Commons Sitting of 3 May 1904

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Lancashire Electric Power Bill [Lords]. Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  Barnet District Gas and Water Bill; Donegal Railway Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Doncaster Corporation Bill; Huddersfield Corporation Act, 1902 (Amendment) Bill [Lords]; Strabane, Raphoe, and Convoy Railway Bill; Surrey Commercial Dock Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  London Port and Docks Bill (by Order). Second Reading deferred till Monday, 6th June.
  Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company [Stamp Duties]. Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That in lieu of the Stamp Duties which would have been payable upon the deeds or assurances which, in case the Bill had not been passed into an Act, would have been required to pass to and vest in the Company certain property, there be charged a stamp duty of five pounds, and such duty shall be impressed upon the certificate to be given by the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies under the third section hereof. —(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP No. 8).
  Mr. HENRY HOBHOUSE reported from the Committee on Group No. 8 of Railway Bills, That the parties opposing the London United Tramways Bill had stated that the evidence of Police Inspector E. Digby was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Police Inspector E. Digby do attend the said Committee to-day at Three of the clock.
  Ordered, That Police Inspector E. Digby do attend the Committee on Group No. 8 of Railway Bills to-day, at Three of the clock.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Norwich Water Bill, without Amendment.
  Great Eastern Railway (Steamboats) Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to vary and amend the provisions of the South Staffordshire Mines Drainage Acts, 1891 and 1894; and for other purposes." [South Staffordshire Mines Drainage Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to free Maidenhead Bridge from tolls, to enable the Corporation of Maidenhead to borrow money for discharging the mortgage debt on the bridge, for vesting the Bridge Estates in the Corporation; and for other purposes in connection therewith." [Maidenhead Bridge Bill [Lords.]
  South Staffordshire Mines Drainage Bill [Lords]; Maidenhead Bridge Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  BISHOPRICS OF SOUTHWARK AND BIRMINGHAM BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Richmond; and Battersea (two); to lie upon the Table.

  COUNTY COURTS ACT, 1903.
  Petition from the Association of Trade Protection Societies of the United King-
  238
  dom, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Aberdeen, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSE-LETTING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Partick, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES (RENEWAL).
  Petitions against alteration of law; from Harrow Road; Maenclochog; Swinefleet; Sheffield; Ford; Brentwood; Uxbridge; S. H. Kearsey and others; Liverpool; Stepney (three); Moulton; Llandissilio; Ammanford; Argyle; London; Ratcliff; Waltham Abbey; Horsham (two); Folkestone; Heyford; Barrowford (two); Southsea; Nottingham; Maidstone; Chester le Street; and West Hendon; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Manchester; Aberdeen (three); London (two); South Byker; Canning Town; Islington; New-biggin; Alston; Barrington; Broomhill; Seghill; Hexham; Grangemouth; and Chelsea; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petition from Whitehaven, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL.
  Petition from Westminster, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Abingdon, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (RULES).
  Paper [presented 2nd May] to be printed. [No. 154.]

  AFRICA (No. 5, 1904).
  Copy presented, of Agricultural Report on the District between Voi and Kiu in the East Africa Protectorate, by Mr. A. Linton, Director of Agriculture East

  239
  Africa Protectorate; and Return of Game shot in the Protectorate during 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Statement as to the procedure followed by the Board of Inland Revenue in ascertaining the value of property for the purposes of Estate Duty."—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 155.]

  LICENSING BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Statement showing, for each county and county borough, the number of publicans' and beerhouse Licences, and, approximately, the maximum sum leviable under the Licensing Bill in each area.'—(Mr. Cochrane.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 156.]

  TAXES AND IMPOSTS.
  Return ordered, "showing (1) the Rates of Duties, Taxes, or Imposts collected by Imperial Officers; (2) the Quantities or Amounts taxed; (3) the gross receipts derived from each Duty; and (4) the Net Receipts and Appropriations thereof in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1904; and (1) the aggregate Gross Receipts derived from all such Duties, Taxes, or Imposts, under the principal heads of Revenue; (2) the aggregate Net Receipts; (3) the Charges of Collection; and (4) the Produce, after deducting these Charges on each of the ten years ending the 31st day of March, 1904."
  "And, Notes to show any changes in the Taxes, Duties, and Imposts consequent upon the acceptance of the Budget Proposals of 1904 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 303, of Session 1903)."—(Mr. Goddard.)

Oral Answers to Questions
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Compensation for Licences.
    MR. BAYLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, under
    240
    the new Licensing Bill, the owner of the licence who is a servant of a brewery is entitled to compensation should he be disturbed in the public interest.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) If, as would no doubt usually be the case, a licence-holder such as the hon. Member has in mind had an interest in the premises he would be entitled to compensation; but the nature and extent of his interest and his share of the compensation money must depend on the circumstances of the actual case, and would in default of agreement be determined by quarter sessions.

    Suspension of Omnibus Drivers and Conductors' Licences.
    MR. LOUGH: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a system exists in the metropolis under which the Chief Commissioner of Police suspends for various periods the licence of drivers or conductors in the service of omnibus companies for offences for which they have already been punished by fine or otherwise; and if so, whether he can see his way to promise that this practice will be reconsidered by the Chief Commissioner with a view to its modification.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The practice to which the hon. Member draws attention is of old standing; and when, in 1864, it was brought before the Court of Queen's Bench in the case of Regina v. Commissioners of Police, the Court held that the suspension of the licence was within the powers of the Commissioner, and the Lord Chief Justice expressed the opinion that it was a "salutary check." The Commissioner, who exercises this power with discretion and without undue severity, considers it necessary to the preservation of proper conduct in the men, and therefore essential in the public interest, and in this view I concur.

    Licences refused by Committee of Quarter Sessions—Right of Appeal.
    SIR JOHN DORINGTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, under the provisions of the

    241
    Licensing Bill, it is intended that in the case of the refusal of a licence by the committee of quarter sessions the right of subsequent appeal to the Court of quarter sessions, as at present existing, should be retained, or whether the decision of the committee is final.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) It is intended that the decision of the committee of quarter sessions shall be final.

    Compulsory Licences for British Patents.
    SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what provision is made by the Patent Acts and the regulations of the Board of Trade for granting compulsory licences for the manufacture of articles in the United Kingdom under British patents; what number of compulsory licences have been obtained through application to the Board of Trade for the manufacture of articles under British pa tents granted to persons residing abroad; and what is the total number of compulsory licences for British patents.
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The provisions now in force relating to the grant of the licences referred to are contained in Section 3 of the Patents Act, 1902, and Rules 69 to 75 of the Patents Rules, 1903. No licences have yet been granted under these provisions; but two applications for such licences are pending. Under Section 22 of the Patents, etc. Act, 1883, and the Rules formerly in force there under, two licences were granted, of which one was in respect of a British patent owned by a person resident abroad.

    Postal Cash-on-Delivery System.
    LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBY: To ask the Postmaster-General if he intends this year to introduce the cash-on-delivery system.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am not as yet in a position to announce any decision on the subject; and I can only refer the hon. Member to the Answers which I have given to Questions previously asked.

    New School at Hayward's Heath.
    MR. J. F. HOPE: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can say when the report of the representative of the Board, who lately held an inquiry as to the provision of a new school at Hayward's Heath, will be deposited with the local education authority.
    (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Board are in communication with the county council with a view to making the necessary arrangement for the deposit of the report. As soon as these arrangements are completed a notice of the deposit will be published by the Board. A copy of the report has already been sent to the county council for their information.

    Attendance at School of Young Children Living at a Distance.
    MR. HUNT: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in view of the fact that complaints have been made by workmen and others in Shropshire of the distances which small children have to walk to the nearest school, and of the injury to the children caused thereby, he can issue regulations to county councils showing whether the county council can render school attendance not compulsory for children between the ages of five and seven if the school is more than one mile from their home.
    (Answered by Sir William Anson.) A local education authority has powers under Section 74 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, to make by-laws limiting compulsory attendance in the case of children between five and seven to those children who reside not more than one mile from the nearest school.

    Education Act—Part Payment of Rates.
    SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any instructions have been given by this Department to local authorities, since the passing of the Education Act, directing overseers not to accept part payment of rates.
    (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The reply is in the negative.

    Motor Car Act—Report of Departmental Committee.
    MR. SHEPHERD CROSS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Departmental Committee on the Motor-Car Act have presented their Report; and, if so, when it will be printed.
    ((Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have received the Report. It will be presented to Parliament at once.

    Compensation for Damage by Explosives used for Naval Practice.
    MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the custom to pay compensation for damage done to private property by explosives used in the course of naval practices, or other operations connected with His Majesty's service.
    (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) Every claim for compensation is carefully considered and dealt with on its merits. There is no general rule laid down.

    Volunteers—Courts of Inquiry.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the total number of Courts of Inquiry respecting the Volunteer force in the year 1903–4 in which evidence was ordered to be taken on oath, and the battalions to which any such cases referred, who convened the Courts, and who directed evidence to be taken on oath.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) There was only one such Court in which evidence was taken on oath. The corps concerned was the 1st London Royal Engineers (Volunteers). The holding of this Court was approved by the Secretary of State for War, but actually convened under the orders of the General Officer Commanding the Home District by the Commanding Royal Engineer. This latter officer gave orders for the evidence to be taken on oath.

    Indian Army—Orders for Private Firms for New Batteries.
    MR. J. F. HOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he
    244
    can say approximately when the orders will be given for the new batteries to be made by private manufacturers for the Army in India.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) I am not yet in a position to state definitely when the new orders for the new batteries will be given, but every effort is being made to facilitate progress in this direction.

    New Rifle—Increased Recoil.
    MR. HUNT: To ask the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the fact that the new rifle, from its reduced weight and the increased pressure at the breech, kicks more than the old long rifle, he will take any steps to remedy this defect.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The question of the slight increase to recoil involved has been fully considered, and it has been decided that no steps in the matter are necessary.

    Army Manœuvres in Essex—Essex Yeomanry.
    SIR CARNE RASCH: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Essex Yeomanry, or any part of it, will be employed in the manœuvres in Essex, and if pay will be granted.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The composition of the opposing forces at the forthcoming Army Manœuvres has not yet been finally decided. The advantage of employing local Yeomanry will not be lost sight of, and the question of paying them, if their services are utilised, will receive due consideration.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Manchester Volunteers' Camp Arrangement.
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the mounted infantry company of the 2nd Volunteer Battalion Manchester Rifles having represented to the War Office that the Isle of Man, where the Manchester Brigade is going in Whit week, is unfit

    245

    for the training of mounted men, the War Office have offered Liphook as an alternative camping ground for the company, and that the War Office have since intimated that if Liphook be chosen the company will receive no pay, and camp allowance for one week only, whereas if they go to the Isle of Man they will receive both pay and camp allowance for two weeks; and, if so, whether arrangements can be made for the company to go to a suitable training ground under the same conditions as to the Isle of Man, as they are anxious to make themselves as efficient as possible.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): This matter has already been referred to headquarters by the General Officer Commanding concerned in the proper manner, and is now receiving consideration.

    Military Works in Ireland—Employment of Civilian Engineers.
    MR. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that in several instances in Ireland the duties of Royal Engineer officers are being discharged by civilian engineers appointed without examination, he will state what are their qualifications and under what conditions of tenure do they serve; is he aware that these appointments have caused professional discontent in Ireland; and will he state if the appointments to the new Department of Military Works are to be made under the same conditions, or under the usual conditions of Civil Service examination and competition.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There are a very few civilians temporarily employed in Ireland as acting engineers, and they will be replaced as soon as possible. They were engaged by the military authorities in Ireland who were satisfied that they possessed the requisite qualifications for the posts, which experience has shown to be correct. It is not known that professional discontent has been caused in Ireland. The composition of the staff of the new Works Depart-has not yet been definitely settled.

    British South Africa Company—Jameson Raid Claim.
    MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the
    246
    Colonies whether, in view of the fact that he has been advised that the claim of the late Transvaal Government against the British South Africa Company in respect of the Jameson Raid did not pass to the Home Government, the present Government of the Transvaal have in like manner been advised that this claim does not pass to them; if so, does this advice apply to any other assets of the late Transvaal Government; and on what ground is a distinction drawn between this claim and any other assets.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): I am not aware whether the present Transvaal Government have taken advice on the matter, but I would again refer the hon. Member to the answer of my predecessor of 1st April, 1901.† The right of the late South African Republic to press by diplomatic means for compensation for a wrong committed is not in my opinion rightly to be regarded as an asset of that Government.
    MR. PIRIE: Is it not the case that the late Colonial Secretary stated that the Chartered Company would be compelled to make good the injury caused by the Jameson Raid?
    MR. LYTTELTON: That might be so, but if it were so, it does not appear to have much bearing on the answer I gave that this is not an asset which passes to this Government.
    MR. PIRIE: Is it not the case that the insistence on this claim by President Kruger was the cause of the late war?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Seistan Boundary Commission
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state what has been the expenditure up to date on the Seistan Boundary Commission, and what is the estimated cost up to the anticipated completion of its work next autumn; will any portion of such cost be defrayed by the Persian or Afghan
    † See (4) Debates, xcii., 329.

    247
    Governments or by the British Treasury; is this Commission accompanied by any military escort; and, if so, of what strength.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): I am unable to give the figures of the expenditure on the Seistan Boundary Commission, but I hope to receive the information shortly. The cost is estimated at rather over£5,000 a month, and, as my predecessor stated in answer to a Question list year,† will fall on Indian revenues. The escort with the Mission consists of one troop of native cavalry and two companies of native infantry.

    Macedonian Reform—European Consuls at Monastir.
    MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W. R.,): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the European Consuls in the vilayet of Monastir have been informed by the Vali that in the future no representations from them regarding outrages or abuses will be considered by him.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): The Vali of Monastir appears to have ignored representations made by the Austrian and Russian Consuls since the advent of the civil agents. The Austrian and Russian Ambassadors at Constantinople have, however, formally notified the Porte that the presence of the Civil Agents in no way alters the position of their Consuls, to whose representations they expect the same attention to be paid as in the past.

    Macedonia.
    MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will say, in view of the fact that a conference of insurgent leaders is to be held within two or three weeks to decide whether a fresh rising shall take place in Macedonia, what steps the Government will take to assure the people of that country that efficient control of the administration is to be established by the great Powers.
    *See (4) Debates, cxviii. 1232.
    EARL PERCY: His Majesty's Government have no cognisance of, or concern in, the plans of the revolutionary leaders. They have repeatedly asserted their determination to assist and accelerate by every means in their power the prompt and effective application of the reforms already agreed upon, and the foreign officers appointed for the reorganisation of the Macedonian Gendarmerie arrived a fortnight ago at Salonica en route for the various districts assigned to them. His Majesty's Government earnestly hope that their presence will have a reassuring effect on the populations and prevent a renewal of the disturbances which would render nugatory the efforts which the Powers have already made on their behalf.

    Death Duties—Valuation of Licensed Property.
    MR. HENRY HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will lay upon the Table of the House a Paper showing how the various interests on death of the freehold and leasehold owners and mortgagees of public-houses are valued for the purpose of the estate duty.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I hope that Papers on the subject will be laid this afternoon.

    The Tobacco Duty.
    MR. LOUGH: I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question, of which I have given him private notice, with reference to the tobacco duty, viz., if it is the practice to refund the Customs duty on stripped stalks; how those stalks are disposed of, and what is the estimated revenue from the additional duties on cigars and cigarettes?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member does not seem quite to understand the point. Duty is not at present returned upon stalks of tobacco stripped in this country, unless they have been ground into snuff and exported or deposited in a bonded or King's warehouse. Drawback is then allowed at the rate of 3s. 1d. for each lb. of the offal snuff, according to a certain standard. But the ground stalks fall much below

    249
    the standard fixed, and it requires therefore more than 1 lb. of stalks to produce 1 lb. of standard offal. It appears that the actual drawback value of stalks as offal does not average more than about 2s. 7d. a lb. The offal snuff is generally denatured and used for the production of nicotine, sheep-dip, blight powder, etc. The estimate of the amount, to be received from the additional duty on cigars is £45,000, and from that on cigarettes £20,000. I may add I have received some evidence showing that the grinding of the stalks before they are used for nicotine and other purposes renders them less valuable than they would be unground.

    Racing News by Wireless Telegraphy.
    MR. MONTAGU: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the fact that recently a Marconi instrument has been set up upon Newmarket racecourse for the purpose of the distribution of news; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to put a stop to similar action in the future.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): My attention has been called to the fact that endeavours have been made to distribute racing results by means of wireless telegraphy and I am now in communication with the persons concerned.

    Post Office Wages Committee.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General when the Report of Sir Edward Bradford's Committee on the terms of service of certain classes of postal employees may be expected; and whether this House will be afforded an opportunity of discussing the Report of the Committee.
    LORD STANLEY: I am unable to say when the Report of Sir Edward Bradford's Committee will be presented. With regard to the second part of the Question, I am unable at present to give any such assurances as the hon. Member asks for.

    Smallpox in East London.
    SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Presi-
    250
    dent of the Local Government Board in view of the recent outbreak of smallpox in East London, can he state to what cause it is attributed, and how many patients have been removed for treatment from the various districts of London by the Metropolitan Asylums Board.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I am unable to specify the precise causes to which the outbreak referred to is to be attributed, but I may state that several cases occurred in some common lodging-houses and seamen's boarding-houses in Stepney and Poplar, and the earliest of these cases seem to have been those of some cattlemen who came from America. The number of patients removed to the hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums Board from the various districts of London from 1st March to 29th April was 242.

    Rats and the Spread of Plague.
    SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that vessels entering French ports from plague-infected ports are not allowed to load until the owners have had such vessels fumigated for the purpose of securing the destruction of any rats which may be on board; and having regard to the remarks contained in the last annual Report of the Medical Officer of Health for the Port of London, and the prevalence of plague in the Far East, will the question of adopting regulations similar to those in force in France be considered.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I am aware of the decree made by the French Government with regard to this matter. That decree was however, issued before the recent international conference at Paris took place. The provisions on this subject included in the convention made as the result of the conference are less stringent than those of the decree. The convention is now under the consideration of the Governments concerned. It has been the practice of my Department to recommend the destruction of rats on board vessels coming from plague-infected ports, when the vessels are empty, but it has not been thought necessary to make this compulsory.

    Dartmoor Prison Staff's Quarters.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that only two-thirds of the prison staff at Princetown are provided with housing accommodation; that in the older barrack quarters the rooms are small and insufficient in height; and that, owing to the supply by the prison authorities of accommodation for the prison staff being insufficient, working men in Princetown have difficulty in securing houses at rents within their means, although ample land is available upon which accommodation should be provided for the prison staff by the Government; and whether he will cause special inquiry to be made to secure scheduled for the purpose of notifying adequate accommodation for all prison officials, seeing that land can be acquired from the Government at a reasonable price for the housing of other workmen in the vicinity.
    The SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): Out of 235 officers at Dartmoor Convict Prison 185 or more than three-fourths are now living in quarters provided by the Government. The Directors are contemplating the building of additional quarters, and this scheme would probably involve the demolition of some of the old barrack quarters, the accommodation in which is admitted to be deficient, and would incidentally increase the supply of working-class accommodation available in Princetown. There is no difficulty about a site and the Directors will proceed with the work of providing quarters for officers at Dartmoor and other prisons as rapidly as the funds available will permit, but I cannot pledge them to give Dartmoor priority over other places where the needs may be more urgent.

    Off-Licence Holders and the Licensing Bill.
    MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the holders of off-licences shall come under the provisions of the Licensing Bill now before the House.
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: At the Committee stage of the Bill the Government
    252
    will be ready to put on the Paper an Amendment showing the extent to which, and the conditions on which, they are prepared to include off-licences in the Bill.

    Roscommon Maiden Quarter Sessions.
    MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that there was no criminal business at several recent quarter sessions in the county Roscommon, and of the inconvenience and expense to jurors of being brought long distances without any cause, he will issue instructions to have the county scheduled for the purpose of notifying jurors that they are not required to attend on such occasions as those referred to.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The question of applying the provisions of the Quarter Sessions Jurors' Act of 1897 to the county Roscommon, with the view of obviating the inconveniences pointed out by the hon. Member, is at present before the Lord-Lieutenant in council.

    Irish Emigration Statistics.
    DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Emigration Statistics for Ireland for the year 1903, in which it is stated that 40,659 people, 19,303 young men and 21,356, young women, left the country during the year; and whether, seeing that the province of Connaught has supplied more than one-fourth of the total number—viz. 11,504, he will see that a Commission of inquiry is appointed with a view to finding out the cause and effect of such emigration from Connaught and its remedy.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The number of persons, natives of Ireland, who emigrated in 1903 was 39,789. Their composition according to sex and age (from one year upwards) will be found at page nine of the Statistical Report The numbers show a decrease as compared with 1902.No useful object would be served by appointing a Commission, as suggested.
    MR. FLAVIN: Can the Chief Secretary say why these people are leaving Ireland?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Irish Training Colleges and Free Homes.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the resolution signed by the Cardinal Archbishop of Armagh, in which the standing committee of the Roman Catholic Bishops of Ireland complain of the refusal of free homes to the training colleges at Belfast, Waterford, and Limerick as unfair to these colleges, and as tending, by reducing the resources which are necessary for their efficient working, injuriously to affect the whole primary system of education in the country; and whether he proposes to make any statement in answer to this grave pronouncement of the Bishops.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir, I have seen a published report of the resolution. I cannot consider a departure from the understanding that free homes should be granted only to metropolitan training colleges, except as part of the general question of educational reform.

    Falchorrib and Gortnasate Works.
    MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now say whether the estimate and plans for the works proposed to be executed at Falchorrib and Gortnasate, under the Marine Works Act, have been completed; and when the construction of these piers will be begun.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There has been delay in the case of the proposed works at Gortnasate in consequence of the form of agreement forwarded by the county council not having been dated or attested. It is now before the Treasury and I expect to have its decision very shortly. The estimate for Falchorrib, provisionally set down at £1,000, has been increased to £2,500. In view of the decision of the county council to withhold their cooperation from the works agreed upon last year at Portnoo, Cladnageragh and Downing's Bay, I doubt whether this is
    254
    an opportune moment to approach them again on the question of Falchorrib.

    Rossbeg (Donegal) Landing Place.
    MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now say what decision has been arrived at by the Congested Districts Board with regard to the provision of additional landing accommodation for fishing boats at Rossbeg, county Donegal.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Provision has been made by the Board for the expenditure of a sum of £107 on works of improvement at Rossbeg landing place.

    Irish Motor-Car Services.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the proposed motor-car services are to be started this summer in Ireland.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The proposed motor-car services will be started as soon as the necessary steps have been completed for putting the roads in order.
    MR. FLAVIN: And what steps have been taken to secure that?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Tarbet Tourist Steamers—Government Subsidy.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether arrangements can be made during the summer for a service of steamers, aided by a Government subsidy, between Kilrush and Foynes.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I cannot hold out any hope that the subsidy in the case of the Tarbet to Kilrush steamer will be continued beyond the 31st instant.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter seeing that nearly everybody in the district has signed a petition in favour of granting the subsidy?
    MR. WYNDHAM: The question has often been before me, but I cannot see my way to finding the funds at present.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to find the funds?
    MR. WYNDHAM: If I can.

    Colclough Estate, Wexford.
    MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the hearing of the case of the Colclough Estate before the Land Judge's Court, the Land Judge said that although the estate was put in Court for sale he had no power to sell it; and, if so, whether, seeing that this estate has been in Court for twenty years, during which no steps were taken to bring the matter to a sale until the tenants themselves applied to the receiver, steps will be taken to expedite its sale to the tenants.
    MR. WYNDHAM: A receiver was appointed over this estate by one of the Chancery Judges. The case only comes before the Land Judge because he is the Judge having jurisdiction over receivers. The Judge of the Chancery Division never ordered the estate to be sold, and it did not, therefore, come before the Land Judge for sale. The Land Judge has no power to sell the estate, nor did he ever say that the estate was in his Court for sale.

    Ballymahon Magisterial Bench.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that three vacancies recently existed on the magisterial bench of Ballymahon; whether he is aware that two of these vacancies have been filled by the recent appointment of two Protestant gentlemen to the bench; will he state on whose recommendation these appointments were made; and whether any recommendation from the local authority for the appointment of a Roman Catholic to the third vacancy will be considered.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There were two vacancies, caused by the deaths of Protestant justices. Three gentlemen (Protestants) have been appointed on
    256
    the recommendation of the Lieutenant of the county. The Lord Chancellor and Lieutenant of the county will be happy to consider any representations made to them in favour of the appointment of Roman Catholic gentlemen to the commission of the peace.

    Irish Poor Law Unions and Military Patients.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether any liability is imposed on Poor Law Unions in Ireland to receive infectious and non-infectious cases into their hospitals from military barracks; and whether, if such local authorities agree to accept such cases, proper care will be taken that no loss will be put upon the ratepayers in consequence of the extra charges incurred.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There is no obligation on the part of boards of guardians to admit military patients to workhouse hospitals. But I am informed by the War Department that in all instances where arrangements are made with the local authorities for the reception of infectious cases occurring amongst troops or their families, the charges agreed upon for their maintenance are defrayed by the Department.

    Irish Land Purchase Statistics.
    MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say when the Annual Return of the Land Commission for the year ending 31st March, 1904, will be published; how many estates were sold by the Land Judge under Section 40 of the Land Act of 1896 since the new Land Act of 1903 came into force; end how many estates have appeared each week on the Land Judge's list for sale under that section since the Land Act of 1903 came into force.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Annual Report of the Commissioners for the year 1903–4 will, it is expected, be ready for presentation to Parliament in July or August next. The interim Returns of proceedings under the Act of 1903, which I have undertaken to lay shortly on the Table, will contain information in respect of sales in the Land Judge's Court.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this Report will not be ready till July or August? Does he not recognise the importance of our having it in time to discuss it on the Estimates?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think it has ever been laid before the Estimates were taken.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Under the peculiar circumstances now obtaining, will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to lay the Report in time for us to discuss it.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I will see what can be done.

    Irish Evicted Tenants.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners will be instructed, with a view to securing grazing tracts of land for the settlement of evicted tenants, to send an inspector into the large grazing districts to report upon suitable properties for sale; and whether, in such cases, the seventh and eighth Sections of the Act of 1903 will be enforced, if possible.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Commissioners are not in a position effectively to initiate inquiries of this character pending the settlement of the question of the payment of the bonus in respect of untenanted lands. When that question is determined the matter will be further considered. Such inquiries are now made when an owner offers untenanted lands to the Commissioners.

    The Education Code and the Irish Language.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in framing the new Education Code, he will arrange to include the Irish language as an optional subject in view of the fact that in a number of schools throughout the country Irish children are predominant in number, and in view of its literary value.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): Article 16 of the existing Code
    258
    permits, where it is found desirable, the inclusion in the course of instruction of other subjects besides those actually mentioned in the Code. This provision will be retained in the forthcoming Code, and I do not think that anything further is necessary.
    MR. BOLAND: May I ask if it is possible to include the Irish language in the new Code?
    SIR WILLIAM ANSONwas understood to reply that it was not possible to do so in so many words, but under the provisions of the Code it was allowable to treat certain subjects as optional, and this might come under that head.

    The Irish Dictionary
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, can he state what progress has been made by Dr. Atkinson in the compilation of the Irish dictionary; how many years has it been in hand; and can he state how much money has been paid from State funds for this object to the Royal Irish Academy.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): I am informed that since 1880 transcribers skilled in the Irish language have been employed to extract from all branches of Irish literature the materials for this dictionary, and that this preliminary stage is now so nearly completed that it is hoped to begin the printing of the work after the summer vacation. The amount expended for this purpose since 1880 out of the annual grant in aid to the Royal Irish Academy is £3,790. 9s.

    Irish Local Loans—Rate of Interest.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the price at which the recent flotation of the Irish Land Loan was effected and the present ease in the money market, the former rate of interest to Irish local bodies will be restored.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The present rates of interest on loans out of the Local Loans Fund to local authorities in Great Britain as well as in Ireland, were fixed by a Treasury Minute of the 3rd March last. There has since been

    259
    some improvement in money-market conditions; but it would be necessary to have much longer experience of the extent and stability of that improvement before a further change of the rates could be considered.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: Is there any fixed period for revising the rates?
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: No, but it is done from time to time.

    Female Supervisors in the Dublin Post Office.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that men are frequently supervised by females in Dublin; can he say if this practice is general throughout the entire service; and, if not, will he make arrangements to have the practice discontinued.
    LORD STANLEY: As a general rule men are not placed under the supervision of women—I am only speaking from the postal point of view—but there are some cases, as at Dublin, where it is necessary to employ some of the junior sorting clerks and telegraphists at telegraph circuits which are under female supervision. I do not see any serious objection to this, and it would not be practicable, under existing circumstances, to arrange otherwise.

    American Mail Delays at Queenstown.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that a portion of the American mail landed at Queenstown on the 1st April was sent unsorted to London and Liverpool; can he say why the controller of the Dublin sorting office does not train a sufficient number of men to be able to cope with the mail; and will he explain why the same steps are not taken in Ireland as in England to secure the efficient handling of homeward-bound American mails.
    LORD STANLEY: The American mail landed from the "Campania" at Queenstown on the 1st April consisted of 1,942 bags. Three bags were sent unsorted to Liverpool owing to the train from Queenstown to Dublin having performed the journey in twenty minutes less time than
    260
    usual, and to the sorters having a correspondingly reduced time for their work, some of the London correspondence, which is sorted between North Wall and Crewe, was sent unsorted to London in consequence of the sorting boxes not being at once available on board the packet; but the time of delivery of the correspondence in London was not affected by this irregularity. There is a sufficient number of trained sorters to provide for the service; and, except for the occurrence of circumstances which cannot be foreseen, the arrangements for dealing with these mails are adequate.
    MR. NANNETTI: May I ask if the noble Lord will, in view of the fact that the Irish railways are endeavouring to facilitate the traffic, see that these mails are not delayed by having to be sent to London? I ask this in view of the importance of retaining Queenstown as the mail route.
    LORD STANLEY: Certainly, and when I find that the increase of speed is usual and not exceptional I will make other arrangements to meet it.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: Can the same facilities be afforded for handling the mails between Queenstown and Dublin as between Plymouth and London?
    LORD STANLEY: Oh, yes.

    Irish Sorters and the Irish Language.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the number of letters addressed in Irish which pass through the Post Office in Ireland, he will arrange to have Irish added as an optional subject in the examination for sorters.
    LORD STANLEY: I do not think that sufficient reason has been shown for adopting the hon. Member's suggestion.

    Irish Postmasters and the Irish Language.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware; that, in the case of letters addressed in Irish, delay has occurred in the delivery of letters through country post offices in Ireland; and whether he will recognise

    261
    the desirability of requiring a knowledge of Irish in future appointments to post-masterships.
    LORD STANLEY: In my opinion there is not sufficient reason for requiring a knowledge of the Irish language from persons appointed to be postmasters in Ireland.
    MR. BOLAND: If I bring cases of delay to the notice of the noble Lord will he reconsider this question?
    LORD STANLEY: No, I cannot.

    Irish Northern District Superintending Engineer's Staff.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the superintending engineer in the Irish northern district, at Belfast, takes upon himself the responsibility of saying where his clerical staff shall reside; and whether this is in conformity with the rules of the service.
    LORD STANLEY: I find that the superintending engineer referred to was recently asked by his senior clerk in Belfast whether there was any rule governing the distance from the post office within which a servant of the department must reside. He replied that he was not aware of any rule, but that every member of the staff is expected to reside within such a distance from the office as to be accessible, if required, at an emergency. This reply was quite right; and the question of the application of this principle in any particular case is one within the discretion of the superintending engineer.

    Templetown Postal Arrangements.
    MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Postmaster - General whether he is aware that the electoral division of Templetown has no post office, and no delivery at all from Saturday until Monday, although it contains an area of 5,000 acres and about 1,000 inhabitants; and, if so, whether he will look into the matter with a view to provide postal facilities for that division.
    LORD STANLEY: The question of opening a post office and affording a
    262
    Sunday delivery at Temple town has already been under consideration, but, as the cost of the postal service in the district is very high as compared with the amount of correspondence, the desired facilities cannot, I regret to say, be provided at the cost of the revenue. There is reason, however, to think that the residents are prepared to guarantee the cost, and a communication was sent some weeks ago acquainting them with the amount it would be necessary for them to guarantee.

    Belturbet Post Office.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that objection is being expressed in Belturbet to the proposed one-story new post office in that town, and that the Belturbet Urban Council has passed a resolution calling for the erection of a suitable office; and, if so will he direct that the plans be reconsidered with a view to building a proper sized office.
    LORD STANLEY: I am not aware that any local objection has been raised to the plans for the proposed new post office at Belturbet. The accommodation in the new office will provide adequately for the work and no reasonable objection can, I think, be taken to the fact that the building will consist of one story only.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: If, I send to the noble Lord a memorial, will he reconsider his decision?
    LORD STANLEY: It will not be reconsidered if the only substance of it is the objection to the one-story building.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: That is all.
    LORD STANLEY: Then I cannot reconsider it.

    Baltimore Postal Service.
    MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Postmaster - General whether he is aware that the mid-day mail for Baltimore arriving at Skibbereen is detained there sixteen hours, though a train arrives at 2.34 p.m. each day at Baltimore by which that mail could be sent, and that there is only one outward mail at 5.25 p.m. from Baltimore; and,

    263
    if so, whether, in view of the importance of Baltimore as a fishing station, he will give better postal arrangements.
    LORD STANLEY: Inquiries have been instituted on the question of affording a second post at Baltimore, and an answer shall be sent to the hon. Member as soon as they are completed.

    Longford Post Office Night Work.
    MR. J. P. FAREELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will cause inquiry to be made in Longford into the arrangements for stamping, labelling, and packing parcels at night, with a view to some arrangement being made either for the employment of a special despatch clerk at the work, or remuneration being given to the night postman, who at present is, on turn, compelled to do the work.
    LORD STANLEY: I am having inquiry made and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

    Transvaal Opinion on the Chinese Labour Question.
    MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the statement made by the late Colonial Secretary that during his tenure of office he laid down the principle that the permission of the Imperial Government for the employment of Asiatic labour in South Africa should be conditional on its being clearly shown that such employment was desired by the great majority of the white inhabitants of the two Colonies, he will state whether His Majesty's Government now consider themselves bound by this pledge; and, if so, what is the nature of the evidence in their possession showing that this importation of Asiatic labour is desired by the great majority of the white inhabitants of the two Colonies.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A.J. BALFOUR,): The statement made by my right hon friend the Member for West Birmingham on the part of the Government of which he was a member was that in respect of this question of yellow labour he would endeavour as far as possible to treat the Transvaal as a
    264
    self-governing colony. I am not sure that I quite appreciate the point of the Question—whether it lies in the reference to both Colonies—whether he thinks that a pledge was given that the Orange Colony should be required to give its assent to anything done in the Transvaal, and reciprocally that anything done in the Orange Colony should require the assent of the Transvaal. If that is my hon. friend's view it is not one which has ever been held by the Government, or so far as I know, by my right hon. friend.
    MAJOR SEELY: May I explain that my Question is based upon a letter written by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham of which the Question is a transcript? The words in the Question are his actual words with reference to both Colonies. If the Prime Minister cannot answer the first part of the Question will be give an answer to the latter part?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand the statement of policy, made not merely on my right hon. friend's own behalf but on behalf of the Government of which he was a member and which we all accept, was that he would treat these Colonies in the matter of Chinese labour and in all matters as self-governing colonies. Broadly speaking, that was the purport of the answer. Then my right hon. friend wrote a letter from which a sentence or phrase has been extracted by my hon. and gallant friend, but the letter goes on in this way— "I stated that in all matters in which Imperial interests were not directly affected, I considered the only safe and proper policy was to treat the Colonies as though they enjoyed self-government, the concession of which was only a question of time." I entirely adhere to that statement. I believe it accurately represents what was the policy of the Government when my right hon. friend was a member of it, and what is still the policy of the Government. That statement does not imply, as my hon. and gallant friend appears to think, that the Orange River Colony is to have a voice in what concerns only the Transvaal, and the Transvaal a voice in what only concerns the Orange River Colony. As regards the latter part of the Question,

    265
    we have over and over again stated that, in our view at all events, all the indications point to the public opinion in the Transvaal being entirely in favour of the employment of Chinese labour, and no indication comes to us from that colony to show that there is any change of opinion, or if there be a change of I opinion, it is more than ever in the direction in which His Majesty's Government have proceeded.
    MR. EUGENE WASON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that less than twelve months ago a mass meeting in the Transvaal unanimously protested against the importation of Chinese labour?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, but that was more than ten months ago.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in order to set this matter at rest once and for ever, he would give an opportunity to the people of the Transvaal to give a straight vote, yes or no, upon the question?
    MR. SPEAKER: That is a Question of which notice should be given.

    Private Members' Bills
    MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will take steps to amend the Standing Orders so as to secure that Bills introduced by private Members which have passed their Second Reading shall be sent, without further debate or division, to such Committee as the Speaker or Chairman of Committees shall select.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, I do not think I can make myself responsible for such a change in Standing Orders as the hon. Member suggests.

    Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Irregularities.
    MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now advise the variation of the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Irregularities so that the said terms shall run, to inquire into the nature and extent of ecclesiastical disorders, the teaching or profession by the
    266
    Bishops and clergy of the Church of England of doctrines inconsistent with the Law of this Realm, into proposed legislative remedies, and into matters connected therewith.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I gave reasons in my speech on the Motion for adjournment why I did not think that questions of doctrine should be included in the reference to the Commission, and I see no reason to alter that opinion.

    Naval Prizes of War
    SIR E. DURNING-LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is proposed to introduce the Bill consolidating the various Acts relating to naval prizes of war.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should be very glad to see this Bill pass its Second Reading and be referred to a Standing Committee, and I hope some opportunity may be found for advancing it through these stages.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it not down for Second Reading today?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am bound to say I think it is controversial.

    Anglo-French Agreement
    MR. GEORGE ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to ask, the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state a date when the provisions of the French Agreement may be considered by the House.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it will be possible to find a day either this week or next week for a discussion of the Anglo-French Agreement, and I doubt whether I shall be able to find a date before the Whitsuntide holidays.

    Re-election on Acceptance of Ministerial Office.
    MR. FORDE RIDLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the

    267
    intention of the Government to proceed this session with the Bill for removing the necessity for re-election in the case of acceptance of office by Members of the House of Commons.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am extremely anxious that this change in our constitutional law and practice should be carried out. I have always believed that our present system is cumbrous and wholly inapplicable to modern conditions. If I can, I shall introduce the Bill, and, should it meet with general approval, I see no reason why it should not become law. It will be impossible, I think, to press it on as a controversial measure; but as it concerns the interests of both sides of the House, and cannot come into operation in the course of the present Parliament, and as there are people who think that if its operation is deferred till next Parliament it may be that the other side will get more advantage from it than ourselves, possibly it will be received not unfavourably by those who may be expected most to gain from it.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the last occasion a Bill with a similar object was objected to on its introduction and rejected?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am aware of that, and it has always seemed to me an extraordinary instance of Parliamentary short-sightedness.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Can the Tight hon. Gentleman state for the public convenience when the next Parliament is likely to meet?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As far as I remember, I do not think this Parliament can go on for more than three-and-a-half years.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I am not quite so sure of that.

    Standing Orders.
    MR. BATHURST: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is proposed, and if so when, to complete the
    268
    terms of the Standing Order (Order in the House), and to resume the discussion on that Order which was adjourned on 13th February, 1903.
    MR. A.J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member will gather from previous answers as to the condition of public business that it is hardly such as would enable me to fix a time to complete the remodelling of this Rule, which I admit is a subject worthy of the attention of Parliament at the earliest opportunity.

    Welsh Educational Deadlock.
    CAPTAIN OLIVE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the neglect of certain local authorities to provide children in many elementary public-schools in Wales with adequate means of instruction and necessary comforts, it is the intention of the Government to take the further stages of the Defaulting Authorities Bill as rapidly as possible.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, sir, I am anxious to get on with this measure as fast as possible.

    The Licensing Bill.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask when the right hon. Gentleman will be able to lay on the Table of the House certain Returns promised relating to licensed houses, as to their valuation and the amount of the fund available in each district. The information is essential before the Licensing Bill can be adequately discussed.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his courteous letter of yesterday. A statement showing for each county and county borough the number of public-house and beer-house licences, and approximately the maximum sum leviable under the Bill in each area, will be laid on the Table of the House to-day. There will also be laid on the Table a short statement as to the procedure followed by the Inland Revenue in ascertaining the value of property for the purposes of estate duty. I hope that copies will be in the Vote Office to-morrow.

    The Aliens Bill.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I see that the Home Secretary has put down a notice to refer the Aliens Bill to a Grand Committee. I presume the right hon. Gentleman will give the House adequate notice before the Motion to refer the Bill, because I think that in many quarters it will meet with strenuous opposition.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall be sorry if the Motion receives the strenuous opposition which the hon. Member has indicated, especially if the opposition is conducted by the hon. Gentleman. The Government will not be able to carry the Motion unless in the opinion of the House there is adequate time given for it. I recognise that some time must necessarily be given.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Is this regarded as a sort of non-contentious Bill that usually goes to a Grand Committee?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I hope that notice will be given of the Motion. This is a Bill mentioned first in the King's Speech, and in the opinion of many of us it is too important a measure to send to a Grand Committee.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that the fact of a Bill having been mentioned first in the King's Speech is any reason for treating it so as to make it improbable that the measure can be passed into law.

    Sittings of the House.
    MR. FITZROY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, for the convenience of Members generally, the Government will propose an Amendment of the Standing Order {Sittings of the House) so as to provide that the House shall meet at 2.30, and that Questions shall begin at 2.45.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to my hon. friend, I have to say that I have never regarded the meeting at 2 o'clock and the commencement of Questions at 2.15 as a necessary and integral part of the reform of the Rules of the House which we initiated some two years back; but
    270
    I do not know that any agreement has been come to among Members as to what precise alteration should be made in the Rule to make it more convenient. I should be quite prepared, if there were a general consensus of opinion and we could be sure of passing a change in the Rule without discussion, to consider any proposals that might be made, but to give up a day to debate alterations and discuss endless Amendments of the Rule would be impossible in the present state of public business.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Has the Leader of the House any information to give as to the business of the House?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that the House is well acquainted with the general course of business except as to the Supply which will be taken on Thursday. As the result of communications which have passed I think that the Scotch Estimates had better be taken on Thursday.

SAVINGS BANKS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 157.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 157.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Friday, 17th June, and to be printed. [Bill 174.]

POLICE SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 158.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 158.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday, next, and to be printed. [Bill 173.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES.)
MR. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing) Shipping, and Manufactures:—Mr Victor Cavendish; and had appointed in substitution: Sir John Barrington Simeon.
Report to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee.
1. "That, in the case of the City of London (Central Criminal Court House), Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
2. "That, in the case of the Richard Jaeger's Patent Bill [Lords], the Stand-
ing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

NEW BILL.
  SUNDAY TRADING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "For the regulation and control of Sunday Trading in Scotland." Presented by Mr. Cameron Corbett; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 175.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (WAYS AND MEANS.)
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the proceedings on the Reports of the Committee of Ways and Means, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  The House divided:—Ayes, 240; Noes, 163. (Division List, No. 104.)

  AYES.

  Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Arrol, Sir William

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

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

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Charrington, Spencer

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Coates, Edward Feet ham

  Fison, Frederick William

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Baird, John George Alexander

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

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Balcarres, Lord

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Flower, Sir Ernest

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

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Forster, Henry William

  Balfour, Capt, C. B. (Hornsey)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

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

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S,)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Garfit, William

  Bartloy, Sir George C. T.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

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

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

  Dalkeith, Earl of

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

  Bigwood, James

  Davenport, William Bromley

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

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Bond, Edward

  Denny, Colonel

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Dewar Sir T.R (Tower Hamlets

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Brassey, Albert

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Gretton, John

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Doughty, George

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Bull, William James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Groves, James Grimble

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Carlile, William Walter

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

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

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Seton-Karr. Sir Henry

  Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H.(Renfrew)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Helder, Augustus

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Mount, William Arthur

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Houldsworth, Sir Win. Henry

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

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

  Stroyan, John

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Hunt, Rowland

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Myers, William Henry

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

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Percy, Earl

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Tuff, Charles

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Kerr, John

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheff'ld

  Laurie, Lieut. -General

  Randles, John S.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

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

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyn

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Logge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Williams, Colonel R, (Dorset)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

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

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  Lowther, (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Robinson, Brooke

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Wylie, Alexander

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

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

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Ed in burgh, W

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Malcolm, Ian

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Burns, John

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Burt, Thomas

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Ambrose, Robert

  Caldwell, James

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Asher, Alexander

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Doogan, P.C.

  Austin, Sir John

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Edwards, Frank

  Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Eilice, Capt E. C. (S. Andrw's Bghs

  Black, Alexander William

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Blake, Edward

  Crean, Eugene

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Boland, John

  Crombie, John William

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Crooks, William

  Fenwick, Charles

  Brigg, John

  Cullinan, J.

  Ferguson, R, C. Munro (Leith)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Ffrench, Peter

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Delany, William

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  274

  275

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Shackleton, David James

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Gilhooly, James

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Mellor, Et. Hon. John William

  Sheehy, David

  Grant, Corrie

  Mooney, John J.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Hammond, John

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Slack, John Bamford

  Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

  Murphy, John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

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

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Sullivan, Donal

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

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

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  O'Doherty, William

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

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  O'Dowd, John

  Tomkinson, James

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Ure, Alexander

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Joicey, Sir James

  Partington, Oswald

  Wallace, Robert

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Joyce, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Price, Robert John

  Weir, James Galloway

  Labouchere, Henry

  Priestley, Arthur

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Reddy, M.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

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

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Levy, Maurice

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  Lloyd-George, David

  Rigg, Richard

  Young, Samuel

  Lough, Thomas

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Lundon, W.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Robson, William Snowdon

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

  M'Fadden, Edward'

  Rose, Charles Day

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Runciman, Walter

  M'Kean, John

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Resolutions agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS [19TH APRIL] REPORT.
  Order read, for Further Consideration of Second Resolution.

  CUSTOMS— TOBACCO.
  "That the duties of Customs payable under section one of The Finance Act, 1898, on manufactured tobacco shall, on and after the 20th day of April, 1901, be increased, in the case of cigars, by six pence per pound, and in the case of cigarettes by one shilling per pound, and the duties payable under the same section on unmanufactured tobacco shall, on and after the same date, be increased, in the case of stripped tobacco, by three pence per pound."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. ROBSON (South Shields) said that the increased duties which were the subject matter of the Resolution would be
  276
  opposed on many grounds. He would oppose them on one ground only, and that was because they were unmistakably and almost avowedly protectionist duties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing them quoted from a speech made by Mr. Gladstone in 1863, when he said the right hon. Gentleman argued in favour of these proposals. The House and the country had become familiar with researches into Mr. Gladstone's speeches for some scraps which might give some kind of colour to protectionist argument. When such quotations were made Mr. Gladstone was wont to ask that the context should be read; and when the context was read it was generally to the confusion of Mr. Gladstone's opponent. The same method might apply to-day; but he did not desire to take up time by adopting this ancient mode of controversy. It was enough to say that Mr. Gladstone was in 1863 engaged in adjusting taxation so as to extend the principles of free trade, and it was fair that what he said should be interpreted by what he did.

  277
  The same might apply to the utterances I of the present Chancellor. They would judge his free trade utterances by the measures he proposed. The paramount question now was whether those duties were protective or not. The right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Budget seemed to have taken a leaf out of the dialectical methods of the Prime Minister, who said they must look at the motive and that if a duty was not intended to be protective it must not be called protective. That was an ingenious way of dealing with protectionist duties under present circumstances. So far as cigars were concerned the new duty was obviously protective, because it was put upon the foreign product and there was no corresponding Excise on the home product. That was a measure novel to our fiscal policy and required some justification. The Chancellor said it was a luxury tax. What WHS a luxury tax? It was imposed simply for the sake of revenue. It was not, like the sumptuary tax of ancient days, to curtail private or domestic extravagance but for purposes of revenue. They had only just learnt that the revenue to be derived from the tax on cigarettes was £20,000 a year, and from cigars £45,000 a year. No one could believe—he said it with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman—that a tax of £20,000 a year was imposed for the purpose of revenue. This new tax meant a derangement of values as between different kinds of stocks and endless petty interferences with the ordinary course of business. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer really suppose that a revenue of £20,000 a year compensated for that kind of disturbance of business? Certainly not. Therefore the House was entitled to say that a new tax, primâ facie protectionist, did not derive any free-trade character by being described as a luxury tax. The pretence of free-trade principles with which the right hon. Gentleman sought to disguise the character of the new taxes soon passed away, and they had a much more frank avowal of the right hon. Gentleman's motives and principles when they came to the taxation of raw materials. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that of the tobacco imported into this country for the purposes of manufacture
  278
  13½ per cent, came as whole leaf and 77 per cent, came in a slightly manufactured form, that was to say the mid rib had been stripped from the leaf. The right hon. Gentleman thereupon discovered an industry which he could assist—he (Mr. Robson) had almost said create, because it had never existed to any large extent in this country. The right hon. Gentleman had said that that industry used to be carried on to a considerable extent in this country; that at one time a large proportion of the tobacco came here in an unstripped condition; that it was desirable to restore that employment.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Hear, hear!
  MR. ROBSONsaid he was grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield for that affirmative expression of opinion, because he was trying to prove that this tax was protectionist. The object of this tax was to increase employment or rather to restore the lost employment of stripping the tobacco leaf. But even when the right hon. Gentleman arrived at this plain protectionist motive he still felt that he must inevitably seek for some excuse consistent with free-trade principles. So he would have the House believe that the differentiation which he sought to make between stripped tobacco and unstripped leaf was really; in order to correct an anomaly which: already existed in our Customs tariff. It appeared to be some mistake which I he thought necessary to correct on the part of Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Gladstone apparently was protectionist. What was the only anomaly which could be perceived in connection with this differentiation of these two kinds of leaf? The stripped leaf which came into this country had some small additional value in consequence of the process being performed abroad. The difference in value between that and the unstripped leaf was something like 1½d. per lb. The right hon. Gentleman went on to explain that the revenue as well as the people suffered because there was no extra duty on the stripped leaf, but he did not tell the House one very important fact which might have materially qualified the

  279
  argument he" made use of in his Budget speech, which was that the importer of unstripped tobacco, if he stripped "the tobacco, had the privilege of taking the stalks back to the Customs.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I mentioned the drawback.
  MR. ROBSONadmitted that that was so, but the right hon. Gentleman then inferred that that would be a drawback on exports. The matter had now been put clearly before the House. The right hon. Gentleman had implied that the revenue had lost by not encouraging the importation of unstripped leaf. The precise words used were that the stalk would contain more matter and that therefore it would encourage industry if the leaf were brought in unstripped. The importer of unstripped leaf might go to the Customs and obtain a rebate of the duly, and that, therefore, the importers of stripped and unstripped leaf should be put in a position of equality. There was no information expressly given, or given at all, on the night of the introduction of the Budget. It only cost 1d. a lb., roughly speaking, to strip the leaf, and the right hon. Gentleman had put on a tax of 3d. a lb. That did not mean that he desired to correct an anomaly but that he desired to create a monopoly in this country for stripping the leaf. How did this protectionist tax work? It was a penal duty. It penalised the importer if he imported his raw material in this partly manufactured state. The operation of stripping was simple enough. It was simply drawing the stalk without, if possible, damaging the leaf, and it was an operation which was much better to perform when the leaf was fresh and had come to maturity, in the country where it was grown. In future this work was to be done here, where the operation could not be so efficiently performed. They were dealing with a new fiscal system. They would get more and more protection, the essence of which was that the work which had been hitherto done abroad should be done here.
  What was the operation of this tax upon a manufacturer who did not want
  280
  the stalk? The unstripped leaf which might be efficiently pulled out abroad was packed and sent across the Atlantic at extra cost and additional charges for freight; it was unpacked here and stripped and the stalks sent back to the Customs in order that a rebate of the duty might be obtained—and all these processes were gone through in order that the manufacturer might get something which he did not want and had no use for. Was that good business? It was protection, but was it sensible or sane business? And what was done with the stalk when obtained? The impression derived during the Budget speech was that it paid duty, but, as a matter of fact the manufacturer was able to obtain a refund or rebate upon the stalk which he had imported. At the Customs House, however, fresh difficulties arose. The everlasting question of moisture cropped up, and the Customs House officials would not ordinarily give the refund upon the weight of the stalk. In order that it might be properly tested the stalk had to be ground to powder—which did not improve it even as offal—and then the manufacturer received a penny in addition to the 3s. per lb. duty. Until recently, this offal was thrown away as useless, but it was now used in connection with the extraction of pure nicotine, from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer derived no duty whatever. Could it be contended that the little benefit which accrued from the making of a by-product from this offal was any compensation for all the useless handling and freightage and inconvenience which he had described? If the offal was of value it would be important; but it was not, and the compensation derived from the offal manufacture was not commensurate with the cost of bringing it over.
  The right hon. Gentleman had claimed that the tax would create employment. In one sense it would. An enormous amount of employment could be created by hampering great industries with futile and unprofitable processes: but it was the kind of employment of which the pauper's stone-heap was the popular type. The proposal would not increase general employment. The mistake of the protectionist lay in the assumption that

  281
  when by some extravagant process he had given employment to one set of persons, he had thereby necessarily increased the employment of the community at large. To see whether this fiscal device had increased general employment, its effect upon the trade as a whole must be looked at. It increased the cost of manufacture by these useless processes, and, in so far as it encouraged the use of stalk where it was not used before, it lowered the quality of the tobacco. Moreover, as the cost was increased and the quality lowered, so more capital was called into the business, with the result that profits were diminished. That was the sort of increased employment to be secured from causes which checked consumption, diminished profits, and lowered wages! And that was the kind of increased employment by which the protectionist party were endeavouring to attract the English people to their fallacies.
  Another very important view of the matter was that this impost was a differential tax. It differentiated between different kinds of the same raw material. Speaking generally, that was a novel principle. The English manufacturer, relying on our general fiscal system, had imported enormous quantities of stripped tobacco; he now found that it would pay him to go into the market and buy unstripped tobacco in order to strip it here. The result was an enormous appreciation of the value of existing stocks of unstripped tobacco, and a great depreciation of the value of other stocks. This money was put into the pockets of one section of the trade and taken out of the pockets of another. Under these circumstances it was only natural that different sections of the trade should have very different views about this tax. A question that ought not to be lost sight of was—who gained by this differential tax? Obviously the gainers were those persons who used stalk in the manufacture of their tobacco. The feature which protectionists thought so admirable about their system, viz., the imposition of taxes by which somebody gained, was to his mind the evil and curse of protection. The persons who gained by this particular tax were the importers of unstripped tobacco, such as Mr. Gallaher, the founder of
  282
  the great limited company bearing his name. Which section of the trade had the right hon. Gentleman or his advisers consulted about this tax—the gainers or the losers? One naturally asked whether the Tariff Commission had been consulted. The Tariff Commission was formed for that very purpose, and this was the first opportunity it had had of entering into practical life. Upon that august body there was only one representative of the tobacco trade, and that was Mr. Gallaher himself. It would be interesting, therefore, to examine the views of Mr. Gallaher, because he was not acting secretly or furtively in this matter; he was acting as a statesman, a financier, the shadow behind the fiscal throne; and in the Tobacco Weekly Journal he had stated—
  "In the United States coloured people receive big wages for this work—the work of stripping —which, after all, might be done equally well in this country."
  AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.
  MR. ROBSONsaid he was doubtful whether the hon. Member who interrupted him would cheer the next sentence—
  "In my evidence before a recent Committee I outlined this idea and my views were generally accepted."
  This was the germ and the genesis of the new system of fiscal differentiation. Mr. Gallaher had already explained in an earlier part of the article that this was a wise Budget and that the poor man would not pay any more for his tobacco. Then he says—
  "If the independent manufacturers are squeezed out of the trade by the trust octopus I will take care that the British Government will become their own manufacturers, and then the profits will go in reduction of taxation instead of into the pockets of monopolists."
  Mr. Gallaher said he would take care. He appeared to entertain an inflated or perhaps he ought to say an exalted view of his position and power as a Tariff Commissioner, and he seemed clearly to think that his suggestion, communicated no doubt through the proper channel to the Government, would have the greatest possible weight upon anything which referred to his own trade. He was a man of trade talking about his business, or matters intimately connected with his business, and it was hard to believe that

  283
  such a man when ho spoke of his influence with the Government was indulging in mere idle, insolent gasconade. What were the grounds on which Mr. Gallaher, as a Tariff Commissioner, thought he would be able to influence the Government? In the presence of a normal state of public affairs one would expect a rebuke to be administered to this Tariff Commissioner. If this Tariff Commissioner's evidence, given before the Committee which was formed for the purpose of advising the right lion. Gentleman, was the reason for the Budget in its present form of course the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not rebuke Mr. Gallaher, but it was necessary that the right lion. Gentleman should tell Mr. Gallaher that he must not give the thing away quite so completely. He thought differential taxation was mischievous, an evil, and a curse, and it was a most dangerous feature in English public, life that they should have a great political party forming a trade group interested in differential taxation, giving evidence before Departmental Committees, having the ear of members of the Government, swaggering about in all the borrowed plumes of a little unofficial position, and then boasting that they were able to influence the fiscal arrangements of this country and doing it in directions which gave them an unearned and an undeserved profit. How much further protectionist taxation and protectionist organisation might go ho did not know, and he was not going to trouble the House with any speculations on the subject now, but he thought the House and the country would do well to watch this situation closely before allowing a Resolution of this kind to pass.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid that in Scotland there was a sport called a "heresy hunt," which was indulged in by ministers and elders when they had reason to suspect persons of doctrines not strictly orthodox. Every action and every saying of the suspected person were scrutinised, and it was wonderful how heresy was extracted out of things absolutely innocent. The lion, and learned Gentleman opposite would display unrivalled capacities in such a hunt. In this particular instance the hon. and learned Member opposite had displayed a knowledge of the whole subject which he had not the
  284
  slightest power of rivalling, and he had shown, in discussing this extremely technical subject, the power he claimed for himself as a lawyer to master other people's business. Of all the details of stripped and unstripped tobacco which the hon. and learned Member entered upon he had no knowledge at all, but the conclusion he had drawn was that the whole course of modern business showed what an enormous effect the very smallest interference with taxation might produce. The clumsy old protective duties of sixty years ago were now impossible and obsolete, but although taxation was such a tremendous engine of power it did not follow that the Government should always be wring and stupid in the use of that engine. Because a powerful engine had been wrongly used, was that any reason why they should decline altogether to use it? The same argument would apply to all the latest scientific weapons of the day. They had recently seen that a ship might destroy itself by one of its own submarine mines, but was that any reason why a Navy should decline for ever to use mines to defend themselves? In this power they had a new and tremendous engine which other countries were able to use scientifically, and were not afraid of using. Undoubtedly this power might be used mistakenly, but Germany and America had developed themselves by the use of it at a rate which far outstripped the rate at which this country had developed. The hon. and learned Member talked of Mr. Gallaher, but he had not the slightest idea how this tax would help him, or Mr. Wills, or anybody else. That was not the business of the Government in considering a tax. The question the Government had to ask was whether it would benefit the country at large and not any particular individual. The hon. Member used the rather obsolete argument against protection that it could only benefit one particular class and could not benefit the country at large. Nobody would deny that it was wrong to use taxation in that way and nobody would think of defending such a course. Where a tariff was properly used in the development of the industries of a nation it was not one industry alone which benefited but the whole country. That

  285
  had been the case in Germany and that was the whole reason and theory of the German scientific view that tariffs had been the most powerful engine in developing their country from the poor fragmentary set of scattered States producing only raw materials to its present position. That was the condition of Germany before List arose and preached a gospel as appropriate to Germany as the gospel of Cobden was appropriate at that time to the circumstances of this country. The position Germany then adopted was that they declined to be a country producing only raw material for other countries to work up. They declared that to develop their country it was necessary to have industries of their own.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked if the hon. Member was in order in dealing with the taxes of Germany and America.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid the hon. Member opposite had been allowed to raise the whole question as to whether these taxes involved protection, and so far as he dealt with that aspect of the question he presumed that he would be in order.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is in order in dealing with the question as to whether this is a protective tax or not but he is nor entitled to discuss the question of protection in regard to taxes upon all articles in all countries.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid he apologised to the House for being led into these remarks, but they arose, out of the speech of the hon. Member opposite. He would try to confine himself more to the particular question now before the House The hon. Member had also attacked the tax on foreign cigars and cigarettes. There, he confessed, he, was a little surprised at the hon. Member's argument because the attack mainly was that the tax was not sufficiently graduated as a luxury tax. Supposing it was a tax on foreign cigars and cigarettes, he did not think the hon. Member attempted to argue that, looked at as a purely luxury tax, it was in any way unfair or too heavy. His objection to it was that it did not bring in a sufficient amount to
  286
  make it worth while to collect. Whether it would be sufficient to have the effect of causing more cigars and cigarettes to be made in England than would have been made if it had not been imposed he did not know. But suppose that it brought more trade to the manufacturers of cigars and cigarettes in England, he held that would be an advantage. It might be —and in all probability would be—an advantage not merely to the people who made English cigars and cigarettes, but to the whole country, for in this small industry it meant a greater amount of employment in England. It was an advantage to have the article made in England even if there was a slight increase in the cost for the same class of cigar when made here, as compared with the price when the cigar was made in Germany.
  MR. LOUGH: Advantage to whom?
  MR. PARKER SMITH: Advantage to the country. Not an advantage merely to the man who made the cigar, but an advantage to the country at large.
  MR. LOUGH: Not to the man who smokes it.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid he hoped there would not be sufficient difference in the quality of the cigar to interfere with the health of the gentleman who smoked it. If the cigar were made here we would have the advantage of the wages paid in England, whereas if the cigar were imported from Germany the whole of the wages and the profit went to the German makers. He knew the reply to that, would be that if the cigar were made in Germany a biscuit would have to be imported by Germany in order to pay for the cigar. Of course, that was the ordinary free-trade reply. But that reply was based on an absolute fallacy. That reply failed altogether to see that the same biscuit had to be made and given to the cigar maker here in England. The biscuit maker did not lose his trade because the cigar was rule in England. He was afraid he was entering rather too much into a lecture upon political economy. He was perfectly certain that this aspect of the question of

  287
  foreign trade was not sufficiently understood by gentlemen whose studies of political economy were generally confined to a limited number of phrases and elementary matters which appeared in the works of economists, where they were largely qualified. Even in the orthodox works there were qualifications which did not appear in the ordinary political speech either in this House or on the platform. These were the general foreign, Continental, and American views as opposed to a school which everyone would say was an insular school. That school had ceased altogether to have any power abroad, whereas the other school—the modern school of national economy as against individualistic economy—was getting more and more-accepted. He hoped this House and the country would get to understand that school more and more. He was confident that when those views were more understood by hon. Members they would not be content to appeal to a phrase as the final arbiter of practical action. These views bad the support not of those simply who were concerned in their own selfish interests. Hon. Members cheered as if they thought that men who took a different view of political economy from themselves were the only men who had selfish motives. He could assure hon. Members that it was nothing of the kind. He had not sufficient acquaintance with the intricacies of the duty on cigars and cigarettes to say whether it was a protective tax or not, but assuming that the hon. Member opposite was correct in what he said, then it was possible and probable that the effect of such a tax might be entirely for the good of the country at large.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid he would not follow the hon. Member into what he called the general "foreign, Continental, and American'" political economy. He congratulated him on having stated at the conclusion of his speech that he did not enter into, or refer to, the protective character of the tax now before the House. But he himself would like to refer to that, because in various quarters the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was referred to in very different terms. It was called a free-trade
  288
  Budget by some, but by most people it was said to have a whiff of protection in it, and that suggested to his mind that it might be found in the luxury tax on cigars and cigarettes. He put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to find out what was the total consumption of foreign cigarettes in this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer informed him that 510,965lbs. represented the foreign cigarettes consumed annually. That weight did not form a very large amount on which to raise revenue for the relief of taxation under present circumstances, and he naturally began to wonder whether there was anything else at the back of this particular form of taxation, for, after all, supposing the consumption kept up, and that Egypt and Turkey, which chiefly sent cigarettes, sent us 510,9651bs. every year, the total amount the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get would be some £25,000. The right hon. Gentleman today admitted that he expected to get only £20,000. showing that the first effect, at all events, would be a probable reduction in the consumption of foreign-made cigarettes. It seemed to him that the alteration of the tax on articles like cigarettes for the purpose of adding so insignificant a sum to the Exchequer was an unwarrantable alteration of the existing duty, especially when they knew from recent circumstances that the existing duty had been strong enough to keep American cigarettes largely out of the country. It came to this, that if the tax was only to raise £20,000 it was not of much use for revenue purposes. It was a small sum he might say a paltry sum, to justify the infliction of a new tax or burden on the tobacco trade. It was causing disturbance of the whole trade by the issue of new price lists, and difficulties of that kind. Assuming it would have a similar effect to other taxes, the effect would be to put up the price of the home-made article in consequence of the extra protection granted against the foreign article.
  When he came to consider the amount of the home-made article as compared with the foreign-made article a glimmer of light was got as to the effect on the trade of the country at large. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not able to give him any statistics as

  289
  to the amount of cigarettes manufactured in this country, but other I people were not in that position, Certain organs more or less connected with the trade had estimated the home manufacture of cigarettes at from 90 to 95 per cent, of the total consumption. Taking the figures at 95 per cent, there would be a total consumption of 10,000,000lbs. a year, an estimate which he did not think excessive considering the enormous number of cigarette smokers, and the deplorable increase of the habit amongst young people who bought 1d. packets. There was evidence already that the tax had had the effect of increasing the price of the home-manufactured cigarettes. A circular I had been issued to the trade saying that packets of 100 cigarettes would be charged 3d. more, which practically meant 1s. per lb. on British-made cigarettes, In another case an addition of 3d. had been mentioned by the Financial Times as being charged on tins of fifty cigarettes. In reference to the packets of five cigarettes which were sold at a penny with a tube—which was a good point because the tube made them less dangerous smoking to young people these packets were sold by the trade in boxes containing 1,000 which weighed 2lbs of tobacco. But in some cases these 1d. packets were already charged more to the retailer; and in other cases where the packets contained ten cigarettes, the price had gone up Id. There h id been a change of ½d a packet in the price of American-made cigarettes—those known as Richmond Gems. What would be the result if only 1s. duty was used to increase the price of the home-made article as against the foreign-made article? Taking the lowest estimate that 90 percent. of the total consumption of cigarettes is manufactured in these islands; that would leave 10 per cent, for the foreign-made article. Then, in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might get £20,000 or at most £25,000, somebody would have to pay some £225,000 additional for the cigarettes, and of that sum the greater part would go into the pockets of the home manufacturers, though perhaps a small part would be taken out of the pockets not of the consumers but of the retailers. But if only 5 per cent, of the total consumption was foreign-made, and
  290
  95 per cent, home-made, there was the startling fact that £475,000 would be lost to the people of this country through the imposition of a tax which brought into the Exchequer the paltry sum of £20,000. These figures had been worked out most carefully: and ho ventured to bring before the House the fact that this tax of 1s. per lb. on foreign-made cigarettes had ail the worst elements of a protective duty, because it punished the people and did very little good to the Exchequer He believed that this tax was as bad and cruel as any tax could be.
  His hon. and learned friend behind him had shown very admirably that the differentiating tax on stripped and unstripped tobacco had a similar effect in punishing the people of this country, but the difference on cigarettes was still greater. Ho wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer could reassure the House that that was not so; that the evil was not so great as was suspected at present. Moreover, he considered this tax was unnecessary, because the trade did not require any protection. It was not long since they saw in the newspapers a report of a case in the Law Courts which gave an inkling of the enormous profits made by certain large tobacco firms. It was shown that a bonus had been offered to the retailers amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds. A trade which was in a position of that kind did not want any extra help from this House to put additional profits into their pockets. Further, they learned that the ordinary 10d. duty which existed between manufactured cigarettes and the ordinary manufactured tobacco was quite sufficient to prevent the invasion into this country from America. When the American Tobacco Combine attempted to gain the monopoly of the tobacco trade in this country that 10d. duty was quite sufficient to give the home manufacturers the advantage by which they were able to resist the capture of their trade. The tax was unnecessary, and the evil of it was in no sense mitigated by the advantage given to the trade in this country as opposed to the foreign trade. He should be glad of anything which would operate to check the evil of cigarette-smoking by lads, but such a tax he

  291
  wished to be one which should go at once into the Exchequer. If he could see £250,000 going into the Exchequer as the result of this tax he should welcome it as a useful and beneficial means of raising revenue for national purposes. They had on the contrary a tax which would bring an exiguous amount into the Exchequer, and take an enormous sum from the pockets of the public. Therefore he thought it was an evil tax which should be resisted. Now, when they wanted national efficiency and economy—which he believed were the same thing — they should look very narrowly into these attempts at taxation which would do injury to the people at large and yield, a comparatively small benefit to the revenue of the nation.
  Question put.
  MR. McKENNAsaid he was astonished that the House had not had an answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the speech made by his hon. and learned friend who opened this debate.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,); We can only speak once in this debate.
  MR. MCKENNA: The Question was at that moment being put without the House having had the advantage of hearing the Chancellor of the Exchequer at all. His hon. friend stated that this new tariff would be of advantage to a particular member of the tobacco trade, and that particular member of the tobacco trade happened to be a member of the Tariff Commission. Now, it might be said that it was a far cry from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Tariff Commission, and that many steps would have to be taken before there could be proved an immediate connection between the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the views of the Tariff Commission. But anticipating that answer he had looked up that morning a speech made by the late Colonial Secretary is his opening address on the constitution of the Tariff Commission. The late Colonial Secretary said—
  "Now, gentlemen, it would be premature for me to anticipate the result of this great Com-
  292
  mission. All I will say is this—if we are successful, as I believe we shall be, in introducing a tariff which will have fully taken into account all the various interests concerned, and which will generally approve itself to those interested, although even then we shall not have made law—we shall have done a great service to our law-givers, and we shall have paved the way, at any rate, for the immediate realisation of any mandate with which the country may ultimately be pleased to entrust us."
  It might be said that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had no mandate to aft on the recommendations of the Tariff Commission, but neither had the First Lord of the Treasury a mandate to permit of the introduction of protectionist legislation at all. Further, nor only had the right hon. Gentleman not had a mandate, but he gave the House and the country a distinct pledge that until after a general election and until he had a majority of the electorate behind him, he would not introduce into the House or be responsible for protectionist legislation.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he never said he would be responsible at any time.
  MR. McKENNAsaid he did not say that the right hon. Gentleman said he would be responsible at, any time. What the right hon. Gentleman said was that he would not be responsible. As his hon. and learned friend had shown it was not denied, it could not be denied or contradicted, that this was protectionist legislation. It was introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on protectionist grounds. The right hon. Gentleman in his original speech omitted to inform the House that a rebate was given on the stalk when returned to the Customs House; but now that they knew that to be the case it was only in accordance with the ordinary Customs regulations that the duty on stripped and unstripped tobacco leaf should be exactly the same. The proposal was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the express purpose of restoring to this country an industry and in order to give workers in this country an advantage in the stripping of the tobacco leaf. What the value of that work was could be judged by the fact that it was now carried on exclusively by negro labour, and was paid for at the very cheapest rates. If workpeople in this country were to enter into

  293
  competition with the foreign stripper they would have to be content with very nearly the level of the wages paid to negroes in the United States. One of the gentlemen who advised the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently on this subject went so far as to suggest that if this trade were to be carried on successfully in this country the Government would have to introduce Chinese labour. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that in the five years from 1860–64 only 43 per cent, of the tobacco entering this country was stripped before importation, but that last year no less than 77 per cent, had undergone that process before being brought into this country. That was to say that the Customs regulations had actually driven employment out of the country. The same duty was put on stripped and unstripped tobacco, and a rebate was allowed on the full weight of the stems taken back to the Customs House. If there was a slight difference between the two owing to the greater amount, of water in the stem, that could be remedied by an alteration of the rebate. But what the Chancellor of the Exchequer did was to put an extra duty of 3d. on the stripped tobacco in order to carry out his declared object of; giving employment in this country in the process stripping. As his lion, friend had shown, that was protection, and indeed the only hon. Gentleman who had spoken in defence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal defended it on protectionist, grounds. He indulged in a protectionist homily, and his only argument was that it was a protective duty which would be of benefit to the country; as a whole.
  His hon. friend spoke of Mr. Gallaher's position on the Tariff Commission. There was another point to be raised in regard to this taxation, which was not a pleasant point. The secret of what the Budget was going to be was usually very well kept. It was a matter of great pride that individual traders had: not the opportunity of anticipating the proposals of the Budget and making profits by bringing in goods beforehand. But anyone who took the trouble to look up the March figures for the imports of tobacco would discover a remarkable fact. The imports in March, 1903, of stripped tobacco amounted to 3,622,000lbs. and
  294
  in March, 1904, to 3,441,0001bs., being a slight decrease. The imports of unstripped tobacco in March, 1903, was 2,063,000lbs, but in March, 1904, the import amounted to 4,622,000lbs., so that some fortunate person was able to anticipate the secret that by a 3d. duty on stripped tobacco and not on unstripped tobacco a fortune was to be made if only before the Budget was introduced unstripped tobacco could be brought into the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer' had stated that of the raw tobacco imported 77 per cent, was unstripped and 23 per cent, stripped, but in March, 1904, the stripped tobacco imported amounted to 3,400,000lbs. and the unstripp'd tobacco to 4,600,000lbs. The percentage was no longer in favour of the stripped tobacco, and one could only assume that the unstripped tobacco was brought in in anticipation of some such proposal as this. They were justified in asking who it was who advised the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Was lie advised by persons interested in bringing in unstripped tobacco? Was he advised by the Tariff Commission? There was no shadow of a suggestion and he hoped it would not be stated hereafter that there was, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in any way acting in complicity with anyone in this matter. He hoped no one would hereafter quote the phrase, "Willing to wound yet afraid, to strike." No one could say he was saying anything by insinuation which he dared not say outright. What he asked was, Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer been made a dupe? Was it merely an accident that in March of this year the imports of unstripped tobacco should have exceeded all the imports heretofore? It was not because of horn s consumption that there were sue h heavy imports in March. The home consumption of tobacco in March, 1903, was 1,553,000lbs., and in March, 1904, 1,554,000lbs. The home consumption was absolutely normal, and yet they had a gigantic increase in the imports. If it were the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had anticipated the mandate and had acted on the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in his opening address to the Tariff Commission, if he went to the Tariff Commission

  295
  for advice, and if the only representative of the tobacco trade on the Tariff Commission, either himself or through others, recommended this tax to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the House had a right to know it.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the hon. Gentleman was insinuating a very grave charge. He thought he was entitled to ask that the hon. Member should formulate it in express terms, and then he should be in a position to answer it. Did the hon. Member insinuate that he had given information, direct or indirect?
  MR. McKENNAsaid he wished to insinuate nothing.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked if the hon. Member would formulate the charge?
  MR. McKENNAsaid he thought he did that thoroughly. There was no question of the hon. Gentleman's guilt or innocence in this matter. No one supposed that he was anything but a perfectly honourable man. The question was—was he a dupe? He stated the facts as they were to be found in the public records, and showed that the imports in March or unstripped tobacco were excessive. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not talk about insinuations.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked what conclusion did the hon. Member wish the House to draw.
  MR. McKENNAsaid that he stated the facts. He knew this fact—that Mr. Gallaher was the largest owner of stocks of unstripped tobacco; and also that he was a member of the Tariff Reform Commission. He also knew that the right hon. Gentleman opposite stated in his opening address to the Tariff Commission that, though they were not law-givers, they would be able to do "a great service to our law-givers." He wanted to know whether the great service had been done to our law-givers at this moment by the 'Tariff Commission, and in particular by Mr. Gallaher, the only representative of he tobacco trade upon that Commission, and if not by Mr. Gallaher himself, who
  296
  the advisers of the right hon. Gentleman had been, in order that they might judge whether there had been any connection, direct or indirect, between the Chancellor of the Exchequer of to-day and the Tariff Commission of to-day, it being an accepted principle of the protectionist party opposite that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the future should have direct communication with the Tariff Commission of the future.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member has stated as a fact that Mr. Gallaher has imported an exceptional quantity of whole leaf tobacco.
  MR. McKENNA: I never suggested that.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question? Do I rightly understand him to suggest that Mr. Gallaher has imported an exceptional quantity of whole leaf tobacco, and, having obtained that tobacco in this country, has been my adviser in urging me to make a change which was for his benefit? Is that what the hon. Gentleman suggests, and, if not, may I ask him not to repeat the various insinuations which he has already been making, for that is unnecessary, but to state exactly what is the conclusion that he wishes the House to draw?
  MR. McKENNAsaid they had not nearly reached the stage of conclusions yet. They appealed to the responsible Ministers to give them information before they drew their conclusions. He showed a primâ facie case that some one anticipated correctly what the Budget proposals were going to be. A'; to who it was that anticipated them he did not know; but he did know that Mr. Gallaher was a member of the Tariff Commission, and that he had informed the public and the world at large that the Committee had accepted his views and that he approved of the Budget, and he knew also, on the authority of the Tariff Commission and its founder, that although the members of that Commission were not law-givers they were very near it, that if not they very soon would be.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman, as he refused to

  297
  give the Chancellor of the Exchequer the satisfaction which I think my right hon. friend is entitled to ask whether he will explain a little more fully his insinuations against, me. Does he mean to insinuate that in saying, what was perfectly a matter of course, that an important representative commercial Commission would have great influence with our future law-givers in any recommendations they might make in reference to the tariff, does he mean to insinuate that in saying that, in making that general remark in a public statement, I was suggesting to the members of the Tariff Commission that they should improperly use their position in order to advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer to alter the taxation of the country for their benefit, and if he does not mean that, what on earth does he mean?
  MR. MCKENNAsaid that the right lion. Gentleman's intellect was far too subtle for him. He meant nothing of the sort. The right, hon. Gentleman had really very little to do with this matter.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Then why did the hon. Member drag me in?
  MR. McKENNAsaid that he quoted the right hen. Gentleman because he had reason to refer to the Tariff Commission and its objects, and those objects as stated very plainly on the authority of its founder. He found that Mr. Gallaher, of the Tariff Commission, had made recommendations which had proved——
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: How do you, know?
  MR. McKENNAsaid that Mr. Gallaher had stated so in the Tobacco Weekly Journal.
  Mr. J. CHAMBERLAINagain rose but Mr. MCKENNA declined to give way and both remained standing, amid cheers and counter cheers, and loud cries of "Order" Finally Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN resumed his seat.
  MR. McKENNA,continuing, said that Mr. Gallaher's words were—
  In my evidence before a recent Committee: I outlined this idea, and my views were generally accepted."
  MR. HARRIS: Might I interrupt the hon. Gentleman to say that Mr. Gallaher has given no evidence before the Commission?
  MR. MCKENNA: It was a Departmental Committee.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: What has the Tariff Commission to do with it?
  MR. McKENNAsaid that Mr. Gallaher had given evidence before a Departmental Committee which advised the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. HARRISrose once more amid loud Opposition cries of "Order, "but as Mr. MCKENNA refused to give way he resumed his seat.
  MR. McKENNAsaid that Mr. Gallaher's statement was—
  "In my evidence before a recent Committee I outlined this idea, and my views were generally accepted."
  Here they found the work of the Tariff Commission being done.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: What has it to do with the Tariff Commission?
  MR. McKENNAsaid Mr. Gallaher, the only representative of the trade on the Commission, gave his evidence before a Departmental Committee; the ideas which he outlined were generally accepted; and as a result, he supposed, or at any rate partly as a result, a proposal was introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That proposal they now found was good for British industry, but not for British industry as a whole, but for a part of it; and it happened to be, as he was informed, that part of the industry in which Mr. Gallaher was himself interested. Those were the facts, bare and simple, so far as they knew them at present. It remained with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who did not take the opportunity earlier, to explain what all the facts might be. He might have a complete explanation which the House would hear, but the fact stood undoubted that this was a protective proposal now. When it was first introduced he was under the impression from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that it was a purely free-trade proposal, and that he was

  299
  remedying an existing evil in our Customs regulations. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention at the time that a rebate was given on the stalk when it was taker back to the Customs House. They now knew that a rebate was given, and in consequence this was a protective tax. He asked the Prime Minister whether, after his pledge that nothing should be done contrary to the ancient fiscal policy of this country until after a general election, he now proposed to go on with this proposal.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is happily of a kind to which we are not often accustomed to listen in this House, and is one which venture to say, if it reflects discredit upon anyone, reflects discredit on the maker rather than on the persons at whom it is aimed. The hon. Gentleman has thought fit to insinuate repeatedly and persistently charges of what would be dishonest conduct. [Cries of "No."] Yes, of dishonest conduct—if not of absolute fraud against certain persons. I asked him whether his charges were directed against me. Ho said "No" He then branched off to the Tariff Commission. My right hon. friend invited him to condescend to particulars. He again refused to make clear what he did not hesitate to insinuate. I asked him whether Mr. Gallaher, whose name he introduced so freely into this discussion, was the person to whom he imputed this improper conduct. Again the hon. Member, who does not hesitate to make an imputation, refused, when he was challenged, to take the responsibility of his statement. I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman into the line of conduct which he has thought it decent to pursue. He has been making inquiries amongst traders. He has been supplied with his information, he admits, by traders who consider themselves adversely affected. It is very natural that anyone who thinks himself adversely affected in a matter of this kind should approach a Member of Parliament to get his case stated, but the hon. Member is no more entitled to mike the insinuations he did against me or those who have advised me than I am entitled to impute improper motives to him in the course he has taken. I think it is better
  300
  to treat the matter on its merits. [OPPOSITION Cheers.] I am glad that hon. Gentlemen opposite recognise the advantage of that course now that I suggest it. I think it will be better to treat the matter on its merits and make a simple statement of the case before the House.
  There are two branches of this subject involved in the changes which I have proposed in the tobacco duties. There is first the additional duty on imported cigars and cigarettes, and secondly, the additional duty on stripped tobacco. I will deal first with the additional duty on cigars and cigarettes. The hon. and learned Gentleman who opened the discussion to-day said that my proposal for an additional duty, unaccompanied by an Excise, upon an imported article of luxury was a novelty in our fiscal system. He is quite mistaken. He has taken a great deal of trouble to study this subject, but he really has not mastered it, I am afraid. He appears to be utterly unaware that what I am proposing is a mere extension of what my right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol did on two occasions without, so far as I am aware, raising in the breast of the strictest free-trader any anxiety. We have had exactly this kind of duty on cigars for several years past. I do not think anybody has been the worse for it, and the Revenue has been somewhat better. It is quite true of my right hon. friend's luxury tax on cigars, as it is true of the addition I make to that tax and the similar tax I propose on imported cigarettes, that it may conceivably have some slight protective effect. That is not my object in proposing it, any more than it was the object of my right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol. Our object was to get revenue. I think there is no more suitable object for the activity of a Chancellor of the Exchequer in search of revenue than cigars and cigarettes. So far we all go together. Then am I to be debarred from raising more revenue on imported cigars and cigarettes because, owing to administrative difficulties, I cannot exactly proportion a corresponding Excise upon home-manufactured cigars and cigarettes? I say it is driving our fiscal

  301
  principles to a point which is little removed from the ludicrous if I am not to impose a tax which is harmless in itself, which will add something to the Revenue, which affects an article of luxury, and which will be no burden to anyone who pays it because, conceivably, somebody at home may slightly benefit from our procedure.
  The hon. Member for Ilkeston pursued an ingenious argument on the most orthodox lines to show that as, according to his calculation, only 5 per cent, of our total consumption of cigarettes was imported, and 95 per cent., or thereabouts, was made in this country, in endeavouring to raise some revenue from the imported cigarettes I should raise the cost of the whole of the home-manufactured cigarettes. He put it into figures. For the sake of obtaining £20,000 upon these imported cigarettes, he said I was going to raise from the consumers of home-made cigarettes in this country a sum which he gave as from £220,000 to £250,000 a year. I really think the hon. Gentleman had better put himself in communication with the great cigarette manufacturers in this country and explain to them the process which will enable them to pocket this enormous sum. They cannot do anything of the kind; competition is too keen to allow it. When the hon. Gentleman said that the price of some of these cigarettes had already been raised, he assumed that that was so in consequence of the duty on imported cigarettes. He should consult the cigarette makers. They would tell him quite a different tale. They would tell him they have raised their price to compensate themselves for the additional duly which I have put upon stripped tobacco. None, of them thinks he can raise the price of five-a-penny cigarettes to the public because I have put an additional duty of 1s. a pound on imported cigarettes. It is quite true that the sum which I raise by these two taxes is not-very large. Every Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that when he proposes a new tax he has a good deal of opposition to meet, and he is not infrequently deterred from making small adjustments, however desirable in themselves, because he does not consider that the gain in revenue would compensate him for the
  302
  Parliamentary opposition which he would meet. I thought, however, that it was worth while to impose this tax and take the revenue we can get from it. I have been constantly asked why I did not pat a tax on articles of luxury instead of taxing the poor man's tea. I wonder how many of my critics have taken the trouble to consider what article of luxury not now taxed we might put a tax on that would not be open to exactly the same criticism which is brought against my proposal. It is a curious fact that just those gentlemen who are most adverse to any change in our fiscal system express the loudest disappointment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not made a new fiscal heaven and a new fiscal earth. If you wish to be bound, as for the present I am bound, by all the rules that have guided us in the past, you cannot devise these ingenious taxes on luxury which are to enable you to relieve the burden on the poorer classes.
  I turn to the question of "strips." When the Chancellor of the Exchequer is thinking of imposing new taxation he is always under great difficulties; in the matter of making inquiries. If he goes to any member of a trade concerned and begins to inquire into its nature and circumstances, the trader takes alarm, and at once clears as much as he can of the article to which the inquiries refer. I therefore made no inquiries of any member of the trade with reference to my Budget. I acted wholly upon the information which was in the possession of the Revenue Departments and the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last suggested that Mr. Gallaher either obtained information directly or indirectly from me or some of those who advised me or that he himself advised me to impose this tax and took advantage of what he knew was going to be done to import an exceptional quantity of whole leaf tobacco.
  MR. McKENNA: I never said that.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman did not say that, because he said nothing frankly. If he did not mean that, he meant nothing. In either case I am content to leave him to the judgment of the House. I have

  303
  seen one communication from Mr. Gallaher. It is a communication made to me since my Budget statement. It was seat to the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, and was to the effect that he thought I had made a mistake in these proposals, and that if I had read his evidence before the Committee to which the hon. Gentleman refers I should not have suggested them to the House. The letter was a private letter to the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, which he desired the Chairman to show me in order to warn me. I hope he will not think I have done wrong in referring to it in public; but when insinuations of bad faith were made, it seemed the least I could do in justice to Mr. Gallaher and myself to state the nature of the only communication of any kind I have had with him in connection with this matter.
  What was this proposal? The hon. and learned Gentleman detects in it an ingenious attempt to prepare the way for great fiscal changes or to lead the House along paths they would not with their eyes open be willing to tread. He says this is scientific taxation. I wish my critics would agree among themselves. On the first night of this debate the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition referred to my Budget statement with great kindness and generosity, and assured the Committee that although he had watched most narrowly he detected nothing of a suspicious nature, unless it might be one phrase, in the whole, of my long remarks. My hon. friend the Member for Durham, who will not be suspected of any undue sympathy with my supposed fiscal views, told the Committee that this Budget was a very good free-trade Budget, and that there was not a whiff of protection about it.
  MR. ELLIOT: The expression was first used by my hon. friend opposite, the late Under-Secretary for the Colonies. I afterwards said, thinking the phrase rather a happy one, that, barring some small whiff of protection, this was a very good free-trade Budget.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hen. Gentleman congratulated himself that there was no scientific taxation about it. That may be a merit or a
  304
  demerit; but I believe it is true. I have trodden the old path, and have produced what my critics call a humdrum Budget. I had to obtain money, and I looked about to see how I could do it. One of the possible sources of revenue was a general rise in the tax upon tobacco. I satisfied myself from the best information that was available that such a rise as would produce the whole sum I wanted from indirect taxation would undoubtedly check consumption, and would therefore fail to produce the sum required. In the course of these inquiries my attention was called to a gap in our duties on tobacco; that gap I propose to fill, and out of it—after making certain allowances to the trade for which they have been long asking—to bring the sum of £500,000 to the Revenue. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that I made no reference in my Budget speech to the effect which the granting of a drawback on the stalks or offal has upon this question, but he evidently forgets what I did say. I did not go into the subject at very great length, because it is such a very technical question, but I dealt with the question at sufficient length to show every man connected with the trade what I was talking about, and that was my object when I referred to the subject of a drawback. The position is this. We impose, a certain tax on raw tobacco, with a correlative but increased rate on the manufactured article in each of its various stages. But the first process of manufacture, that is the treatment of the leaf, is allowed to come into this country without any corresponding rate in our scale of duties. That anomaly I remove by the duty on stripped tobacco before importation.
  The hon. and learned Member for South Shields says that I differentiate between two kinds of tobacco. He is begging the whole question. Tobacco that is stripped is pot raw material. It is tobacco that is partly manufactured. The hon. and learned Gentleman appears to think that the stripping of tobacco is a simple and easy task best performed in the country of origin, and naturally performed there; and that it would be no benefit to the consumer or to the trade to transfer that process to this country. I traverse that statement and every statement he made in that connection. Stripping tobacco

  305
  is skilled labour, and it is not the simple and easy task that the hon. Member supposes. My evidence leads me to believe that the hon. Member has grossly understated the cost of that process. It is not best performed in the country of origin, and in the case of tobacco for the English market this process is not performed in the country of origin, and even in the case of tobacco for the English market it is to a large extent performed on the Continent, where the tobacco is taken in the whole leaf and then stripped for exportation to this country. I have had brought to my notice the evidence of the people engaged in this trade in Holland. They were considering a proposed alteration in their own Customs duties and pointing out the large employment which this stripping of the whole tobacco leaf for the English market gave to their countrymen in the agricultural districts, especially when agricultural work was slack; they protested against any change in the Customs duties which would injuriously affect this lucrative business. Some of the stripping is also done in this country. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields seems to think it is work unfit for white labour. If he will look at Mr. Booth's great book on "Life and Labour in London," he will find that Mr. Booth expresses his pleasure and surprise at finding in this industry an employment which pays good wages and affords a pleasant contrast to so many of the industries of the East-End.
  I do not say it would be right to attempt to bring back to this country, by the agency of our fiscal system, employment which by natural causes has been diverted elsewhere. At any rate such an object is outside the scope of the fiscal system which we have adopted for this country. But I do say that no one who has ever had to deal with our fiscal system in the past intended that our duties should be so drawn as to make trade vary its natural course, and prevent work being done here which would be done here if trade could follow its natural course. Yet that is the position at the present time. This trade might naturally be done here—in fact a great part of it is done here now—but a much larger part would be done here were it not that our duties were so constructed
  306
  as to penalise any manufacturer who attempted to perform that portion of the work in this country. A greater part of this work of stripping the whole leaf would be done here than is done here were it not for that anomaly in our duties to which I have referred, and which I propose, to remove by the new-duty on imported stripped tobacco. This is quite evident from the figures I have given to the Committee and which I need not now repeat as to the increasing proportion which the importation of stripped tobacco bears to our total importation of tobacco and the decrease in the importation of the whole leaf. I have further evidence upon this point from tobacconists, merchants, and manufacturers, to the effect that within quite recent times they had seen particular kinds of leaf imported into this country in strips which had never been imported in strips before, and I think I could prove to the House if it were necessary that not only is that contrary to the natural course of trade but it is bad for the quality of the article itself. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields, speaking on far too limited information, said that doing this work in this country was much more likely to injure the leaf than when it was done abroad. The hon. and learned Member is apparently not aware that the major portion of the leaf which comes un-stripped into this country is so imported because to bring it in in any other form would injure the leaf. Manufacturers are bound to import the leaf in the un-stripped condition to preserve its quality. Indeed, I am informed that there are some kinds of tobacco which manufacturers would wish to use in this country, but which they will not use because they cannot afford to import it in the whole leaf, and it would not stand carriage in any other shape or form. Apart from the present fiscal controversy, I think the hon. and learned Member ought to have considered this problem in a calm and reasonable light without allowing the balance of his judgment to be upset by fancy bogeys. Let not the House suppose that I have invented a distinction between the whole leaf and the stripped leaf which is unknown to the trade at home or to the Customs duties of other countries. Every country

  307
  distinguishes between the whole leaf and the stripped leaf, and our own Customs Returns have distinguished between them from the earliest days, except for a period of eleven years when the distinction was omitted. These are perfectly distinct and well understood terms, and there is no justification on the principles on which our tobacco duties are founded for omitting to have a correlative, rate for the first process as you have a correlative rate for every other process. You might just as well say that it is wrong to have a special rate for cigars as apart from tobacco, or for Cavendish as apart from the raw leaf, as it is to have a special rate for strips as apart from the raw leaf.
  Looked at from the point of view of what would he a right tariff there were only two alternatives open to me. I might lower the duty on the whole leaf, or raise the duly on the stripped leaf. If I had money to give away I would have lowered the duty on the whole leaf. I had no money to give away, but I wanted some, and raised it by the duty on stripped tobacco. Opinion as to the effect of the duty on the relative values of stripped tobacco and whole leaf in bond or in the marker is very conflicting. The tobacco manufacturers tell me, and I believe tell me truly, that for something like a year or over they will not be able to find a sufficient supply of the whole leaf in the market. That, indeed, is the reason why I feel confident I shall get the revenue which I anticipate from the duty. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields tells me that the holders of the stocks of strips will have to bear all the burden. I wish hon. Members opposite would make up their minds on whom the duty would really fall—on the holders of strips as the representatives of the twenty firms which waited on me the other day said it would fall, or on the poor working men, for whom hon. Members opposite have not said much to-day but for whom they are expressing such sympathy in the constituencies. In my opinion, though there has been considerable momentary disturbance, as was inevitable in such a case, there will be nothing like the disturbance between the stripped leaf and the whole leaf which is anticipated. I think they will be able to
  308
  work off their stock without much difficulty, and in any case I am happy to know that a very large proportion of the stocks in this country are after all only held on commission, and the importers themselves are not the real owners of the stocks.
  I do not know that it is possible, to work out an exact scientific adjustment between the value of the stripped and the value of the whole leaf, and to make that exactly correlative to the rate of duty. Does the hon. Gentleman who complained of my addition to the rate on stripped suppose that the rates imposed by Mr. Gladstone on other classes of tobacco are exactly correlative? At every stage of manufacture except the first stage I say without hesitation that the British manufacturer is protected, and has been protected for forty years. He had his protection established by Mr. Gladstone, he has been left protected by every Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer, and no man has found anything contrary to his fiscal conscience in this arrangement until I proposed something which fills in an admitted gap and makes it possible to do a portion of the work in this country which our fiscal system has hitherto made it impossible to do. The duty I propose on stripped tobacco bears a fair proportion to the duties on the other kinds of manufactured tobacco. It takes its proper place in the scale. It will give a revenue, after making allowance for concessions in respect of moisture and drawback, of something like £500,000 this year, and it will raise it with less hardship to any individuals in this country than any other method that can be conceived. I venture to say, therefore, that hon. Gentlemen are driving their suspicion of the ultimate designs of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to an extreme point when they refuse to make so reasonable and legitimate an adjustment and extension of our existing duties at a time when increased revenue is so urgently needed.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid he had listened with much regret to the speech of the hon. Member for North Monmouth. He did not think the hon. Member quite appreciated his responsibility in making that sort of speech. Supposing, for example, he had in his mind another explanation, such as the

  309
  indiscretion of an official, his proper course would have been not to raise the matter publicly, but to write privately to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to draw his attention to the matter, who, being, on his own hypothesis, a man of scrupulous honour, would have been anxious to trace the matter out. But by drawing public attention to it the hon. Gentleman, however much he might disclaim intention for himself, put into the hands of other people, speaking at some unreported meeting or issuing some little leaflet, the apparatus of calumny. He did not think the duty of a politician was exhausted when he had refrained from calumniating his political opponents. He was equally bound to refrain from making it easy for other people to caluminate them. He listened with great interest and admiration to the speech of his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose lucidity of mind admirably qualified him for the position he held, but who must sometimes find things troublesome when he was acting, net as Chancellor of the Exchequer, but as a tariff reformer. He would have thought that, with his clear insight into these matters, and his power of expressing himself so distinctly, his right hon. friend must cause not only uneasiness to himself but to many of those with whom he came in contact, some of whom must be near and dear to him. His right hon. friend's defence of his system of taxation came to this, that it was not a protectionist tax, and that those protectionists who believed, like the hon. Member for Partick, that this was a protectionist tax were profoundly mistaken. They did not understand the subject— a thing he could easily assent to—and when properly understood it would be seen that, it had no operation inconsistent with the principles of free trade. He would only observe, rather in the nature of question than of criticism, that he did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer fully explained, in connection with stripping tobacco, the operation of the drawback, and whether the drawback did not already make such a distinction now as to place stripped on equal terms.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid lie had already explained this matter in reply to a Question put by the hon.
  310
  Member for Islington, and he did not think it was necessary when speaking that afternoon to again go into the details. The right hon. Gentleman stated the method by which the amount of the drawback was computed.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid the case for the tax was this, that by stripping tobacco its value was increased, and that therefore there should be a scale of charge on the more valuable article. It was perfectly just to say that what the existing fiscal system did was to interfere with the natural course of trade, and that the alteration was in the direction of free trade in removing a protectionist advantage which the existing fiscal system gave to the foreigner. It was a delightful thing to hear his right hon. friend talking about the natural course of trade; and he was glad that he recognised that trade when it followed its natural course was doing the best it could possibly do for those seeking employment. His right hon. friend did not fall into the error of the hon. Member for Partick, who had supported this tax under a misapprehension, believing that here there was just a ray of sunlight coming over the eastern horizon, heralding the great luminary who was soon to cover the whole world with prosperity. His hon. friend thought that in the tobacco trade, as in any other trade, it was desirable to have a system which enhanced the demand for employment. That was one of the great mistakes of protectionists. There was an abundant demand for employment, and if there were not enough employment it would be perfectly easy to create opportunities of employment by setting up a gratuitous treadmill. What we so often overlooked was that it was not employment that was wanted, but remuneration for it. If by restricting importation the general wealth of the country was diminished, and if by forcing trade out of its natural course labour was employed in such a way as to produce a smaller return than was natural for that labour, there was a smaller fund to remunerate employment for the future; there was a less effective and remunerative demand for employment, and harm was actually done to the cause of employment. He dared say his hon. friends were aware that after the great storm of 1703—the storm of 1903 was of another character—the

  311
  demand for labour was greatly increased. But if there had been a storm once a week for any length of time the country would have been rapidly reduced, of course, to the condition of a desert. Although the demand for labour might be very great then; would be very little opportunity, after a little while, of remunerative employment, and the consequence would be that the people would be worse off, because of those hurricanes, than before. If you restricted wealth, if you shut out wealth, if you did not lot it come into the country, you made labour less remunerative than it otherwise would be, and you were, as it were an amateur hurricane. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham aspired, like the great Duke of Marlborough, to "ride the whirlwind and direct the storm;" and in so doing he called it scientific taxation. He made these observations quite humbly, not leaving his hon. friend the Member for Partick unconsoled at what might, after all, be the contemptuous putting aside of his views by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member for Partick, as a protectionist, supported this tax. He was wrong, not for the first time, about fiscal matters. The hon. Member misapprehended the character of the tax. This was a pure free-trade tax and a pure free-trade Budget; and as such free-traders were entitled to support it.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he was sure that hon. Members had all listened with delight to the speech of the lion. Member for Greenwich. No doubt the noble Lord spoke in the name of the Unionist free-traders, but their policy seemed to be that, although they denounced these duties, they were going to declare the Budget a free-trade Budget and vote for it. He regretted that decision on their part, but it would not alter the determination of the protagonists on free-trade from voting against the Budget. He must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the excellent temper of his speech, with the exception of one or two sentences; and if the right hon. Gentleman had maintained the same colour in those sentences as in the rest of his speech, his reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Monmouthshire would have been more satisfactory. All the same, the House had not yet got a real reply to the hon. Mem-
  312
  ber for Monmouthshire. The suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich was that the conduct of the hon. Member for Monmouthshire was open to the censure of this House. He himself had not noticed any heat in the remarks of the hon. Member for Monmouthshire. The hon. Member had only called attention to the fact that a great quantity of stripped tobacco had been introduced into this country in March; and the House had not yet had any explanation of that. Why, then, should the Chancellor of the Exchequer get up heat when that fact was referred to? He remembered that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol had to deal with a similar situation. Could the present Chancellor of the Exchequer throw any light on the fact of the greatly increased importation of stripped tobacco into this country immediately before the Budget? The Chancellor of the Exchequer's defence was that he had a precedent for all he did in the former conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol; that he had only carried out the right hon. Gentleman's policy with a slight extension of the principle then established. It was that sort of slight extension of principle of which they were so suspicious in this House. When they looked back on the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, they, on that side of the House, were not satisfied; but it now appeared that that right hon. Gentleman was not himself satisfied. Two years after the right hon. Gentleman brought in the corn tax that tax had to be abolished, because it was said that new circumstances had arisen, and that the experiment made two years previously could not be continued. Therefore, the House must be very strict in considering any proposal brought forward by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. One great drawback to the system of indirect taxation was the favourable opening it gave to cheat not only the Chancellor of the Exchequer but the consumers of goods.
  The House was entitled to complain of the numerous changes that had been made of recent years in the tobacco duties. Within the last six years the whole scale of the

  313
  tobacco duties had been changed three times, whereas, in the thirty-five years from 1863 to 1898, there were only three changes. These frequent changes had convulsed the whole trade, and had cost in the printing of new price-lists more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer got from the increased duties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had received a deputation the other day from the tobacco manufacturers, and one of the members of that deputation told him that he had 40,000 casks of tobacco which would be depreciated in value by the Chancellor's proposal by £10 per cask. If that were true, there would be a loss of £400,000 at once to the manufacturer to obtain a tax of £500,000. That man would not bear all that loss himself; he would pass it on to the consumer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply said that he recognised that, any alteration of this kind in the duties on tobacco was always pro tanto, at the moment, an evil to those in the trade, and that the necessity of any change in the taxes was an inconvenience and an irritation. His contention was that a change in any duty every two years was too gigantic in these times. Perhaps it would be possible in the course of these debates to convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be wise for him to abandon these duties. The fighting line he wished to take was that all these duties were strictly protective in their character. What did he mean by that? That any Customs duty on an imported article must be balanced by an Excise duty? Any variation from that sound principle was protection. He refused to receive any explanation that the proposed duties were a tax on luxuries. The late Colonial Secretary talked of imposing a protective tax on manufactured articles of 10 per cent.; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was introducing a 10 per cent, tax on a process of manufacture of tobacco. The proposed tax on cigars and cigarettes was admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself to be a protective tax. The right hon. Gentleman said that the tax on cigars would produce £45,000 to the revenue, and ho quoted as a precedent the late Chancellor of the Exchequer increasing the duty on cigars in war time by 8d. per lb. Now the present Chancellor of the Exchequer pro-
  314
  posed an extension of the duty by 6d. per lb. That was an extremely suspicious procedure and was a very bad example of the protective principle. If it were imposed on foreign cigars, it would include colonial cigars as well.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: On all imported cigars.
  MR. TOUCH: Very well, that was another blow at the Colonies, and the Empire. India was sending a largely increased amount of cigars to this country, and a 6d. duty on Indian cigars would increase the difficulties of the situation. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated what it would cost the consumer in this country to obtain his £45,000—an extremely moderate sum—from the increased duty on cigars? We did not get one-fifth of our cigars from abroad: perhaps not a tenth: and the home manufacturers would put up the price of all cigars to the extent of the duty. What kept down the price of cigars was the foreign competition; and, if the home manufacturers raised the price to the extent of the duty, the consumers would pay £250,000 in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might obtain for the Exchequer £45,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he hoped to improve the colonial trade; and the right hen. Gentleman had been very indignant all through the debate at the mention of the Tariff Reform Commission. It must be said that it was very curious how the principle of the Tariff Reform Commission had appeared at every stage of the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in these debates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his interview with Mr. Gallaher was full of the idea of giving a return to the Colonies: that his proposal would help the colonial trade in cigars; but he could not see that. Even if that happened, we would be helping the Colonies at great cost to the consumers in this country, and the Colonies would get cheap cigars on which they had not "paid the duty, while the consumers in this country would be subjected to a burden of £250,000. The right hon. Gentleman had no precedent in the Budget of four years ago for dealing with the duty on cigarettes. The right hon. Gentleman's proposed huge

  315
  duty of 1s. per. lb. on foreign cigarettes would only give him £20,000. The duty, it was said, was aimed at foreign cigarettes chiefly from Egypt and Turkey; but if the duty was to yield so small a sum as £20,000 it did not seem worth the trouble to impose it. One of the best houses for Egyptian cigarettes in the country was in Regent Street, and that firm would not take that impost "lying down," but would at once manufacture their cigarettes here and the consumer would have to bear all the burden of the tax. That was an attempt to diminish foreign trade. He was not in favour of such attempts, because the less this country got from Egypt the less it would be able to send to Egypt.
  With reference to the 3d. tax on stripped tobacco, one reason given for it was that its imposition would keep employment in this country. But that was contrary to the principles of free trade. They must not create employment at such great cost to the people of the country. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was the one process of manufacture which was not marked by any tax; and he proposed to differentiate his duties in order that it might be so marked. He thought the House had not yet got hold of what this tax really meant. They had heard that there was a difference of 1½d. between the price of stripped and un-stripped tobacco; but the imposition of the duty would make a difference of 4½d. It was monstrous that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have made such a violent interference with a staple of trade. The proposal was open to every objection that could be made against a protective tax. The right hon. Gentleman said his object was to create employment. He had seen an expert statement to the effect that the cost of stripping in the United States had increased from 40 cents to 60 cents per 100lbs.; and it was added that it was very unskilled labour confined to negroes. The object of the right hon. Gentleman was to bring this low-class trade into this country, and to deprive manufacturers of the liberty of importing either stripped or un-stripped tobacco as they pleased. No worse reason for such a change could be given. It was an uneconomic change. Why should manufacturers be obliged to
  316
  carry the stalks across the sea when they did not want them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was full of the idea that if he could stimulate homo trade even at the cost of foreign trade he would be doing a benefit to the country. It did not follow at all. If trade were allowed to flow along the ordinary channels that would be the highest benefit that could be conferred on the country. English merchants allowed the low-grade work of stripping to be done abroad, employing British labour on more remunerative work. Therefore the principle on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was acting seemed to be a highly unsatisfactory one.
  The right hon. Gentleman affected not to understand what lion. Members meant by a luxury tax. What they meant was that an article imported from abroad and mainly used by the rich should be subject to a duty, not a Customs duty only, be-cause a Customs duty must always be balanced by an Excise duty if it was to be a free-trade tax. Any breach of that law seemed to him to be a breach of the principles on which Budgets had been based for many years. The Budget in all these respects seemed to him to be an audacious infringement of the settled policy which this country had practised for many years. All these taxes were protective in their nature and were also open to other serious objections. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he got £12,500,000 sterling from the tobacco duties. That was a noble revenue to gel from an article like tobacco; and it had been increasing for the last two or three years. No proposal was more dangerous when a tax was producing a splendid revenue, than to increase its weight. Very often that destroyed the productiveness of the tax, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was getting such a fine revenue out of tobacco it would have been far wiser for him to have been content with it and very possibly he would have got more out of the existing rates than lie would get out of the higher rates he proposed to impose. There was ample experience during the last few years to show that that was true. The increase of 3d. per gallon on wines had brought in a smaller revenue, and the increase in the duties on beer and spirits were producing at the present moment most unsatisfactory results. Therefore the

  317
  Chancellor of the Exchequer would be wise to hesitate before increasing the tobacco duties.
  The right hon. Gentleman stated that he was going to make considerable changes in the system of drawbacks. The right hon. Gentleman had not vet explained what those changes would be; but he stated that instead of one drawback lie was going to substitute four or five. That would be a very complicated system and he thought that the simpler system would be better. The right hon. Gentleman was bound to lay his full plans before the House and country before he asked the House to pass this Resolution. The discussion had shown that the tax was open to very serious objections, and the amount of revenue would be very small, probably not more than half a million. A previous Chancellor of the Exchequer calculated he would get £600,000 out of the cheque tax; after discussion he was able to see he would not get that revenue, but that, on the contrary, the splendid revenue he was getting from cheques would tie diminished. Many proposals introduced by Chancellors of the Exchequer had been abandoned recently. The taxes on offal, sale notes, and invoices had been abandoned, and he would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should keep an open mind on this matter, on the ground that it was by no means certain whether these complicated new duties would produce any more revenue than at present, and that he should not treat the arguments of the Opposition with too much contempt, but should consider whether another course might not be adopted.
  MAJOR JAMESONsaid he desired to warmly resent the insinuations and attacks that, had been directed against Mr. Gallaher, who was a personal friend of his, the largest tobacco manufacturer in Ireland, a worthy Belfast citizen, one of the leading Liberals in that city, and a member of the National Liberal Club in London. Mr. Gallaher was one of the few men in Ireland who was able to give large employment to labour, and he protested against his being held up to ignominy for what he was certain Mr. Gallaher had never done, and brought before the House as a
  318
  gentleman unworthy of trust simply for the purpose of attacking the Government through him. The tax would come out of Mr. Gallaher1 s own pocket—it certainly would not come out of the poorer classes of tobacco—and it was somewhat surprising that the only tax which hon. Members had attacked in this way was just the one which would bring employment, not to Chinese, but to some 400 or 500 worthy Irishmen. This tax would take money out of the pockets of the large manufacturers, but would not raise the price of the lower classes of tobacco. The tax would give more employment to the workpeople, and he would be delighted to see any tax placed on any commodity if it would keep Irish workmen in their own country.
  MR. AINSWORTHsaid that every lion. Member would concur that whatever might be the fiscal policy adopted on that side of the House, it was advocated solely with the view to benefiting the working people in Great Britain, and of course, in Ireland also. It seemed to him rather extraordinary that the debate should have collapsed without some attempted explanation of the extraordinary facts brought before; the House by his hon. friend the Member for North Monmouthshire. He should like to know, if hon. Members opposite were in opposition, and became aware of the facts referred to by his hon. friend, whether there was not one of them who would not consider that he would be false in his duty to this House and to his constituents if he did not immediately bring the facts to the attention of the House. One thing they did expect from heads of Departments in this House, and that was a feeling of responsibility. A head of a Department was bound not only to justify himself, but also to justify every official who served under him. Therefore many hon. Members felt surprised that his hon. friend the Member for North Monmouthshire should have been criticised for bringing what he would describe as an "extraordinary accident" before the House. Let them look at the position of the man in the street. He naturally discussed with his neighbour what the next thing to be taxed would be, and he went into the market and bought the article which he expected would be taxed. But what he wanted to know was this, why should

  319
  any individual in this country go into the market and buy, not tobacco generally, but one particular kind of tobacco. He thought it was the duty of the Government to give an explanation, if there was any explanation to give; or, if they had no explanation, to say so. This was an object lesson to the House and the country of what would happen if they began to flirt with protection. Enormous private interests were at once brought, on the scene. There was an old saying that "nobody got lost on a straight road." They on that side of the House thought that as long as they adhered to free-trade principles they were on a straight
  road. There was also a sequel to that saying, which was that "nobody travelled so far as the man who did not know where he was going." That, he thought, represented the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give his most earnest attention to the facts placed before him and that he would be able to give a satisfactory explanation regarding them.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 250: Noes, 176. (Division List No. 105.)

  AYES.

  Allhusen, Augustus Hen. Eden

  Cross, Herb Shepherd (Bolton)

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Arrol, Sir William

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Denny, Colonel

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Helder, Augustus

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dxon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Doughty, George

  Hogg, Lindsay

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

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

  Burning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hoult, Joseph

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Hartley, Sir George C. T.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Fardell, Sir T. George

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

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

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

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Bigwood, James

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Fison, Frederick William

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

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

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Kerr, John

  Brassey, Albert

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Kimber, Henry

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Forster, Henry William

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Butcher, John George

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

  Knowles, Sir Lees

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

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Calloway, William Johnson

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Garfit, William

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Cordon, Hn. J. E (Elign & Nairn)

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

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

  Gore. Hn G.R. Cormsby-(Salop

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Chapman, Edward

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

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Coddington, Sir William

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

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

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Greene, W. Raymond. (Cambs.)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gretton, John

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

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

  Groves, James Grimble

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Corbett, T. L. (Down. North)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim. S.)

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool).

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hardy, L. (Kent. Ashford)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Tuff, Charles

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. W.

  Robinson, Brooke

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Valentia, Viscount

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

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

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Mount, William Arthur

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

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

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

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

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

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

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

  Wylie, Alexander

  Percy, Earl

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Randles, John S.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Rankin, Sir James

  Stroyan, John

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Hammond, John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Delany, William

  Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

  Allen, Charles P.

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Asher, Alexander

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Austin, Sir John

  Doogan, P. C.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Black, Alexander William

  Edwards, Frank

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Roland, John

  Elibank, Master of

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

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

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Brigg, John

  Emmott, Alfred

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Burt, Thomas

  Fenwick, Charles

  Joyce, Michael

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Caldwell, James

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kitson, Sir James

  Cameron, Robert

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Labouchere, Henry

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lambert, George

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Loamy, Edmund

  Cawley, Frederick

  Gilhooly, James

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Charming, Francis Allston

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  Leng, Sr John

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Levy, Maurice

  Crean, Eugene

  Grant, Corrie

  Lundon, W.

  Crombie, John William

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Cullinan, J.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  322

  323

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  O'Malley, William

  Sullivan, Donal

  M'Crae, George

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Tennant, Harold John

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Partington, Oswald

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  M'Kean, John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Price, Robert John

  Tomkinson, James

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Reddy, M.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Mansfield, Horace Kendall

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Redmond, Wiliam (Clare)

  Wallace, Robert,

  Mooney, John J.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Morley, Rt. Hn John (Montrose

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Roche, John

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Murphy, John

  Rose, Charles Day

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Runciman, Walter

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

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

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Norman, Henry

  Shackleton, David James

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

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

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Huddersf'd

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

  Sheehy, David

  Young, Samuel

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Yoxall, James Henry

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

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

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

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  O'Dowd, John

  Soares, Ernest J.

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

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R (Northants

  WAYS AND MEANS (26TH APRIL).
  Resolutions reported.
  Continuance of Additional Customs Duties on Tobacco, Beer, and Spirits.
  1. "That the additional Customs duties on tobacco, beer, and spirits imposed by sections two, three, four, and five of The Finance Act, 1900 (including any increased duties imposed by section five of that Act), shall continue to be charged until the 1st day of August, 1905."
  Continuance of Additional Excise Duties on Beer and Spirits.
  2. "That the additional Excise duties on beer and spirits imposed by sections six and seven of The Finance Act, 1900, shall continue to be charged until the 1st day of August, 1905."
  Amendment of Law.
  3. "That, it is expedient to 'amend the Law relating to the National Debt, Customs, and Inland Revenue."
  Resolutions read a second time.
  First Resolution.
  MR. DALZIEL MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs) moved the omission of the word "tobacco" from the first line of the
  324
  Resolution. He said that his object was to enter a protest against the continuance of war taxation in time of peace. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of giving any satisfactory explanation, had assumed that, peace expenditure might in some cases be more than even war expenditure, whereas during the war the taxpayers were consoled by the promise that when the war was over the extra taxes would be removed.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line I. to leave out the word 'tobacco." —(Mr. Dalziel.)
  Question proposed, "That, the word 'tobacco' stand part of the said Resolution."
  MR. FLYNNpointed out that in a little over half a century the taxation of the country had increased from £53,000,000 to £142,000,000. and as this burden pressed with especial hardship upon Ireland, he heartily supported the Amendment. Ireland paid at present more than 76 per cent, of indirect taxation, and she protested against a burden which could be necessitated only by the urgency of war or by a policy of extravagant expenditure.
  MR. WHITLEYdesired to add his protest against the continuance of war taxation in time of peace. He

  325
  thought it was the duty of the House to vote against all these duties until a return to economy was promised. As he did not anticipate any such return during the existence of the present Government, he conceived it to be the duty of all who hoped for a return to a reasonable rate of expenditure to take every opportunity of voting against the proposals of the
  Government until they took the judgment of the country upon the manner in which they had used the power obtained under false pretences three or four years ago.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 254; Noes. 178. (Division List No. 106.)

  AYES.

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Denny, Colonel

  Hope, J.F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir. H

  Doughty, George

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

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Kerr, John

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Keswick, William

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Kimber, Henry

  Balfour, Cant. C. B. (Hornsey)

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

  Knowles, Sir Lees

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

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Hartley, Sir George C. T.

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Beach, Rt Hn Sir Mich. Hicks

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

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

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Forster, Henry William

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

  Bigwood, James

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

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Leege, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Bond, Edward

  Calloway, William Johnson

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Garfit, William

  Loder, Gerald Waller Erskine

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

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

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

  Brassey, Albert

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

  Lucas, Col, Francis (Lowestoft)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Butcher, John George

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Green, Walford D.(Wednesbury

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Gretton, John

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J (Birm.

  Groves, James Grimble

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

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

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Chapman, Edward

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hamiiton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Martin, Richard Biddnlph

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H. E (Wigton

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.

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

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Meysey-Thompson. Sir H. M.

  Coddington, Sir William

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Harwood, George

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. Athole H.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Helder, Augustus

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Mount, William Arthur

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

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

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H (Sheff'ld)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  Percy, Earl

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Randles, John S.

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Rankin, Sir James

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Willon, Sir John Archibald

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

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

  Remnant, James Farqnharson

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

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

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

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

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

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

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Stroyan, John

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Robinson, Brooke

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Tuff, Charles

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Humphreys-Owen Arthur C.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk

  Allen, Charles P.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley);

  Asher, Alexander

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

  Dunn, Sir William

  Joicey, Sir James

  Austin, Sir John

  Edwards, Frank

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Elibank, Master of

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Ellice, Capt EC (S. Andrw's Bghs

  Joyce, Michael

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Kilbride, Denis

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Kitson, Sir James

  Black, Alexander William

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

  Labouchere, Henry

  Boland, John

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Lambert, George

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal W.

  Brigg, John

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lawson, Sir Wilfred (Cornwall

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Fenwick, Charles

  Leamy, Edmund

  Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Ffrench, Peter

  Leng, Sir John

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Levy, Maurice

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lough, Thomas

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Lundon, W.

  Burt, Thomas

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Caldwell, James

  Gilhooly, James

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Cameron, Robert

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwal)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Crae, George

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Kean, John

  Cawley, Frederick

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hammond, John

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

  Mooney, John J.

  Crean, Eugene

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire

  Crombie, John William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Cullinan, J.

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Murphy, John

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Delany, William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Devlin, Chas. Mamsay (Galway

  Holland, Sir William Henry

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

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Norman, Henry

  328

  329

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Roche, John

  Tomkinson, James

  O'Brien, James F. X.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Rose, Charles Day

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Runciman, Walter

  Wallace, Robert

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

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Shackleton, David James

  Weir, James Galloway

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  O'Dowd, John

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.

  Sheehy David

  Whiteley, George (York. W. R.

  O'Malley William

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Partington, Oswald

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R.(Northants

  Young, Samuel

  Price, Robert John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Reddy, M.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Tennant, Harold John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Dalziel and Mr. Whitley.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Motion made and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 259; Noes, 173. (Division List No. 107.)

  AYES.

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Garfit, William

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Coddington, Sir William

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

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

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

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

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

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Gretton, John

  Balfour, Capt, C. B. (Hornsey)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Hamilton. Rt. Hon Lord G (Mid'x

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Bartley, Sir George C T.

  Denny, Colonel

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Dewar, Sir T.R. (Tower Hamlets

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R.(Dulwich)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Harwood, George

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Dickson Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Bigwood, James

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Disracli, Coningsby Ralph

  Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.)

  Bond, Edward

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Doughty, George

  Helder, Augustus

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Henderson, Sir A.(Stafford, W.)

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Brassey, Albert

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Butcher, John George

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

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

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

  Hoult, Joseph

  Carson, Rt. Hon Sir Edw. H.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Chapman, Edward

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

  Kerr, John

  Charrington, Spencer

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Keswick, William

  Kimber, Henry

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

  Knowles, Sir Lees

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

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Stone, Sir Benjamin.

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Stroyan, John

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N.R

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants, Fareham

  Percy, Earl

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

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Taylor, Austin (Fast Toxteth)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Randles, John S.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Rankin, Sir James

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Long, Col, Charles W. (Evesham

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Tuff, Charles

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth)

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

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

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Robinson, Brooke

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunt'n

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Malcolm, Ian

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wilson, V Stanley (York. E.R.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

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

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire N.

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

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Middlemore, John Throgmorton

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Worslev-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

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

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Shackleton, David James

  Wylie, Alexander

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Morgan, D.J. (Walthamstow)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, Fast)

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Smith, H.C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Allen, Charles P.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Asher, Alexander

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Crean, Eugene

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Austin, Sir John

  Crombie, John William

  Ffrench, Peter

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cullinan, J.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Black, Alexander William

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Boland, John

  Delany, William

  Gilhooly, James

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Brigg, John

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Grant, Corrie

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Doogan, P. C.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B

  Burt, Thomas

  Dunn, Sir William

  Hammond, John

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Edwards, Frank

  Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

  Caldwell, James

  Elibank, Master of

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Cameron, Robert

  Ellice, Capt. EC (S. Andrw's Bghs)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  332

  333

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John (Montrose

  Sheehy, David

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Shipman, Dr. John G

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Murphy, John

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

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

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Joicey, Sir James

  Norman, Henry

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Tennant, Harold John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

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

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tomkinson, James

  Kitson, Sir James

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

  Toulmin, George

  Labouchere, Henry

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lambert, George

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  O'Dowd, John

  Wallace, Robert

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Malley, William

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Leng, Sir John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Levy, Maurice

  Partington, Oswald

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Lundon, W.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Whiteley, George (York. W.R.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Reddy, M.

  Whiteley, J. H. (Halifax)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

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

  M'Crae, George

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Roche, John

  Young, Samuel

  M'Kean, John

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Yoxall, James Henry

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Rose, Charles Day

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Runciman, Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Flynn and Mr. Flavin.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Mooney, John J.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Second Resolution.
  MR. BROADHURST MR. BROADHURST (Leicester) moved to leave out the words "beer and" in the first line. His object was not so much to remove the tax on beer as to point out another way in which the revenue could he obtained. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer could easily have found a more direct way of raising this branch of the revenue than by continuing the tax in this form. He would humbly suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should raise this special revenue by means of a higher tax on the beer sold in tied houses. At the present moment the supply of intoxicating drinks to the public was a monopoly granted to certain people by the law of the land. A large number of these people added to that monopoly, by a scheme of their own, another monopoly. Under the conditions of the tied-house system the licencees were only allowed to supply one particular class of beer brewed by a particular brewer. Here was a double monopoly protected by the law which, he thought, ought not to exist.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid the hon. Member was proposing a new tax. That could
  334
  not be done on the Report stage of the Resolution.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid his only object was that they should have a different tax on beer supplied to tied houses, which formed a double monopoly, from that which was supplied to free houses.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is entirely out of order.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid he could see the point the Speaker had made, but he thought he had mentioned the direction in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer should go to make good the deficiency which would be caused by striking out these words. At any rate the House would see what he would do if he were the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He begged to move that in line 1 of the second Resolution the words "beer and" be left out.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 1, to leave out the words 'beer and.'"—(Mr. Broadhurst.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'beer and' stand part of the said Resolution."
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that under ordinary circumstances he would not oppose a tax on beer; but he considered that the present circumstances were extraordinary, and he fell back on the old constitutional doctrine that when they thoroughly distrusted the Government, when they held that the country had protested against the Government's retention of office in every way it possibly could, when the Government came forward with a fiscal policy—and they did not know whether some great intrigue was going on at the present moment to evade bringing that great fiscal policy before the country, in order to win over the country to it—then fie thought every constitutional means should be used to resist every tax the Government proposed.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid he was extremely glad his hon. friend had raised this question. He quite understood it was necessary to keep within the limits of the Speaker's ruling, and that it was not possible, on the Report of the Resolution, to discuss at any length a substitute for the proposals contained in the Resolutions; but he thought they were justified in saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might very well, instead of taking this curious readjustment of the tobacco duty, set his mind with more advantage to make a readjustment of the beer duties. At present the beer duties were all in favour of the big man, and against the small man. Year by year the small man and the free publican were being shut out, and the whole method of Excise and beer duty favoured the large brewing companies, who were continually increasing their grip upon the country. This was one of those instances where the Chancellor of the Exchequer might utilise an Excise duty in the interests of the community as a whole by removing this encouragement to monopoly. Within the last twenty years the free publican had been almost crushed out of the trade, and at present hardly 5 per cent, of free publicans remained. He was very grate-

  AYES.

  Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bagot, Capt. Joscelion FitzRoy

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hn. Sir H.

  Bain, colonel James Robert

  ful to the hon. Member for Leicester for having raised this question, and he hoped the House would give an emphatic support to the idea he had put forward.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he wished to support the Amendment from an entirely different point of view to that taken by the hon. Member for Northampton. He never drank any beer himself, but his desire was to see a legitimate amount of taxation got from those who drank beer and those who brewed and sold it. He ventured to suggest that it would be possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to obtain more revenue by other methods than those which the right hon. Gentleman had put in force. It had been suggested that there should be a graduation of the tax so as to make it heavier than at present on those who purveyed the beer. That would be no hardship on them at all. The question of the differentiation of the tax between tied and free houses was not before the House for the first time; and he maintained that it was right to make such a distinction. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be encouraged to carry out that suggestion.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he quite agreed with his hon. friend the Member for Northampton that they ought to oppose all taxation proposed by the Government. At the same time he thought the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member for Leicester had a great deal to commend it. He did not say that the hon. Member's actual plan was the right one. Another plan had been suggested by the hon. Member for Dundee. The tax on beer was not put on in the way it ought to be. Some protection ought to be given to the free publican, and the tax should be divided between the seller and the consumer to a greater extent than at the present moment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Aves. 236; Noes, 163. (Division List No. 108.)

  Baird, John George Alexander

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray, C.

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Muntz, Sir Philip W.

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

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Gretton, John

  Nicholson, William Graham.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Hartley, Sir George (T.

  Hamilton. Mar. of L'nd'nderry

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Percy, Earl

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Harris, Dr. Fred. R. (Dulwich)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Bigwood, James

  Hatch, Ernest. Frederick Geo.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Pryce-Jones Lt.- Col. Edward

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Brassey, Albert

  Helder, Augustus

  Randles, John S.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Came

  Butcher, John George

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Campbell, Rt Hn. J A (Glasgow)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Cavendish, V. C. W. Derbyshire

  Hoult, Joseph

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chaws Thomson

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J A Worc.

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Chapman, Edward

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Robinson, Brooke

  Charrington, Spencer

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur F.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Kerr, John

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Keswick, William

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

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

  Kimber, Henry

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stonford

  Coddington, Sir William

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Lawrence, Sir J, (Monm'th)

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

  Corbett, N. L. (Down, North)

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

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

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

  Sinclair, Loins (Romford)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A.R.

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Smith, H.C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Long Col, Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

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

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

  Denny, Colonel

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Dewar, Sir T. R. Tower Hamlets

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lincs.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Macdona, John dimming

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Doughty, George

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Stroyan, John

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

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

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Elliot, Hon. A. R. Douglas

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Tuff, Charles

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Malcolm, Ian.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

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

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Take, Sir John Batty

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfriessh

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. K. H. (Sheff'ld

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Ed. Algernon

  Milner, R. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

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

  Foster, Henry William

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

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

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Garfit, William

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks

  338

  339

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

  Wylie, Alexander

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Sir

  Wolff, Gustay Wilhelm

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Grant, Corrie

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

  Allen, Charles P.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

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

  Asher, Alexander

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Dowd, John

  Austin, Sir John

  Hammond, John

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

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Harmsworth, R, Leicester

  O'Malley, William

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Harwood, George

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Partington, Oswald

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Black, Alexander William

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Boland, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Reddy, M.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Brigg, John

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Roche, John

  Burt, Thomas

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Caldwell, James

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Cameron, Robert

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Runciman, Walter

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Campbell-Banner man, Sir H.

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Shackleton, David James

  Cawley, Frederick

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Canning, Francis Allston

  Joyce, Michael

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kilbride, Denis

  Sheehy, David

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Crean, Eugene

  Lambert, George

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Crombie, John William

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cullinan, J.

  Leamy, Edmund

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Leng, Sir John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Levy, Maurice

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Delany, William

  Lough, Thomas

  Tennant, Harold John

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Lundon, W.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tomkinson, James

  Doogan, P. C.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Toulmin, George

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Trevelyn, Charles Philips

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Crae, George

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Dunn, Sir William

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Wallace, Robert

  Edwards, Frank

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Kean, John

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Weir, James Galloway

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Whiteley, George (York. W.R.)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Mooney, John J.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fenwick, Charles

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Murphy, John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Newnes, Sir George

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Huddersf'd

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Young, Samuel

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Norman, Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES Mr. Broadhurst and Mr. Labouchere.

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Norton, Cant. Cecil William

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

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

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. FLYNNrose to move that the House do disagree with the Resolution.
  And, it being after half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  WAYS AND MEANS [26TH APRIL] REPORT.
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [3rd May], "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Second Resolution, 'That the additional Excise duties on beer and spirits imposed by Sections 6 and 7 of the Finance Act, 1900, shall continue to be charged until the 1st day of August, 1905.'"
  Question again proposed.
  MR. FLYNNdrew attention to the fact that this Resolution was drawn up in exact conformity with the terms of the corresponding Resolution of the Budget of 1900, and said that in the discussion on the Budget then marvellous justification for the attitude they had taken up was to be found in the speech of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right lion. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol. The right hon. Gentleman then admitted that the tax on spirits was a very heavy one, but justified the addition of 6d., which he then put on, by the statement that it was a temporary war tax which would be taken off in the following year. No one could foresee that the war would have lasted so long and have cost so much blood and treasure, and therefore no blame was to be attached to the right hon. Gentleman for not reducing the tax on spirits in 1901; but what the House ought to know, and what they wanted to know, was why the present Chancellor of the Exchequer should now, when the war was concluded, still levy this tax. He should not oppose the tax upon beer if the right hon. Gentleman was hard up, but the tax on whiskey was quite a different matter. Over and over again both Irish and Scotch Members had protested against this unfair and continuous taxation of spirits to this high amount. Such a tax unquestionably led to intemperance, owing to the inevitable tendency there was to dilute the spirit in the first place, or to the placing of impure spirits on the market in order to ensure a profit to the retailer at the expense of the consumer. In
  342
  the interests of temperance, only such a tax should be placed on this commodity as would ensure a spirit of a healthful and innocuous character, and not of a dangerous one, being placed upon the market. In Ireland they might fairly complain that this tax was specially unfair to them. Fifty years ago the tax was only 3s. 4d. a gallon; a few years later it rose to 4s. 8d.; then in 1858 it rose to 8s.; and in 1860 was increased to 10s. In 1894 it went up to 11s.; it was subsequently reduced to 10s. 6d. at which point it remained until 1900, when the right hon. Gentleman, as a purely temporary expedient to raise money for the war increased it again by 6d.; and at the present moment it stood at 11s. The tax upon beer represented only one-sixth of the value of the article taxed, that upon whiskey three or four times the value. He contended it was most unfair to continue this duty, and opposed the Resolution, first, because the extra 6d. was put on as a temporary war tax, and it was not right to keep it on in time of peace; secondly, because it was against the interests of temperance; thirdly, because it was a direct violation of the pledge given by the right hon. Member for West Bristol to remove it when the war came to a conclusion: and lastly, because it increased the burden of indirect taxation, already too high in Ireland.
  SIR E. DURNING-LAWRENCEsaid he felt very strongly that it was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the duty on spirits as high as possible. In the interests of temperance they should not be too cheap, and as the continuous raising of the duty from 3s. 4d. to its present limit had prevented intemperance, he congratulated all the Chancellors of the Exchequer who had contributed to the increase of the duty, not forgetting the late Mr. Gladstone. The last Radical Government in this country—the last he hoped for, many years to come—in 1894 reduced the duty on whiskey by 6d. and that was the Party which called itself the "Temperance Party." When it became necessary to raise money for the war the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol reimposed, as he thought wisely, the 6d. on the duty on spirits. Was this

  343
  the time to take it off? He thought not. He did not think it was the time to reduce any taxation, least of all that on spirits. Various Chancellors of the Exchequer had considered this question, and Mr. Gladstone laid it down almost as a law that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should put as high a duty on spirits as could be collected. If spirits could be retailed at anywhere near the price they cost to produce he did not know what would become of temperance in this country, and therefore a high duty was most beneficial. Spirits could be produced at about the rate of 5d. a bottle. Whether 11s. a gallon was the highest limit of taxation that could be put upon whiskey he did not know, but if it were he did not think that the temperance reformers would thank the Government for reducing it. Every Member of the House—with the exception of the representatives of Ireland on the National Benches, who were never tired of telling the House that they would provide nothing towards the expenditure of this country—was proud to think that there was a Government in power strong enough to carry this tax. In his opinion a time when a great European nation was threatening us with regard to our operations in Tibet was not the time to reduce our taxation, and he should certainly support the Resolution.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNGsaid of all articles of general consumption whiskey was the most heavily taxed. Whiskey could be produced at from 1s. to 1s. 3d. a gallon 25 degrees over proof, and the tax upon that was 13s. 9d., or 11s. per gallon of proof spirit. He associated himself with all that had been said against the Resolution, and if a division was taken he should vote against it.
  MR. GROVESsaid that althought to his mind the additional tax on beer and spirits imposed in consequence of the war might with advantage have been remitted to a certain extent, still he was prepared to accept it for another year, in the hope that when the financial outlook became brighter the Chancellor of the Exchequer would carry out the half promise which he had made them and would consider favourably the claims made by the trade affected.
  SIR. FREDERICK BANBURYin supporting the Resolution, said the arguments adducted against it by the other side were of a most extraordinary character. The expenses of the country now were just as great as they were during the war, yet hon. Gentleman opposite intended to vote against this Resolution which was to provide for the expenditure of the country. The record of the House for the last two months had been most extraordinary; the arguments of hon. Members who endeavoured to secure economy in the expenditure of the country which was, they thought, too great, had always been met by someone who got up with some special object on which he thought more money ought to be spent, and who, if listened to, would effectually prevent that economy which was so much desired by others. He did not see, if the argument that whiskey was too highly taxed were successful, how that would tend to the economy of expenditure, but assuming, for the sake of argument, that the tax on whiskey were to be reduced, it would be found that, instead of increasing sobriety, a very long step had been taken towards increasing inebriety, and this at a time when the Government were considering a measure of temperance reform. One hon. Gentleman opposite announced, as a reason for opposing this Resolution, his intention of voting against every tax proposed by the Government. He appealed to hon. Gentleman opposite to say whether it was possible to carry on the government of this country if the Party opposite were proposed by the Government on the ground, not that it was a bad tax, but that the Government proposed it.
  MR. J. F. HOPEsaid he had no fear as to the result of the division, if a division were to be taken, because it was painfully apparent that the hon. Member opposite, the hon. Member for Cork, could not hope to receive the support of the Opposition as a whole. It was quite clear the hon. Member for Halifax could not support him. If he ventured to do so he would not dare to show his face in Halifax again. Nor could the hon. Member for Barnstaple.

  345
  Because if he did what would the Bible Christians of Barnstaple say? Would the constituents of the hon. Member for Barnstaple approve of his action if he supported the Amendment?
  MR. SOARESsaid his constituents would approve of anything that would turn out the present Administration.
  MR. J. F. HOPEsaid he thought that the Bible Christians of Barnstaple would put their religious belief above Party; and he was quite certain that they would not approve of anything which would increase the consumption of spirits. Again, there were well organised temperance societies in Crewe, and he would put it to the hon. Member for Crewe what would they say if he encouraged the drinking of cheap ardent spirits? What would the, Rechabites of Keighley say if the hon. Member for that constituency voted for an Amendment, the only result of which would be to promote intemperance. The hon. Member for Kincardineshire promoted a Bill the ostensible object of which was the promotion of temperance. It was quite clear he could not possibly vote for the Amendment. He had mentioned five Members who could not oppose the Resolution; and there were many others. This was a serious question which ought to be properly debated. [An HON. MEMBER: Your majority has arrived and it is all right now.] That was really an impertinent observation. [HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!]. He remembered a few years ago that the Chairman of Committees ruled that if the word "impertinent" were used in an offensive sense it was out of order, but that if it were used in the sense of not being pertinent it was in order. It was in the latter sense that he had used it. It was a reductio ad absurdum that he should be denounced as a protectionist if he proposed a tax on a fully manufactured piano imported from abroad, and yet these duties should be placed not only on spirits and beer but also on tea. From that point of view he would be inclined to vote against these duties; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted the money, and if taxation was to be revised it certainly would not be the spirit
  346
  duty that would be the first to be reduced. Hon. Members opposite were all in favour of the taxation of luxuries. Was whiskey a necessity or a luxury? Would the hon. Member for Barnstaple say that whiskey was a necessity? Of course, he would not. If it was a luxury it could only be consumed by persons with plenty of mean who could afford to pay for it. He agreed that the barden of taxation should fall on the rich.
  MR. FLAVINasked if the hon. Gentleman would say whether a pigtail was a luxury or a necessity?
  MR. J. F. HOPEsaid that if he could not grow his hair in any more becoming fashion, he should say it was a necessity. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to encourage temperance he should pass a Resolution whereby all spirits should be kept in bond for two or three years.
  SIR JOSEPH LEESErose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  MR. J. F. HOPEsaid he wished to know if hon. Gentlemen opposite would vote for the abolition of Customs duties on foreign spirits. If they were prepared to do that, and also vote against this Resolution it was quite clear that they would be violating one of their fundamental principles, because in that case they would be voting against Customs duties on foreign spirits, and, at, the same time, doing away with Excise on home spirits. If, for instance, the hon. Gentleman for Accrington said he was ready to vote against the taxation of foreign spirits he could not possibly vote against the Resolution. With regard to Ireland, the treatment which the English Government meted out to that country in the eighteenth century was something which no Englishman could contemplate with equanimity.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will not be in order in entering on the question of taxation as between England and Ireland.
  MR. J. F. HOPEsaid that undoubtedly the tax on spirits did weigh very heavily on Ireland; and he should be very glad if something could be done to relieve Ireland in this matter. He wanted to know when he was drinking a glass of Irish whisky whether he was helping Ireland or not. One theory was that the tax fell on the producer, and another theory was that it fell on the consumer. He should like to know from some authority like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton where the incidence of taxation really was in this matter. What he wanted to know was—Did the burden of the duty fall on the Irish taxpayer or the English consumer? He could suggest many better means of raising revenue, and he proposed to invite the attention of hon. Members opposite to other sources of taxation to show them how the general basis could be broadened. Personally he felt bound to vote for these duties and to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer his loyal support, although there were many points in the Budget which he was compelled to adversely criticise. If he had to produce a Budget representing his own fiscal views it would, no doubt, differ from that which was now before the House. He would read to the House some words of Burke with regard to the consumption of spirits from a moral point of view. The hon. Member, amid many interruptions, proceeded to read a long extract from a speech by Burke on the whisky duty.
  MR. SPEAKER (interrupting): I hope the hon. Member will endeavour to make: his observations more relevant.
  MR. J. F. HOPEsaid he always had had a weakness for Burke, but he would not press the matter further. Because he believed the duties were just he should vote for their continuation and against the Amendment.
  MR. SOARESsaid the speeches to which they had just listened were a scathing commentary on the Motion for the suspension of the Twelve O'clock Rule that night. They were to sit there until a late hour in the morning in order that they might have the privilege of listening to speeches made by hon.
  348
  Gentlemen opposite, who had suddenly developed an intense interest in the discussion. He had been challenged as to his vote. It was true that Liberals had voted against the tax on tobacco and the tax on beer, and if there was a division they would vote against the tax on spirits. Yet when they got into power, as they very soon would, they had not the remotest intention of diminishing these taxes by a single penny. What was the reason for it? In acting thus they were acting on the good old constitutional rule of refusing supplies to a Government which had not got the, confidence of the country. They intended to follow this policy until the present Parliament came to an end.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Before I deal with the remarks of the hon. Member for Barnstaple I wish to say a few words as to what has fallen from my hon. friend the Member for South Salford lest they should give rise to some misconception at a future time. My hon. friend alluded to a deputation which he introduced to me, and which put their case very fairly before me, and he suggested I made a certain half promise. Well, I made one definite statement which was more than half a promise. I said I thought I did them no injustice in saying that they came to me not so much with the idea of getting an immediate remission of the duties which press upon dealers in alcohol as with a desire to keep alive their claim to consideration whenever a chance of remission arose. What I did promise was that if I were responsible at. that time I would consider their claim along with the claims of others. My hon. friend will see that this was a promise which I should make to every taxpayer.
  MR. GROVES: "Hope springs eternal." especially in the breast of the publican and the trade.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: And I do not wish to destroy that hope. Still it is a promise which every man in my position might make, and would be bound to fulfil with regard to every taxpayer who feels himself aggrieved by any tax. Certainly the trade is entitled to full consideration, and all that it can

  349
  urge in favour of a remission of duty shall be considered. So, also, all that can be urged by other taxpayers in favour of the remission of the taxation which presses hardly on them will be considered. It is, however, useless to discuss the relative urgency of their claim when there is no possibility of relief. It has been stated by the hon. Member for North Cork that the continuation of these duties is a distinct violation of a promise made by my right lion, friend the Member for West Bristol when imposing them. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman when imposing them did express a hope that they would be only temporary, and no doubt that is the utterance to which the hon. Member for North Cork refers. But the right hon. Gentleman recurred to the matter on a subsequent occasion, and expressly stated that even when the war came to an end the ordinary expenditure would not permit the remission of the additional taxation. The right hon. Gentleman in 1901 said—
  "I have never stated that in my belief the expenditure of this country can be reduced. I have said it might have to be increased, and therefore we must strengthen the basis of our existing indirect taxation."
  and the right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
  "It is perfectly clear that in now asking that the duties shall be continued I am breaking no promise."
  I pass from that to the speech of the hon. Member for Barnstaple, who I see is not in his place. His speech, interesting as it was, constituted a curious comment on the action of hon. Members opposite with regard to the serious business of this country. I have been fiercely attacked this afternoon for wishing insidiously by a slight readjustment of the tobacco duties, to introduce the heretical principles of protection. I have been accused of infringing the sacred doctrine of free trade. Yet Gentlemen opposite, who voted in favour of the Customs duty on foreign beer and spirits, are now going to vote against the corresponding Excise duty on home-made beer and spirits. Hon. Members opposite go on to say that we are incapable of dealing with the temperance question, because we are too much in the hands of the distiller and the brewer, and yet these temperance
  350
  advocates are ready, without a word of explanation, to go into the Lobby and vote for a reduction in the duty of spirits, and to translate free food into free drinks. Then the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnstaple, in his philosophic justification of that attitude, said they were only applying the constitutional rule of refusing supplies to a Government in which they have no confidence. But the fact is that Supply has already been voted by this House, and the hon. Member is only seeking to refuse the means of paying the Bill. He says he will vote against any and every tax without reference to the merits if only he can thereby displace the present undeserving Government. Having secured that object, he will be prepared to-morrow to vote black what to-night he has declared to be white; and he is, in fact. ready to treat all the interests and trades of the country as mere pawns in the lowest form of Party game. The discussion would not have been complete without that very frank exposition of the policy of the Opposition, and I shall be curious to see whether right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench are prepared to treat the great interests of trade and finance on the principles laid down by the hon. Member for Barnstaple.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten that the greatest interest of the trade of this country was to get the present Government out of office. Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches were most anxious to divide on this Resolution, and would have done so before the interesting flow of eloquence which followed the entrance of the hon. Members for Peckham and the Bright-side Division of Sheffield. The right hon. Gentleman himself had sought to fill up the time until his cohorts could be Drought up, but he was under a delusion if he thought the Opposition's idea in seeking an early division was to defeat the Government. What they wanted was to get to the next Resolution in which they were far more interested. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had thought it necessary to waste so much of the time of the House with his lecture on temperance.
  MR. PIRIEsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made some very pointed remarks as to the attitude of hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, but that attitude was justified by the necessity for getting rid of an Opportunist Government—a
  Government that was double-minded, double-faced, and double-tongued.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 206; Noes. 146. (Division List No. 109.)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheff'ld)

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

  Stroyan, John

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

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

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Wylie, Alexander

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

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

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

  Younger, William

  Tuff, Charles

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES, Sir

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

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

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  O'Dowd, John

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Malley, William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Mara, James

  Allen, Charles

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Shanghnessy, P. J

  Asher, Alexander

  Hammond, John

  Partington, Oswald

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Harcourt, Lewis W (Rossendale

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Black, Alexander William

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Reddy, M.

  Boland, John

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Brigg, John

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Roche, John

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Drown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Runciman, Walter

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Joyce, Michael

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Kilbride, Denis

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Labouchere, Henry

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Burt, Thomas

  Lambert, George

  Sheehy, David

  Caldwell, James

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cameron, Robert

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Slack, John Bamford

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Leng, Sir John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Levy, Maurice

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Charming, Francis Allston

  Lough, Thomas

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Crean, Eugene

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Crombie, John William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  M'Crae, George

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

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Tomkinson, James

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Toulmin, George

  Delany, William

  M'Kean, John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Mooney, John J.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Murphy, John

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Edwards, Frank

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone

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

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer-

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Norman, Henry

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Nussey, Thomas Willam

  Young, Samuel

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Sir

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Third Resolution, "That it is expedient to amend the Law relating to the National Debt, Customs, and Inland Revenue," further considered:—
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  MR. DALZIELasked whether this Resolution was intened to cover the proposal with regard to unclaimed dividends.
  MR.AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the clause necessary for that purpose would be included in the Finance Bill.
  MR. DALZIELthought Members were entitled to protest against the departure of the right hon. Gentleman in appropriating a portion of the unclaimed dividends. It was true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had quoted as a precedent the course taken by Mr. Gladstone many years ago, but there was really no analogy between the two occasions, inasmuch as Mr. Gladstone used the money for the reduction of debt, whereas it was now being taken for the purposes of revenue. The right hon. Gentleman was practically selling an asset, and was thereby setting a precedent which would doubtless be followed by future Chancellors of the Exchequer who did not care to face the odium of imposing necessary taxation. The support now being given to the right hon. Gentleman would be a direct instigation to other right hon. Gentlemen to raid not only the unclaimed dividends but also the unclaimed balances. Only the gravest national emergency could justify the course proposed, and the House were entitled to a full defence of the revolutionary action of the right hon. Gentleman. Of all the proposals of the Budget this was the most objectionable, inasmuch as it set a bad precedent which was bound to be followed. No real cause had been shown for departing from the rules which generally governed the Chancellor of the Exchequer in placing his annual proposals before Parliament. For these reasons he thought he was justified in opposing the Resolution.
  MR. WHITLEYhoped the right hon. Gentleman would further explain this question, as he was unable to understand from his Budget speech exactly how the matter stood. What he desired to know was, how the account stood as regarded both capital and dividends before this raid, and what the result would be afterwards. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in taking the money, because it was absurd to allow the accounts to run on for ever when any claim upon it was out of the question, but he contended that the money should go to the reduction of debt and not to meet a deficit in revenue. The right hon. Gentleman had prided himself on not hiving raided the Sinking Fund, but by this means he was indirectly doing the
  356
  same thing. He hoped a full explanation of the matter would be given on the present occasion.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the facts of the case were very simple, and if hon. Members had only read carefully his remarks on the subject in his Budget speech they would have been in no doubt as to the nature of the proposal. Unclaimed stock after a period of ten years was transferred to the National Debt Commissioners, together with the dividends which had accrued upon it. Those dividends, with the dividends subsequently accruing, were invested by the Commissioners and formed the Unclaimed Dividend Account. The liabilities of that account were for the dividends which had accrued—that was, the simple interest on the amount of stock originally transferred—but as the dividends themselves were invested the fund accumulated at compound interest, and, consequently, the fund was always making a profit and creating an asset in excess of its liabilities. That would be the case even though its nominal liabilities were the same thing as its practical liabilities. But as no stock was transferred until it had been unclaimed for ten years and every effort to trace its owner had failed, the House would see that to the greater part of the money there would never be any claim at all. Accordingly there was not only an actual excess of assets over liabilities, but there was also the amount by which the nominal liability exceeded any liability which was ever likely to be enforced. When Mr. Gladstone dealt with the fund in 1863, the assets amounted to £3,087,375 in 3 per cents., with nominal liabilities of £804,509. Mr. Gladstone cancelled the whole of the £3,000,000 of stock, leaving assets amounting to £87,375 in 3 per cents. against the nominal liabilities of £804,509, and no inconvenience had ever arisen from the operation. The amount paid from the fund in the course of the year averaged between £4,000 and £5,000. The assets at present, though not as large as in Mr. Gladstone's time, exceeded the liabilities—including both the liability of Mr. Gladstone's day and that which had accrued since—and if there was not much prospect in Mr. Gladstone's day of the nominal liability

  357
  being turned into an actual liability, the chances of such an event now were considerably smaller.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERasked whether the fund had been dealt with since 1863.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINreplied that it had not. The assets at the present time amounted to £1,864,309. What was the effect on the fund of Mr. Gladstone's operation compared with his own? Mr. Gladstone cancelled £3,000,000 of stock and left £87,375 3 per cent. stock. He now proposed to realise stock to the value of £1,000,000, and to leave stock to the value of £642,000; that was to say, after Mr. Gladstone's operation the remaining assets were 13·5 per cent. of the liabilities, while, if his proposals were approved, the assets when the operation was carried out would be 37·4 per cent. of the liabilities.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERasked what was the difference between cancelling and realising.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that was the point he was coming to. Mr. Gladstone wrote off the liability. He did not actually destroy it. It remained; and if the assets he left over had proved insufficient, the liability would have fallen on the Consolidated Fund. He now proposed to realise an asset standing to the credit of this fund and to pay it into the balance at the bank. Was there much difference between reducing the overdraft at one's bank and adding to one's balance? Surely the effect of the two operations was very much the same. Mr. Gladstone did not reduce the liability but he wrote off the liability.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: But he cancelled the debt.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that was so, but the liability remained and if the fund had not proved sufficient the State's obligation remained just the same. The mere fact that Mr. Gladstone cancelled the debt did not release the
  358
  State from any obligation it was under. Mr. Gladstone cancelled the stock, leaving the liability unchanged to provide money to repay dividends if ever a claimant made good his case. In the present case he did not propose to cancel the debt, but to add to the balance at the bank, and he could not imagine a more prudent or a wiser policy in present circumstances. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were under some misapprehension because they appeared to suppose that he was financing the present year by this means. In addition to providing for the anticipated deficit of this year, he had to provide for the realised or the inherited deficit of last year. That had been temporarily met by a draft on the Exchequer balances; and he proposed to replace that draft to the extent of £1,000,000 from the unclaimed dividends. That was the only way in which he could deal with that realised deficit. He would not have been justified in proposing fresh taxation for a single year for the purpose of making good the whole of the realised deficit, and certainly, had he done so, he would not have received the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He did not think it possible to have adopted a more prudent or a less irksome course.
  SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid he did not propose to follow the right hon. Gentleman in the proposal which he had just explained to the House, because he did not think that this was the proper time or that they were in a position to discuss it. He interposed at this stage because he had a sort of personal responsibility with reference to the insertion of this Resolution in the Budget every year. For a long time it was the rule to pass this as a general Resolution at the end of the Budget Resolutions in order to enable private Members to propose clauses in the Finance Bill affecting the National Debt, the Customs, and the Inland Revenue. One of the predecessors of the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to omit this general Resolution. The alteration was resisted by the House and was then withdrawn. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would insert in the Finance Bill his exact proposal with reference to the £1,000,000 of unclaimed

  359
  dividends, and when the Bill was in Committee the time would arrive for the discussion of that proposal. In the circumstances nothing was to be gained by opposition to the Resolution.
  MR. McCRABsaid that whatever might be the merit of the Resolution, he thought the House should take every opportunity of protesting against the course which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was following with regard to the deficit of last year. He agreed that the right hon. Gentleman was providing for the estimated deficit of this year out of taxation, but what was his proposal with regard to the £1,000,000 of unclaimed dividends? He was introducing a new system entirely in this respect; he was talking money which had formerly been applied to the reduction of debt, and he was applying it to purposes for which taxation ought to have been imposed. This £1,000,000 was to be applied to wiping out the deficit of last year. The right hon. Gentleman had borrowed the whole of the money for his deficit of last year out of the Exchequer balances and therefore the greater part of it was borrowed money. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman got this £1,000,000 to strengthen his balances, what position would those balances be in after he had added this £1,000,000 to them? The balances, in 1899, the last year before the war, were £8,000,000 sterling and they were now £4,000,000, and even with the additional money from these unclaimed dividends the Exchequer balances would Only then amount to £5,000,000 as against £8,000,000 sterling in 1899. What he wished to impress upon the House was that this proposal was part of a general policy to meet the deficit of last year by borrowing for the whole of it. It was now proposed to take £1,000,000 from the unclaimed dividends which had hitherto gone to the reduction of debt, and what light had the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was going to meet the deficit of last year out of any realised surplus for this year? The Chancellor of the Exchequer knew very well that realised surpluses also went to the reduction of the National Debt. Therefore he maintained that this proposal was only another
  360
  way of doing what the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor did in 1899, namely, raiding the Sinking Fund instead of proposing taxation. The result was that the National Debt to-day was £135,000,000 more than it was in 1899. Last year, although they were told that the Sinking Fund contributed £5,149,000 to the reduction of debt, still their national indebtedness last year, taking into account the £3,000,000 due from the Transvaal, was only reduced £3,800,000. If they took away the £3,000,000 from the Transvaal, then their national indebtedness last year was only reduced by £800,000. They might just as well adopt the principle in force on the Continent and borrow money to meet their current expenses. The whole system was pernicious, and the House ought to take every opportunity of protesting against it. It appeared to him that, in addition to Chinese labour in the Transvaal, they were having Chinese finance at home.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out that this Resolution was necessary in order to enable hon. Members to deal with matters of finance which were not submitted to the House in the Resolutions. What this Resolution did was to extend the purview and the capacity for alteration and amendment to that part of the system of national finance which was not included in the Finance Bill of the year. He did not think there was any need for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to defend his conduct in taking the £1,000,000 from the fund which he held to meet possible claims for unpaid dividend. His case was quite as complete as was that of Mr. Gladstone when he performed the same operation. But he made a serious error in departing from the example of Mr. Gladstone. When Mr. Gladstone took £3,000,000 he cancelled £3,000,000 of debt, and relieved the State for ever from the payment of dividend on that sum. Were the right hon. Gentleman to follow that example, he would relieve the State for ever from the payment of 2½ per cent on £1,000,000, and that would be the proper way, and the only proper way, of dealing with the money. When a part of the debt was cancelled the liability to pay the perpetual annuity disappeared for ever, and

  361
  that was the difference. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had cancelled this £1,000,000 of debt, the liability to pay the perpetual dividends on that sum would have been extinguished, but as he had taken the £1,000,000 and spent it, the liability to pay the dividends would continue. He thought that was a very important difference, and to that extent he did not think it was the right way of dealing with it.
  SIR JOHN LENGsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that every means had been taken to ascertain claimants for the dividends. It had been over and over again urged in this House and elsewhere that the names of those to whom this money was due should be periodically advertised, and he had never heard any sufficient reason why that plan had not been adopted. In connection with the savings banks in Scotland very large sums had been returned to claimants as the result of publishing the names. In Canada and Australia there was a systematic—he believed annual — publication of the names of people who had funds invested in the public banks. There was reason to believe not only that Government stocks were unclaimed but that joint stock banks also possessed large unclaimed balances. When he first came to the House, he session after session put Questions on this matter, but he found that no impression could be made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think it was his duty to stand between the public and the banks and the Government in this matter. He assured the right hon. Gentleman that out of doors there would be a large amount of dissatisfaction as to the appropriation by the Government of £1,000,000 not belonging to them, but belonging to the successors of the people who originally deposited this money, whom, it was believed, no adequate means had been taken to discover. On that ground alone he protested against this appropriation.
  SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid there was a great laxity and negligence in the efforts made to discover the owners of these unclaimed dividends, and he could speak of this from his own experience. He happened to be
  362
  a trustee of a certain amount invested in Consols, and several years ago he received the interest upon these Consols. But, when once making up the accounts, he discovered that the interest was missing for one half-year. He immediately set to work to ascertain how this had happened, and he discovered at the Bank of England that the usual warrant had been addressed instead of to "Longhirst" to "Langhirst," the "o" being turned into an "a," and no effort was made to discover him in Northumberland. Whatever might be said by hon. Members of his not being known in the House, he was at any rate known in Northumberland, whether other hon. Members were known in their own counties or not. He was told at the Bank of England that there was a large file of dividend warrants and among these was found the one addressed to him. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it was a proper proceeding to leave these dividend warrants lying there? He maintained that there was not any effort whatever made to discover to whom they were due, and he protested against the Chancellor of the Exchequer taking possession of this £1,000,000 of unclaimed dividends, because he was satisfied that if proper precaution was used and some care was taken the owners would be found.
  MR. MARTINsaid he had always found the greatest facilities given to him by the Bank of England in connection with any financial transactions he had had with it. He had often had amounts due to him which he should never have recovered but for the extreme courtesy and care which the Bank of England had given to these matters. He supported the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to these unclaimed balances, and he thought he had made it quite clear that if the money which he proposed to appropriate ever found a claimant who made good his claim, that claimant would get his money.
  MR. LEVYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was going to sell in the open market. If that was not so, he should

  363
  be glad to know what the right hon. Gentleman meant by realisation, for at present it was not quite clear. It must be perfectly clear that if he realised in the open market he would have a double liability—the liability which attached to the money if it should at any time be claimed by the owner, and also the permanent liability of paying dividend on the shares to whomsoever they might be sold. By the system adopted by Mr. Gladstone, there could only be one responsibility. It would be only fair to the House that the right hon. Gentleman should give a clear and definite reply as to how he proposed to deal with this large sum, because he thought there was some confusion in the minds of many. It seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman was going to create a new liability by selling the stock and still retaining the liability which he said Mr. Gladstone retained by the cancellation.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid the right hon. Gentleman had told them that he was about to realise these Consols. He understood that he was going to sell them in the open market. If the Consols were sold in the open market he supposed they would only produce their market value, but the right hon. Gentleman would remain liable for £100. Mr. Gladstone's operation was a perfectly simply one. He cancelled the stock and there was an end of the matter. What was the difference between cancellation and realization?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that he hoped none of the stock would be sold in the open market, but that the National Debt Commissioners would be able to provide the sums which the Exchequer wished to raise. The liability of the State to a possible claimant was limited to an annuity calculated at the rate of 2½ per cent., and not for the market value of the stock to be sold.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the position was now perfectly clear, but it turned out to be a very remarkable position. Apparently there was an amount of £1,000,000 in the hands of the Treasury on the unclaimed dividends account and that was to be sold to the National Debt Commissioners
  364
  and the money put into the Exchequer balances. Where would the National Debt Commissioners get their money from to buy that stock? Obviously the money voted for the Sinking Fund. The House had to vote some £6,000,000 for the Sinking Fund, and out of that £1,000,000 was to be taken to buy this stock and to be used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for last year's deficit. And yet the right hon. Gentleman would have them believe that he was not meeting his deficit out of borrowed moneys. He was precisely in the position of the lady who declared with great pride that she had been able to borrow money enough to pay off all her debts.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the hon. Member for King's Lynn had made the matter perfectly clear to his mind. [Laughter.] He questioned whether the hon. Members opposite who laughed understood it. The right hon. Gentleman had instanced Mr. Gladstone's operation as a parallel to his own, but it was not a fair illustration of the very doubtful transactions we were having in these days. What Mr. Gladstone did was the only possible thing that could be done, according to consistent finance, with these unclaimed dividends. He absolutely extinguished the liability of the State with regard to them, as was clearly pointed out by the hon. Member opposite. What the present Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to do was as far removed from what Mr. Gladstone did as one pole from another. The hon. Member said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have put on more taxation. He did not like taxation at all, and he was going to persistently oppose all the new taxes. There was another alternative. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have reduced expenditure. Then he would have been able to make his accounts balance without resorting to doubtful expedients.
  MR. WEIRsaid cancellation and realisation were two very different things. In cancellation they got rid of the liability for ever. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to realise these Consols at a time when they were moving up, in order that he might add to his balance at his

  365
  bankers. If Consols were going up, why should not the right hon. Gentleman wait for a better price? What occasion was there for hurry-skurry in this matter? The right hon. Gentleman did not tell them what efforts had been made to find owners for the unclaimed dividends. From experience he knew how tenaciously the right hon. Gentleman held on to what he had got. There is a saying that the Scotch father advised his son to keep the Sabbath and all he could lay his hands on. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had no doubt, regarded that advice most religiously. There was no evidence that the right hon. Gentleman's Department took any steps to return money which had come into its possession, whether legally entitled to it or not. The right hon. Gentleman should tell the House clearly and distinctly what steps had been taken to find out the owners of the unclaimed dividends. Was any list of owners of these unclaimed dividends published? Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer grant a Return of them every year or every three years?
  MR. AINSWORTHsaid he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to guarantee that these Consols would be cancelled and a corresponding reduction be made in the National Debt. If the right hon. Gentleman consulted any banker in the city he would obtain exactly the same statement of the position as he had got from that side of the House.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that he, for once in his life, found himself in complete agreement with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. This Resolution, if passed, would not give the sanction of the House to the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was a Resolution for the protection of the rights of the House; and as one who desired to discuss the Budget proposals fully in Committee, he would vote for the Resolution.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That it be a further Instruction to the Gentlemen appointed to bring in a Bill upon the Resolution reported from the Committee of Ways and Means on the 26th day of April last, and then agreed to by the House, that they do make provision therein pursuant to the said Resolution.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

  FINANCE BILL.
  "To grant certain Duties of Customs and Inland Revenue, to alter other Duties, and to amend the Law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue and the National Debt, and to make other provisions for the financial arrangements of the year," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.[Bill 176.]
  MR. LOUGHasked if the right hon. Gentleman could say when the Second Reading of the Finance Bill would be taken.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the Second Reading would be put down for some day before Whitsuntide.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would give sufficient time for the discussion of the Bill at its various stages.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that that was a matter for the Leader of the House.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER (MARRIAGES) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. LOUGHsaid he appealed to the Government not to press their advantage too far, and he hoped the adjournment of the House would now be moved.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE,)said that he hoped the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time. Marriages Legalisation Bills had been passed unanimously by the House on former occasions. All denominations in the House were agreed as to the necessity of it; and the Provisional Order System would keep the control of the House over the legalisation of informalities of marriage.
  MR. DALZIELsaid that it would be remembered that, three years ago it was possible to raise a very important and far-reaching question in regard to this particular Bill. There was no particular schedule attached to this Bill as there had been to former Bills. As it stood, the Bill gave very large powers to the Secretary of State to make valid marriages which appeared to be invalid, because they were solemnised under certain informalities. The danger of a Bill of this kind was that while absolutely dealing with a general question, special influence might be brought to bear to use the Bill, when it became an Act, to deal with one particular case. That had occurred some years ago. He begged to move that the debate be now adjourned.
  Mr. SPEAKER, being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the House.
  Question again proposed.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid he thought that the debate
  368
  would adjourn itself naturally very soon. The reason for introducing a public Bill of this kind every year was the relationship of the Church of England to the marriage laws of the State. Certain formalities had to be gone through before the solemnisation of marriages, such as the proclamation of banns, and the licensing by the Bishop of the church where the proclamation of banns was made. Such was the disorder in the Church of England, that cases frequently occurred where marriages had been celebrated without the requirements of the law being observed, and these marriages were illegal. Such a Bill as this was necessary to legalise such marriages.
  And, it being Midnight, the debate; stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

  FOREIGN SHIPS (APPLICATION OF STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire to what extent the Statutory Requirements applying to British ships trading to and from ports in the United Kingdom should be made applicable to Foreign vessels trading to and from such ports."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  And, it being after Midnight, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.
  Adjourned at four minutes after Twelve o'clock.