d. gave them something to which they were not entitled, the right hon. Gentleman was most unfairly putting money into their pockets at the expense of the public. The right hon. Gentleman had said there was in practice a differentiation against leaf in our present scale of duties because there was more sand and moisture in leaf than in strips. The right hon. Gentleman was wrong there, however, as he would presently prove. But if there was a differentiation of 3d. in the lb. and the right hon. Gentleman gave up 1½d. of that to the merchants, he gave to them something to which they were not entitled even if the figures were true and accurate. But the facts were different. It was not true that in leaf before the stem had been taken out there was more sand and moisture than in strips. The evidence given before the Committee was the extract contrary with regard to Western leaf. As regarded bright Virginia it was true the sand was shaken off in the process of stripping, but on the Western leaf what was called sand would more properly be described as dirt and it did not shake off in the process of stripping. In fact there was less sand on the midrib than on the lamina. But even if the right hon. Gentleman had
336
proved that there was more sand and moisture in the leaf than in the strips he had not proved that it was equivalent to a duty of 3d. The right hon. Gentleman now submitted that the duty should be 1½d. What he wanted the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do was to give a clear relevant argument in favour of this tax. At present they had not had a word in favour of the duty being 3d. which might not have been equally revelant to a duty of 1d. or 6d. or any other sum. With regard to moisture, forty-three samples were taken by the right hon. Gentleman's own Committee, and the average result showed less moisture in the leaf than in the strips. In the face of that, what was the good of the right hon. Gentleman founding his case upon the result of four samples only? The Chancellor of the Exchequer was convicted by his own Departmental Committee, and by the experiments of his awn experts; the evidence of the witnesses before that Committee showed that there was no greater duty cost upon leaf than upon strips than was met by the improved rate of drawback. He begged the right hon. Gentleman not to take two bites—at the leaf. He was already giving 1½d. on stocks in bond; let him for the very same reason allow 1½d. on all imported strips. Curiously enough, by reducing the duty he would increase the revenue. In consequence of the duty of 3d. the imports of stripped tobacco had fallen from 2,725,000 lbs. in April to 1,610,000 lbs. in May, and to 1,193,000 lbs. in June. The duty had all but killed the imports of strip; it would absolutely kill them hereafter. The reason of the slight respite was that there were accumulated in the United States considerable stocks of leaf stripped for the English market; those stocks would soon be exhausted, and not another pound of tobacco would be stripped abroad. Where, then, would the revenue come from? Was this to be a revenue or a protective tax? If protective, it was a breach of faith. If revenue, it would produce no revenue. Hon. Members opposite were on the horns of a dilemma. They must make up their minds whether they would choose protection and dishonour or honour and no revenue. They could take their choice but they could not have both. If the duty were reduced to 1½d., though the great bulk would be shut out, there would remain certain kinds of tobacco which on account

337
of excessive moisture and sand it would still pay to import stripped, and from those revenue would be derived. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said —
"In the first place I think it is demonstrable that there was an error in the calculation on which Mr. Gladstone worked. He himself, indeed, subsequently corrected his error but he did not alter the rates which he had proposed, and the result is that the home manufacturer, making for home consumption, has a larger measure of—shall I say compensation?—than Mr. Gladstone had intended."
From the context it was clear that by "compensation," the right hon. Gentleman meant "protection." He concluded by saying—
"It is clear that the stripped leaf has a definite and distinct value differing front that which the whole leaf enjoys. It is not right that this separate value, this process of manufacture which the leaf has undergone, should not, like all other processes of manufacture, which add to the value, be marked on our scale and find its reflection in the proper way."
That meant getting "compensation" or "protection." How much of this threepence was protective? The right hon. Gentleman had not attempted to prove that the alleged loss by virtue of sand and moisture in the leaf was worth 3d. in the duty; he had simply instanced bright Virginia, which was the only case that could be established. The Amendment suggested that the protective part of the tax would amount to 1½d., and asked for its abandonment to that extent.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 6, to leave out the words 'three pence' and insert the word 'three-halfpence.'"—(Mr. McKenna.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the hon. Gentleman was prepared to make a difference of 1½d. between strips and whole leaf, and had admitted that that would do no more than place certain kinds of whole leaf and strip on a parity as regarded duty cost. He differed from the hon. Gentleman as to his results, but he was grateful to him for the admission that there was a case for a difference of duty between the two, and that the basis of his argument had been correct. In the
338
course of his remarks the hon. Member had quoted a passage from the Budget speech with the object of showing that it had been the intention to make this new duty on strips as protective a duty as the duty on manufactured tobacco. The rates on manufactured tobacco were undoubtedly protective, but if he had fixed the rate on strips on the same basis as Mr. Gladstone fixed his rates on manufactured tobacco he would have put it at from a 1d. to 3d. higher than he had done. He hoped, therefore, he had avoided the error, if error it were, in which the later stages of m manufacture were involved under our present Customs duties. He must point out once more that different kinds of tobacco varied enormously among themselves, and that it was impossible to devise a rate either of duty or drawback which worked out exactly in the same way upon every sample of tobacco, but this rate of 3d. was fair having regard to general average samples. It had been said that, having offered a rebate in respect of stocks in bond, he was precluded from arguing that stocks not in bond should pay a higher duty than those in bond. Strips had hitherto been favoured at the expense of whole leaf, and it was not unnatural that the great imports had been of strips and that there was a large accumulation in bond at the present time. To facilitate the distribution of these large stocks he had offered a rebate which, in his opinion, still gave preferential treatment to strips over leaf. That was not a reason why for other strips not now in bond the same preferential treatment should be continued. He hoped the Committee would support his view.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the Opposition had always contended that any adverse discrimination ought to be, and could be, met by a proper drawback. The right hon. Gentleman had not in any way met the figures put forward by the hon. Member for North Monmouth showing that threepence went further than the discrimination demanded, and that to that extent it was a protective duty. The Report of the Drawback Committee went to show that on the question of sand and moist re the facts were against the contention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. By imposing this tax

339
the right hon. Gentleman expected to at once very largely reduce the import of strips, so that it would have a considerable fiscal effect in regard to the trade. The mere proposal to impose the tax had carried the matter further. The trade in strips had been greatly demoralised, and day by day during the past month less strips had been coming into the country. In a very short time they would be prohibited altogether. The right hon. Gentleman had not met the figures and arguments which had been advanced in regard to this matter by hon. Members on his own side of the House. He had already given away more than half the revenue he expected to receive, and the other half he would only get for the current year. He was creating a disturbance in the tobacco trade, and it would be better to drop the tax and meet the deficit by some proposal consistent with what they were promised—a free-trade Budget.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last quarter of an hour had admitted that the tax which he proposed was to a certain extent a protective tax. What he and his colleagues desired to know was how much of threepence did he think was protective? To that they had had absolutely no reply. Let him put to the right hon. Gentleman the question which had been put to him again and again, and which he had as frequently evaded. He was reminded by an hon. Member near him that while they were discussing the sand and the leaf the Chancellor of the Exchequer was endeavouring to throw dust in their eyes. Why had the Chancellor in his calculations asserted that in the whole leaf there was 15·85 per cent. of additional moisture. What justification had he for that? If that was the percentage which was obtained from four samples would he be so good as to lay the report of the analyst before the House in order that hon. Members might judge whether those samples were representative or not. How did he arrive at the figure that stripped tobacco, as regarded additional moisture, stood at 13·50 per cent.? Certain figures which the right hon. Gentleman had given in regard to the whole leaf were entirely upset by his own Committee's Report. That did not state
340
that the percentage of moisture was 15·85 per cent. He gathered from the Committee's Report that of all the samples of leaf there was not a single one over 13·70, a discrepancy of over 2 per cent., which was enough to entirely destroy the virtue of the Chancellor's calculations. If this was his justification for stating that threepence was a justifiable margin between the two kinds, would he give the Committee some definite answer as to how much of the threepence was protective? What they urged was that the readjustment of the drawbacks would have been sufficient to redress the grievances of the different qualities which came in under this tax. The effect of this threepence would be to destroy the business of a large number of importers of stripped leaf. He noticed the right hon. Gentleman appealed always to the precedent of Mr. Gladstone and he had actually told them that his appetite for protection was rather less than Mr. Gladstone's. Really that was more than they could honestly believe. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman could persuade anybody inside or outside that House that, if there was a protective element in the tobacco taxes as they at present stood, he was justified in increasing them, so far as stripped tobacco was concerned.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid if the proposed tax would give a permanent increase to the revenue he should be very much in favour of it, but it was denied that it involved any permanent increase at all. If he was wrong in that he should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of the Treasury, or some other competent financial authority to contradict him. The hon. Baronet the Member for North Bristol had stated that the trade in strips was killed. Did it not follow that no more duty on strips could be expected. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had offered a rebate of half the duty on all the stocks on hand when the Budget Resolution was passed. What was the effect of that? That only duty amounting to £250,000 would ever be levied at all. Consequently the Chancellor of the Exchequer was ruining or half ruining a great many merchants in the stripped tobacco trade in order to

341
get £250,000. Was it worth while? He would not go into the questions of sand, and moisture, and rebates. The broad question for a statesman in the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider was, whether what he was doing was worth doing. It seemed to him that it had been demonstrated that it was not. The tax was liable to the suspicion of being protective. He did not go into that, but as a financial operation by the Chancellor of the Exchequer it was absurd. The levying of£250,000, which would not ha a permanent annual addition to the revenue, was not the opening of a new rill to fill the fiscal river. This was merely a destructive and injurious tax which in its Lature was of an evanescent and dying character. This was an irritating and yet evanescent tax, and he was very sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had disregarded the warning of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, and had put his finger into the hornet's nest for so small a sum. Falstaff warned a great historical character not to imperil his soul gratis; and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not imperil his soul for the sake of £250,000.
MR. McKENNAsaid that there was now a preferential treatment of leaf as against strips amounting to 4d. per pound —3d. per pound originally proposed, the
further advantage given to leaf on the drawback—five eighths of a penny per pound—and the cost of stripping, which amounted to three-eighths of a penny per pound. If there was this preferential treatment, then strips must be 4d. per pound dearer than leaf. He maintained that a protection of 2½d. per pound was given to leaf as against strips.
SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid that he regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not seen his way to abolish this tax altogether. In putting on a tax the Chancellor of the Exchequer should first consider whether it could be equitably levied; and he thought it was a monstrous injustice, which the Committee ought not to sanction, to impose a tax amounting to half a million of money which would have to be paid by twenty people. It was all very well to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have money, but he ought not to get money regardless of the injustice done to the people who had to pay it. He believed that the principle of this tax was bad, and, as an independent Member, he protested against raising a tax in this way on such a small number of people.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 228; Noes, 166. (Division List No. 243.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bousfield, William Robert

Dalkeith, Earl of

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Brassey, Albert

Davenport, William Bromley-

Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Denny, Colonel

Arrol, Sir William

Bull, William James

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Butcher, John George

Dickson, Charles Scott

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

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

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Baird, John George Alexander

Cautley, Henry Strother

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Balcarres, Lord

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire)

Duke, Henry Edward

Baldwin, Alfred

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

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

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

Dyke,Rt.Hon. Sir William Hart

Balfour,Rt.HnGerald W.(Leeds

Chapman, Edward

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

Charrington, Spencer

Elliott, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Fergusson,Rt. Hn.Sir J.(Mane`r

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Coates, Edward Feetham

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Bignold, Arthur

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Fishier, William Hayes

Bigwood, James

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Fison, Frederick William

Bill, Charles

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Bingham, Lord

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Fitzroy,Hon. Edward Algernon

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Bond, Edward

Cust, Henry John C.

Flower, Sir Ernest

Forster, Henry William

Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Galloway, William Johnson

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

Rollitt, Sir Albert Kaye

Gardner, Ernest

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Garfit, William

Lowe, Francis William

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Samuel, Sir HarryS.(Limehouse

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Graham, Henry Robert

Lucas,Reginald J.(Portsmouth)

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Greene,SirE.W.(B'rySEdm'nds

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

Macdona, John Cumming

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Grenfell, William Henry

Maconochie, A. W.

Sinclair, Louis(Romford)

Gretton, John

M'Iver,SirLewis(EdinburghW.)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Greville, Hon. Ronald

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Gunter, Sir Robert

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Hall, Edward Marshall

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Smith,H.C(North'mb.Tyneside

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Maxwell,W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire

Smith,James Parker (Lanarks.)

Hamilton,Rt.Hn.LordG.(Mid'x

Melville, Beresford Valentine

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

Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Spear, John Ward

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Milner,Rt.Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Stanley,Edward Jas.(Somerset)

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

Milvain, Thomas

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord(Lancs.)

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Mitchell,Edw.(Fermanagh,N.)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

Montagu,Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.)

Morgan,DavidJ(Walthamsto'w

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Helder, Augustus

Morrell, George Herbert

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Henderson, Sir A (Stafford,W.)

Morrison, James Archibald

Thornton, Percy M.

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Tollemache, Henry James

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Mount, William Arthur

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Hope,J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Horner, Frederick William

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Tuff, Charles

Houston, Robert Paterson

Murray, Rt.Hn.A.Graharn(B'te

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Valentia, Viscount

Howard, J. (Midd.,Tottenham)

Myers, William Henry

Vincent,Col.SirC.E.H.(Sheffield

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Nicholson, William Graham

Webb, Colonel William George

Hunt, Rowland

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

Jeffreys,Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Peel, Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Kerr, John

Pemberton, John S. G.

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

Keswick, William

Percy, Earl

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Pierpoint, Robert

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

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

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

Lawson,J. Grant (Yorks.,N.R.)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Lee,ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareh'm)

Purvis, Robert

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Pym, C. Guy

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Ratcliff, R. F.

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

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Richards, Henry Charles

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Ridley, Hon.M.W.(Stalybridge)

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Ridley, S.Forde(BethnalGreen)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Crooks, William

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Cullinan, J.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Burt, Thomas

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Allen, Charles P.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Asher, Alexander

Caldwell, James

Delany, William

Asquith,RLHon.HerbertHenry

Cameron, Robert

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Barlow, John Emmott

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Dobbie, Joseph

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Causton, Richard Knight

Donelan, Captain A.

Beaumont, Wentworth C.B.

Cawley, Frederick

Doogan, P. C.

Bell, Richard

Channing, Francis Allston

Duncan, J. Hastings

Benn, John Williams

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Dunn, Sir William

Boland, John

Clancy, John Joseph

Elibank, Master of

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Broadhurst Henry

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Cremer, William Randal

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Crombie, John William

Fenwick, Charles

344

345

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Lough, Thomas

Roberts, Jonh Bryn (Eilion)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Lundon, W.

Robson, William Snowdon

Flynn, James Christopher

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Russell, T. W.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel,W)

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Schwann, Charles E.

Fuller, J. M. F.

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Shackleton, David James

Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

M'Kean, John

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Grant, Corrie

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Gordon, Sir W. Brampton

Markham, Arthur Basil

Sheehy, David

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Mooney, John J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Harcourt, RtHnSirW(Monm'th

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Harwood, George

Morley, Charles (Breconshire),

Soares, Ernest J.

Hayden, John Patrick

Morley,Rt.Hon.John (Montrose

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Murphy, John

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Sullivan, Donal

Higham, John Sharpe

Newnes, Sir George

Tennant, Harold John

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

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr)

Horniman, Frederick John

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

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

Hutchison, Dr. Charles Fredk.

O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryM'd

Tomkinson, James

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

O' Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Toulmin, George

Jacoby, James Alfred

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

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W)

Wallace, Robert

Joicey, Sir James

O'Dowd, John

Walton,John Lawson(Leeds,S.)

Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Malley, William

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Joyce, Michael

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wason, Eugene (Clackinannan)

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Shee, James John

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Kennedy,Vincent P.(Ca van,W.

Parrott, William

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Kitson, Sir James

Partington, Oswald

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Labouchere, Henry

Paulton, James Mellor

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

Lambert, George

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Langley, Batty

Philipps, John Wynford

Wood house,SirJ,T.(Huddersf'd

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal,W.)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Young, Samuel

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Price, Robert John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. McKenna and Mr. Runciman.

Leanly, Edmund

Reckitt, Harold James

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Lewis, John Herbert

Rickett, J. Compton

Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 6, at the end, to add the words, (2) A rebate at the rate of three halfpence for every pound of tobacco shall be allowed on any increased duty under this Act paid on or after the nineteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and four, in respect of any stripped tobacco which is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs to have been deposited in a bonded warehouse before the twentieth day of April, nineteen hundred and four.'"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. LOUGHsaid he expected the right hon. Gentleman to move the next Amendment standing in his name on the Paper. Was that to be dropped?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINexplained that the present Amendment was moved in order to give effect to the compromise regarding the stocks of tobacco in bond at the date of the Budget.
MR. LOUGHcertainly thought the Committee ought to look into this matter, with regard to which no explanation had been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Why did the right hon. Gentleman only give half? Surely that was not only most unjust but against all precedent. In every one of the cases in which it had been found that a tax which had been proposed in the Budget should not he levied, the precedents were in favour of the full rebate being allowed. Some explanation really ought to be given as to why only 1½d. in the lb. was to be given instead of the whole.
MR. McKENNApressed the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an explanation of the conclusions which led him to believe that 1½d. would be the clear loss which the owners of stocks in bond would suffer, because if it was more than the loss they would suffer, they would receive more than they were entitled to, and if it was less they would not get enough.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid owing to the preference that strips had had over leaf the imports into this country had been mainly strips, and the stocks here were out of all proportion. It was in order to facilitate the clearing of those stocks that the rebate was given.
MR. McKENNAsaid the right hon. Gentleman had given the Committee not the slightest reason why he had fixed the rebate at 1½d. If the right hon. Gentleman was right in his argument that there was a reason for levying another 3d. per lb., then he clearly ought to give no rebate whatever. If the right hon. Gentleman believed that strips got a preference of 3d. did he think buyers of leaf would pay more than 3d. as the difference in price between leaf and strips? His case was unanswerable. If there was any preferential treatment of strips as against leaf there must be the same difference between the price of the two articles, and if that difference in price was 1½d. it was ridiculous to say there was a difference between the two of 3d.
And, it being now half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  MILWR AND DISTRICT MINES DRAINAGE BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
  As amended, considered.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid he desired to move the insertion of a compensation clause in this Bill for the benefit of those persons who might be injured or injuriously affected by the execution of the works which were to take place under this Bill. The House would remember that the object of this Bill was to take powers to drain the area in which was situated St. Winifred's Well and the Holywell stream upon which there were many mills. It could not be proved definitely one way or the other as
  348
  to whether the making of the tunnels for the purpose of draining these hills with the object of clearing certain mines of water would have the effect of draining the Holywell stream or not. The contention of the opponents of the Bill was that in all probability they would do so. Having regard to the fact that this area was composed of carboniferous limestone and it was proposed to tunnel at an altitude of about twenty feet above sea level, it was contended that in all probability it would affect the Holywell stream which was 200ft. above sea level. As they could not drain this land without the consent of Parliament, he suggested that when the promoters came and asked for powers to execute works which might injuriously affect others, Parliament should say at once they would not grant the powers prayed for unless the promoters agreed that if any person's interest was injuriously affected by their operations such persons should be compensated. That was the object of this Amendment. Of course there would always be a difficulty in proving or showing whether damage had been done by tunnelling in this area or not and the onus of proof would have to rest upon the owners of the lands and mills who were damnified. The hon. Member drew attention to the fact that originally a person entitled to subterraneous water was not entitled to any locus standi before Parliament on an occasion of this kind, but years ago that practice was altered and they were now allowed to appear before the House in opposition to Bills which might have the effect, if granted, of destroying their source of supply. That locus standi would not have been given had not Parliament considered that the public rights in this underground water were likely to be injured. The form of compensation which he asked for was money, because it was perfectly obvious that once the water had been drained off to a Level of twenty feet above sea level it could not be again brought up to its former level of 200 feet. In arriving at the amount of compensation to he given they had ascertained that the smallest flow of water from St. Winifred's Well into the Holy-well stream per day was 2,750,000 gallons and he did not ask for any compensation whatever until the delivery of water from

  349
  that source was reduced to 2,500,000 gallons. If the stream was run dry the owners of the mills upon it would be ruined and the workmen discharged to find their living in some other way. Mortgagees of properties in the neighbourhood were even now considering the advisability of calling in many charges on the land, on the simple ground that the Bill, if passed, would seriously depreciate the value of the land. Therefore, as the promoters of this Bill for their own purposes came and asked for powers to carry out certain works, he submitted that if it was shown that in carrying out those works there was a danger of injuriously affecting other people, compensation ought to given. He begged to move.
  SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid on a previous occasion he had voted in favour of the promoters because he did not think that it was clear that any damage would be done. But he had come to the conclusion, having regard to the nature of the soil, there would be considerable danger in certain circumstances of damage being done, he therefore thought compensation should be provided for, and that being so, he begged to second the Amendment.
  A Clause (Compensation to owners occupiers on the Holywell Stream)—
  "(1) If at any time or times, in consequence of the making of any tunnel or the execution of any works authorised by this Act or of any works connected therewith, the flow of water from Saint Winifred's Well into the Holywell Stream is reduced below an average daily quantity of two and a-half million gallons, then the company shall pay compensation to the person or persons injuriously affected thereby, and the amount of such compensation shall, failing agreement, be determined in the manner provided by The Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847.
  "(2) Any compensation which the company may become liable to pay under this section the subscribed capital of the company shall shall be a first charge upon the uncalled capital of the company, and 25 per cent. of remain uncalled until the expiration of one year after the completion of the tunnels authorised by this Act." —(Mr. Herbert Robertson.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. TENNANTsaid the clause which had just been moved
  350
  would, if passed, impose upon the promoters of this Bill an unlimited liability with regard to any claims that might be made against them. He submitted that such a clause as this was not one which this House was accustomed to pass, and the precedent it would create would not be useful. He objected to the statement that the mills on the Holywell Stream were driven by the stream; so far as those mills were concerned, water was only a secondary power; they used steam and electric power to a large extent. The natural variation of the amount of water in Saint Winifred's Well was enormous, and if the quantity of water diminished it would be extremely difficult to assert that the well had suffered owing to the action of the promoters. He did not say that this scheme might not diminish the amount of water in the well, but, on the other hand, it was impossible to say that it would do so. It was on these grounds that the Committee declined to provide for compensation. The object of the promoters was to drain mines which were believed to contain rich mineral ores, and he asked the House not to prevent the execution of a work which would be beneficial to the district. It was not suggested that the well was likely to be so seriously interfered with, that it would be run dry. Even if the flow went down to 2,500,000 gallons no great injury would be caused to anyone. The interests of the people of Holywell would be served better by the passage than by the rejection of the Bill, because in consequence thereof a great field of industry would be opened up and a rich mineral tract worked to the great advantage of the inhabitants of the district. Why should the locality be denied this chance of becoming prosperous? He entirely demurred to the statement that the Bill was promoted for the cause of one or two great landowners, or that the Committee had not consulted the greatest interest of the greatest number. If the clause were inserted, the Bill would probably be dropped, and with it would go the limitation which had been inserted by the Committee. In that case much worse injury would be done than was possible under the Bill as it stood. He made no complaint of the course taken by the hon. Member for Hackney. Parliament was

  351
  quite right to preserve its control over its Committees. But Parliament was also generous to its Committees, and unless some new principle was involved, or some new facts disclosed, this House was in the habit of upholding the decision of its Committees. Here there were no new facts and no new principle. He trusted that as the House had been generous in the past it would be so on this occasion
  MR. BRIGG, who was almost inaudible in the Press Gallery, was understood to support the Amendment. From practical experience of taking water in similar circumstances from limestone formation, he had come to the conclusion that the limit of 2,500,000 was a very reasonable limit for compensation.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,)hoped the House would not accept the clause. The law in reference to underground water was, he admitted, in an unsatisfactory state, but a private Bill of this character was not the occasion to amend the general law. To accept the clause would be to admit a claim put forward by Holywell to underground water at least a mile away. Clause 7 of the Bill drew a line a mile from the town within which the company could not carry on work, and this had satisfied the Committees of both Houses. It appeared that the works would be of great industrial advantage to the district and it would be matter for regret if, in consequence of the introduction of such a clause, the Bill should be dropped by its promoters and the locality he deprived of the advantage that might he hoped from it. The clause went too far, for it not only gave a title to compensation for reduction of water in consequence of works authorised by the Act, but for the reduction in consequence of "any works connected therewith," nothing being said as to those by whom the works were "connected" The inhabitants of Holywell themselves might connect works, and, although causing their own destruction, might take advantage of this clause to do a wrong to the company. He would vote against the clause.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid that the suggestion of the Chairman of Committees was almost too ludicrous, for under the Bill itself no works could be connected with those it authorised unless by the consent of the promoters. He could not assent to the principles laid down by the right hon. Gentleman in connection with a matter of this sort. When special statutory powers were being conferred care ought to be taken that everyone affected was fairly dealt with. It was admitted that until the works had been carried out no one could tell what damage, if any, would be done, and the only way in which persons interested could be fairly treated was by the insertion of such a clause as was now proposed, under which it was for the persons complaining to prove that the alleged damage was in consequence of the works. If such damage could be proved it was only equitable and right that the persons damaged Should receive a fair measure of compensation. With regard to Sub-section (2), if it would throw any obstacle in the way of the promoters raising money, he hoped it would not be pressed.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid he would be prepared to drop Sub-section (2).
  MR. CRIPPSsaid that if that course were taken it would leave only an ordinary form of clause which he thought might very properly be introduced for the protection of persons who were liable to be injured.
  MR. TOMKINSONsaid there was much misapprehension as to the real purpose of the Bill. It was not to grant special powers without which the promoters could not carry out their works. As a matter of fact, having an agreement with the landowners, the promoters could make practically all the tunnels they wanted without the Bill, but they would not have the power to levy royalties on the owners of the mines which would be rendered valuable, and thus they would be simply throwing their money away. If the clause were inserted in the Bill the last state of the owners would probably be worse than the first, because the promoters

  353
  by making further agreements would be able to carry out the works without any of the limitations imposed by the Bill.
  SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid there was much in the Bill that was similar to provisions contained in every ordinary mining lease. It was usually provided that in the event of water being taken from a well in consequence of the works of a nine the owners of the well should be compensated for their loss. At the same time, it was very difficult to prove that the water had been taken away by the operation of the mine. The effect of such a clause would be to compel the mine-owners to come to reasonable terms with persons who believed they had suffered loss, and that, he thought, was a very reasonable method of dealing with the matter. If special Parliamentary powers were granted to a company, care should be taken to protect other people from being injured by the exercise of those powers, and, though he had some hesitation in going against the decision of two Committees, he thought this was a case in which the clause should be accepted.
  COLONEL PRYCE-JONESregretted that the promoters of the Bill had not come to
  terms with the owners of property who might be injured by the powers granted by such a Bill. Personally, he would prefer to see the Bill dropped than that compensation for injury should not be given.
  MR. HUDSONwas understood to say that a stream which had been a flowing stream for the best pin of a century had been drained dry by a well of the New River Company seven miles away. He thought, therefore, that the limit of one mile in the Bill would not do away with all risk of injury.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAMsaid that many Members appeared to be influenced by a desire to safeguard the sacred interests of property, and others by a fear of injury to a supply of water of supposed miraculous and medicinal power, but the great interest of labour was practically ignored. He hoped the House would seriously consider before they accepted a clause which would have the effect of preventing the opening up of a great industry,
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 169: Noes, 142. (Division List No.).

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Greene,SirE.W,(B'rySEdm'nds

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cullinan, J.

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hogh O.

  Davies,M.Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Arrol, Sir William

  Delany, William

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Balfour, Kenneth, R. (Christch.

  Devlin,CharlesRanisay(Galway

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Heath, James (Staffords.N.W.)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Dimsdale,Rt.Hon.Sir Joseph C.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Bigwood, James

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Bill, Charles

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dorington,Rt.-Hon. Sir John E.

  Howard,John(Kent,Faversham

  Boland, John

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Brigg, John

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Hunt, Rowland

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Burke, E. Huviland-

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Joicey, Sir James

  Campbell,J.H.M.(DublinUniv.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Jones,DavidBrynmor(Swansea)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Kennedy, VincentP. (Cavan,W,

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Kerr, John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Keswick, William

  Cavendish, Y.C.W.(Derbyshire)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Forster, Henry William

  Levy, Maurice

  Charrington, Spencer

  Foster, PhilipS.(Warwiek,S.W.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

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

  Lucas,Reginald.L (Portsmouth)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  London, W.

  Macdona, John Cnmming

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sharpe, William, Edward T.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.)

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford,East)

  M'Kean, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  O'Malley, William

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

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J.M'Taggart

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  O'Shee, James John

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Massey-Mainwaring,. Hn.W.F.

  Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

  Sullivan, Donal

  Maxwell,W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire

  Percy, Earl

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Mooney, John J.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Tully, Jasper

  Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Reckitt, Harold James

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

  Morton, Arthur H. Alymer

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Whiteley, George(Yorks,W. R.)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Renwick, George

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

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Ridley,S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Murphy, John

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Young, Samuel

  Murray,Rt.Hn.A.Graham(B'te)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Younger, William

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Robinson, Brooke

  Myers, William Henry

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Herbert Robertson and Colonel Lockwood.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

  Samuel, Sir HarryS.(Limehouse

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt.Sir Alex. F.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Milner, Rt.Hon.Sir FrederickG.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Mitchell, Edw.(Fermanagh, N.)

  Allen, Charles P.

  FitzGerald, SirRobert Penrose-

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Asher, Alexander

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Asquith,Rt.Hon.HerbertHenry

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Parrott, William

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gladstone,Rt. Hn.HerbertJohn

  Partington, Oswald

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Grant, Corrie

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Balfour,Rt.Hn.GeraldW(Leeds

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Barlow, John Eminott

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Pixie, Duncan V.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Harwood, George

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Beach, Rt.HnSirMichaelHicks

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Rea, Russell

  Bell, Richard

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Helder, Augustus

  Ridley,Hon.M.W. (Stalybridge)

  Bond, Edward

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Runciman, Walter

  Burt, Thomas

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Russell, T. W.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Caldwell, James

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Shackleton, David James

  Cameron, Robert

  Jones,William(Carnarvonshire)

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Kitson, Sir James

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Wore

  Langley, Batty

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

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Lawson, John Grant(Yorks.NR

  Spear, John Ward

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lee, Arthur H(Hants.,Fareham

  Tennant, Harold John

  Craig, Charles Curtis (AntrimS.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Crooks, William

  Leese, SirJosephF.(Accrington)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Cross, Herb.Shepherd (Bolton)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Tomkinson, James

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

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

  Toulmin, George

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Lough, Thomas

  Tuff, Charles

  Denny, Colonel

  Lowther,RtHnJ W(Cum.Penr.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Dyke,Rt.Hon.Sir William Hart

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  356

  357

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Charles Morley and Mr. William Abraham (Rhondda)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersf'd

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

  Wylie, Alexander

  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid that in accordance with his undertaking in the previous debate he desired to move the omission of Sub-section 2.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out Sub-section (2)."—(Mr. Herbert Robertson.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put "That the clause, as amended, be, added to the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 179; Noes, 138. (Division List No. 245.)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

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

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Young, Samuel

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Tully, Jasper

  Younger, William

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Sullivan, Donal

  Whiteley, George (York,W.R.)

  Mr. Herbert Robertson and

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Colonel Lockwood.

  Thomas,David Alfred (Merthyr

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

  NOES.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Allen, Charles P.

  Gladstone,Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Grant, Corrie

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Asher, Alexander

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Rea, Russell

  Asquith, Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Harwood, George

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Runciman, Walter

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Helder, Augustus

  Russell, T. W.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Shackleton, David James

  Beach, Rt.Hn.Sir MichaelHicks

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Bell, Richard

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Smith, H.C(North'mb.Tyneside

  Burt, Thomas

  Kitson, Sir James

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Langley, Batty

  Spear, John Ward

  Caldwell, James

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cameron, Robert

  Lawson, JohnGrant(Yorks.N.R

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lee,Arthur H.(Hants,Fareham

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

  Tomkinson, James

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Leese,Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Toulmin, George

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Tuff, Charles

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Crooks, William

  Lough, Thomas

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lowther,RtHn.JW (Cum.Penr.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Denny, Colonel

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Whiteley,H.(Ashton und. Lyne

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Dobbie, Joseph

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Markham, Arthur Basil

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

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Milner, Rt.Hn.Sir Frederick G.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Mitchell, Edw.(Fermanagh,N.)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Woodhouse,SirJ T.(Huddersf'd

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Newnes, Sir George

  Wylie, Alexander

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Parrott, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  FitzGerald,Sir Robert Penrose-

  Partington, Oswald

  Mr. William Abraham

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  (Rhondda) and Mr.Trevelyan

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Bill to be read the third time.

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 2.
Amendment again proposed—
"In page 2, line 6, at the end, to add the words, '(2) A rebate at the rate of three halfpence for every pound of tobacco shall be allowed on any increased duty under this Act paid on or after the nineteenth day of July, nineteen hundred end four, in respect of any stripped tobacco which is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs to have been deposited in a bonded warehouse before

361
the twentieth day of April, nine hundred and four.'"—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONmoved an Amendment to the Amendment to substitute 3d. for l½d. The proposed rebate of l½d. was a sort of sop to the importer in order to allay the feeling of irritation which might otherwise have existed. It appeared to him that in this case there must be some principle on which this rebate should be given, and he could not understand the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the matter. The rebate offered was either fair or unfair. If the importers had a claim to it they were entitled to the whole rebate, and if they had no claim they were entitled to nothing. The Committee had not been able to I gather from the arguments and speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis he founded the proposal for the rebate, but he was glad that, at all events, the right hon Gentleman had changed the attitude which up to that afternoon he had taken on the matter. He now admitted that the importers had a grievance and he practically admitted that this was a protective duty which had already so far demoralised the trade that it had been actually necessary to give a certain sop to the importers in order that the tax should go through at all. He had agreed to give away half of what the tax would produce. That was not the way in which they were accustomed to have Revenue taxes dealt with in this House. The whole difficulty had arisen because this was not a Revenue duty, but a protective tax. He could see no equity in the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, which was either too great or too small. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to press this tax, which had been clearly shown to be not a Revenue duty, but a protective tax. It was leading to great disturbance in the tobacco trade which, certainly, the amount of revenue derived from it did not justify.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"In line 1, to leave out the word 'halfpence,' and insert the word 'pence,' "—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
362
Question put, "That the word 'halfpence' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid they had discussed this matter so fully that there was very little left for him to add at this stage. Of course if the Amendment were carried he would not be likely to receive any revenue from the tax this year, and it was to obtain money for the present year that he had proposed the tax. It was in his search for revenue that he had hit upon this anomaly in the tobacco duties. He did not pretend that the figure he had chosen for the rebate was the result of an elaborate or accurate mathematical calculation.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It is not scientific.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he had never pretended that this Budget was scientific. On the contrary, he had said that there was no trace of scientific taxation about it, but that it was a Budget entirely in accordance with the old lines of our fiscal policy. He had proposed a rebate of 1½d. because he wished to treat generously, as a Finance Minister ought, interests affected by his proposals. His whole contention had been that by the existing scale of duties the natural coarse of trade had been diverted and our manufacturers had been obliged to use strips instead of leaf because of the unfair advantage which was given to strips. The result was that the import of strips had very largely exceeded, during past years, the import of leaf, and the stocks of strips were very much in excess of what they would have been if the duties had been absolutely fair as between the two. He proposed for the future to remove the anomaly which absolutely penalised the man who wished to carry on the processes of manufacture here. But he recognised that strips had accumulated out of proportion to whole leaf, and after full consideration he thought it reasonable that the change should not take immediate effect. It was with that view that he made this proposal of a rebate of 1½d. It did not pretend to be the result of any accurate mathematical calculation. It was proposed to meet a difficulty

363
which arose out of the anomalies of their past duties. He believed it would meet that difficulty fairly, and that, from what had reached him, those who were particularly interested in these stocks felt that he had not unfairly dealt with their representations. He did not himself believe that the importers would have had to make anything like the sacrifices which they themselves anticipated if his proposals had remained in their original form. He felt sure that in the amended form he had suggested their stocks of strips had a preference over the whole leaf, and even if that were not the case he did not believe that the place of these stocks of strips could be taken by any supplies of leaf which were now available. He was convinced that, with the concession he had proposed, the importers would not undergo the kind of loss which had been so frequently alluded to during these debates. He desired to make this personal explanation in answer to the remark of the hon. Gentleman opposite, that when the hon. Member for Leith rose to move to report Progress on the last occasion when this subject was under discussion he himself lose at the same time in order to make the very statement he made at the beginning of this afternoon's sitting. He thought, however, in the circumstances, and seeing that it was then about 2 o'clock in the morning, it would be better to defer the statement. He desired to make this explanation in order to assure the Committee that he had not been suddenly converted or that he had deliberately withheld information from the House.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid that the manufacturer could recoup himself by raising the price on any extra duty, but the importer could not do so. The rebate would, therefore, produce inequality as between manufacturer and importer. There had been anomalies under the old system, but they would be quite as great under that now proposed.
MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid that the importers of Liverpool appreciated the fair way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had met the difficulty. If his right hon. friend could see his way to give them another
364
halfpenny, their losses would not be so great, and they would be still more grateful. [Opposition cries of "Move."]
MR. McKENNAsaid he quite recognised that the hon. Member opposite should be grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the concession which he had made. But they on that side of the House had another duty to perform. They had to look upon this question from the point of view as to whether it was right or wrong. He still thought that this tax was wrong, and that the concession was not sufficient. Clearly, this year, the duty would fait on the owners of existing stocks in bond. The evidence given before the Departmental Committee was that if an additional drawback was given for which the witnesses were asking, it would become more profitable to import unstripped tobacco than stripped; but it was not suggested that there should be a difference between the duty on the two kinds. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how in the face of that evidence, and how in the face of the particular argument put forward by himself, he hoped to establish a case for putting a duty of three halfpence on existing stocks in bond? It was quite clear that once the existing stocks were exhausted there would be no revenue from strips. He asserted without fear of contradiction that this penny-halfpenny duty would fall on the owners of these existing stocks, and that they would have no chance of getting it out of the public.
RUNCIMANsaid that the concession of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a rebate of 1½d. up to the next day (Tuesday) was one of considerable importance; but he thought the concession should have been notified earlier through the medium of Question and Answer. He could not go to the extent of pleading for great gratitude from the importers for the concession. No doubt they would be glad to escape from a large obligation, but how they could be grateful for hearing £175,000 of taxation which would not be borne by any other citizens of the Empire passed his comprehension. They would still feel the burden of £7 10s. a hogshead on stocks in bonded warehouses, and that was an

365
obligation they were not likely to be extremely thankful for. The, Chancellor of the Exchequer could have exempted all existing contracts as his predecessor the right hon. Member for West Bristol did in regard to the coal tax. That action was appreciated, and he hoped it was not too late to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do the same for importers of stripped tobacco. He could not see how the importing firms could shift the tax
on to the consumers. If they could he would not object. Why the Chancellor of the Exchequer had probably not gone the whole way was because, having made this original suggestion, he was too much devoted to it to give it up at the last moment.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 194; Noes, 152. (Division List No. 246.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.)

Flower, Sir Ernest

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex.F.

Flynn, James Christopher

Maxwell,W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Forster, Henry William

Milvain, Thomas

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Foster,Fhilip S.(Warivick,S.W.

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O.

Galloway, William Johnson

Montagu, Hn.J.Scott (Hants.)

Arrol, Sir William

Gardner, Ernest

Mooney, John J.

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

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

Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Morrell, George Herbert

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Greene,SirE. W.(B'rySEm'nds

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Greene,W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Moulton, John Fletcher

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Grenfell, William Henry

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Bigwood, James

Hall, Edward Marshall

Murphy, John

Bill, Charles

Hambro, Charles Eric

Murray,Rt Hn.A.Graham(Bute

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Boland, John

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Myers, William Henry

Bond, Edward

Hayden, John Patrick

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Brigg, John

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Broadhurst, Henry

Heaton, John Henniker

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

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hickman, Sir Alfred

O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Butcher, John George

Holland, Sir William Henry

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Hope,J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

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

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Howard,John(Kent,Faversh'm

O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hozier, Hon. Jas. Henry Cecil

O'Dowd, John

Cavendish,V. C. W.(Derbyshire

Hudson, George Bickersteth

O'Malley, William

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hunt, Rowland

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Charrington, Spencer

Joicey, Sir James

O'Shee, James John

Clancy, John Joseph

Jones,David Brynmor(Swansea

Parkes, Ebenezer

Coates, Edward Feetham

Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W.

Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

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

Kerr, John

Peel,Hn.Wm. Robert Wellesley

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Keswick, William

Percy, Earl

Cripps, Charles Alfred

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Clinician, J.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Power, Patrick Joseph

Dalkeith, Earl of

Levy, Maurice

Pretyman, Ernest George

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Delany, William

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Ratcliff, R. F.

Devlin,CharlesRamsay(Galway

Lowe, Francis William

Reckitt, Harold James

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Renwick, George

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lucas,ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth)

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Dimsdale, Rt.Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Lundon, W.

Ridley,S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Donelan, Captain A.

Macdona, John Cumming

Robinson, Brooke

Doogan, P. C.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Maconochie, A. W.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Eve, Harry Trelawney

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Samuel,Sir HarryS.(Limehouse

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

M'Kean, John

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Fisher, William Hayes

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Fitzroy, Hon. EdwardAlgernon

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Sheehy, David

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Smith,Abel H.(Hertford, East)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Thornton, Percy M.

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

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

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Young, Samuel

Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

Tully, Jasper

Younger, William

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Strachey, Sir Edward

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Sullivan, Donal

Whiteley, George (York,W.R.)

Mr. Herbert Robertson and

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Colonel Lockwood.

Thomas,David Alfred (Merthyr

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

NOES.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Fuller, J. M. F.

Pierpoint, Robert

Allen, Charles P.

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

Pirie, Duncan V.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Grant, Corrie

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Asher, Alexander

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Rea, Russell

Asquith, Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Rickett, J. Compton

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Baird, John George Alexander

Harwood, George

Robson, William Snowdon

Balcarres, Lord

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Runciman, Walter

Barlow, John Emmott

Helder, Augustus

Russell, T. W.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Higham, John Sharpe

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Horniman, Frederick John

Shackleton, David James

Beach, Rt.Hn.Sir MichaelHicks

Houston, Robert Paterson

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Bell, Richard

Jacoby, James Alfred

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Smith, H.C(North'mb.Tyneside

Burt, Thomas

Kitson, Sir James

Soares, Ernest J.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Langley, Batty

Spear, John Ward

Caldwell, James

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Cameron, Robert

Lawson, JohnGrant(Yorks.N.R

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Tennant, Harold John

Cautley, Henry Strother

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Channing, Francis Allston

Lee,Arthur H.(Hants,Fareham

Tollemache, Henry James

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

Tomkinson, James

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Leese,Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Toulmin, George

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Tuff, Charles

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

Valentia, Viscount

Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Crooks, William

Lough, Thomas

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Lowther,RtHn.JW (Cum.Penr.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Lyell, Charles Henry

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Davenport, William Bromley-

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Denny, Colonel

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Whiteley,H.(Ashton und. Lyne

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Dobbie, Joseph

M'Kenna, Reginald

Wills, Sir Frederick

Duke, Henry Edward

Markham, Arthur Basil

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

Duncan, J. Hastings

Milner, Rt.Hn.Sir Frederick G.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Mitchell, Edw.(Fermanagh,N.)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Emmott, Alfred

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Woodhouse,SirJ T.(Huddersf'd

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Newnes, Sir George

Wylie, Alexander

Fenwick, Charles

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Parrott, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

FitzGerald,Sir Robert Penrose-

Partington, Oswald

Mr. William Abraham

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Paulton, James Mellor

(Rhondda) and Mr.Trevelyan

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

Pemberton, John S. G.

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fitzroy, Hon.Edward Algernon

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn. HughO.

Forster, Henry William

Lucas,Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Arrol, Sir William

Foster,Plulip S.(Warwick,S.W.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gardner, Ernest

Macdona, John Cumming

Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Baird, John George Alexander

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (EdinbnrghW

Balcarres, Lord

Goulding, Edward Alfred

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

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

Graham, Henry Robert

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Balfour,Rt.Hn.GeraldW.(Leeds

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

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

Maxwell,W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Milner,Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Grenfell, William Henry

Milvain, Thomas

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Gretton, John

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Bigwood, James

Hall, Edward Marshall

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Bill, Charles

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

Bingham, Lord

Hambro, Charles Eric

Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hardy,Laurence(Ken t,Ashford

Morrell, George Herbert

Bond, Edward

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Morrison, James Archibald

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St, John

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

Mount, William Arthur

Butcher, John George

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Murray, Rt. Hn.A.Graham(Bute

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Heath,Arthur Howard (Hanley

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Heath, James (Staffords.N.W.

Myers, William Henry

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Heaton, John Henniker

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Helder, Augustus

Nicholson, William Graham

Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc.

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford,W.)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Chapman, Edward

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Parkes, Ebenezer

Charrington, Spencer

Hope,J. F. (Sheffield.Brightside

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Houston, Robert Paterson

Peel,Hn. Wm. RobertWellesley

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Howard,John(Kent,Faversham

Pemberton, John S. G.

Coates, Edward Feetham

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Percy, Earl

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

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Hunt, Rowland

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Pretyman, Ernest George

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Pym, C. Guy

Dalkeith, Earl of

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Davenport, William Bromley-

Kerr, John

Renwick, George

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Keswick, William

Ridley, Hon.M. W.(Stalybridge

Dickson, Charles Scott

Kimber, Henry

Ridley,S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Dimsdale,Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Lawson JohnGrant(Yorks.N.R

Robinson, Brooke

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lee, Arthur H.(Hants,Fareham

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Duke, Henry Edward

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Samuel,Sir HarryS.(Limehouse

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

Lockwood. Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford,East)

Fisher, William Hayes

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Smith,H.C(North'mb.Tyneside

Fison, Frederick William

Lowe, Francis William

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

Spear, John Ward

Valentia. Viscount

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

Stanley,EdwardJas.(Somerset)

Vincent,Col.SirC.E H.(Sheffield

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Stanley, Rt. Hon.Lord (Lancs.)

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

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

Stewart,Sir Mark J.M'Taggart

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Wylie, Alexander

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Webb, Colonel William George

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

Thornton, Percy M.

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

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

Tuff, Charles

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

O'Brien Kendal(Tipperary,Mid

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Fuller, J. M. F.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

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

Allen, Charles P.

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

O'Connor,James (Wicklow, W.

Asher, Alexander

Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

O'Dowd, John

Asquith,Rt.Hn. Herbert Henry

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

O'Malley, William

Barlow, John Emmott

Hardie,J.Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Shee, James John

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Parrott, William

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Partington, Oswald

Bell, Richard

Higham, John Sharpe

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Boland, John

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

Pirie, Duncan V.

Brigg, John

Holland, Sir William Henry

Power, Patrick Joseph

Broadhurst, Henry

Horniman, Frederick John

Priestley, Arthur

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Rea, Russell

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Reckitt, Harold James

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Joicey, Sir James

Redmond, John E. (Waterford

Burke, E. Haviland-

Jones, DavidBrynmor(Swansea

Rickett, J. Compton

Burt, Thomas

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Kearley, Hudson E.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Caldwell, James

Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W.

Robson, William Snowdon

Cameron, Robert

Kitson. Sir James

Russell, T. W.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Labouchere, Henry

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Lambert, George

Shackleton, David James

Causton, Richard Knight

Langley, Batty

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Cawley, Frederick

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Channing, Francis Allston

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Leese, SirJosepliF. (Accrington

Sheehy, David

Clancy, John Joseph

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Soares, Ernest J.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Levy, Maurice

Strachey, Sir Edward

Cremer, William Randal

Lewis, John Herbert

Sullivan, Donal

Cullinan, J.

Lough, Thomas

Tennant, Harold John

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Lundon, W.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Delany, William

Lyell, Charles Henry

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

Devlin,CharlesRamsay(Galway

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Tomkinson, James

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Toulmin, George

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dobbie, Joseph

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Tully, Jasper

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Doogan, P. C.

M' Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannen)

Duncan, J. Hastings

Markham, Arthur Basil

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Elibank, Master of

Mitchell, Edw.(Fermanagh, N.)

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

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

Mooney, John J.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Emmott, Alfred

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Wills, Sir Frederick

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

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

Evans, SirFrancisH.(Maidstone

Moulton, John Fletcher

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Murphy, John

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersf'd

Fenwick, Charles

Newnes, Sir George

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Mr. M'Kenna and Mr.

Flynn, James Christopher

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Runcitnan.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. RUNCIMANsaid he wished to add to the Amendment the words "or is on the high seas consigned to an United Kingdom port on." This would extend
368
the right to rebate to tobacco shipped before 20th April. A merchant who was not fortunate enough to get his goods into the bonded warehouse, but who had

369
shipped them before the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were known, should have the same advantage, for it was not possible for him to intercept the vessel before its arrival in the United Kingdom. The concession he suggested was a very small one, as it only covered the tobacco which was afloat at the date of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's original proposal. He proposed the Amendment with the idea of covering the merchants who were in that position.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"After the word 'before' to insert the words 'or is on the high seas consigned to an United Kingdom portion.'"—(Mr. Runciman.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendent."
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he would accept the Amendment.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had accepted the proposed words. He asked whether an estimate had been made of the amount of tobacco on the high seas at the time, and how much further rebate would be given. In his view the right hon. Gentleman could hardly help accepting the Amendment, and its acceptance was merely a further argument in favour of the tax being withdrawn.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he thought the remarks of the hon. Gentleman were not generous, nor would they facilitate the harmonious progress of the discussion. He had made the concession in response to appeals from both sides of the House. It was quite manifest that the hon. Member (Mr. Runciman) moved his Amendment in no spirit of hostility, and, being anxious to meet the views of the hon. Member, he at once accepted it. He was not in a position to say what amount of tobacco would be on the high seas in that particular form, but it could not under the circumstances bear any very large proportion to that which was the subject-matter of the original Amendment. Whilst anxious to meet hon. Gentlemen in this matter he hoped they would not make the concession a ground for prolonging the debate.
SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid he approved of the action of the Chancellor the Exchequer who, when a grievance was brought to his notice, was always ready to accept a remedy for it.
Words, as amended, added.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 6, at end, to add the words 'in this section the expression, "stripped tobacco" means any leaf tobacco of which the leaf is not complete by reason of the removal of the stalk or midrib or of some portion thereof, but tobacco shall not be deemed to be stripped tobacco solely by reason of its having been subjected to such process of butting as the Commissioners of Customs allow.' "—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and question proposed. "That Clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he did not think that the Government could possibly be surprised that those who found themselves opposed to this tax on tobacco should consider it necessary, in view of all that had passed, to divide against the clause as a whole. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's courtesy must be acknowledged, but the concessions in view of which he appealed to the Committee were not to be regarded as favours. If it was right and proper that he should have made these concessions, he had only done his duty. Why had he made these concessions? Was it because he thought it a right and proper thing to do? If so, he should be grateful to his critics who had pointed out to him the means of improving taxation. The right hoe. Gentleman had animadverted on the prolongation of the debate. The prolongation was due to interruption and the switching off of the House on to another topic of an exciting kind. The concessions made it clear that the prolongation of the discussion had been of advantage. In consequence of the criticism made in Committee the right hon. Gentleman had announced a change in his proposals which affected a quarter of a million of money and a number of persons all over the country.

371
They might have concluded the debate on this tax earlier if it had not been complicated by the introduction of personal matters which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prompt in addressing himself to. No one ever dreamt of making ail attack upon the personal honour of the right hon. Gentleman. They had had no explanation of the change in the proportion of stripped and leaf. Since the right hon. Gentleman made his proposal it had evidently been to the interest of merchants not to import stripped tobacco. It was clear that there had been a leakage of information by which certain, persons had profited. That point had not been cleared up and that was a good reason for opposing the tax. He did not hold a brief for the manufacturers of tobacco who could very well look after themselves.
The right hon. Gentleman had come down that afternoon and made a complete change of front, fatal, he thought, to the logical basis of his whole argument in favour of the tax. When they last discussed the question the right hon. Gentleman said that the tax was fair as between the different classes of tobacco and the different classes of the trade, but it was pointed out by the hon. Member for Bristol that it would inflict on a comparatively small number gentlemen a very considerable pecuniary fine. This the right hon. Gentleman repudiated, but within a fortnight he had come to the conclusion that he was wrong, and in deference to criticism he withdrew not the injustice, but half the injustice. He had accepted the argument of the hon. Member for Bristol, but he had not accepted his conclusions. His own premises were destroyed, but he adhered to one half of his own conclusions. The right hon. Gentleman's attempt to make an adjustment between the different classes of tobacco was quite superfluous, because that adjustment had already been made by the drawbacks contained in the schedule. The Tobacco section of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, a recognised body of experts in this trade, had arrived at certain conclusions after consideration of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Liverpool was a very important place, a place to which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends would
372
possibly look for some support to other proposals they might have in their minds, and surely this was not the time to sicken Liverpool with views of scientific taxation.
It was quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman had been badly advised, or had not understood the advice he had received, in proposing this tax. He had been convicted of unmistakable blunders which overthrew the foundation of his case. The tax was imposed for the purpose of deriving a revenue from the duty on the import of strips, and the revenue was to continue for a number of years. But in the first three months it had dried up for ever that source of revenue. Then the right hon. Gentleman had declared that the price of strips had not altered since the Budget had been introduced, and it was found that he had referred to a price list which only contained quotations of the last transactions before his Budget was introduced. Thirdly, he had been under the impression that there was more moisture in leaf than in strips, whereas these great experts in the trade had unanimously expressed the opinion that properly handled parcels of whole leaf were just as dry as imported strips. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he could not challenge that opinion, and he had conducted forty - three experiments, the result of which had been to unmistakably uphold and confirm the opinion of the Liverpool experts. It was quite clear that the tax was imposed b e the right hon. Gentleman in good faith, but the arguments advanced in its support were full of cardinal and vital errors from beginning to end.
He did not suppose it would be easy to think on the spur of the moment of any tax which would more entirely traverse all the great financial principles laid down by the financial authorities of the country in past years. If the object of the tax was revenue, how signally the right hon. Gentleman had failed to attain that object. He had already surrendered for the present year half the stun he had hoped to attain, so that he would only get something between £200,000 and £250,000 this year as the result of this tax, and in future years the returns

373
would hardly be worth considering when compared to the vast scale of the annual Budget. Considered as a revenue-producing agent this tax utterly, totally, and absolutely failed. In so far as the tax produced revenue it violated the principles of indirect taxation, because instead of a regular annual supply from the consumer, who was after all the proper subject for individual taxation, the revenue was obtained as a sort of lucky haul from a few unfortunate individuals. In the third place, though he had no doubt the Government proposed it in good faith, the tax was undoubtedly protective. The proof of this fact was to be found in the circumstance that some of the persons engaged in the taxed trade were in favour of the tax. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it was worth while to go on with the remnants of this tax; was it worth while to vex this vast trade and disturb it from top to bottom; to cause an alteration in the price lists, and to cause so much discussion and debate for the sake of a tax which produced, for one year only, £250,000. He was unable to find any reason in logic why the right hon. Gentleman persisted with this tax, unless it was that advanced by the hon. Member for Dewsbury, that he felt a personal pride and enthusiasm in its success because it was his own special and particular creation. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to let his personal pride and enthusiasm for the tax force upon the Committee a policy which he must know was not suited to the welfare of the public or the convenience of our financial system. If the right hon. Gentleman forced it through the Committee with his mechanical majority he would emerge from the debates on the tobacco Resolution without any stain whatever on his personal honour
374
but with a very grave and serious, a very real and enduring, injury to his financial reputation.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he appeared to have been singularly unfortunate in endeavouring to convey his meaning to the hon. Gentleman, and be altogether failed to recognise, in the account he had given, either of his assertions or his admissions, anything approaching the statement he had made. Let them go back to the genesis and nature of this tax. The hon. Gentleman caught up from other people, and repeated in less offensive language—indeed without offence —the suggestion that the intention to impose this tax had somehow leaked out so as to affect the imports of whole leaf before the tax was proposed to be put on. That was based on the imports for the month of March. Let him repeat again what he had already told the Committee. The first proposal of this tax was made in answer to an inquiry of his which was addressed to the Board of Customs in the month of April. He had not any proper basis to suggest this tax in March, still less in the month of February, and, whatever it was that caused the great excess of strips in the month of March, it was not due to any knowledge of any intention which he had not at the time formed and which, therefore, nobody could have gained information about. Those were causes arising out of the natural course of trade which ought not and did not affect his judgment in the matter. He was in search of additional revenue for the Budget; he found that whilst other processes in the manufacture of tobacco were marked by an ascending scale of duty, this process of stripping, and this alone, was ignored, so that stripped tobacco was admitted on exactly the same basis as the whole leaf. He

375
thought they might fairly fill up this gap which was left in the Customs duties on tobacco. He perfectly understood that hon. Gentlemen opposite strongly objected to protection, although they had never thought it necessary in the past to remove manufacturers in this country confessedly enjoyed. But the result of the anomaly which he proposed to remove was not to give this hated protection to our own manufacturers, but artificially to divert the curse of trade, and to make impossible, or at any rate to penalise, the carrying on of a certain process of manufacture in this country. They had if evidence that the manufacturers by importing in the whole leaf could produce a better article, but they were deterred by the arrangement of the duty.
MR. McKENNA: The drawback.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid it was the duty and the drawback combined which produced that state of affairs.
MR. McKENNAchallenged the right hon. Gentleman to quote any evidence that it was the duty.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINthought he could find evidence referring to duty, but it would not be the evidence of Mr. Gallaher.
MR. McKENNAsaid that, curiously enough, that was the only reference he had got.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINremarked that the point was immaterial. It was the existing system which had produced these results. That was not a
376
system which any one, however stout a free-trader, had any cause to defend. The most that free-traders had claimed was that trade should follow its natural course. They were not allowing trade to follow its natural course when they penalised particular processes of manufacture if carried on in this country.
MR. McCRAEsaid they had at last had a frankly protectionist speech from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman was putting six times the cost of stripping on imported strips, and not protection he did not know what protection was. The right hon. Gentleman had made a mistake in proposing to deal with tobacco in this way, and the courageous course would have been to admit his mistake and retrace his steps. He understood that if the tobacco was taken out of bond for re-shipment it would pay no duty; therefore, as it could be shipped to America at a cost of ¼d. instead of l½d. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would probably not get even the small amount of revenue he was anticipating. He hoped that, in the interests of sound finance, and in order to get rid of the suspicion of protection, the right hon. Gentleman, even at the eleventh hour, would, like the repentant sinner, see the error of his way, and frankly confess his mistake.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that in a year like the present he would not oppose any tax that was fair and just, and likely to increase the revenue of the country to any appreciable extent. But a tax to be justifiable must disturb as little as possible the trade and

377
prosperity of the country, bring in a large amount of revenue, and be a continuous tax, so that it should not upset the finance of the next year. Inasmuch as the present proposal failed to satisfy any one of those three requirements, he submitted that a worse tax could not be found. Another reason against it was that it was a protective tax, and the Government had pledged themselves not to make any changes in the fiscal policy during the present Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman, by increasing the drawback, had removed the anomaly upon which he had based his proposals, and therefore the tax as it stood was entirely protective.
MR. McKENNAsaid the right hon. Gentleman had done himself a slight injustice in saying that he had originally suggested the tax in April, because in the latter part of his speech he had said that evidence given before the Departmental Committee in January contained statements to the effect that the present duty on strips was insufficient and penalised the process of manufacture. If that were so, how could the statement be reconciled with his claim to have originally suggested the tax in April? Perhaps the Financial Secretary would be able to explain this discrepancy between the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. After a careful perusal of the evidence given before the Departmental Committee, he had been unable to trace any suggestion that there was an insufficient duty on strips under our old law. Curiously enough the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that such suggestions as were made were not made by Mr. Gallaher. If there was any ambiguous phrase used in the whole course of the proceedings that was used by Mr.
378
Gallaher only. Mr. Gallaher, speaking about the United States, said that they took very good care in that country to tax everything, so as to protect their own manufactures and industries. That was the only possible suggestion of duty in the whole course of the evidence. The other witnesses all used arguments tending in the direction of favouring the importation of leaf and giving a drawback. Mr. Gallaher used the same argument as to encouraging the importation of leaf, but he said that if they were going to give too much drawback the importers would make money out of the returns. Outside of Mr. Gallaher's evidence, so far as he had been able to read the Report, there was not a single suggestion made that there should be a differentiation of the duties on the two classes of tobacco. Granting that the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was true that an equal tax would penalise manufacturers in connection with the process of stripping, still he asked why 3d. and not ½d.? His own evidence, given in answer to a Question by the hon. Member opposite, representing one of the Divisions of Liverpool, showed that the true difference of duty between leaf and strips should not be more than ½d. He hoped the Committee would reject the clause.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL,at 12.25, asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would consent to report Progress immediately after the present clause was disposed of.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINdeclined to give any such undertaking, as it would be to the general convenience that the Committee should be able, to proceed with the income-tax proposals

379
at the next sitting. But he would be willing to report Progress after Part I. was agreed to.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that Clause 4 (Continuance of additional Customs duty and drawbacks on tobacco, beer, and spirits) raised a totally different matter from the one they had been discussing. It raised the question of the war duties, and whether these taxes should be continued in the same form.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid it was a matter of indifference whether they took Clause 4 and 5 to-night or not. He would not ask the House to proceed beyond Clause 3, on which he understood there would be no long prolonged discussion.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 160; Noes, 94. (Division List No. 247.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Gardner, Ernest

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O.

Graham, Henry Robert

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

Arrol, Sir William

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Milner, Rt.Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Balcarres, Lord

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

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

Grenfell, William Henry

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

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

Gretton, John

Morpeth, Viscount

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Morrell, George Herbert

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Hambro, Charles Eric

Morrison, James Archibald

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hardy, Laurence (Kent,Ashf'rd

Mount, William Arthur

Bill, Charles

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Bingham, Lord

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

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

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Haslett, Sir James Horner

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Bond, Edward

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Parkes, Ebenezer

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Heath,Arthur Howard (Hanley

Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlington

Butcher,,John George

Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

Percy, Earl

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

Heaton, John Henniker

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Helder, Augustus

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Cautley, Henry Strother

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Pym, C. Guy

Chapman, Edward

Hunt, Rowland

Ratcliff, R. F.

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Coates, Edward Feetham

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

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

Kerr, John

Ridley, S.Forde (Bethnal Green

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Keswick, William

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Kimber, Henry

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.)

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Davenport, William Bromley-

Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N.R.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Dickson, Charles Scott

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

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Dimsdale, Rt.Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Smith,H.C(North'mb.Tyneside

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Spear, John Ward

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

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

Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Lowe, Francis William

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Fergusson, Rt.Hn.SirJ.(Manc'r

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Thornton, Percy M.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Tuff, Charles

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Macdona, John Cumming

Valentia, Viscount

Forster, Henry William

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Galloway, William Johnson

M'Iver,Sir Lewis(Edinburh,W

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Webb, Colonel William George

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

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

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

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

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

Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Whiteley, H.(Asliton und.Lyne

Wylie, Alexander

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rickett, J. Compton

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Joicey, Sir James

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Allen, Charles P.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Robson, William Snowdon

Asher, Alexander

Joyce, Michael

Runciman, Walter

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W.

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Kilbride, Denis

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

Labouchere Henry

Shackleton, David James

Boland, John

Lambert, George

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Brigg, John

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Levy, Maurice

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Lewis, John Herbert

Sheehy, David

Caldwell, James

Lough Thomas

Soares, Ernest J.

Causton, Richard Knight

Lundon, W.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Channing, Francis Allston

Lyell, Charles Henry

Sullivan, Donal

Churchill, Winston Spencer

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Tennant, Harold John

Condon, Thomas Joseph

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Creamer, William Randal

M'Crae, George

Tomkinson, James

Cullinan, J.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Toulmin, George

Delany, William

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Dobbie, Joseph

Murphy, John

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Doogan, P. C.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Elibank, Master of

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Ellice.Capt E.C(SAndrw'sBghs

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

Wills, Sir Frederick

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Fenwick, Charles

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

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

O'Malley, William

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Shee, James John

Woodhouse,Sir J.T(Huddersf'd

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

Pirie, Duncan V.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Higham, John Sharpe

Power, Patrick Joseph

Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

Holland, Sir William Henry

Rea, Russell

William M'Arthur.

Horniman, Frederick John

Reckitt, Harold James

Question put, and agreed to

Clause 3.
MR. SOARESmoved, on behalf of the hon. Member for Halifax, the following Amendment—
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 11, to leave out the word 'May' and insert the word 'July.'"—(Mr. Soares.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'July' stand part of the clause."
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINexplained that the Amendment was both unnecessary and ineffectual
Amendment, by leave, Withdrawn.
MR.SOARESmoved the following Amendment which he hoped would be accepted in the interests of good draftsmanship.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 14, to leave out Sub-section (2), and insert the words,—'Section two of the Finance Act, 1898, is hereby repealed, and in Section four of The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1887, the words "thirty-two per centum" shall be substituted for the words "thirty-five per centum."'"—(Mr. Soares.)
Question proposed, "That Sub-section (2) stand part of the clause."
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINexplained that the clause was drafted in the ordinary form, but he did not dispute the fact that the alteration possessed"

383
merits. He would, however, suggest to insert after the figures 1887 the words
"which relates to moisture in tobacco."
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment—
"After the figures '1887,' to insert the words 'which relates to moisture in tobacco.'"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINmoved to report Progress.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Committee do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had intimated that it was absolutely necessary to get rid of the Bill on the following night. On that side of the House they did not recognise that necessity, especially having regard to the fact that considerable time had been occupied by the consideration of a private Bill. He entered the protest in no hostile spirit, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had met them very fairly.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINobserved that the arrangement with the hon. Gentleman and his friends provided that two or more clauses should be passed that night, but adverting to the observations and upon the amount of time still available for discussion, he ventured to assert that as much time had been devoted to this Bill as to the first discussion of the corn tax.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLdisclaimed any intention on the part of the Opposition to agree that the Committee stage of the Bill should be completed on the following night.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that so far as he was personally concerned it was a matter of indifference whether they passed a stated number of clauses at that sitting. He had, however, to get the Bill through on the following night.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid there might be a clear understanding on that point on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his supporters, but if the right hon. Gentleman took it to be a clear understanding on their part—
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to discuss to-morrow's business. The question before the Committee is "to report Progress."
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not consider that there was any understanding with me.
SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: Agreed! Agreed!
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

DRUNKENESS (IRELAND) BILL.
Read a second time, and committed for this day.
Adjourned at five minutes before One o'clock,