Commons Sitting of 11 April 1905

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Hastings Harbour Bill [Lords]; Hessle Gas Bill [Lords]; Marylebone Chapels Bill [Lords]; Metropolitan Railway Bill [Lords]; Mexborough and Swinton Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  SUBSTITUTED BILLS [LORDS] (STAND- ING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY IN- QUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER 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, introduced in accordance with the provisions of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Beading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Clyde Navigation Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  Croydon Gas Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Dublin Corporation (Superannuation) Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  McConnell's Divorce Bill [Lords]. Read a second time; and committed.
  Woolwich Borough Council Bill (by Order). As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Bury (Rural), Conway; Goldborne; Haydock; Hipperholme; Little Lever; Southall-Norwood; Spalding; Whitwood; and Whitworth;" presented by Mr. Bonar Law; supported by Mr. Victor Cavendish; road the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 160.]
  Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade, under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Ballaghaderreen," presented by Mr. Bonar Law; supported by Mr. Victor Cavendish; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 161.]
  Halifax Corporation Bill. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee [Section A]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Stockport Corporation Bill. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee [Section A]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bristol Corporation Bill. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee [Section B]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

  1. "That, in the case of the Worcestershire County Council (Bridges), 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 Levens Patent Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill.

  3. "That, in the case of the Great Northern (Ireland) and Midland Railways Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of the 'Portadown Urban District Council,' against the Bill, recommitted Resolution of the 6th day of April, referred to the said Select Committee with a view to consider whether, under the circumstances of the case, Standing Order 128 should be dispensed with in respect of the said Petition, the said Standing Orders ought not to be dispensed with."

  First two Resolutions agreed to.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill, without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the periods prescribed by the scheme of arrangement

  1247
  relating to the Mortgage Insurance Corporation, Limited, for the liquidation of their affairs; and for other purposes." [Mortgage Insurance Corporation Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to effect a fusion of the undertaking of the Hand-in-Hand Fire and Life Insurance Society with that of the Commercial Union Assurance Company, Limited; and for other purposes." [Commercial Union Assurance Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Urban District Council of Clacton in regard to the Seashore Recreation Grounds and other matters; and to make further and better provisions in regard to the health, local government, and improvement of their district: and for other purposes." Clacton Improvement Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Truro Water Company to construct additional waterworks, acquire lands, and raise further moneys; and for other purposes." [Truro Water Bill [Lords.]
  Mortgage Insurance Corporation Bill [Lords]; Commercial Union Assurance Bill [Lords]; Clacton Improvement Bill [Lords]; Truro Water Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  HIGHLAND LIGHT INFANTRY.
  Petition from Glasgow, against isolation from the other regiments of the Highland Brigade; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Bellshill; Edinburgh; Glasgow; Perth; and Troon; to lie upon the Table.

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against; from Clevedon; Folkestone; Holyhead; Kingston-on
  1248
  Thames; Lewisham; Lincoln; and North Kensington; to lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COAL IMPORTS (FRANCE).
  Return [presented 10th April] to be printed. [No. 121.]
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Copy presented, of a Licence granted to James Smith, to which are annexed conditions other than those contained in Schedule A. of the Penal Servitude Act, 1864 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report No. 446 (St. Vincent) Annual Report for 1903–4 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (TRADE).
  Copy presented, of Tables relating to the Trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries for the five years 1899–1900 to 1903–4 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS' (IRELAND) PENSION FUND.
  Annual Accounts presented, of Receipts and Payments for the year ended 31st December, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a statement made in the House on April 18th, 1904, † by his predecessor in reference to national teachers being at the absolute mercy of the managers; whether he has recently been appealed to by Protestant teachers for redress; and, if so, what steps, if any,
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxiii., 436.

  1249
  does he intend taking to remove the alleged grievances.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have read the statement referred to. I have not yet received the appeal mentioned, but will give it careful consideration when received. The matter appears to be one very largely for the managers and teachers to settle between themselves. The Commissioners of National Education provide certain forms of agreement for execution between managers and teachers; and they cannot further intervene.

  Railway Rates for Carriage of Fish from North of Scotland.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord-Advocate whether he can see his way to communicate with the railway companies concerned with a view to secure a reduction in the through rates charged for the carriage of fish from the North of Scotland to the southern markets.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) I am sorry that I can only refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to a similar Question on February 27th. †

  Port Ness Harbour.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord-Advocate, in view of the fact that the harbour and breakwater at Port Ness, Island of Lewis, are in such a condition as not to warrant the expenditure requisite to render the harbour of service to the fishermen, will he state whether Messrs. D. and T. Stevenson, by whom the plans for this harbour were prepared, are still employed by the Scottish Office.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) There are no harbour works at present in progress under the superintendence of the Scottish Office which require the employment of a professional firm of civil engineers.

  Education of Children of Tinker Families in Scotland.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord-Advocate, having regard to the fact that a number of children of school age, belonging to tinker families in Scotland, receive no education whatever, will he state whether
  † See (4) Debates, cxli., 1321.
  1250
  he can see his way to so amend the Education (Scotland) Bill now before Parliament as to secure to these children the benefits of education.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) This matter is one of great difficulty, which has received and is still receiving most careful consideration.

  Waveney School, Ballymena.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Waveney School in Ballymena has been in operation in temporary premises since August, 1903, and has been reported upon by the sub-inspector in November, 1904, by a chief inspector in May, 1904, and by another chief inspector in December, 1904; will he state when and by whom the Waveney School temporary premises were reported as unsuitable and insanitary; and when was intimation to that effect first given to the manager of the Waveney School.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Waveney applicant school, Ballymena,has bean in operation in temporary premises since August, 1903. The application for aid was reported on by the local inspector in December, 1903, and by the Board's two chief inspectors in May, 1904, and December, 1904, respectively. In the May report of the chief inspector it was stated that the premises were unsuitable, that there was no playground, and that there was very insufficient out-office accommodation. The chief inspector who visited in December reported, in addition to the foregoing defects, that he found children crowded into a room of cramped dimensions (19 feet 6 inches by 9 feet 8 inches by 10 feet) and that the air in this room was very much vitiated and dangerous to the health of teachers and pupils. The Commissioners are satisfied that this school is not required, and they have so informed the applicant on several occasions. In replying on March 6th last to a letter from the applicant, in which temporary recognition of the school was sought for, the Commissioners, while refusing such recognition on the grounds that the school was not required, stated as an additional reason for not aiding the school, even temporarily,

  1251
  that the premises were unsuitable and insanitary.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that when the chief inspector visited the Waveney School, Ballymena, in December, 1904, there were 149 pupils on the roll, of these ninety-eight being infants, and forty-eight of them had never attended any other school in Ballymena; that the remaining fifty infants were withdrawn from the following:—Guy's Infants (35), Model Infants (10), Harryville Girls (5); and if he will

  Schools.

  Number withdrawn.

  Accommodation at 10 square feet per pupil.

  Average.

  Model Schools

  27

  375

  167

  Guy's Schools

  57

  422

  401

  Harryville

  6

  448

  414

  Ballymoney Street

  4

  193

  94

  Other National Schools out side Ballymena

  22

  —

  —

  The following tabular statement shows the average attendance and the accommodation at nine and ten square feet per pupil at the Model Infants, Guy's

  Schools.

  Average Attendance.

  9 square feet.

  10 square feet.

  Model Infants

  57

  89

  81

  Guy's Infants

  156

  155

  140

  Harryville Girls

  207

  252

  224

  Rebuilding of Guy's National School Ballymena—Approval of Site.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what steps have been taken towards the rebuilding of Guy's National Schools, Ballymena; if the Commissioners are satisfied that an
  state what available accommodation exists in these schools, allowing ten square feet per pupil.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) When the Board's chief inspector visited the Waveney applicant school, Ballymena, in December last, he found 149 pupils on rolls, 91 of whom were under eight years of age. The chief inspector reported that of the pupil a on rolls only 33, all infants, had not been at school before, and that the remaining 116 had been withdrawn from the following school—
  Infants, and Harryville Girls National Schools. An allowance of nine square feet for each pupil in attendance is considered sufficient in infants' schools.
  eligible site has been procured by the governors of Guy's School; and have they approved of it.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) A grant towards the rebuilding has been provisionally sanctioned, and the site has been favourably reported on by the Board

  1253
  of Works, but the acceptance of the site will not be decided on until plans and specifications have been received and considered.

  Discovery of Smokeless Coal in British North Borneo.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can furnish information in regard to the reported discovery of smokeless coal in the North-East of British North Borneo.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) We understand that a discovery of smokeless coal has been made at a place called Jambongon, on the north-east coast of the British North Borneo Company's territory. Full details have not yet been received, but investigations are in progress.

  Cotton Cultivation in British North Borneo.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any companies have yet been formed with a view to the cultivation of cotton in British North Borneo; and can he state whether any samples of native cotton have been submitted to British valuers; and, if so, with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) We are informed that a company is in course of formation with a view to the cultivation of rubber with catch crops of cotton in British North Borneo. Samples of native cotton have been examined and have been favourably reported upon.

  Improved Mail Service at Millport and Kilchattan Bay.
  MR. LAMONT: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been directed to the need of an improved mail service at Millport and at Kilchattan Bay; and whether he will consider the advisability of an early morning delivery and departure viâ Fairlie, to continue throughout the year.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am having inquiry made into the question of providing the additional postal facilities to which the hon. Member refers, and I
  1254
  will acquaint him with the result in due course.

  Promotion of Assistant Postmen.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in Liverpool, Glasgow, and other places, there are assistant postmen with more than three years service for whom there appear no chances of early appointment to full duties; and whether he will take steps to remedy this, in accordance with the promise made by the Postmaster-General in 1903 that assistant postmen should be given full appointments after not more than three years service as assistants, and on reaching the age of twenty.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am aware of the facts to which the hon. Member refers. The difficulty results from the scheme whereby half the vacancies on the class of postmen are given to ex-soldiers or ex-sailors, and half to Post Office servants. During the war the operation of the scheme was disturbed, since Reservists could not be obtained, and consequently an undue proportion of Post Office servants entered the class of assistant postmen. The scheme being now once more in full operation, the Post Office servants, not withstanding their excessive numbers, have only half the vacancies as full postman, and consequently their promotion is retarded. I trust that this state of things, though unfortunate, is only temporary, and no effort on my part shall be spared to relieve it. No absolute promise was made in 1903 that full appointments would be given after not more than three years service as assistant postman, or before reaching the age of twenty. My predecessor undertook only that this should be done as far as possible.

  Altacarry Head Lighthouse, Rathlin Island.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the attention of the Commissioners of Irish Lights has been called to the fact that the lighthouse on Altacarry Head, Rathlin Island, being, on the east

  1255
  side of the island, is entirely invisible from the West, and only comes into view in a north-westerly direction to vessels coming from the westward; and whether, those interested in the coast trade of the North-West of Ireland have requested the Commissioners to erect a new lighthouse with fog syren or gun on the west end of the island, arranged so as to serve the south side of the island; and if the Commissioners purpose erecting such a light.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) Representations were made to the Commissioners of Irish Lights by the Advisory Committee of Shipowners, etc., on New Lighthouse Works, urging the erection of a lighthouse and fog signal at the western end of Rathlin Island. The Commissioners estimated the probable cost at between £20,000 and £25,000, and applied for the necessary financial sanction of the Board of Trade, who withheld it in deference to the wish of the Advisory Committee, who expressed the view that, although they had in the first instance asked for this work, the necessity for it was not great enough to warrant so large an expenditure.

  French Import Duties on Hams.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade what are the French import duties on hams of British origin; and what are the corresponding duties on hams of American or Canadian origin.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The French import duty on ham of English or Irish origin is at the rate of 30 francs per 100 kilogs. (12s. 2d. per cwt.) American or Canadian hams pay 50 francs per 100 kilogs. (£1 0s. 4d. per cwt.), and, in addition, a surtaxe d'entrepôt of 3 francs 60 cents. per 100 kilogs. (1s. 5½d. per cwt.) if imported viâ a European country.

  Sale of the "Boadicea."
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what are the percentage terms upon which the "Boadicea" is being broken up.
  1256
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The terms are that the Admiralty will receive the reserve price placed upon the sale of this ship as a minimum, and, in addition, a percentage upon any sum realised above this reserve. It is not desirable to state what this percentage rate is.

  Issue of Annuities for Payment for Elec-tric Light and Power in Naval Es- tablishments.
  MR. ASHTON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury for what period annuities have been issued to pay for electric light and power in naval establishments under the Naval Works Act, 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The Act referred to sanctions borrowing for any period up to thirty years. The annuities so far set up run for twenty-nine years. They provide for repayment of sums borrowed for the purposes of the Act generally.

  Income-Tax Abatements.
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of abatements paid to income-tax payers during the year ending March 31st, 1904.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) If the hon. Member will refer to Table CCXXXIV., on page 229 of the Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the year 1903–4 [Cd. 2228], he will find an analysis of the repayments of the income-tax made in each of the ten years to March 31st, 1904. It shows that in the year ending March 31st, 1904, the turn repaid in respect of
  "Abatements" was £931,703 out of a total of £2,868,798 for repayments of all kinds.

  Imperial Revenue—Contributions from Direct and Indirect Taxation.
  MR. MOUNT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state what were the proportions contributed by direct taxation and indirect taxation respectively to the actual revenue in the years 1894–5, 1899–1900, and 1904–5, and to the estimated revenue in the year 1905–6.

  1257
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The proportions of Tax Revenue (excluding Coal Export Duty, but including

  Year.

  Direct.

  Indirect.

  1894–5

  45·4

  54·6

  1899–1900

  48·4

  51·6

  1904–5 (approximate)

  49·1

  50·9

  1905–6 (Budget Estimate)

  50·2

  49·8

  French Duties on British and Indian Silk and Jute Goods.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for India what are the French import duties on Indian silk goods and Indian jute goods; and what are the corresponding duties on British silk goods and British jute goods.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The French import duties on silk goods and on jute goods are numerous, owing to the minuteness of classification adopted in the tariff. The various duties on silk goods and jute goods the manufacture of the United Kingdom are set out in detail on pages 80–82 and 100–102 of the Parliamentary Return of Foreign Import Duties for 1904. Similar goods the produce or manufacture of India pay the same duties, except so far as the United Kingdom, in virtue of most-favoured-nation treatment, enjoys certain conventional rates which do not apply to India.

  Sentence on J. R. Sullivan, of Millstreet, County Cork.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of His Excellency has recently been called to the case of a prisoner named John R. Sullivan, of Millstreet, county Cork, who was sentenced at the Winter Assizes, Nenagh, 1891, to fourteen years and ten years penal servitude, to run consecutively; and whether, in view of the prisoner's conduct, and the circumstances of his wife and family, His Excellency can now see his way to exer
  Local Taxation Revenue) derived from direct and indirect taxes respectively, are as follows—
  cise his prerogative and commute the sentence of this man.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man named John R. Sullivan, of Millstreet, county Cork, was sentenced at the Nenagh Assizes, 1891, to two terms of imprisonment, viz., fourteen years and ten years, to run consecutively, and that this prisoner's conduct has been regarded by the prison authorities as so exemplary that the first term expired in 1902; and whether, in view of the prisoner's conduct and of the circumstances of his wife and family, and also that life sentences and long-term imprisonments for offences committed about the same period have been commuted, he will recommend the Lord-Lieutenant to order the early release of this prisoner, who has already suffered fourteen and a half years imprisonment.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I understand that this case has already been considered by the Lord-Lieutenant, and that it will again come before him in due course. It does not fall within my province to make any recommendation in the matter.

  Caldbeck Estate, Queen's County.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will furnish a copy of the report of the inspector appointed by the Estates Commissioners in connection with the

  1259
  proposed sale of the Caldbeck Estate, Queen's County.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) These reports are furnished for the information of the Commissioners, and are confidential documents which cannot be made public.

  Rifle Manufacture—Cost of Inspection.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can state the estimated cost of inspection per rifle at Enfield, as compared with that at the Birmingham Small Arms and London Small Arms Factories respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Bromley Davenport.) It is estimated that the cost of inspection of rifles made at Enfield and by the Birmingham Small Arms and London Small Arms Factories during the past financial year is the same.

  Civilian Chaplains serving in the South African War.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state why acting chaplains who served with the troops in South Africa during the late campaign have not received the gratuity of £100, to which, by the wording of Article 601 B of the Pay Warrants, they appear to be entitled; and whether these officers are entitled to any allowance for outfit.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Civilian clergy employed with troops were not regarded as appointed to military positions in the Imperial forces during emergency, and wore consequently ineligible for the gratuity specially given on retirement from such an appointment. The regulations do not admit of the grant of outfit allowance to them, but an advance of pay was granted at the commencement of their employment. Further, they received a war gratuity on the cessation of their employment provided that they had been so employed for nine months and had given their whole time to the service of the Army.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Admiralty Sales of Blue Serges.
  MR. BARRAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the value of the blue serges sold by auction and tender in the months of November, December, January, and February last.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARTHUR LEE, Hampshire, Fareham): Blue serge, value about £3,000, was sold—all by auction—at Deptford on the 6th December, 1904. This was the only sale of serge during the period named in the hon. Member's Question.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Cannot the hon. Gentleman give the price per yard realised?
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: And are you not at the present moment buying serges?
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I must ask for notice of any further Questions.

  Cost of the Infantry Soldier.
  GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the actual number of efficient soldiers of Infantry of the Line of twenty years of age obtained from each 1,000 recruits enlisted at ordinary recruiting age; the actual amount expended directly or indirectly on such 1,000 recruits, including all expenditure on those who do not attain the age of twenty and become efficient soldiers, and can thus ascertain the actual cost of each soldier becoming fit for active service; and whether he has compared such cost with the expense incurred by the Admiralty in enrolling boys for the Navy and training them to become efficient seamen for the Fleet.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The average number of efficient soldiers of Infantry of the Line, of twenty years of age and upward, obtained from 1,000 recruits enlisted at ordinary

  1261
  recruiting age is 827. The expenditure on each batch of 1,000 recruits, including the expenditure on those who do not attain the age of twenty and become efficient soldiers, is about £70,000, giving a cost of about £84 10s. for each soldier fit for active service. Figures relating to seamen have been given by my hon. friend in reply to the hon. Member's Question on the 5th instant.†

  Status of Volunteer Officers.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he would be prepared to give consideration to a proposal for improving the status of Volunteer officers on the lines of granting Army rank or honorary Army rank to those being duly qualified and efficient, who would be willing to undertake the legal obligation of foreign service in the event of war, the minimum period of such obligation being (say) three years; and whether such officers who had served under such conditions should be entitled to Army rank upon retirement in ordinary course.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The whole question of the Reserve of officers is under consideration by a specially appointed Committee, and I will undertake that my hon. friend's suggestion shall be laid before that Committee. I will point out, however, that in many cases officers undertaking such a liability as he suggests would necessarily be withdrawn from their own units in time of war.

  The Reduction of the Volunteer Force.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the feeling expressed in all parts of the House and the country against any reduction in the numbers of the Volunteer force, and against it being financially stinted, he will reconsider his recent proposals and carry out without further delay the unanimous recommendations of the Duke of Norfolk's Commission.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: As my hon. friend is aware, considerable addi
  † See page 449.
  1262
  tional expenditure would be necessary for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of the Norfolk Commission. I have already informed the House that it is desired to make concessions to the Volunteers greatly in excess of those recommended by the Norfolk Commission, when funds are available for that purpose, but that no sufficient sum will be available until the reduction of the force has taken place.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my last Question, whether he will reconsider his recent proposal for the reduction of the Volunteer force?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir; it cannot be reconsidered.
  MR. McCRAE: The right hon. Gentleman has already given an undertaking that there shall be no reduction in the grant to the Volunteers this year. Will he give a similar undertaking with regard to the numbers?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir; that would be impossible.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to reduce the numbers?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have already answered that Question twice. I have said that during the current year we hope to reduce the force by enforcing the medical inspection standard more rigidly, and by reducing those units, if there are any, which are clearly not capable of rendering military service.

  Army Serges.
  MR. BARRAN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state the value of the blue serges sold by auction and tender during the months of November, December, January, and February last.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT, Cheshire, Macclesfield): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. No blue serges have been sold by auction or otherwise.

  Cost of Machine Guns.
  MR. HIGHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why, in the Army Return Cd. 2431 just issued, the comparison has been left incomplete in the case of machine guns, the cost of those manufactured at Enfield (Table IX.) being given, but the cost of those ordered from the trade (Table XVII.) being omitted.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: It was a condition of the manufacture of machine guns by the trade that, the price would not be published. It was not, therefore, possible to include this information in the Return mentioned.
  MR. HIGHAM: Would it not be possible to give the average cost so as to disclose no one's secret?
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I will consider if that can be done without a breach of the undertaking we have given.

  Zionist Expedition against the Nandi.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the punitive expedition against the Nandi, said to be necessary by the Zionist Commission, will be undertaken at the cost of the Zionists; if his sanction will be necessary for such an expedition; and, if so, before granting it, will he cause the strictest independent inquiry as to the position of this tribe to be made.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington): I have received no communication from the Zionist Commission on the subject of an expedition against the Nandi. No such expedition would be permitted without my sanction and without cogent proofs furnished by His Majesty's Commissioner for the East Africa Protectorate that it was necessary.

  Chinese Coolie Strike at the North Randfontein Mine.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he yet has any information of a strike of 2,000 Chinese
  1264
  coolies on Saturday week last, at the North Randfontein Mine, near Krugersdorp, the alleged grounds of revolt being dissatisfaction with wages; that, on the police being called in, the casualties among the Chinese were considerable, and that fifty-three coolies were eventually arrested; and whether he can state the particular gounds affecting wages which appear to have caused the outbreak.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state how many Chinese coolies were concerned in the riot which took place at the North Randfontein Mine on 1st April; what was the cause of the disturbance; what were the casualties among the coolies and among the police; how many coolies were arrested; and, if their trial has already taken place, what sentences have been inflicted.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The facts as reported to me by Sir A. Lawley are briefly as follows: The number of coolies at the Randfontein Mine are about 2,000, and a general strike arose out of a dispute between the mine manager and the labourers as to the interpretation of Clause 6 of the contract of service. The labourers claim that each individual labourer was bound to receive, fifty shillings per month irrespective of amount of work which he might perform. The head boys incited all other labourers on the mine to refuse to drill more than twelve inches during a shift of ten hours, a hole of thirty-six inches being accepted ordinary day's work for unskilled labourers. Work in the mine was impeded for three days, when mine management decided to have the ringleaders arrested and charged before magistrate. Ringleaders resisted police, who were also set upon by the coolies. Eventually they arrested fifty-nine ringleaders without firing a shot. No lives were lost, casualties practically nil. As soon as ringleaders had been removed the remaining coolies went quietly to their work. I have not yet received information as to the trial and sentences of the ringleaders.
  DR. MACNAMARAasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, after six months,

  1265
  these labourers were not now entitled to at least 1s. 6d. a day.
  MR. LYTTELTON: Yes, Sir; and they are receiving that.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Is it not the fact that they caused this riot because they have not received it?
  MR. LYTTELTON: No, Sir. The dispute arose not as to the right to receive 1s. 6d., but as to the day's work for which the 1s. 6d. was to be received.
  MR, HERBERT SAMUELasked whether, if the coolies did not perform the amount of work which the mine-owners considered satisfactory, they would not receive the 1s. 6d?
  MR. LYTTELTON: The judges as to whether a day's work is satisfactory or not are not the mineowners but the Courts of law.
  MR. LOUGHasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he considered the arrests because the men asked for better pay were legal?
  MR. LYTTELTON: That is not the point. They were not arrested for asking for better wages, but because the ringleaders impeded the work of the mine.
  MR. LOUGH: And is the arrest for that legal?
  MR. LYTTELTON: No doubt.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what was the average rate of wages paid to the Chinese labourers employed on the North Randfontein Mine before the recent riot; whether these labourers have been in the Transvaal for the period of six months which would entitle them to be paid a minimum wage of 1s. 6d. a day; whether they were recently asked to sign any supplementary contract of service; and, if so, what were the terms of that contract.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have received the following statement from Sir Arthur Lawley:—Coolies had been in Transvaal
  1266
  six months. There has not yet been time since expiration of six months employment to compute rate of wages paid, but assessment appears to be under £2 10s. 0d.; coolies on day work Were receiving eighteenpence per ten hours shift for ordinary day's work. Coolies on piece-work or desiring piece-work were offered opportunity of accepting and signing a supplementary agreement in terms of Clause 6 of the contract of service at following rates: halfpenny per inch drilled with a bonus of threepence per shift if thirty-six inches or over were drilled. Acting Superintendent has most carefully explained to coolies this offer, which is more favourable to ordinary worker than day pay of eighteenpence.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Has that contract been sanctioned by the Courts?
  MR. LYTTELTON: No sanction of such a contract is required of the Courts; but I entirely agree with the hon. Member, if that is the suggestion which underlies his Question, that no supplementary contract of this kind should be entered into without the closest investigation in the interests of the men.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Transvaal Government, instead of arresting fifty-nine men, who in this country would be called trade union leaders, but in South Africa are called ringleaders, did not take steps to have this contract examined?
  MR. LYTTELTON: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman includes in the term trade union leaders, but I do not agree with him in supposing that trade union leaders are those who constantly oppose the law.

  Transvaal Profit Tax.
  MR. CAWLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the amount realised by the 10 per cent. Profit Tax in the Transvaal for the year 1904.
  MR. LYTTELTON:The amount was £357,023.
  MR. CAWLEY: Has that been paid in?
  MR. LYTTELTONwas understood to reply in the affirmative.

  Export of old Horses to the Continent.
  MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to state the result of the inquiries which, in August † last year, he promised should be made concerning the number of old and slaughtered horses, or horses unfit for work, that are periodically exported from this country to Belgium, Holland, and Germany; and if he can say for what purpose their carcases are used; and whether their flesh is made into condiments of various kinds, returned to this country, and sold as articles of food.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): I regret that, owing to an oversight, some delay occurred before the information was asked for, but we hope to obtain it before very long, and I will then communicate it to the hon. Member.
  MR. CREMER: Will you make the statement publicly? I want the country to know the facts.
  EARL PERCY: Yes, if the hon. Member will put a Question down.

  Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Fines— Case of Joseph Wright.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that on April 3rd Joseph Wright, an artisan, of West Bridgeford, Nottingham, a man of respectable antecedents, who has never before been charged with anyoffence by the police, was, upon being fined 10s. by the Nottingham bench of magistrates for riding a bicycle without a lamp, refused permission to go out for or telephone for the sum of 2s. 4½d., which he required to make up the fine; that he was driven to the county gaol in the prison van, made to strip and to put on prison clothing,
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxix., 977.
  1268
  and imprisoned in a cell until his employer paid the balance of the fine; and whether he can take any steps to prevent the recurrence of such treatment.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): I have made inquiry in this case and find that the prisoner made no application to the magistrates for time to pay his fine. He had not sufficient money with him for the purpose, and though the police, who were very busy at the time, did what they could to send a message to his employers, the reply did not come till after Wright had been removed to prison. On his reception there, on a commitment showing him to be a convicted prisoner, the prison authorities had no option but to treat him as such. So far as I can see no blame attaches to either the police or the prison authorities, but at the same time it seems to me very unsatisfactory that a respectable man should have gone to prison in default of paying a fine which at the time he appears to have been both willing and able to pay, and I am in communication with the magistrates with a view of seeing how best such an occurrence can be prevented in future. The case is an unfortunate one.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: The man made every effort to be allowed to pay the fine.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Still I do not think the police are to blame.
  MR. YOXALL: Other cases of this kind have occurred. Will the right hon. Gentleman issue a circular to all justices' clerks with regard to these cases?
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I am in sympathy with the hon. Member, and think that hardship has been inflicted on Wright, but I cannot see that either the police or the prison authorities are to blame. But it does seem—on the facts supplied to me—that the magistrates might have made further inquiries as to Wright's position and ability to pay. I am not prepared to issue any such general circular as suggested, at all events until I have received the answer to my inquiry.

  "Passive Resisters"—The Postmaster- General and the Tibenham Postmaster.
  MR. SOAMES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Mr. William Hewlett, of Tibenham, county Norfolk, has received an official intimation that if he is summoned again as a passive resister the post office at Tibenham will be removed from his premises; and if this intimation has been sent to Mr. Howlett with his knowledge and sanction.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire,): The facts of the case areas follows:—Mr. Howlett was informed by my direction that I cannot permit the scandal caused by distress being levied on premises where Post Office business is conducted, and he was warned that if anything of the kind occurs again the office will be taken out of his hands.

  The Australian Mail Service.
  MR. RUNCIMAN; I beg to ask the Postmaster-General a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether the Australian Commonwealth Government and the Orient Pacific Line have yet been able to arrive at an agreement for the resumption of a fortnightly mail service between Australia and the United Kingdom, and, if so, when the new service will commence.
  LORD STANLEY: Yes, Sir; I have received a telegram from the Postmaster-General of the Commonwealth to say that terms have been agreed upon between that Government and the Orient Company for a fortnightly service, which will be alternate with that which this country has by way of the Peninsular and Oriental Company. The first service will begin from Adelaide on April 13th for the homeward mail, and the outward mail from Naples on April 16th.

  Allotments.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board how much land for the purpose of allotments has been acquired under Sections 9, 10, and 11 of the Local Government Act,
  1270
  1894, which relate to the acquisition of land otherwise than by agreement.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): According to the Parliamentary Returns of February 10th, 1898, and May 28th, 1903, giving particulars on this subject, 269 acres, 3 roods, 31 poles had been acquired compulsorily up to March 31st, 1902, for the purpose referred to. All this land has been acquired under Section 10, which deals with compulsory hiring. Since then, Orders authorising the compulsory acquisition under the same section of 31 acres, 2 roods, 38 poles have been confirmed. I cannot state positively that the land has been acquired.

  Boards of Guardians and Underfed School Children.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is now in a position to say how far boards of guardians may assist local education authorities in the work of providing food for children in attendance at public elementary schools suffering from want of proper food.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think that I can conveniently make a statement on this subject for the moment, but I hope shortly to be in a position to issue a circular to boards of guardians with regard to their powers and duties in relation to underfed children.

  Millport and Kilchattan Bay Railway Service.
  MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to a complaint made on behalf of the inhabitants of Millport and of Kilchattan Bay, that their business is hampered by the action of the Glasgow and South Western Railway Company in cutting off communication between Fairlie and those places during six months in the year; and whether, in the interests of the trade of Millport and of Kilchattan Bay, the Board of Trade will use their good offices with the railway company to induce it to maintain the connection throughout the year.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW, Glasgow, Blackfriars): I have communicated with the Glasgow and South Western Railway Company on the subject of the hon. Member's Question, and the companies have replied that there is not sufficient traffic during the winter months to warrant the continuance of two competing railway steamers, but the Caledonian Railway Company's steamers, which carry the mails, maintain a winter service between Wemyss Bay and Millport.

  Brussels Sugar Convention—British Ap- peal to the Permanent Commission.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what day has been fixed for the sitting of the Brussels Sugar Convention to hear the appeal of His Majesty's Government against the condemnation of the countries mentioned in the despatch of 26th November; who will represent this country at the hearing of the case; and whether he can state the grounds on which the appeal is founded.
  MR. BONAR LAW: The Permanent Commission is now sitting. The British Delegation consists of Sir H. Bergne, Mr. Llewellyn Smith, and Mr. Martineau. With regard to the last Question I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer returned to him on the 16th February † last by my right hon. friend the Member for Central Leeds.
  MR. LOUGH: Has the appeal of this country been admitted?
  MR. BONAR LAW: I do not think I shall do any harm by informing the hon. Member that no prohibition orders will be necessary in the case of any countries in regard to which we appealed, and I believe the Commission ceased its sitting last night.

  Annual Account, National Debt (Savings Banks and Friendly Societies).
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can say why the Annual Account, National Debt (Savings Banks and
  † See (4) Debates, cxli., 312.
  1272
  Friendly Societies), for the period ended 20th November, 1904, presented on 16th March and ordered to be printed (No. 85), has not yet been distributed.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): The Return to which the hon. Member refers was issued on Saturday last.

  School Teachers' Duties to Underfed Children.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is now in a position to issue a circular to public elementary school teachers respecting assistance from the boards of guardians for hungry children; and, if so, whether he will shortly state the main terms of that circular.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University): This matter is being put forward with all due despatch, but I am afraid I am not yet in a position to make any definite statement on the subject.

  Lord Provost of Perth—Question of Precedence.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state whether the Royal Warrant of the 11th March, 1905, in any sense abrogates the order of precedence hitherto held by the Lord Provost of Perth, who under the Royal Charter of King James VI. of Scotland, bearing date 1600, has always come immediately after the Lord Provost of Edinburgh in the procession at the opening of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, as well as at State or Court Functions, such as the presentation of the Lord Provosts and Provosts of Scotland to Her Majesty the late Queen, on which occasion, viz., the celebration of the Diamond Jubilee in 1897, the Lord Provost of Perth was presented immediately after the Lord Provost of Edinburgh.
  *THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton); I am informed that the Royal Warrant does

  1273
  not affect the precedence of the Lord Provosts of Perth with, reference to other Lord Provosts or Provosts.

  Procurators-Fiscal and Cost of Outside Medical Opinion.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if in the case of a procurator-fiscal calling in outside medical opinion from a distance without reasonable grounds for such action, he will be compelled to pay out of his own pocket the extra expenses thereby entailed on the county.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: This is a legal question to which it is impossible to give a sufficient reply except with reference to the precise facts of a particular case.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the facts of a case if I send them to him?
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: Yes, Sir.

  Outdoor Relief to Widows.
  MR. FINDLAY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in cases of relief to widows with young children, the Local Government Board will use its influence and see that outdoor relief be given to suitable cases of such an amount as will enable the home to be kept on, instead of offering the poor-house; and whether such influence will be used incase 43,145 brought under the notice of the Secretary to the Local Government Board, Edinburgh, on 14th March and in previous communications.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the circular issued by the Local Government Board for Scotland on June 5th, 1902, which specially dealt with the relief of widows with young children. The Local Government Board have endeavoured to secure that due effect should be given to the views therein expressed in the case referred to by the hon. Member.

  Lord Kenmare's Kerry Estate.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates
  1274
  Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board have taken or propose to take any steps to negotiate for the purchase of the estate of Lord Kenmare, in the county of Kerry, or of the congested portion of it, as the landlord has signified his willingness to sell and the tenants to buy, but in connection with which no advance has been made owing to the difficulty as to terms.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): No, Sir. The arrangement of terms is obviously a matter for the parties themselves.
  MR. MURPHY: Then am I to understand that the Estates Commissioners will do nothing to bring about a settlement in this case?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I think that is the correct interpretation of my Answer. It is not a case for outside interference.

  Cahirciveen Hosiery Industry.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the capitation grant payable to the Cahirciveen hosiery industry is insufficient to develop the industry; and whether, in view of the fact that a sum amounting to about £400 has been provided from private sources, the Department will now sanction the grant of £80 which has been voted every year by the county council out of the funds at its disposal during the past five years, but which the Department has hitherto refused to sanction.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Department cannot answer the first inquiry. A grant-in aid is not the only circumstance upon which the development of an industry depends. The Department are not prepared to sanction the proposed grant, for the reasons stated in my reply to the hon. Member's Question of March 22nd†.

  Dennehy Estate, Glencar.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant
  † See (4) Debates, cxliii., 799.

  1275
  of Ireland whether he is aware that negotiations for the purchase of the Dennehy Estate, Glencar, have taken place between the Congested Districts Board and the landlord; and can he state on what terms the Board were willing to purchase the estate.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Board made an offer for purchase which was not accepted. The terms cannot be disclosed.

  Kerry Technical Instruction Schemes.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that although schemes of technical instruction, approved of by the Department of Agriculture, can be put into operation in the congested portion of county Kerry, the grants by which alone they can be worked are not forthcoming; and can he state what steps will be taken to put the congested districts of the county on the same footing as the non-congested districts.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The funds available under the scheme of technical instruction adopted by the county committee, and approved by the Department, are applicable to congested and non-congested districts alike. As I have already stated, the Congested Districts Board have no funds to contribute to the county scheme.

  Kerry and the Congested Districts Board.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to complaints made as to the failure of the Congested Districts Board to use their powers effectively in the county of Kerry and elsewhere in the South of Ireland, he will now consider the advisability of adding a representative from the South of Ireland on the Board with the view of making their work effective in that part of Ireland.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am not prepared to admit the assumption that the work of the Board has not been effective in the South of Ireland. There is no present vacancy on the Board. When a
  1276
  vacancy occurs, all the existing circumstances will be fully considered.
  MR. MURPHY: Is it not the fact that the Board have done nothing in Kerry but purchase two farms? Does the right hon. Gentleman call that effective work?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I do not think that that is correct.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that complaints are made by public bodies all over Ireland as to the action of this Board?
  MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, Sir, since I have been Chief Secretary I have received many complaints.

  Steamer Services on the South West Coast of Ireland.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the Dingle District Council protesting against an arrangement alleged to be entered into between the Congested Districts Board and the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, whereby the former give an undertaking not to subsidise for the next five years any steamer on the south west coast of Ireland; whether this arrangement has been entered into; and, if so, what is the object.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, Sir. The arrangement has been entered into. Its object was to secure favourable railway rates upon the withdrawal of the subsidised steamship service.

  Kerry Evicted Tenants.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have given any, and, if so, what financial assistance to the evicted tenants reinstated in the county of Kerry; whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners have taken no steps to reinstate any evicted tenant in the county; and whether they will now initiate proceedings with the various

  1277
  landlords for the reinstatement of those men.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Commissioners are prepared to consider proposals to reinstate evicted tenants on estates which may come before them for sale; and if they should acquire untenanted laud in the county the claims of evicted tenants will be considered. No financial assistance was given by the Commissioners to the nineteen evicted tenants who have been reinstated by landlords.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: What is going to happen to those tenants whose landlords will not sell? How long are they going to remain without being reinstated?
  MR. WALTER LONG: The hon. Member knows that where there is untenanted land steps are taken to reinstate them.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable sales of land are taking place in North Kerry—of untenanted lands in the occupation of the landlords? Will he take steps to enter into negotiations in these cases?
  MR. WALTER LONG: If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars I will inquire.

  Land Purchase in South Cork.
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state how many and what estates have been purchased since the passing of the Land Act, 1903, in South Cork; how many tenants are affected; what is the total purchase price and net rental of each estate so purchased.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Statistics by Parliamentary Divisions are not available. In the entire county 207 estates, comprising 3,204 holdings, have been purchased. Of these holdings 3,170 were tenanted, the rental being £68,365. The purchase price of the tenanted land was £1,453,507, and of the untenanted land £27,765.

  Sir Antony MacDonnell.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Sir Antony MacDonnell holds the position of Undersecretary for Ireland on the lines and under the conditions laid down in the late Chief Secretary's letter when making the appointment; and, if not, will he explain the terms, if any, under which he retains office over and above those of an ordinary Civil servant.
  MR. GRETTON: May I at the same time also ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the conditions under which the Under-Secretary was appointed by the late Chief Secretary have been in any way changed.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I had hoped that the reply given by me on the 6th inst.† to the Question of my hon. friend the Member for South Belfast sufficiently explained the relations subsisting between myself and the Under-Secretary. I observe, however, that considerable misconception still appears to exist, and I think it necessary, therefore, to make a fuller statement in order to remove, as far as possible, all misunderstandings in the matter. It has been suggested that a special compact exists, the object of which is to avoid the publication of correspondence. There is not the smallest foundation for this suggestion. It is invidious for me to have to criticise my predecessor, and I have hitherto refrained from doing so; but I conceive that the prevalent misunderstandings have their origin very largely in the declaration made by my right hon. friend in this House on February 20th,‡ when he stated that the letters that had passed between him and Sir Antony MacDonnell made it perfectly plain and clear that the latter was invited by my predecessor rather as a colleague than as a mere Under-Secretary to register his will. I must dissociate myself from this conception of the status of the Under-Secretary in so far as it affects our relations. My predecessor reserved to himself, I believe, full power of supervision and control; whether he exercised
  † See page 648.
  See (4) Debates, cxli., 650.

  1279
  this power I cannot say. The relations between Sir Antony MacDonnell and myself must, as I have stated, be the same as those which have existed between me and the permanent head of any Department of the State with which I have had the honour to be associated—namely, that, while he may express his opinions on any administrative act and advise me in any matter of policy, everything must be under my complete control and subject to my approval. If this involves a change, then there certainly will be a change in the administration of my Department.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the conditions under which Sir Antony Mac-Donnell was invited to accept the appointment have, as a matter of fact, been altered?
  MR. WALTER LONG: That really must be a matter of which the hon. Member is as good a judge as I am. I have stated quite distinctly what are the conditions that exist between the Under-secretary and myself. I have stated also that the observance of those conditions must depend on the administration of the Department. All I have said—and to this I adhere—is that I possess and that I intend to exercise full powers of supervision and control. If that involves a change, then that can only be proved by the system of administration we shall pursue.

  Caldbeck Estate, Queen's County.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have yet come to a decision with regard to the distribution of the untenanted land on the Caldbeck Estate, Ballacolla, Queen's County; and whether the claims of the thirty-four small occupiers in the locality for portion of this untenanted land will be considered.
  MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir; the matter is still under consideration. A question of law, regarding the distribution of parcels of the estate, is involved.

  Irish Postmasters as Emigration Agents.
  MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether postmasters in Ireland are still permitted to act as emigration agents or to exhibit emigration notices in their post offices.
  LORD STANLEY: There is no prohibition against postmasters and sub-post-masters in Ireland acting as emigration agents so long as their official duties are not interfered with; nor are they forbidden to exhibit emigration notices at their offices.

  Defence Against Invasion.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, seeing that the land, marine, and submarine defences of the shores and ports of the United Kingdom are partly under the War Office and partly under the Admiralty, whether the Committee of Imperial Defence has worked out a complete and united scheme for repelling invasion raids; and whether he can see his way to manæuvres this autumn which will put that scheme into practice by land and sea, over a stretch of exposed coast in the defence of which both Departments are concerned.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): In answer to my hon. and gallant friend, I have to say that the submarine defences referred to in the first sentence of his Question are already under the sole charge of the Admiralty, a change which has been brought about very largely in consequence of discussions in the Defence Committee. As regards the latter part of his Question, I would venture to suggest to my hon. and gallant friend and the House that, though, of course, I have no objection to these Questions being asked, I think they would be asked more usefully when I have had the opportunity of explaining to the House at length, and possibly in some detail, the views to which the Defence Committee have come and which I promised to lay before the Committee of the House at an early date after Easter. It is difficult to deal with these complicated problems by way of Question and Answer; and, if

  1281
  they are to be so dealt with, they can be dealt with with much more advantage when the House have the general views of the Government before them and have had time to consider them.
  COLONEL WELBY: Can my right hon. friend say whether the submarine defences of the non-naval as well as the naval ports have been taken over by the Admiralty?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that the change has already been effected, but it is certainly in process of being effected, and will be completed, I hope, shortly.

  The Irish Viceroyalty.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will now consider the advisability of abolishing the office of the Viceroy of Ireland, and of substituting for it a Secretaryship of State.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There are undoubted anomalies in the office of Viceroy of Ireland; but the change which my hon. friend suggests, which has been often under the consideration of the House, involves questions of policy too large to be dealt with at the present moment. Certainly the Government are not going to bring in a Bill in the course of the present session.
  MR. COGHILL: Have we not had quite enough, by this time of government of Ireland by Dublin Castle?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know where the new Secretary of State would carry on his work, except in Dublin Castle, and, that being the case, I do not see that my hon. friend's suggestion contains any remedy.

  Redistribution Proposals.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, in view of the position given to the question of the Redistribution of Seals in His Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne, he will introduce the Resolution on which the Bill is to be founded before the House separates for the Easter recess.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I answered this Question yesterday.† It would be impossible for us to find time before Easter to introduce any proposals on this subject.
  MR. COGHILL: Has the Government really serious intentions of dealing with this subject this session, or is the Bill to be introduced for the purpose of what is called shop-window dressing?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not quite understand the contrast between serious and shop-window which appears to govern the Question of the hon. Gentleman. The proposals we mean to make to the House are serious proposals.
  MR. LAMBERT: How soon after Easter will they be made?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is much too early to name a day for any business after Easter.

  COAL MINES (WEIGHING OF MINERALS) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 122.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 122.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEY Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from serving on the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures: Mr. Herbert Samuel; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Tennant.
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  † See page 1010.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEY Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from serving on the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure in respect of the Trades Unions and Trade Disputes Bill: Mr. Jordan and Mr. Clancy; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Hayden and Mr. Nannetti.
  Mr. HALSEY Mr. HALSEY further reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had appointed Mr. Charles Craig a Member of the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEY Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following fifteen Members to serve on the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in respect of the Drunkenness (Ireland) Bill: Mr. Lonsdale, Mr. Joseph Nolan, Mr. Nannetti, Mr. Conor O'Kelly, Mr. Hugh Law, Sir James Haslett, Captain Donelan, Mr. Wood, Mr. Sloan, Mr. O'Dowd, Mr. Crean, Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. Thomas Lorimor Corbett, Mr. John Gordon, and Mr. William Moore.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEY Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to serve on the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure in respect of the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill:—Colonel Lockwood, Colonel Denny, Sir Gilbert Parker, Sir William Brampton Gurdon, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Eugene Wason, Mr. David MacIver, Mr. Burt, Mr. John Talbot, Lord Edmund Talbot, Mr. Boscawen, Mr. Malcolm, Colonel Welby, Mr. Mount, and Mr. Worsley-Taylor.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 163.]
  RESERVE FORCES BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 164.]
  SERVICE OF MILITIAMEN BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 165.]
  SEAMEN'S AND SOLDIERS' FALSE CHARACTERS BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 166.]
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (FEEDING OF CHILDREN) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading To-morrow read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
NEW BILLS.
  HIGHWAYS BILL,
  "To amend the Law relating to Highways," presented by Mr. Henry Hob-house; supported by Sir John Dorington, Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice, Mr. Bill, and Mr. Herbert Lewis; to be read a second time upon Friday, May 5th, and to be printed. [Bill 167.]
  EDUCATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Education Acts, 1870 to 1903," presented by Mr. Lambert; supported by Mr. Henry Hobhouse, Mr. Eve, and Sir Edgar Vincent; to be read a second time upon Friday, May 12th, and to be printed. [Bill 168.]
  LAND TENURE BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the Tenure of Land," presented by Mr. Lambert; supported by Mr. Eve, Mr. Soares, Mr. Charles Allen, Mr. Fletcher Moulton, and Mr. Edwards; to be read a second time upon Friday, May 12th, and to be printed. [Bill 169.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To make further provision for Local Government in Scotland; and for other purposes," presented by Mr. Maxwell; to be read a second time upon Monday, May 8th, and to be printed. [Bill 170.]

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

  TEA.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That there shall be charged on and after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and five, until the first day of July, nineteen hundred and six, the following Customs Import duty on tea (that is to say)—
  'Tea, the pound Sixpence'"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid that all agreed that if there were a subject of indirect taxation that ought to be relieved it was, beyond all question, tea. But the taking off of 2d. a 1b. from the duty was open to one serious objection, and that was that the very poor would not derive any benefit from the relief of taxation. The reduction of 2d. would no doubt benefit those who bought their tea in large quantities, but those who had to purchase it in very small quantities could not possibly get any advantage from the change. They had always been told that the income-tax payers had the first claim to consideration when an opportunity was afforded for the remission of taxation, and it certainly seemed hard that their interests should have been neglected in this instance, and that the consumers of tea alone should have received the benefit. Of course they all wished to see a reduction of taxation of every description. He desired to emphasise one statement, and it was that in his judgment the poor income-tax payers formed the class of persons who paid the largest amount of taxation in the whole country. He regretted that it had so
  1286
  often been held that these people were not worthy of much consideration because they were supposed to be rich men, but those who had studied income-tax statistics well knew that the smaller persons were those who paid the largest proportion of the tax, and therefore, he thought it was a pity that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not taken the more heroic line of saying that, inasmuch as he could not possibly fulfil his pledges to income-tax payers to relieve them of a portion of their burden, he would devote the whole of his surplus to the payment of debt instead of relieving indirect taxation by reducing the duty on tea. No doubt it was a very pleasant thing to reduce the cost of tea, but it should be remembered that the expenditure of this country was growing to an enormous extent, and the people were continually demanding further assistance from the State. The time had come, therefore, when it was desirable to pay an increased amount off the Debt, and he, for one, would have looked with satisfaction at any arrangement by which even more than a million would have been set apart for that purpose.
  He knew that the payment of debt was not always popular, but it was a question which struck at the root of our whole financial system. In spite of our enormous prosperity, and in spite of the tremendous increase of wealth in this country during the Last thirty or forty years, we were not now paying off more of our debt per year than when Sir Stafford Northcote first introduced his system. Sir Stafford fixed the annual repayment at that time at £28,000,000 a year and under the present system the figure was the same, if only we had adopted the policy of our forefathers in this matter the financial position of this country would have been far better. After all, the strength of the country lay in its ability to cope with any emergency, and its financial strength was one of the most important factors in connection with its defence. He did not wish to say a word against the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the present occasion, but he must repeat that, he thought the time had come when the question of the repayment of debt must be gone into more carefully, and that their efforts should be directed towards that

  1287
  rather than to the remission of taxation. It might he suggested that the public, in view of the national expenditure on alcohol, were not overburdened, and undoubtedly a nation in which each family could voluntarily set aside as much as £20 per annum for alcohol for legitimate use, and which at the same time owed nearly £700,000,000, ought to set apart a larger sum than it now did for the repayment of debt. He had long held that opinion, and he was again crying in the wilderness. He believed, however, that there were other Members who agreed with him that they should do more towards the repayment of debt than they now did. He certainly did not think that £30,000,000 would be an excessive sum to set apart for that purpose annually. The increasing expenditure of the country was largely due to the spirit which had recently been manifested of demanding that the Government should do much for individuals and communities. He thought that that spirit was a mistake and that it undermined the self-reliance of the people. The more they could get the public to look after themselves the better it would be, instead of calling upon the State and municipalities to do so much at the public cost. They still owed money that was raised, practically speaking, at the beginning of the last century for the great French War, and in his opinion that ought to have been cleared off years ago, and it would have been if they had followed the policy adopted by their ancestors at the beginning of the last century. But, instead of that, they had added to their debt.
  He was well aware that the reduction of the tea duty commended itself to many people, not only because tea was a necessity, but also because the reduction would benefit our Indian Empire and would encourage the trade of India. So far as that went, the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had his complete sympathy, but he did hope the right hon. Gentleman would take into his consideration the question of the reduction of the Debt, and would set himself resolutely to the task of diminishing the permanent burden.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he would like to add to
  1288
  the expressions of congratulation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the interest and lucidity of the speech in which he introduced his Budget on the preceding night. He was sure the whole House listened to the right hon. Gentleman with great satisfaction, and that it was with especial satisfaction that they heard what he had to say as to the trade of the country and the improvement which had occurred in connection with it. He thought also that the Members on the Opposition side of the House were, on the whole, I satisfied with the actual proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, because those proposals were in the direction which they had always advocated, namely, greater reduction of the National Debt and the diminution of indirect taxation, and especially of the tea duty.
  Undoubtedly, the great question of the present moment was how the national expenditure was to be reduced, for, so long as that expenditure remained on its present scale, they could not hope for any substantial reduction of debt or of taxation. The general financial position last year was rather curious. It appeared from the right hon. Gentleman's figures that there had been a considerable increase of elasticity in the income-tax apart from what he might call his "hustling" policy, for the tax had produced nearly half a million beyond what had been estimated, and in addition to that the arrears had been brought in more rapidly. But indirect taxation—Customs and Excise—had, on the other hand, shown a great want of elasticity.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.)here interrupted the hon. Member, and said that the increased product from the income-tax had been due not so much to the elasticity of the tax as to the fact that he, last year, had rather underestimated the product.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that, at all events, they had had a very satisfactory receipt from the tax, while, on the other hand, the receipts from the Excise and Customs had not been so satisfactory. It seemed to him to prove that the general trade and commerce of

  1289
  the country were in a satisfactory condition, but that the burdens on the consumers at the present moment were so heavy that they had been unable to extract any elasticity from the Customs and Excise. After the right hon. Gentleman had delivered his speech introducing the Budget on the preceding evening, he (the speaker) spoke to a tariff reformer and asked him if he did not regret that nothing had been taken off the income-tax, and the reply very promptly came that it was a matter of perfect indifference because nobody now had any income. The produce from the taxation of other articles consumed by the poorest members of the community had also shown, unfortunately, a want of elasticity, and in the matter of sugar there had not only been the burden of taxation, but the price of the article to the consumer had also been increased by the operation of the Sugar Convention.
  The right hon. Gentleman had avoided any mention of the results of certain taxation he introduced last year. For instance, there was the stripped tobacco duty. He certainly did say he rather congratulated himself that, in spite of the alleged disorganisation of the tobacco trade, the revenue from the tobacco duty had been satisfactory. But he (the speaker) wanted to know what had been the actual result of the duty upon stripped tobacco. Had not that very thing happened which they on that side had declared in the course of the debates of the previous year would occur, namely, that there had been practically no stripped tobacco imported into this country, and that there consequently was no revenue arising from it.
  He thought that the country might well be congratulated on the fact that the last few months had shown a real turn in the tide of prosperity. A few months ago there appeared to be a falling off, but there had now been a most remarkable change—a change all the more remarkable when they bore in mind the effect of the disturbance of trade through the uncertainty which at the present moment existed in most trades in consequence of the fiscal agitation, and the public ignorance as to what was likely to be the future fiscal policy of this country. No doubt this prosperity
  1290
  was somewhat disheartening to those who had been telling them that their trade was disappearing, and who had been attributing that disappearance to the operation of the principle of free trade. But the great blot on the Budget was the item of expenditure. He was glad to think that the plague of expenditure had to a certain extent been stayed this year. He, however, did not think it was altogether satisfactory that the reduction of expenditure this year as compared with last amounted to less than one million sterling. The whole of that was due to the reduction of the Navy Estimates which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol twelve months ago declared were far in excess of the needs of the country. It was, undoubtedly, essential that there should be a reduction in those Navy Estimates this year, but he thought there was considerable disappointment that that reduction had not been larger than it appeared to be. There had also been extreme disappointment because they were not to have any reduction on the Army Estimates at all in the present year. They had been told by the Secretary of State for War that if he were allowed to carry out his scheme of Army reform it would involve a large reduction of expenditure, but unfortunately the various schemes of reform which had been produced had, in turn, been placed on the scrap heap, and instead of expenditure on the Army having diminished it was continuing at its old figure. The result of all this was that at the present moment they were asking for a sum of £141,000,000 to cover the national expenditure for the year as against a demand for £96,000,000 in the year 1895–6 when the present Administration came into office. And this, it must be borne in mind, was peace expenditure with the exception of about £4,000,000 which represented the contribution towards war expenses—the amount by which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon raised the Sinking Fund two years ago.
  The right hon. Gentleman had made three proposals. One was the redaction of the tea duty, and he was glad the right hon. Gentleman chose that in preference to the income-tax,

  1291
  because he felt that the indirect taxpayer had the greater claim to relief. Then there was the second proposal, that dealing with debt, and again he was able to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having taken a step in the right direction. And finally, by the abolition of a certain number of small charges which fettered particular trades, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had had it in his power to proceed in the direction of the simplification of our fiscal and financial system, and had at the same time exemplified some of the advantages of free trade. He thought, however, something more might have been done to reduce the Debt charge. He did not know if people generally were aware how very little of the South African War debt had yet been paid off. The war cost £220,000,000, and out of the actual proceeds of additional taxation the amount paid in reduction of that cost was £55,000,000; so that there were still £165,000,000 of war charges which had not been met, and were not likely to be met unless the Debt charge was considerably increased. When the matter was under discussion two years ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer was anticipating the receipt of £6,000,000 from the Chinese indemnity and of £30,000,000 as a war contribution from the Transvaal, but neither anticipation had been realised, and personally he was not very much impressed with their chances of getting the latter sum. But still these were the facts on which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon justified his contention that there was no necessity to raise the Sinking Fund above £27,000,000, as he calculated if these moneys came in they would produce such an increase of the Sinking Fund as would enable the Debt to be reduced to £694,000,000 by March, 1908. At the present moment the whole Debt amounted to £796,000,000, and last year the whole operation on the Debt was this, that while £7,500,000 were paid off, £9,500,000 were added. The fact was that at the end of five years the country, so far as debt was concerned, was exactly in the same position as before.
  The right hon. Gentleman had drawn a distinction between the dead-weight debt and the debt as against which
  1292
  he said there were specific assets, but with the exception of the Suez Canal shares, which had proved a very good investment, the telegraphs, and perhaps the Uganda Railway, there were no realisable assets, as money spent on naval and military works could not be realised in any sense of the term. The only asset remaining for the capital expenditure on guns and forts and powder and barracks might be said to be the Transvaal itself, and so far that had not proved very profitable. All were glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman express a hope that the capital expenditure would this year be reduced. He was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman was rather over sanguine in regard to this matter, because as soon as one programme was finished another more expensive one was started either for the Army or the Navy.
  With regard to the credit of the country one of the objects of the Sinking Fund was not only to reduce the Debt, but also to maintain the credit of the country by annually purchasing funded or unfunded debt. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer bought Consols with the Sinking Fund somewhere about £89; that was to say, he was buying annuities and paying £2 16s. per cent. for them, and in the same year he issued £6,000,000 of Exchequer Bonds upon which he had to pay 3¼ per cent. So that with one hand he was selling stock at £2 16s. per cent. and then buying stock for which he had to pay 3¼ per cent. Of course that was not a profitable transaction for the National Exchequer, and the security which the Sinking Fund ought to give was neutralised. With regard to the £1,000,000 of unclaimed dividends in his balance-sheet, he noticed that he credited himself with £1,000,000 on that account. He would like to know how much Consols had he to sell for that sum and at what price he sold them. He thought that would show the absurdity of the position of the Government having to buy things dear and sell them cheap. He had some doubt whether the particular proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to take £10,000,000 of Exchequer Bonds and apply £1,000,000 each year would be a more satisfactory proposal than merely adding £1,000,000

  1293
  a year to the fixed debt fund. He should have thought that this course would tie the hands of those who had to deal with these matters each year and force them to extinguish these particular Exchequer Bonds when the Sinking Fund as a whole might be more profitably employed elsewhere. He thought it would have been better simply to have raised the Sinking Fund by £1,000,000 instead of earmarking this money for this particular purpose.
  He was entirely in accord with the proposal to reduce the tea duty, and he regretted that the expenditure of the country did not allow the right hon. Gentleman to reduce, other duties also. The hon. Member opposite seemed to think that because this proposal would benefit the Colonies the members of the Opposition ought to oppose it. He would remind the hon. Member that those sitting on the Opposition side of the House were just as anxious to benefit the Colonies as any hon. Members, when they could do it with advantage to the Empire as a whole. One reason why the tea duty was selected was that it would benefit the British consumer as well as the colonial producer. He thought the figures in regard to direct taxation which had already been quoted conclusively showed that in this year the right hon. Gentleman, having only a limited amount of money, decided that indirect taxation had a greater claim upon him than the income-tax payer. While the direct taxpayer was paying £10,000,000 a year more in consequence of extra taxation, the indirect taxpayer was paying £13,000,000 more. Within the last two years the direct taxpayer had had a remission of £18,000,000, whilst the indirect taxpayer had only been remitted £2,000,000. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman was dealing in a fair way as between the direct and indirect taxpayer, and he trusted that next year the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able by a reduction in expenditure and increased elasticity in the revenue to take the remaining 2d. off tea and give the direct taxpayer some relief as well.
  *MR. WYLIEsaid that he joined in the congratulation which had been showered upon the Chan
  1294
  cellor of the Exchequer in regard to all his Budget proposals with the exception of that referring to a reduction of the tea duty. He desired to repeat what he had told the Committee upon a former occasion, namely, that tea had no nutritive properties whatever, that it was merely a stimulant like alcohol and tobacco, and that in the excessive quantities in which it was used by very many in this country it was a very deleterious luxury. It was, therefore, perfectly absurd to endeavour, as many hon. Members had done, to put this stimulant in the position of a prime necessary of life. Sugar was very much wanting in many of the essential qualities of a nourishing food and it ought to be used very sparingly. The consumption of tea in this country had increased by leaps and bounds. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when proposing to put 2d. on the tea duty last year, stated that the community was "saturated with tea." The consumption increased from 2½ 1bs. per head in 1864 to 6½ 1bs. at the present time. The consumption of sugar had also increased to an enormous extent. A very large amount was used in connection with tea, and it was also used in large quantities as confectionery. This combination of tea and sugar with its concomitants of a little milk, a little butter, and a very large amount of bread, principally white bread, had become to millions of people in this country the staple diet. It was used morning, noon, and night, and according to the Report of the Commission on Physical Training in 1903, and that on Physical Deterioration in 1904, this diet was the cause of an enormous amount of physical deterioration. It was so destitute of nutritive properties that the families living upon it were in a state of semistarvation. The deterioration was specially marked among infants and young children, and the effect remained all through life. Infantile mortality was enormous, and one of the great causes of this was the diet to which he was referring. The teeth of the present generation were inferior to those of their ancestors, and the Report of one of these Commissions stated that there was no doubt whatever that this was due to the absence of proper diet. It had also been

  1295
  clearly shown that ænemia dyspepsia, and many other forms of disease wore brought about by tea and sugar diet. The supporters of the tea and sugar diet stated that if it was bad it was the best the poor could afford. He would have no difficulty in disposing of that argument. It was quite true that the poor could not afford flesh, fish, fowl, and eggs, which were necessary to supply the deficiencies of the other diet, and which the better classes could afford. But in oats, peas, beans, barley, etc., well cooked as porridge and used along with, milk, they had splendid substitutes containing an enormously greater amount of nutriment which could be obtained at a cheaper price. Soups made with beef or mutton, with a large proportion of bone, and containing vegetables, cereals, and pulses, afforded a far better and more nutritious diet, and they could be got for about the same price as the porridge and milk diet to which he was referring.
  He had a large amount of statistical and other information on this subject, but he would not trouble the Committee with it. He would put it in the form of a concrete example. A labouring man with a wife and six children, ranging from two to sixteen years of age, required, when using the tea and sugar diet, to spend 15s. 6d. to 16s. 6d. to maintain them even in a condition of semi-starvation. With the other far more wholesome and nutritious diet that man could maintain his family on from 10s. to 11s. per week. If the income was only £1 per week, what an enormous benefit the saving on food of 5s. per week gave to the family for the purpose of providing better clothing and better housing! The objection to this more wholesome diet was that it required a great deal of skill and patience in the cooking. One advantage of tea was that it could be easily cooked. He had great sympathy for the poorer classes, the exigencies of whose employment compelled them to use the more readily cooked article of diet, but tea and sugar formed the diet of an enormous number of the lazy and thriftless in the community. The education authorities had come to recognise the importance of this subject, and to see that it might be
  1296
  of more practical value to a boy or girl to possess information about the elementary principles of health than to have a smattering knowledge of subjects which would be in after life of little use. There was an anti-tea duty society. He thought an anti-tea diet association would be of more practical benefit, and better still a rational food society, and one of its first duties would be to assign to every article of diet used by the working classes its proper place in dietetics, and to instruct the people as to the best method of using it. By this means hundreds of thousands of families who were in a position of penury would be elevated into a position of comparative affluence. He had endeavoured to show that tea and sugar, instead of being necessaries for the poor, were really luxuries they could not afford except in small quantities, so small that any duties upon them would be to the consumers almost infinitesimal—while those who could afford to use them in larger quantities would also be able to pay the taxes. Under these circumstances the question the Chancellor of the Exchequer should consider was not how he could reduce the tea duty, but how he could increase it to the same proportion is that of the kindred luxuries of alcohol and tobacco. In that way the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to increase the tea duty to 1s. 4d. per 1b., the figure at which it was in 1874. This would open up to future Chancellors of the Exchequer the fine prospect of being able to raise £20,000,000 extra, while at the same time greatly benefiting the health of the community. But, Chancellors of the Exchequer, like ordinary human beings, made their plans in accordance with popular sentiment and the opinion of the time.
  There had been a great deal of nonsense talked about "the free breakfast table." They might as well talk about "the free dinner table," including beer, which was regularly a part of the diet of some people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had sympathised with the false sentiment and remitted the tax on tea to the extent of 25 per cent. Scotch Members would be much better employed in endeavouring to restore their national diet, than in

  1297
  inveighing against the tea and sugar duties. English Members, some of whom had shown great aptitude in adopting Scotch customs such as playing golf and drinking whiskey, in which pastimes they sometimes excelled the Scotch, would do better if they assisted to introduce in their country a solid system of diet among the working classes, similar to that which still obtained among hundreds of thousands of the working people in the North. And Irish Members, if they reformed the diet of their fellow-countrymen, would have the double satisfaction of being dietetic reformers and of bringing the taxation of their country into a more proper proportion, according to their ideas, with that of the adjacent island. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown great financial ability in regard to other items in his Budget, but he would have shown statesmanship of a higher order if he had retained the duty on tea at 8d.
  *MR. REAsaid he would not attempt to follow the hon. Gentleman in his very interesting and valuable discourse on food and food taxation. He would confine himself to a more superficial criticism of the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In listening to the not altogether unsatisfactory exposition of his Budget by the Chancellor of the Exchequer he felt animated by sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman because of the extreme disappointment which the right hon. Gentleman must have felt in having to open such a Budget to the House of Commons. He remembered that last year the right hon. Gentleman in his Budget speech said that he looked for relief this year to the reforms which his right hon. friend the Secretary for War was preparing in the Army system of this country. Well, they would have been glad for relief from such reforms, but the real objection to his Budget was not to the Budget itself but to the necessity for the Budget. In the situation in which the right hon. Gentleman found himself from the Estimates already accepted by the House, they could not object very much to his proposals. In his estimate of revenue for the year the right hon. Gentleman
  1298
  had made an extraordinary good shot—almost a bull's eye; but his hit was compounded of misses. The errors he made in regard to Customs and Excise were excusable; but the right hon. Gentleman had not made allowances for the extraordinary social phenomena manifested in the reduction of the consumption of beer and spirits by the inhabitants of this country. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Devon-port that this was to be explained simply by the poverty of the people. On the contrary, he believed that that poverty had been exaggerated on both sides of the House for fiscal purposes. In spite of the statistics of pauperism, unemployment, and consumption of beer and spirits, he did not believe the working classes, as a whole, were suffering from any unprecedented destitution.
  He noted that the consumption of tobacco had increased enormously. The tobacco duty had increased by £600,000—more than £250,000 above the estimate. He should like to repeat the question already put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer:—"How much of that increase was due to stripped tobacco?" The hon. Member for Liverpool had assured the Committee that the import of stripped tobacco had entirely ceased, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was therefore wrong in denying last year that the revenue from tobacco was no longer elastic.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No. I never said that.
  MR. REA: I beg pardon. It may have been the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor the year before who stated that the taxation of tobacco had reached its limit.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What I said last year was that I was advised that to increase the rate of the tax on tobacco would probably reduce the consumption, which might largely affect the revenue. That is not the same thing as saying that the revenue was not elastic.
  *MR. REAsaid he wondered that the right hon. Gentleman, in considering

  1299
  this tax, did not accept the suggestion which the whole tobacco trade made to him last year. The right hon. Gentleman was told that the trade would prefer to have the duty raised all round to 3s. 3d. per 1b. on all tobacco. If the right hon. Gentleman had accepted that suggestion, he might have found a new source of revenue which would have relieved him at present.
  But the chief criticism he had to make on the right hon. Gentleman's proposals was his dealing with the fixed debt charge. That proposal had been met with a chorus of approval and congratulation; but he could only give his congratulation in a very modest degree and to a qualified extent. He asked the right hon. Gentleman why he had not taken the opportunity of dealing with the terminable annuities which fell in next year, and of bringing in a scheme which would have associated his name in a prominent degree with a reform of the finances of the country, and would have conduced very much to the stability of trade? The right hon. Gentleman said that he thought it right to leave that matter to the next Chancellor of the Exchequer, but that was too great a temptation to leave in the hands of any Chancellor of the Exchequer. A bird in the hand was a very tempting thing; and next year the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have in hand £3,000,000 for which the spending Departments and the tax-payer would compete, but which should be applied in reduction of the permanent Debt. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would so apply it if he held then his present position. He could promise the right hon. Gentleman that they on that side of the House would remind him of his pledge and hold him to it. But human nature was weak; and the weakest form of human nature had lately been incarnated in the shape of recent Chancellors of the Exchequer. What was to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer next year, when he had this windfall in his hand, using it for another purpose?
  *MR. COHENsaid he associated himself with the congratulations which, without exception, had been showered on the head of his right hon.
  1300
  friend. He could not help thinking—while sitting listening attentively to his right hon. friend—that there was one whose voice, alas, they would never hear any more, who would have associated himself with those congratulations; because if there was one principle more than another which the late Sir William Harcourt pressed on the House of Commons it was the urgent and constant necessity of increasing the resources of this country by the diminution of debt. If he might be pardoned preferring his own opinion he would say that the one feature which more than anything else stood out as deserving of commendation in the right hon. Gentleman's statement, was his resolution and firm determination to ensure the continuance of the diminution of the Debt which had grown up with enormous, though unavoidable, leaps and bounds. Having said that, he would like to add his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for what he had laid down as to the financial principles which should guide him. Of course they could not expect a Chancellor of the Exchequer— and he did not think the right hon. I Gentleman could, if he would—who had spent many valuable years of his public life at the Admiralty—when he got to the Treasury, which was a purifying atmosphere, to propose to sweep away if not the mischievous, certainly the unhappy, arrangements for increasing the Debt by the system of expenditure for naval works. He was surprised to find, such an authority on finance as his hon. friend the Member for Poplar make the error of very vehemently reproaching former Chancellors of the Exchequer for the additional expenditure in connection with the naval and military works. Then the hon. Member for Poplar had said that while we were reducing the Debt by £7,500,000 we were increasing it by £9,000,000. His (Mr. Cohen's) reason for viewing that expenditure with indulgence was because they had not to depend on a courageous, but an orthodox. Chancellor of the Exchequer. Whether the right hon. Gentleman liked it or not that expenditure must be extinguished by Votes in Supply and was beyond the control of any Chancellor of the Exchequer. He, therefore, regretted those additions to the liabilities of the

  1301
  country, because they were created, to a certain extent, clandestinely, or, in other words, not in the straightforward and above-board way of adding to the expenditure of the country by Votes of Supply.
  They had heard a good deal of the way in which the expenditure of the country was mounting up, but personally ho did not look for any great reduction of expenditure. He believed the most powerful influence for reduction was to be found in the propagation of such principles as those laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, as, for example, that of reducing debt by a manner which would not be dependent upon any particular Budget Estimate of any year but would work automatically, and would ensure that when these repealed claims for expenditure were put forward the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say, "You can have them all, provided that you pay for them by additional taxation." He rejoiced in the restoration of the £28,000,000 to the service of the Debt. They knew it was only reverting to the figures of Sir Stafford Northcote, when the Debt was much smaller and the expenditure very much less lavish than it was now. He thought those two alterations in the consideration of the case might render more, and not less, obligatory the rigid appropriation of a minimum of £28,000,000 at a time of peace, and he believed and hoped, of prosperity.
  The hon. Member for Poplar had called attention to the fact that we were buying Consols and at the same time were selling £1,000,000 worth from the unclaimed dividends. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee he knew that the Government, when it sold and bought the same article at the same time, generally did so at a loss to the Exchequer. He would be glad to hear how the Chancellor of the Exchequer arranged the selling and buying of Consols. If the right hon. Gentleman could do these things for himself, it would be a great advantage to the Exchequer, because he knew that Stock Exchange members gained an advantage when a Minister appeared there both as buyer and seller. The right hon. Gentleman
  1302
  merited congratulations in having framed his Budget not to court popularity, but in such a way as to protect him, not only from himself, but from any future Chancellor of the Exchequer who would be obliged to redeem £1,000,000 of Exchequer bonds a year—thereby strengthening the credit of the country, and rendering it more sound, more stable, because more free from incursion.
  MR. HARWOODventured to say that the national balance-sheet was presented to the House, and through the House to the country, on a system which would not be tolerated by any business firm in the country. On a previous occasion he had been told that Mr. Gladstone had sanctioned the system. If that, were so he was still sorry to say that he differed from it because a great deal of misunderstanding and foolish talk arose from employing a wrong method of rendering a balance-sheet. The national expenditure consisted of two things—they had to keep the nation going and had to pay for its Army and Navy; but the nation ran other businesses, such as the Post Office and the Telegraphs. That expenditure ought not to be included in the national expenditure, but should be kept absolutely distinct. A business man would keep a separate account and only bring the profit or loss into the general account, but in this national balance-sheet they had on one side the Post Office receipts and on the other side they had the expenditure. If the State took over the railways, the expenditure would be jumped up by £100,000,000 and it would be perfectly absurd to call that national expenditure. They were told that the national expenditure was £141,000,000, but £14,000,000 was required for the Post Office and Telegraphs, out of which a profit of £5,000,000 was made, and the expenditure was consequently £127,000,000. They ought to know exactly from year to year the proper amount of the expenditure of the nation. He asserted that there ought to be a separate account for each separate business of the State, a Post Office account, a telegraph account, and so forth. He remembered when the Telegraphs were taken over by the nation, when

  1303
  according to the form of book-keeping the expenditure jumped up nearly £5,000,000, although it had not really done anything of the sort. The nation was now going to take over the telephone system, and he supposed under the present form of book-keeping the expenditure would go up another £5,000,000. It was not generally known that out of the Post Office the nation made £6,000,000, whilst the Telegraphs was a losing business. What was wanted was a separate account for each business so that we could put our finger on the losing businesses and see whether we could not stop or reduce those losses. When we took over the telephones we ought to have a separate account for them so that we could see whether we were losing or gaining. What the nation really wanted in these Estimates was to know what it was spending for national purposes, what were the national purposes on which it was making the expenditure, and whether that expenditure was going up or down in future years. The figures now were quite useless. They wanted to know what the Army, the Navy, and the Civil Service—what all those things which were necessary for running a nation—amounted to altogether; and, secondly, they wanted to know how each separate business was going on. He, therefore, asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give those reasonable facilities which were necessary for this purpose in order that a great deal of the confusion and misunderstanding that now existed might be cleared away.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GOREassociated himself with the remarks of the hon. Member who had just sat down as to the manner in which these Estimates had been presented to the House. He heartily congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on his most able but unsensational Budget, especially on the part in which he had allocated so much money to the reduction of the National Debt. He did not altogether agree with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire in regard to the taxation of food. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had seen his way to taking something off tea, although he himself had a kindly feeling in favour of a remission of the
  1304
  taxation on sugar. He thought, however, the benefits which were derived from a reduction on tea very nearly counterbalanced those which would be obtained from a reduction on sugar. No doubt there would be some heartburning because nothing had been taken off the income-tax. It was quite a mistake to suppose that the income-tax only hit the rich; those whom it hit hardest were that large body of the community, the clerks. Another bad effect of that income-tax was the large amount of capital it drew from new businesses, but under the present conditions he thought the right hon. Gentleman was quite unable to reduce this tax. He hoped, however, that later on in the debate a Motion would be moved in favour of a graduated income-tax. There were a great many arguments in favour of such a departure, and he for one would rejoice to see a difference made in favour of incomes earned as against those derived from investments.
  Another point to which he wished to call attention was the flotation of Consols. When Lord Goschen, in 1888, passed his scheme for the conversion of the National Debt, it was received with great acclaim, but he had never been able himself to see the benefit derived from that transaction. True, the nation derived £1,500,000 taxation from it, but the ultimate result had been that the taxpayer paid less taxation because he received less on his Consols, while the scheme at the same time had had the effect of reducing the stability of the National Debt. The effect of that reduction of the interest payable on the National Debt gave rise to the wildest speculation. The flotations in 1886 amounted to £90,000,000 odd, and two years later to £150,000,000. There was the Argentine boom, followed by the Baring crisis, the South African boom, the cycle boom, and the most fruitful result of the conversion was a plenteous crop of Jabez Balfours, Hooleys, and Whitaker Wrights. He thought that it would be better for the country if Consols were still 2¾ instead of 2½ and he hoped eventually to see the interest raised to the original 3 per cent. They had now Consols, the war loan, and the Irish loan all carrying different rates of interest, and he hoped that some

  1305
  future Chancellor of the Exchequer would at some time come to the House and say that it would be better for the nation and better for the people to revise these matters and put all these loans on the same basis.
  MR. HELMEregretted that the Estimates did not show as large a reduction as the Committee had a right to expect. The House during the war willingly provided the necessary sums for its prosecution, and naturally when it was over they looked for a reduction in the charges for the maintenance of the services. The Prime Minister ought to have insisted upon a more moderate expenditure, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have curbed the extravagance of the various Departments. The Secretary of State for War had held out hopes of far greater economies than had yet been effected. It had been shown to be possible to make a reduction in the charges for the Navy, and why was it not possible in the Army? It was absolutely necessary to adopt the homely idea of cutting one's coat according to the cloth at one's disposal, and the people were not willing to bear as heavy burdens in time of peace as they were in time of war. The process of balancing income and expenditure was an interesting one, but one of the first concerns of the Government should be to consider the extent of that expenditure, and the country had a right to complain that, although there was a slight remission of taxation, the relief was not considerably larger. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had evidently learnt the lesson of his last Budget. The £1,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman took from unclaimed dividends, instead of being applied to the ordinary expenditure of the year, ought to have gone to the reduction of debt. He would be glad to hear at what price the Consols connected with that operation were sold. With the Sinking Fund proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Opposition would cordially agree. They were anxious to see the national credit stand high, and the Chancellor's proposals tended in that direction. He was glad that the tea duties had been reduced, though he regretted that the amount
  1306
  available did not allow of a larger reduction. He was glad to hear that the drink bill had been diminished, and, although it meant less revenue to the Exchequer, the spending of the money in other directions would doubtless mean greater prosperity and happiness in the country. The everyday life and comfort of the people would be improved by still further reduction of taxation, and to that object he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would turn his attention.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The
  debate may presently be directed more particularly to the tax which is the subject of the Resolution before the Committee, and before the discussion is narrowed down in that way it may be for the convenience of the Committee that I should reply on the general discussion which by consent has taken place on this Resolution. In reference to the tea tax, I would only say that I do not share the fear of my hon. friend below the gangway that the relief now given will not reach even the smallest consumer. I think it will reach him, if not in money, in improved quality of tea; I am hopeful that the competition which exists will be sufficient to secure that the relief should go, either in better quality or in lower price, to the consumers in the country. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire made some interesting observations. No doubt the advantage of tea can be exaggerated, but I do not go so far as my hon. friend in regarding tea as an insidious and deleterious article of food. At any rate, I hope the course apparently recommended upon certain posters now decorating the hoardings will not be followed, and that now the duty is lowered tea will not be made an ordinary article of infants' food. I share the regret—no one more than I—expressed by my hon. friend for North Islington that there is no relief for the income-tax payer in this Budget.
  Unlike the hon. Member for Poplar, I do not consider that the balance in recent years has bean to the disadvantage of the indirect taxpayer. On the contrary, it has been greatly to his advantage, and at the present time the scale is in his favour and presses unfairly against the direct

  1307
  taxpayer. The hon. Member added up the amounts estimated to be received from each addition of taxation, direct or indirect; subtracted one total from the other, and arrived at the result that the indirect taxpayer is contributing a greater proportion than he used to. That is a very misleading method. The hon. Member misleads himself when he makes a calculation on that basis. The only way in which you can make the comparison fairly is to take the respective proportions of the total taxation borne by the two classes of taxpayer. Yesterday in my Budget statement I compared the respective estimated yields of direct and indirect taxes with the actual results, and showed how that, owing to the falling off in the receipts from various sources of indirect taxation, the indirect taxpayer had contributed a smaller, and, consequently, the direct taxpayer a larger, proportion than I had expected. The proportions last year, according to my Budget Estimates, were 51·8 per cent. from in direct taxation, excluding the coal duty and stamps, and 48·2 per cent. from direct taxation. The actual yield was approximately only 50·9 per cent. from indirect and 49·1 per cent. from direct taxation.
  MR. McCRAE: Does that include the amount raised from local taxation?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, and on my Budget Estimate for the present year indirect taxes fall to 49·8 per cent. while direct taxes rise to 50·2 per cent. Although it was not framed to produce that result, my Budget scheme of last year assigned exactly the same proportions to direct and indirect taxation as were estimated for in the year before the war. It will be seen, therefore, that the position of the indirect taxpayer is not less, but more, favourable than before the war, and, in my opinion, it is the direct taxpayer who has the greater right to complain of the present distribution of the burden. If it had been a question this year between the relief of the indirect taxpayer and the relief of the direct taxpayer, I think still, as I thought and said last year, that the latter would have had the first claim to consideration. But I regarded it as my
  1308
  first duty to make a greater provision for the reduction of debt, and when I had taken the sum which I thought sufficient, but not more than sufficient, for that purpose, the money remaining available for the remission of taxation was insufficient to give the income-tax payer relief even to the extent of 1d. I commend that comparison to the attention of the Committee; I think it is a much more accurate one than the method of comparison adopted by the hon. Member for Poplar, and I only need to add, in order to make my views complete upon this subject, that I think, although we have been accustomed to make these comparisons from year to year, and they may serve some useful purpose, that it should always be remembered that the distinction between direct and indirect taxpayers is wholly artificial. Whilst there are indirect taxpayers who do not pay direct taxes, there are no direct taxpayers who do not pay indirect, taxes. My hon. friend the Member for Islington said that amongst those most worthy of consideration when we are recasting our financial arrangements are the small payers of income-tax, upon whom probably, in spite of the abatements, the income-tax falls with sensible force, and who also have to make very great contributions to indirect taxation.
  Hon. Members on the other side of the House have not subjected my Budget proposals to any severe criticisms. They have, in fact, rather directed their remarks over my head or through me to those whom I may call my spending colleagues. They have claimed that I do not exercise a sufficient restraining influence upon them, and when I appear at this Table they say that I do not speak with sufficiently bated breath about the enormous amount of our expenditure, or dwell upon the urgent need for a reduction with the force and with the frequency which have been common with some of my predecessors. I said last year, and I repeated it yesterday, that I see no advantages in taking this course whilst the expenditure is on the increase. I think it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide for the expenditure which, in his opinion, and in the opinion of the Government, is requisite for the service and safety of the country. I often find it my duty inside this House

  1309
  and outside the House to criticise proposals for expenditure. Sometimes the House listens to me and sometimes it does not. What passes between myself and my colleagues is our affair alone, and I do not pretend to reveal the secrets of our discussions here. I only say that if I did not believe that the expenditure embodied in our Estimates was necessary it would not be possible for me to continue to hold the position that I do. It must be my duty to scan that expenditure closely and to secure for the taxpayer, as far as it is in my power to do so, good value for the money expended, and to see that I do not provide more money than is necessary. I do not, however, regard it as any part of my duty, as the guardian of the national finances, to reject proposals for expenditure, merely because they involve expenditure, without regard to their merits or necessity for the defence or improvement of the country.
  The main point of this Budget is the proposed addition to the fixed debt charge and the measures which I have brought forward for reducing the Unfunded Debt. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have not seriously criticised these proposals except from the point of view that good as they are, they would have been better if they had been larger, and the hon. Member for Poplar, speaking from the front Opposition bench with all the authority that that position gives him, came very near to pledging those of his colleagues who act with him that when they came into power they would still further raise the fixed debt charge. I shall be interested in the future to see whether they carry out that pledge should circumstances happen to transfer them to this side of the House, and when the future Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to consider all the questions that are now brought before me. All I can say is that if I find that they are inclined to go further than the course which I have now taken, I do not think they will find a very hostile critic in the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. But, Sir, I think the Committee should know what we are proposing for the reduction of debt. The hon. Member for Poplar in the statement which he made to the Committee fell into an error which has been
  1310
  noticeable in more than one speech made in our debates, namely, that he took no account whatever of the Sinking Fund which is specially attached to the debt created for the works charged to capital account. Sir, that Sinking Fund is on a scale out of all proportion to the Sinking Fund attached to the ordinary debt. Hardly any of that Debt extends over a period of more than thirty years, and the Sinking Fund is such as to reduce the whole of it within that time. I estimate that the Sinking Fund which is provided outside the fixed debt charge and in the Votes of the various Departments was in 1904–5, £1,204,000. I estimate that in the present year it will be £1,683,000, and that sum has to be added to the amount of the Sinking Fund included in the fixed debt charge amounting to £8,428,000. Therefore the total amount available for the extinction of debt in the present year should be no less than £10,111,000. I think that is an adequate provision to make for the redemption of our debt, large as that debt is, and I think I should have been unduly tempting my successors if I had adopted the suggestions which have been pressed upon me from some quarters as to "applying the whole surplus to increasing the fixed debt charge without giving any relief of any kind to the taxpayer. I am all for a high Sinking Fund, and all for a big fixed debt charge, but I think there is some danger in pressing that principle too far, for by so doing you may make the Sinking Fund a burden so great that you may produce a reaction in the minds of the taxpayers which would undo the work you had done, and thus fail to achieve the very result which you wish to accomplish.
  Sir, I will say one word in reply to the hon. Member opposite. All I need to say is that if he would do me the honour to read the second speech I made yesterday in answer to some observations made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, he would see that I dealt with the criticisms he made upon me to-day for not dealing this year with the terminable annuities which fall in next year, and that I have shown that, whatever be the merits of establishing new terminable annuities in preference to reducing debt in other ways,

  1311
  the particular course which he invited me to pursue as being one that would connect my name favourably with the finances of the country would not in my opinion reduce a penny more debt than the other ways which I have adopted. There are some hon. Members to whom the system of terminable annuities has a great charm and mystery, but if they understood more exactly their working they would attach less reverence to that particular method, and they would see that it is only one way which may or may not be the best one of obtaining the result which they desire.
  There are a couple of Questions put by the hon. Member for Poplar as to the sale of Consols held on the unclaimed dividend account. I cannot give the figures because I have not got them with me, but if the hon. Member will put a Question on the Paper I shall no doubt be able to supply the information. No part of those Consols as sold in the market, but they were bought on account of another account by the National Debt Commissioners. The hon. Gentleman also asked for some information as to the yield of the increased duty on stripped tobacco last year. I estimate that I received from that source, after the Budget concession which reduced my proposed duty to one-half, on account of all stocks about £400,000 in the course of the year. The hon. Gentleman also asked me whether it was not the case that the importation of strips had very largely fallen off since the imposition of the duty. Certainly it has. It was part of my contention that the old scale of duties favoured strips unfairly to the disadvantage of whole leaf, and of course, if there was anything in that contention, as I still hold there was, the readjustment of the duty would naturally result in a larger importation of whole leaf and a smaller importation of strips. But apart altogether from that, I should add that the importation of strips is one thing and the consumption of strips in the course of a year is another thing; and the falling off in the consumption of strips in this country was very much less than the falling off in their importation. That is natural, and was the necessary result of the concession which I made
  1312
  for strips already in bond at the date of the introduction of the Budget, because any strips which are now imported are not coming in at 3s. 3d. merely in competition with whole leaf at 3s., but they are strips coming in at 3s. 3d. in competition with other strips at 3s. 1½d.; and, as the House knows, there was a very large stock of strips on hand at the time the new duty was imposed, of which rather more than one-third passed into consumption in the course of the past year, still leaving a very large number in this favoured position. It will not be until they have been very much more largely worked off that we shall be able to say what the result of the duty will be on the future course of the trade.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked at what figure the right hon. Gentleman estimated the receipts from the taxation of last year, and whether it was not a fact that the imported strips had fallen off.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I can get for the hon. Gentleman the whole of the figures. If he tells me that he has refreshed his memory lately as to the fact I will take it from him. There has been an enormous falling off in the importation of strips. This is natural. Why should anyone import strips at 3s. 3d. when there are large stocks in the country ready to come into consumption with a duty of 3s. 1½d.? All the strips at present on hand have a preference of 1½d., and it cannot be expected that strips will be imported as long as the stock of them is sufficient.
  The hon. Member for Bolton raised a question which he has raised before in regard to the form of our national accounts. The hon. Gentleman speaks with great independence, disregarding every authority. He does not mind what Mr. Gladstone said; he holds his own view. He does not mind what the hon. Member for King's Lynn says, although he holds to Mr. Gladstone's idea. There are really two schools of thought on this subject. The hon. Member for Bolton, and those who think with him, would like to assimilate our form of national accounts to those of any business concern. There is a great deal to be said for that, and I have very great sympathy with

  1313
  the desire. I think it does mislead the House, and certainly the country, that the total expenditure is put on one side, and the revenue from the Post Office on the other side, of the accounts, and although profits grow year by year, not perhaps so much as we should like to see them, yet our expenditure is shown in a way which represents it to the taxpayer as if he were paying more taxes. The expenditure due to this cause is lumped in with the total and represented as being due to increased provision for naval and military purposes. I think that is a misconception fostered by the present form of accounts, and if I had to frame the accounts for the first time I do not think I should be inclined myself to frame them in the way they are now. But the present form has high authority behind it. It is the form which our accounts have taken for many years, and there is always a certain disadvantage in altering the form of accounts because it is apt to confuse the comparisons with previous years. Against the opinion of the hon. Gentleman and those who think with him, I have to balance the opinion of the hon. Member for King's Lynn and those who agree with him, that the present form is the right one, and that we ought actually to go further in the same direction. The hon. Member for King's Lynn makes it a complaint that every appropriation-in-aid does not in the same way appear on both sides of the account. We carry out, let me say, the service for some petty loan. We advance £1,000 and receive it back. According to some hon. Gentlemen that ought to be shown in a separate suspense account, and ought not to enter into our balance-sheet at all. According to the hon. Member for King's Lynn the tax-payers will not know the true state of affairs until it is first added to the expenditure and then the revenue, and appears on both sides of the account. Who shall decide when doctors disagree? I am not by any means wedded to the present way of presenting the accounts. I have shown that by adopting the form of circular which was this year placed in the hands of Members when the Budget was introduced, and which I owe to the hon. Member for Exeter, to whom I think the Committee are indebted in this matter. I know that if I attempt to introduce changes without the general
  1314
  consensus of opinion behind them, however desirable in my opinion or that of hon. Gentlemen, there would arise great opposition, and a great expenditure of time would be caused. I think the Public Accounts Committee have some right to be consulted in these matters. Any expression of opinion from them would, of course, always receive my serious attention, and if they thought it well to recommend a change such as the hon. Gentleman proposes I should at any rate feel that that was some further inducement to incur the risk of criticism and of condemnation by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. I hope if we are to have a discussion with special reference, to this tea tax the general discussion may now be allowed to close, so that we may take that special discussion before half-past seven.
  MR. BROADHURST MR. BROADHURST (Leicester) moved that the tea duty be reduced to 4d. instead of 6d. as proposed by the Chancellor the Exchequer. The Committee would be perfectly justified in further reducing the tax, and in bringing it back to the sum at which it stood before the war. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire had dilated at considerable length on the evil effects of tea-drinking, and suggested that Scotch broth should be adopted in place of tea as an article of diet. Scotch broth was no doubt an excellent diet, but it would be inconvenient for working people who used tea because they could carry it with them to their places of employment, where of necessity they must drink it cold. He would not argue this subject at length, but he did contend that tea was an article of necessity in the homes of the people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that many people who paid indirect taxation did not pay any direct taxation. That was undoubtedly true, but was it not a great misfortune to the people who did not pay direct taxation? Many people would be delighted to be in the position of having to pay income-tax. Ho would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that although the workers did not pay income-tax, they stood in a wholly different relationship to the State from that in which the richer portion of the community stood. The worker every hour

  1315
  of his working life was contributing to the maintenance of the State, and without him the State would soon become a thing of the past. The workers suffered in many ways. In the recent bad times thousands of them suffered from want of employment. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer should again feel inclined to argue that the workers escaped direct taxation he should remember that by their labours they made a great contribution to the maintenance of the State. Therefore, they were entitled to wholly different consideration from that which was given to the people who paid income-tax. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the income tax in its present form was a great burden to a large number who now had to pay it. He could bear witness to the fact that many people paid income-tax who really were not liable for it, and who would be exempted if their case was thoroughly examined and properly put before the Income-Tax Commissioners. He hoped that the results of the labours of the Committee appointed last year to consider this great question would be to protect people of limited incomes from the imposition of heavy burdens.
  The tax on tea was now, in some cases, upwards of 100 per cent. on its wholesale value. That was an enormous tax to levy on an article of everyday use, chiefly among the poor, and ought not to be allowed to pass. It ought at least to be brought down to the amount at which it stood in the ante-war period, viz., 4d. per pound. Some years back the right hon. Member for West Bristol, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, made him a conditional promise that he would go into the question of taxing tea on its value. Why not tax tea according to its value instead of according to its bulk or weight? He hoped the Chancellor would consider what could be done in that direction. It might be said that his proposal would reduce the Chancellor's revenue by a million and a half. He was, of course, not called upon to make good the deficiency. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer had graciously consented to select the next Chancellor from the Opposition Benches; but it was rather unkind of him to make arrangements somewhat in advance of the occasion.
  1316
  He could not expect to be that Chancellor, and therefore it was not for him to point out how the Chancellor could recompense himself for reducing the tea duty to 4d. But there was a very simple way. The Exchequer might be recouped by a reduction of expenditure. The Chancellor might turn his attention to his colleagues' extravagance in Pall Mall. It would be a much more difficult thing to reduce the efficiency of the gentlemen there than their extravagant expenditure, because they had a notorious habit of spending money without giving the nation adequate results. He might also consider the question of taxing ground rents. In the Metropolis alone an income of several millions was obtained from this source.
  HON. MEMBERS on the MINISTERIAL Benches: They pay income-tax already.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid they paid income-tax on their gross income, but here would be an additional source to tax. Other sources of revenue could be obtained from pure luxuries and extravagance of living. The whole object of taxation should be to make all classes bear an equal sacrifice according to their position and the means at their disposal.
  Amendment proposed—
  In line 5, to leave out the words "six pence, and insert the words "four pence."—(Mr. Broadhurst.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'six pence' stand part of the proposed Resolution."
  *MR. HIGHAMsaid that the hon. Member for Leicester had stated that the duty on certain kinds of tea was 100 per cent. of its value; but the hon. Gentleman had understated the case. It was considerably over 100 per cent. The tea most used by the working people was sold wholesale at from 4½d. to 5d. per 1b, and on that a duty of 8d. per 1b. had been paid last year. But that was not the only pressure put on the working classes, for they had to pay duty on the tea, and then also the percentage of profits on the whole price of the goods which had been increased in price by the duty. That was one of

  1317
  the evils of all indirect taxation; and a man who bought a tea originally sold at 4½d. per pound had to pay for it 15d. or 16d. per pound, whereas the man who bought a high-class tea at 4s. per pound paid a much smaller proportion of the duty compared with the working man. If some hon. Members would only visit the towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire they would see hundreds and thousands of tins containing tea being carried to the workpeople two and three times daily, which showed the extent to which the beverage was consumed, and they would realise that a duty of even 6d. per pound was exceedingly heavy upon them. To impose the same duty on every quality of tea might be paralleled by levelling the same tax on every house in a town of, say, 20,000 inhabitants—whether it was a poor man's house or a rich man's house with three or four times the accommodation. He did not believe in what was called the relative proportion of direct and indirect taxation, for indirect taxation always carried with it a double burden, as it involved a taxation on profits as well as on original cost.
  MR. BRIGGsaid it had been suggested that the tax on tea should be graduated according to the price paid for it. To a large number of people tea had now become an article of luxury, and many paid as much as four or five shillings a pound for it. A graduated tax should be put upon tea, and the burden of the tax would then fall on the shoulders of those who were well able to bear it.
  SIR JOHN GORSTthought the Amendment could not possibly be agreed to because the finances of the country would not bear it. It seemed to him that the right state of things in regard to indirect taxation would be reached when they got back to the condition prevailing before the war, and when there was no taxation on articles of universal consumption except such as were regarded as a luxury. He was afraid that he must class tea as a luxury, and he was of opinion that the quantity of tea and bread now given
  1318
  to children contributed very largely to the physical deterioration of the rising generation. The habit of drinking tea and eating bread and butter had lately been condemned by every hygienic authority. One of the causes of the great increase of insanity in Ireland was the practice of feeding children with tea and bread and butter in that part of the country. Tea and bread and butter did not furnish the materials required for the building up of bone in children. He did not put sugar in the same category. It was true that they could not feed a child on sugar alone, but in conjunction with other articles it was an extremely wholesome food, and he hoped to see the day when it would be untaxed, as it was in former days. No doubt it was an article of general consumption which in times of emergency, such as war and when the whole population of the country was called upon to make a sacrifice, might be taxed, but in times of peace it ought to be the object of every Government to free sugar from taxation as early as it could possibly be done, having regard to the due maintenance of finance. It was no part of the duty of a Government to say to the country what luxuries should be indulged in. That decision must be left to the people and whether the Government approved or not of the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, or tea, their feelings should not influence their minds on the subject of taxation. They might look to the taxation of those articles as reasonable incidents in the raising of the Revenue. He hoped the tax on tea might be further reduced as soon as the financies of the country would permit.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid even a small amount of duty fell upon the consumer. He did not agree with the view of reducing the tea duty instead of the sugar duty. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had granted a reduction in the sugar tax he would have conferred an enormous advantage upon the country. He believed that, owing to the Sugar Convention, sugar held a totally different position to that which it held before. The Continental countries willingly contracted themselves out—
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The question of sugar does not arise on this Amendment. The hon. Member must confine himself to tea
  MR. KEARLEYunderstood that by the arrangement of the previous night a general discussion was to be allowed.
  *THE CHAIRMANpointed out that this Amendment must be disposed of before a general discussion could take place.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid he desired to argue that sugar had a much greater claim to reduction than tea but in deference to the Chairman's ruling he would not continue his argument. He would at another time point out to the Chancellor the Exchequer the grave danger to the country likely to accrue if the sugar tax were not reduced.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.)said that owing to the exigencies of the case the Government was unable to accept the Amendment.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the question of an ad valorem duty on tea had been raised by the hon. Gentleman on more than one occasion. He did not think the hon. Gentleman was aware how great would be the difficulty in imposing an ad valorem duty. They heard a great deal of comment regarding the high ad valorem rate which the tax bore to the value of the article. He did not think the way in which that argument was used was always honest or frank because he did not know among those using it any one who was in favour of an ad valorem duty. He recently received a very influential deputation of the trade which touched lightly on the proportion of the duty to the value, and he put the question to them direct—would they like him to impose an ad valorem duty? They did not give him a definite answer at first but told him it would be impossible to collect such a duty, and subsequently they begged of him
  1320
  with all the emphasis at their command not to do it. They pointed out that it tended to penalise the higher class article; to force the consumption of the lower grade and to restrict the consumption of the higher grade teas. He did not know whether much tea was sold at the prices I named by the hon. Gentleman opposite, but he could assure him that it was by no means a universal fact that poor people or the working classes drank the worst tea. Some time ago he had occasion to examine some Irish budgets which were familiar to members of the Congested Districts Board, and he wanted the amounts respectively spent on tea and tobacco. There was no estimate set out of the quantities, and he consulted an hon. Member from Ireland as to what he thought would be a fair price to charge upon the tea which was consumed in that country. The hon. Member replied that he could not answer the question off-hand, but it might be taken for certain that the poor Irish peasant generally drank a good tea and would not be put off with poor rubbish. Accordingly an ad valorem duty might not result in bringing relief to that particular class to which the hon. Gentleman was anxious to give it. But even if it were not open to that objection there would be an enormous difficulty in imposing a duty in that form. Sales of tea no longer took place as formerly in the sale rooms. Some of the great distributors now had their own tea gardens and imported their own tea. In 1834–35 there was an attempt to graduate the duty and there were three rates, 1s. 6d., 2s. 2d., and 3s. respectively, but the discrimination then in force would not be applicable in the circumstances of to-day. That attempt to graduate the tea duty really broke down because the Customs authorities of that time found it impossible properly to distinguish between the different teas, and whatever theoretical attractions it might have to the hon. Gentleman it would prove to be harassing and annoying to the trade. It would require them to intrust an enormous discretion to the Customs authorities which could not be exercised without criticism, and might in the end result in the poor people having to pay a far higher price for their tea than they did now.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 249; Noes, 184. (Division List No. 131.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets)

  Lawson, Hn. H L W. Mile End)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lawson, JohnGrant(York. N. R.

  Allsopp, Hon. George.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lee, Arthur H(Hants., Fareham

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fellowes, Hon Ailwyn Edward

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H

  Lowe, Francis William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs)

  Lowther, C. (Gumb., Eskdale)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gardner, Ernest

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Garfit, William

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

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

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Bigwood, James

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Bill, Charles

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

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

  Bingham, Lord

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

  Milvain, Thomas

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Greene, Sir E W. (Bury Edm'nds)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Brassey, Albert

  Gretton, John

  Moore, William

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Morpeth Viscount

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Butcher, John George.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray, C.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords N W

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Myers, William Henry

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Henderson, Sir A (Stafford, W.)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A (Worc.

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somers't, E

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Chapman, Edward

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Percy, Earl

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

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Coddington, Sir William

  Howard, J. (Midd. Tottenham)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  Hunt, Rowland

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Purvis, Robert

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Kerr, John

  Randles, John S.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Keswick, William

  Rankin, Sir James

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Garne

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Renwick, George

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Denny, Colonel

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Spear, John Ward

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Stanley, Hon. Rt. Lord (Lancs.)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

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

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Stroyan, John

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wodehouse, Rt Hn E. R. (Bath)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

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

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Samuel, Sir Harry (S Limehouse

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Tuff, Charles

  Younger, William

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H (Renfrew)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Turnour, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E. H (Sheffield

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside

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

  Viscount Valentia.

  Smith, Rt Hn. J Parker (Lanarks.

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton and. Lyne

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

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lloyd-George, David

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lough, Thomas

  Allen, Charles P.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Lundon, W.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Field, William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark N E

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Crae, George

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  M'Kean, John

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Black, Alexander William

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Blake, Edward

  Gilhooly, James

  Mooney, John J.

  Boland, John

  Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Brigg, John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Moss, Samuel

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Grant, Corrie

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Murnaghan, George

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Murphy, John

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Hammond, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Burns, John

  Harcourt, Lewis

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Rurt, Thomas

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Harwood, George

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

  Caldwell, James

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Horniman, Frederick John

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

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  O'Dowd, John

  Crombie, John William

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Crooks, William

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.

  Cullinan, J.

  Johnson, John

  O'Mara, James

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

  Perks, Robert William

  Delany, William

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galw'y

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Price, Robert John

  Dillon, John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rea, Russell

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Reddy, M.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Duffy, William J.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Labouchere, Henry

  Roche, John

  Elibank, Master of

  Lamont, Norman

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Ellice, Capt E C (S Andrw's Bghs

  Langley, Batty

  Runciman, Walter

  Emmott, Alfred

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

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

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shackleton, David James

  1324

  1325

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Thomas, Sir A (Glamorgan, E.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Sheehy, David

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

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Tillett, Louis John

  Wilson, Fred. W (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Toulmin, George

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

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Ure, Alexander

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

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wallace, Robert

  Young, Samuel

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R. (Northants

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Stanhope, Hon Philip James

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Broadhurst and Mr.

  Sullivan, Donal

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Channing.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. CAWLEY, in calling attention to the effect of the sugar duty, pointed out that at the time of the imposition of that duty Continental countries had of their own free will contracted themselves out of certain industries because by giving bounties they had so raised the price of sugar within their own boundaries that it was impossible for their people to go into businesses which had wonderfully thrived in this country. Under these circumstances, the position with regard to the sugar duty now was very different compared with that at the time of its imposition, and he could not see how our confectionery manufacturers could carry on their business unless the sugar duty was taken off or the Convention denounced. As the Convention could not at present be denounced, he submitted that the duty ought to be repealed. The confectionery trade had grown up under a system of protection of the very best kind—protection at other people's expense. The bounties had enabled our manufacturers to obtain their raw material cheaply, and the consumer also had benefited. But the Germans were now relieved of their bounties; the price to the German consumer was as low as in this country, and, Germany being the largest grower of beet sugar, the German manufacturers would have the advantage which accrued to the producers of the raw material. The result, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer saw his way to repeal the duty, would doubtless be to reduce our confectionery trade by at least one-half. All British manufacturers wanted were even, terms, but these they would not have under existing circumstances. The reduction of the sugar duty might well be advocated
  1326
  on the ground that sugar was a food of the poor, but for the moment he urged that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should give his attention to the aspect of the case as it affected the confectionery trade, otherwise some thousands of hands might be thrown out of employment.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The speech to which we have just listened is a remarkable one as coming from that side of the House. The hon. Member practically states that the trade for which he is expressing anxiety has been protected, and that unless that protection is renewed large numbers of workmen will be thrown out of employment.
  MR. CAWLEYregretted he had not made himself better understood. What he said was that the industry had been protected at other people's expense, and what he wanted was that the raw material should be brought into the country duty free, the raw material not being grown here, in order that our manufacturers might be on equal terms with other people.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the hon. Member's explanation corrects my statement to any appreciable extent. He ascribes the prosperity of the trade to the fact that it was protected. He says it was at other people's expense. Undoubtedly it was—partly at the expense of the foreigner and partly at the expense of other industries in this country. The hon. Member further says that the trade cannot continue to exist in any condition of prosperity unless either the Convention is denounced or the present duty of 4s. 2d. per hundredweight repealed.

  1327
  Of course, the denunciation of the Convention will bring no advantage whatever to the trade unless it results in the restoration of the protection which the ton. Member desires.
  MR. CAWLEY: At other people's expense.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN:We have often tried to find out what really was the point of view of hon. Members opposite in regard to bounties, and from the hon. Member at any rate we have now had a clear statement. He would consider it the duty of any British Government to stimulate the granting of bounties by foreign countries. If bounties are good for raw sugar they are equally good for confectionery. And why should not the consumer of the articles have the advantage of the bounty? And why should not the manufacturer on the Continent have the advantage which the producer of the raw material has hitherto had? You cannot defend these bounties in regard to one article without defending them in regard to all articles, and it would be interesting to see the condition of trade which would be introduced if the hon. Member had his way, and extended among our competitors a general system of bounties upon all goods which compete with our home-made productions. The hon. Member has rightly said that the Convention cannot be denounced at present. I do not think it is likely to be denounced at any time, unless it has so efficiently done its work that there is not much probability of a recurrence of bounties. That being so, the hon. Member says the confectioners cannot live unless the sugar duty is repealed. Why not? What trade are they going to lose? Their export trade does not suffer. They get a drawback when they export, and are thereby put in the same position for exporting as if there were no duty. Then it is their home trade. But why? This duty is not confined to articles manufactured in this country. Imported confectionery has to pay the same duty as has been charged on the sugar used in the manufacture of confectionery here. Accordingly, as far as the home trade is concerned, the British manufacturer of
  1328
  confectionery is on those equal terms which the hon. Member desires, and which he in the same breath declares are not sufficient to preserve the industry from extinction; whilst in regard to the foreign trade, by reason of the drawback, he is at no disadvantage whatever. The hon. Member says that our home manufacturer will be at a great disadvantage because an enormous amount of sugar is produced in Germany, whereas none is grown here. But he does not press that to the logical conclusion to which I should have thought his protectionist theories would have driven him, and suggest that the same encouragement should be given to the producer of beet in this country as has existed in Germany. What he does suggest is that the growing of sugar by Germany will give the German manufacturers of confectionery an unfair advantage in competition with our own manufacturers unless the duty is removed. The idea that a particular price of Germany is a world's price is rather a peculiar one, and the hon. Member will find little commercial or economic authority for that theory.
  MR. CAWLEYmade a remark which was inaudible in the Press Gallery
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member should not interrupt with an observation which is entirely irrelevant. The hon. Member's argument was that the price would be lower in Germany because Germany was a sugar-producing country. There is nothing to prevent anybody buying German sugar, and the fact that there is a prohibition of the importation of sugar from the Argentine or Russia does not in the least affect the transfer of sugar from Germany to this country or the fact that the price of sugar is a world's price. It is not relevant to the hon. Member's argument, which was confined to German sugar. It does not affect my statement about the world's price because, although Russian and Argentine sugar does not come here at this moment, it does enter into the world's supply and consumption, and therefore does enter into the world's price. The hon. Member opposite seemed to be under the impression that Germany, unlike ourselves, had no duty upon

  1329
  sugar. ["No."] The hon. Member is also mistaken if he thinks that the duty on sugar is higher in this country than in Germany. If he entertains any idea of that kind he is completely mistaken. Our duty is 4s. 2d., while the duty in Germany is 7s. 1½d.
  MR. CAWLEY: But the German manufacturers get a drawback.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Our manufacturers, we are told, cannot compete with the German manufacturers of sugar because they are called upon here to pay a duty of 4s. 2d. which is charged upon all imported confections of sugar, whilst in Germany the manufacturer have to pay 7s. 1½d. I am aware that there is a drawback given on the export of sugared goods from Germany exactly as there is an export duty here, but so far as it enters into competition at all for trade purposes the duty is lower here to-day than it is in Germany. I think I have said enough to show that whatever may be said either for or against a revision of the sugar duties it cannot be urged upon the grounds which the hon. Member opposite has put forward.
  *MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer would never persuade any class of manufacturers that to tax their raw material, whatever drawbacks were allowed, left them in as good a position as if it had not been taxed. The German Government was at present endeavouring to arrange for a system of drawbacks to enable English cloth to be imported to make German jackets, but it was found almost impossible, and when it came to be worked out the difficulties of ascertaining how much of the raw material entered into the composition of any particular kind of goods loft an opening for the manufacturers to defraud the Government as was done largely in the United States. The difficulty of determining how far the raw material entered into the article left an open field either for defrauding the Government or for putting the manufacturer to a loss which the Government did not compensate him for by means of the drawbacks. Apart, how
  1330
  ever, from the question of cost, the very great inconvenience and trouble were always hampering conditions to the manufacturer. The fact could not be ignored that sugar had a strong claim for consideration, as not only the food of the people, but also as the raw material not of one industry, but, as had been said over and over again in the House, of many industries. It entered into the production of many articles which did not usually come before them, and which most of them did not know had sugar in their composition. He came up in the train the other day with a rather I rabid supporter of the Government who told him that while he considered sugar a proper instrument by which to tax the consumer, it was a most abominable thing to tax it as the raw material of his industry, for he happened to be a manufacturer of an article of which sugar was a raw material. That sort o f thing was not confined to one Party. People did not like taxation which hit themselves. With regard to the bounties the position was this: The sugar-using industries of this country had had the advantage and the disadvantage—he would call it a doubtful advantage—of protection, and now that they were brought into open competition with the rest of the world they were to some extent at a disadvantage. There was no doubt that every protected industry, though it might enjoy some advantages, was, like a hothouse plant brought into the open air, weaker for the conditions under which it had lived. It was, however, a protection which at all events had not been to the disadvantage of the consumer in this country. Having had that advantage taken away, their case was one of peculiar hardship that their raw material should be thus doubly hit, and this made the tax on sugar one to be removed as soon as possible.
  He did not see why there should not be issued at the time of the Budget a Paper showing in a very brief form of profit and loss the accounts of the Post Office. It should always be recognised that part of the expense of the Post Office was interest on capital and depreciation.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: A Return is published giving the information desired.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: In the shape of a balance-sheet?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No; as a Return giving the information.
  *MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid he suggested the Return should take the form of an annual balance-sheet and profit and less account of that Department. It would be a very useful thing, and prevent misconception on the part of the public and the mixing up of one fund with another. Might he make another practical suggestion which would prevent a great amount of misconception, and which would, he believed, tend to economy—that economy which they all professed to desire and so few really tried to promote? The Commissioners of Inland Revenue, when issuing the demand note for income-tax, might give upon it in small epitomised form the amount of the national expenditure to which the taxpayers were called upon to contribute their quota. He had long thought that it would be a most useful thing if the taxpayers were informed in this way of the amounts required for the Army and Navy, education, the Civil Service, and other things. This would bring home to the taxpayers the real objects for which the money was paid, in the same way as was done by local authorities. He did not see that the Imperial Government should be above taking a lesson in this matter from the local authorities. This information could be given without incurring any additional cost. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the Committee that afternoon that he was not personally responsible for the Army and Navy expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman said he saw no advantage in the homilies which Chancellors of the Exchequer sometimes gave while expenditure was increasing. The hon. Member would like a homily from the Chancellor of Exchequer when expenditure was being decreased, and he thought it would be a good thing if the right hon. Gentleman would nail his colours to the mast in the way former Chancellors had done. He hoped if the right hon. Gentleman was still in office next year he would not only give them a homily but an illustration in the reduction of expenditure, because though, he
  1332
  might not be responsible for military I expenditure he was an important member of the Government which was responsible. The right hon. Gentleman had shown pluck this year in defying the strong feeling not only in the House but in the country in favour of the reduction of the income-tax. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to show a little more pluck and to put more pressure on his colleagues, so that when he brought in another Budget next year he would be able to preach an economical policy and to give better illustrations than he had done this year.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he agreed with the hon. Member opposite that there was nothing more important than that the public accounts should be made intelligible to the ordinary person. They were not so at present. The two suggestions made by the hon. Member would not tend to simplify them. The first suggestion was that the whole of the public expenditure should be printed on the income-tax paper in anepitomised form. The House would remember that the income-tax paper was issued in the autumn of each year and the total expenditure of the country was not and could not possibly be known until March 31st following. Therefore the suggestion of the hon. Member was like a request for six months further credit. If they were to wait until they got the total expenditure they would not pay until March 31st what they ought to pay before December 31st. The hon. Gentleman also suggested that the revenue and expenditure of the Post Office should be put in the form of a balance-sheet. A balance sheet did not show revenue and expenditure; it was a statement of assets and liabilities, which was an entirely different thing. One of the assets of the Post Office was the monopoly right of carrying letters and sending telegrams. That a was good asset, but would the hon. Gentleman suggest the amount at which it should be valued? He submitted that it was impossible for the Post Office to give that kind of balance-sheet. He thought that what the hon. Gentleman meant was a profit and loss account. That was really published already, because there was an account with the receipts on one

  1333
  side and the outlays on the other. It was within his knowledge that the telephone department of the Post Office made an annual loss while the National Telephone Company made a profit. The remarkable thing with regard to the Post Office accounts was that the real effectual revenue came not from the telegraph and telephone sixpences, shillings, and half-crowns, but from the magic penny.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINindicated assent.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer cheered that. He would recommend the penny to the right hon. Gentleman as a great engine of taxation. Any Chancellor of the Exchequer who knew how to use it in the same sort of spirit as it had been used by the Post Office would obtain a large increase of revenue.
  He did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been quite fair in his treatment of the sugar question. The right hon. Gentleman asked how it was that the sugar manufacturers were suffering and how they could not manufacture now as before. For the simple reason that sugar had doubled in price. The same sugar which formerly cost his constituents 1¼d. per 1b. now cost 2½d. With the raw material of this industry so largely increased, it followed as a matter of course that the industry could not be conducted with the same success as before. The remarkable thing was that although it was said the increase in price was due to the shortage of crops the price had not gone up, but had gone down in the other countries which were parties to the Sugar Convention. It was only here, the great sugar market of the world, that the price had gone up. How could they talk of the world's price when they excluded from this market the sugar produced by countries like Spain, Russia, Denmark, the Argentine, and San Domingo? The Argentine was a country from which previously we obtained large quantities of sugar. When a monopoly was given, as in fact was done in this case, this mischief arose. That was what had been the greatest element, in his belief, in the rise in the price of sugar. That was why the confectionery and jam industries had seriously suffered.
  1334
  In his own constituency the import of sugar had enormously declined. Not only was sugar dearer, but a great deal of work had been lost to those who used to unload the sugar and handle it afterwards. It would be an affectation to doubt whether the export of confectionery and other cognate products had not been affected by the Brussels Convention. The right hon. Gentleman knew that by this Convention we had been made slaves of the Brussels Commission composed for the most part of foreigners. It should not be forgotten that an appeal was made by the Government against what we considered the totally unfair methods in which articles manufactured in this country, into the composition of which sugar entered, were treated when exported to the contracting countries. He hoped that that appeal would be successful. The cruel loss to the sugar industries of this country was not due so much to the tax this House had given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as that we had given a monopoly of the greatest market for sugar in the world to the co-signatories of the Convention, and the result had been most disastrous. He thought that sugar was a very important article of food. It was well known that in cane sugar producing countries every animal, from man downwards, got fat, round, and rubicund when the new crop of sugar came in. The right hon. Gentleman might keep his sugar tax as long as it was necessary for revenue, but he regretted the fetters by which we had unfortunately bound ourselves in consequence of the Sugar Convention, which was contrary to every sound principle of sound finance.
  MR. O'MARAsaid he would not enter into any discussion of the fiscal aspect of the Sugar Convention. What concerned him was the sugar tax, which was the subject more strictly before the Committee. This sugar duty was imposed by a former Chancellor of the Exchequer as a merely temporary tax, which was to be taken off as soon as the war was over. At the time of the impost he himself protested against the increased burden which it would put upon the people of Ireland. He protested all the more strongly against the tax because it had been

  1335
  imposed in order to carry through the South African War—a war waged against the most sacred sentiment which Irishmen possessed, a war against the liberties of a free people. If this matter was brought to a division he would vote against the tax. Earlier in the evening there was a discussion as to the proportion which direct taxation bore to indirect taxation. It was pointed out that the proportion of indirect to direct-taxation was 49 per cent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in replying, did not tell the Committee that the system of taxation imposed on Irishmen had very different results, because it worked out that the proportion in Ireland of direct to indirect taxation was 37 per cent. That had the result of putting an extreme burden on the poorer population of Ireland. It was time that some Irishmen should protest against such a system of taxation which was largely responsible for the unfortunate economic condition of that country.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he wished to know whether any consideration had been given by the Cabinet to the great question of the reform of local taxation. Every four years the Agricultural Rates Continuance Act was passed, which was a great injustice to urban taxpayers.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: That question is not before the Committee.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he wanted to know whether they were to have every four year a continuance of those Bills to which there was so much objection from hon. Members on that side of the House, and whether—
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid this did not come within the four corners of the Finance Bill. It was not even a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but came in the province of the Local Government Board.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYbegged to think it must be in the province of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would not persist in his arguments, but he thought it a surprising ruling.
  *THE CHAIRMANpointed out that a Bill was already before the House and was under the control of the Local Government Board.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYhad no desire to argue the question, but would ask whether the whole matter of the reform of our local taxation was under the consideration of the Cabinet, and whether there was any prospect of this great question being dealt with.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: That is a matter for the Prime Minister.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid the present tax on sugar was a serious impost on the food of the people. The money spent on the country had somehow to be raised, and vari us taxes had to be devised. They could not judge in a single year what would be the effect of the Convention upon the supply of sugar in years to come. Already in various cane-growing countries there had been a great stimulus, and they might expect to have sugar supplied in increasing quantities and at a decreasing cost. With regard to Germany—
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon Member was not entitled to discuss the subject of the Sugar Convention. He was entitled to refer to it so far as it influenced the price of sugar in this country, but to go into the whole question would not be relevant to the Question before the Committee.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSSexplained that he was only following an argumen raised by an hon. Member who had taken a wrong line. He thought the Government were to be congratulated on the liberal way in which they had dealt with the tea tax. There were a great many persons in his constituency upon whom the burden of the income-tax pressed very hardly. He, for one, sympathised with the income-tax payer in that he had not been chosen by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a subject for relief. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, in his wise discretion, given the

  1337
  relief to the consumers of tea, and they all looked to him to make further remissions when he had further funds in hand.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 247; Noes, 168. (Division List No. 132.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Denny, Colonel

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Auson, Sir William Reynell

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N R

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

  Arrol, Sir William

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Balcarres, Lord

  Faber, George Denison (York)

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

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lowe, Francis William

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (lnv'rn'ssB'ghs)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Forster, Henry William

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Bigwood, James

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Bill, Charles

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Bingham, Lord

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

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

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

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

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

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Brassey, Albert

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

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

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Bull, William James

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Moore, William

  Butcher, John George

  Gretton, John

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords. N W

  Myers, William Henry

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

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Chapman, Edward

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

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

  Hoult, Joseph

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversham

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Percy, Earl

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Purvis, Robert

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Kerr, John

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Keswick, William

  Randles, John S.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rankin, Sir James

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Renwick, George

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

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

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton and. Lyne

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Spear, John Ward

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

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

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.)

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

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

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

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Stroyan, John

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Younger, William

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Tuff, Charles

  Viscount Valentia.

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Kean, John

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Ffrench, Peter

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Allen, Charles P.

  Field, William

  Mooney, John J.

  Asher, Alexander

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Moss, Samuel

  Austin, Sir John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Murnaghan, George

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Murphy, John

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Gilhooly, James

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nolan, Joseph, (Louth, South)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Norman, Henry

  Black, Alexander William

  Hammond, John

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

  Boland, John

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Brigg, John

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Harwood, George

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

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Burns, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Burt, Thomas

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

  Caldwell, James

  Higham, John Sharpe

  O'Dowd, John

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Malley, William

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Johnson, John

  Perks, Robert William

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Joicey, Sir James

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Rea, Russell

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Reddy, M.

  Crean, Eugene

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Joyce, Michael

  Rickett, J. Compton.

  Crombie, John William

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Crooks, William

  Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.)

  Roche, John

  Cullinan, J.

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Kilbride, Denis

  Runciman, Walter

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Delany, William

  Labouchere, Henry

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

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galw'y

  Lamont, Norman

  Shackleton, David James

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Langley, Batty

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Dillon, John

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Sheehy, David

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Slack, John Bamford

  Duffy, William J.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lloyd-George, David

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Elibank, Master of

  Lundon, W.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Ellice, Capt. E. C. (SAndrw'sBghs

  Lyell, Charles Henry

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

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Crae, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  1340

  1341

  Tennant, Harold John

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Md.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

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

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

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

  Toulmin, George

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Young, Samuel

  Ure, Alexander

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Wallace, Robert

  Wills, Sir Frederick (Bristol, N.

  O'Mara and Mr. MacVeagh.

  Resolution to be reported to-morrow to the House.
  Committee to sit again to-morrow.
  Sitting suspended at 7.28.

EVENING SITTING.

  HITCHIN AND DISTRICT GAS BILL [By ORDER.]
  As amended, considered.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he respectfully protested against the way in which the local authority of Hitchin had allowed this Bill to go through without protesting in the only way that was open to them, namely, by dividing on the Second Reading as a protest against the way in which this Bill had been treated by the promoters. For the first time for twenty-five years the House of Commons had denied to a big corporation a compulsory purchase clause, and thus denied to the people of Hitchin in the future the right to have their own municipal gas.
  MR. HUDSONsaid that he had withdrawn his opposition to this measure because he found half the local authority of Hitchin were in favour of leaving matters as they were, and a very large proportion of the inhabitants of the town were still more in favour of it. It was under those circumstances that ho withdrew his opposition to the Third Reading of this Bill and, if what the hon. Member for Batter-sea said was true, then all he could say was that the fault lay with the people of Hitchin and not with him.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  IRISH NATIONAL TEACHERS' PENSION FUND.
  MR. HAMMONDsaid in rising to move the Motion which stood in his name he could only regret that the fortune of the ballot had not placed it in more competent hands, He would, however, content himself with a brief review of the question, and his colleague the hon. Member for West Kerry, who was an authority on this matter, would make it quite plain that a serious wrong existed which ought to be remedied, and that the responsibility rested upon the Government to restore this fund to a state of solvency. He only gave expression to the general trend of public opinion in Ireland when he said that the national school teachers in Ireland deserved well of their country. Their work was highly appreciated, and exercised a large and permanent influence for good, and they themselves commanded the respect of the people. There had been, no doubt, in recent years a very great improvement in the position of the national school teachers, who had gained in credit and repute in the same ratio as education had been more highly prized, but under the present conditions they were unable to furnish for themselves adequate provision for their old age, when they could no longer carry on remunerative work. That was the disability under which the national school teachers of Ireland laboured. He contended that in this matter the Government had failed to do its duty. In the year 1879, under the auspices of two distinguished statesmen—Sir Stafford Northcote, at that time the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Bristol, then Chief Secretary for Ireland—the National School Teachers Pensions Bill became law. Under the operation of that Act, £1,300,000 Fund became the nucleus of the pension fund, and when it came into force inducements

  1343
  were held out to the national school teachers to join it, and they were officially informed of the advantages that would accrue, and the amount of contribution they would have to make. The national school teachers, having devoted the best years of their lives to the service of the country, found themselves with not enough to provide for themselves and their families. They were public servants and were entitled to adequate and appropriate pensions on retirement. They deserved well of their country, and what they asked was that the maximum pension should be two-thirds of the maximum salary; that the full pension be optional for men after thirty-five years service and for women after thirty years service; that in case of enforced retirement owing to disablement in body or mind a male teacher should receive a pension of £20 a year, with £1 a year added for every year's service, and a female teacher should receive a pension of £15 per annum, with 13s . 4d. a year added for each year of service; and that all the disablement pensions should be provided by the State.
  *MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLsaid this was no small and unimportant question, whatever it might appear to those who had not considered it. Over £2,000,000 of Irish money was involved, and the provision for the old age of 12,000 Irish national school teachers was concerned. Education in Ireland was a question which was receiving the greatest attention in that country, and unless sufficient money was provided and primary education placed on a proper basis, it was useless to expect there could be any advantage to the country by the most fanciful and best planned schemes. The question of pensions for the teachers had in the past received less attention than it deserved. In 1879 an Act was passed which for the first time established a system of pensions for Irish national school teachers. Previous to that the teachers received on retirement one year's salary for every ten years service, which amount came from the Imperial Treasury. When, however, the Act of 1879 was passed, a sum of £1,300,000 was taken from the Irish Church Fund as a nucleus for the fund, and the British Treasury then
  1344
  ceased to contribute for eighteen years after 1879. A British actuary who had been appointed by the Treasury to look into the working of the fund, had stated that through the action of the Government in ceasing to contribute the fund had lost, and that the Treasury should now contribute £400,000. Although the fund had now grown to £2,200,000, and the balance over, last year, after paying all charges, amounted to £45,000 a year, the actuary appointed by the Treasury had stated that it was a bankrupt fund. The income of this fund was over £100,000 per annum, whilst the payment of pensions accounted for £55,000, which showed a balance in favour of the fund of £45,000 in the year 1903. In the year 1897 the fund possessed a balance of £127,000, yet the Financial Secretary, when asked last February why stock should be sold at a loss of £13,000, replied—
  "Pension stock is occasionally sold in order to enable payments to be made at a time when the receipts of a fund fall short of the amounts necessary for such payments."
  which could not be the case when there was a balance of £127,000. He hoped further inquiry would be made into that question.
  The Irish national school teachers had contributed during the last twenty years to the fund a large amount of money. The contributions, which commenced with £9,000, now amounted to £25,000, and the teachers during all those twenty years had been asking for an independent actuary, appointed by themselves, to go into this fund and see how it was being administered. When they saw how much was lost or spent it was only natural that the teachers should be suspicious, and if there had not been in the view of the Government something to hide in this matter, he was sure they would have acceded to the request of the teachers. In the year 1885 Mr. Robinson stated that the fund had a balance in its favour of £200,000 and that it was perfectly solvent and that there was no fear of its breaking down. Five years later the same gentleman stated that the fund was £200,000 in arrears. Another gentleman, Mr. Sutton, also appointed by the Treasury, said the balance against the fund was £837,000,

  1345
  and Mr. Finlaison put it at £924,000. Was it not natural under the circumstances that the teachers should inquire what was the cause and ask that they who paid in such a large amount to the fund should have access to what was their own. In 1895 Mr. Robinson put the deficiency at £1,186,000, and Mr. Finlaison stated that this deficiency amounted to £1,200,000. The national teachers of Ireland naturally felt under these circumstances that although they had contributed a considerable share of their limited incomes to this fund there was no possibility when they reached their old age of receiving any pensions
  A Departmental Committee was appointed, and it reported and made three suggestions which seemed very characteristic in its injustice to a splendid body of Irishmen. They first of all agreed with the actuaries that the fund was becoming bankrupt, and that something should be done to prevent this. It seemed very strange that instead of recommending the British Treasury to vote an annual sum they shrank from doing so, and declared that it would not be suitable that any money should be given for the teachers' pensions out of the Treasury funds, but that it all should come out of Irish money. Their first suggestion was that the pensions of the men should be reduced from £88 to £60 and that the pensions of the women should be reduced from £63 to £47. Their second suggestion was that the teachers' premiums should be raised from £9,000 to £23,000 per annum, and, thirdly, that the retiang gratuities should be done away with. Those were the recommendations of the Committee which sat in 1897, and he did not think a better instance could be found to illustrate the cheeseparing policy of the British Treasury in regard to Irish affairs. The teachers naturally resented this treatment, because they were under the impression that the British Treasury had entered into an agreement with them that if they paid a certain amount out of their salaries they would get a fixed pension, if they complied with all the conditions laid down. An agreement of that kind between man and man would have been kept, but such an agreement be
  1346
  tween the British Treasury—which had no soul—and the Irish teachers was shamefully broken by the Treasury. At the time various opinions were obtained and legal authorities were consulted, and amongst others the Solicitor-General for Ireland was consulted, and he stated in regard to the action of the British Treasury that—
  "The rules are illegal from start to finish."
  He hoped that the Solicitor-General still held the same opinion, and that he would whisper a kind word into the ear of the Secretary to the Treasury to undo the mischief which had been done to the Irish teachers. In a letter to the Teachers' Journal the Solicitor-General wrote—
  "The bargain I say, and say fearlessly, if it was made between man and man would be held good in any Court."
  He trusted that this illegal action which was perpetrated by the Treasury would be undone, and that justice would be meted out to the Irish teachers and that as a first step towards that end, the illegal and unjust rules of 1897 would be withdrawn.
  In considering this question it was well to compare the treatment meted out to Irish teachers with the treatment which English and Scotch teachers received. There were 800 teachers on the pension list in England, and this year's Estimates voted them £84,000, or an average of about £100 a year. There were 1,900 teachers on the fund in Ireland, and the British Treasury only voted them £18,000 or an average of less than £10. The English teachers were no better qualified and did no better work than the Irish teachers, and yet they were voted ten times as much by the British Treasury. Did freland get her proportionate share she should get from the Imperial Treasury for the pension fund not £18,000 but ten times that amount. He asked the Secretary to the Treasury to look carefully over these figures, and to consider whether something more ought not to be done for the Irish teachers. The Irish teachers were an educated class carrying on the very responsible work of educating the youth of Ireland and training her future workers and citizens, and he thought they had at least equal claim to the Irish Constabulary. For the

  1347
  Royal Irish Constabulary £377,000 was voted out of the Imperial Treasury for pensions to a force comprising 11,000 men who had practically nothing to do, or in other words, there was voted every year for Royal Irish Constabulary pensions £34 for every man actually in the service. The Irish teacher had to spend forty years in one of the most trying occupations before he reached the maximum pension of £60 per annum, whereas the ordinary constable, whose education was very limited, had only to serve twenty-five years to reach his, maximum. In the Metropolitan police there was voted for pensions annually £32,000, though there were only 1,100 men in the force, or £30 per man actually in the service, while for 12,000 Irish teachers there was voted £18,000, or an average of £1 10s. per annum for every man in the service. The British Treasury said they had no more money for the teachers, and told them that they must put their hands into their own pockets. The first reform which the Irish teachers demanded was the right to appoint an actuary. He wished to know whether, after what had been said upon this question, the Treasury still refused this very reasonable demand. Before the Pensions Act was passed a teacher was entitled to gratuities from the British Treasury at the rate of one year's salary for every ten years service, and under those conditions the teacher was better off than when he was called upon to pay £3, £4, and £5 a year to the fund. He knew one case where a highly classed efficient male teacher, after twenty-four years service in Ireland, and who was compelled to retire through ill-health, got a miserable pension of £4 6s. 8d. per annum. An ordinary Irish constable, after twenty-four years service, would get about £60. He knew another instance where a female teacher, after twenty-six years service, with nothing against her, and who retired through ill-health, was offered a pension of £3 17s. 10d. This injustice ought to have been remedied long ago, and if they had had with any other body but the British Treasury they would not have had to wait for twenty-five years for such a disgraceful state of things to be remedied.
  1348
  This was more than a teacher's question. Anything which improved the character of the men and women who undertook the teaching of the children, made their position more secure, and took a way the horrible fear that they might have to spend the end of their days in the workhouse, brought to the service of the State a better body of men and women, and encouraged them to give their time more fully and more effectively to the training of the children. The salaries paid and the pensions granted had a good effect not only upon the teachers, but also upon the children and upon the nation, as it was only by giving good salaries and good pensions that the best men could be attracted to and retained in this most important branch of the public service. He hoped, therefore that this would be considered not merely as a question affecting 12,000 people, but as a question which vitally affected the future welfare of the nation. With regard to primary education something would have to be done if they desired to prevent a time coming when no good man or woman would stay or enter the teaching profession. The inspectors had stated that they found it almost impossible to get suitable persons to enter the training colleges the pensions salaries were so low and the pensions offered were so inadequate. Any nation which tolerated such a system for the training of its future citizens as that which existed in Ireland could not possibly get the best results. He trusted that the Secretary to the Treasury would consider that this was a question worthy of his immediate attention. The teachers of Ireland demanded that their pensions should be placed upon a Civil Service basis. That was a reasonable demand, not alone just to the teacher, but essential to securing the best talent and service for the education of the youth of the country. As this was a question on which the House, and the country required enlightenment, he would ask the Secretary to the Treasury not alone to give an independent actuary to inquire into the solvency of the present fund, but also to appoint a small Committee of that House to inquire into the equally important matter the inadequacy of the pensions at present given, and the injustice and hardship caused by the

  1349
  time required to get the maximum. He would press very strongly for this Committee and he hoped it would be appointed as soon as possible after Easter. He did not see why the Treasury should refuse to give to Irish teachers what they gave to the English and Scotch teachers, and at least equal terms to those which they gave to the Irish constabulary and the Dublin police. He begged leave to second the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in consequence of the conflicting Reports of the Government Actuary on the Pension Fund of the National School Teachers of Ireland, the losses incurred in the management of this Fund, the reduction in the Pensions of this important and deserving body of public servants, and the anxiety as to the solvency of the Fund, upon which even their reduced and wholly inadequate superannuations depend, it is the opinion of this House that the Government should at once secure its solvency by making towards the Fund a grant from Imperial sources, as is done in respect of the Teachers of British Primary Schools, subject the Fund to more efficient management, and at the forthcoming quinquennial examination permit the Teachers, who are at once contributors to and sole beneficiaries of the Fund, to be represented by an independent actuary."—(Mr. Hammond.)
  MR. SLOANsaid that if a debate in the House was the only thing to convince the Treasury of the justice of the demand, sufficient had taken place to convince every reasonable and sane person, much less the Treasury, of the necessity for conceding the demands contained in the Resolution He could not allow the debate to pass without associating himself entirely with the demands from the Nationalist Members, The Nationalist Party deserved the thanks of the Irish people for bringing the matter before the House, and he hoped before the end of the debate the Secretary to the Treasury would be entirely convinced of the justice of the demand. By the Act of 1879 £1,300,000 was granted from the Irish Church Surplus Fund and that was supplemented by
  1350
  premiums stopped from the teachers' salaries. He understood the present accumulated capital was £2,200,000. What surprised him was that, notwithstanding the necessity for the sale of stock in order to meet the liabilities the increase of the fund had gone on systematically every year. If on retiring after twenty-four years service a man received £4 6s. 8d. and a woman £3 17s. 10d., it was a libel to call it a pension, especially when they compared it with the pension of the English teacher, who through ill-health, after ten years service, got £20 a year and £1 additional for every year after that. They had every reason to complain of the injustice done to Irish national school teachers. It had been pointed out that the £18,000 put upon the Estimates for pensions was Irish money, and he quite agreed with that contention, and that they were under no obligation to this country for that money.
  The demand of the Irish teachers was a very simple one, and one that would appeal to any hon. Member, viz., that in the examination that was to take place in regard to the fund next year they should have an independent actuary, and that when the examination of the fund had taken place the wrongs that had been existing in the past should be removed. He himself believed that the sale of stock was not necessary, and there was ground for suspicion that the money had been applied to some other purpose than that for which it was intended. If not, where was it? In 1897 stock was sold at a loss of £13,937, notwithstanding the fact that the income of the year was far in excess of the expenditure. Where was that £13,000? It had not gone to the teachers. Even in 1903 the loss on sale of stock was £67,000, notwithstanding the fact that the income was far above that amount. If they took the national school teachers' salary at £56 a year for a man and £44 for a woman and gave them a pension after twenty-four years of £3 or £4, it was not a tremendous inducement to get a practical man or woman to give primary education to the young in Ireland. There was no Member of the House who would not agree that the mover and seconder of

  1351
  this Resolution had made out a very strong case for the Irish teacher. He was quite sure that the Financial Secretary of the Treasury, who always viewed Irish matters in a sympathetic spirit, would have something to say on the position. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman would not be frightened by the comprehensiveness of the Resolution proposed. The case which had been presented could not be denied, and it could not be got over by oratory from the Treasury Bench, false promises, or saying, "We will look into the matter," or, "It is under consideration." A definite and honest undertaking ought to be given from the Treasury Bench which would remove all doubt with regard to the future action in connection I with this particular fund. He associated himself entirely with what had been said by the mover of the Resolution. Whatever political differences there might be between the representatives of Ireland, he trusted that they would be in the unique position to-night of standing united on the question of the Irish national school teachers. There was no divergence of opinion among them with regard to the just and reasonable demand made, and he hoped it would be conceded by the Treasury.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he was closely associated with the Irish teachers, and he was proud to say that a number of them were his personal friends. The superannuation fund was set up by the Act of 1879, which diverted £1,300,000 of the Irish Church surplus for the purposes of the fund, and authorised the taking of premium payments from the teachers. The fund was worked by a schedule, and this was a vital consideration. The schedule set up specifically what the teachers would get in the way of superannuation, what they would get on voluntary retirement before the superannuation stage, and what they would get by way of disablement allowances. It also stated very specifically what they would have to pay. This scheme was worked for twenty years, and when the condition of the fund was examined by a Departmental Committee in 1897 that Committee came to the conclusion that the fund was insolvent at that time. That was a very extra
  1352
  ordinary finding to come to, for it was contrary to several other findings. It was alleged that there was a deficiency of £1,200,000. He could not understand the data on which the Departmental Committee went in coming to that conclusion, for the fund year by year since the beginning had always had an excess of income over expenditure. In 1897, when it was reported to be insolvent, the fund was revolutionised. Notwithstanding the fact that in 1879 a definite undertaking was given that certain superannuations would be paid, and breakdown pensions would be paid, the fund was revolutionised as the result of the Report of that Committee. New premiums were set up, and new benefits arranged, and a new set of rules was issued during the recess of 1897, and the Irish teachers were compelled to agree to them by a certain date. The people who had entered the fund with the solemn assurance of an Act of Parliament that they would get certain benefits were obliged to accept these new rules. A more monstrous proceeding he had never heard of. It was legal, no doubt, because the Government was entitled to issue the rules, but, morally, nothing could be more indefensible.
  What were the conditions which were thrust upon the teachers? The premium payments for superannuation allowances were trebled. They abolished gratuities, ranging from £52 to £282; they raised the retiring age five years; they sensibly reduced the superannuation allowances, and this he considered an acute point. The schedule of the Act provided a maximum pension of £88 for men. That pension was reduced to £60 under the new rules. The retiring allowance for women under the schedule was £63, and that was reduced to £47. He asked the House to contemplate the position of men and women who had their pensions reduced in this way. It was difficult for him to find Parliamentary language to express his view on the question. The breakdown pensions were subjected to the most abominable reductions. It was hoped that with the Treasury grant of £18,000 a year all would be well with the fund as the result of these reductions. The present accumulated capital

  1353
  was £2,191,887. The income both before and after the change always exceeded expenditure. In 1903, according to the last figures available, it was £46,743. The issue of the rules in 1897 was a gross breach of faith. The teachers had paid their premiums for many years of Parliament that they would get certain benefits and what had been done constituted a piece of very grave Parliamentary sharp practice. When Parliament met the hon. Member for Louth, on February 18th, 1898, asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, as it was doubtful whether a debate could be raised after midnight on the new rules affecting Irish teachers' pensions under the Act of 1879, the Government would afford an early opportunity for discussing the matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied—
  "Personally, I should be glad if the matter could be debated soon, though there is no question of urgency involved, as the new rules are already law."
  It, therefore, appeared that during the recess the new rules became law. The hon. Member for East Cavan asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention had been called to a printed circular recently sent to the Irish national teachers, requiring them to sign their consent to acceptance of the new rules affecting pensions, and whether the teachers had by this circular been required to sign acceptance, notwithstanding that up to the present no opportunity of considering those rules had been afforded to the House of Commons or to the Irish Members of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Central Division of Leeds, who was then Chief Secretary, replied—
  "The Irish Teachers Pension Rules of 1897 were made under the terms of Section 11 of the Act of 1879, and these rules do not require confirmation by Parliament."
  Section 11 was as follows—
  "The schedule to this Act shall be construed and have effect as part of this Act. The rules in the schedule to this Act may from time to time be revoked, varied, and added to by the Lord-Lieutenant with the consent of the Treasury."
  But Section 10 had been entirely overlooked, and he could not help think
  1354
  ing that it had been deliberately over looked. It said—
  "At any time after the passing of this Act, the Treasury, with the consent of the Lord-Lieutenant, may from time to time make rules for the administration of this Act. Copies of all such rules shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within fourteen days from the date thereof, if Parliament is then sitting, and if not then within fourteen days from the next reassembling of Parliament."
  The rules were issued the during the recess and the House was virtually told that they passed into law before Parliament met. That might be in accordance with Section 11, but it was a flat contradiction of Section 10. He was very doubtful whether these rules were legal now. The Attorney-General might smile, but he held his opinion all the same.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): They were discussed before the Court of Queen's Bench.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that what was discussed was whether the Lord-Lieutenant had the right to alter the terms for any teacher then on the fund. That was legal, but he called it immoral. Under Section 10 the Government was compelled not to bring the rides into law until they had been fourteen days before both Houses of Parliament.
  As to superannuation allowances under the new rules, which he still thought were illegal from the point of view of Parliamentary procedure, the Irish teacher, paid proportionally a little more premium than the Scotch, English, or Welsh teacher. The maximum superannuation allowance to the Irish teacher was £60 and the average was about £46. The minimum for the English or Scotch teacher, although proportionally he paid less, was £61. The maximum for the woman teacher under the 1897 scheme was £17, and only a few of these allowances were available; the average was £34. The minimum for an English or Scotch woman teacher was £41 8s. 8d. There was an invalid or breakdown pension which in Ireland for men was £11 15s. and for women £4 9s. 2d. The rules applicable to English and Scotch teachers

  1355
  for the corresponding disablement allowances were as follows,—
  "If the teacher is a man, £20 for ten complete years of recorded service, with the addition of £1 for each complete additional year of recorded service; and if the teacher is a woman £15 for ten complete years 13s. 4d. for each complet eddditional year of recorded service."
  The solvency of the fund ought to be guaranteed by the Treasury and a much larger contribution should be made by the Treasury. The money which was devoted to this purpose up to 1898 was taken from the Irish Church Surplus The contribution of the Treasury up till then had been nothing at all. The £18,000 a year was then given to set the fund on its legs. The contributions to the English and Scotch scheme which was set up in 1896 had been in 1900, £40,310; 1901, £52,405; 1902, £55,493; 1903, £62,075; and 1904, £68,775. If the Irish fund had a pro rata contribution instead of getting £18,000 it ought now to be getting £180,000.
  The Financial Secretary of the Treasury might say that the Irish teachers' conditions of service and wages were much better than those of the English and Scotch, teachers. No one who knew the Irish teachers could fail to be impressed with their zeal, devotion, and industry. What were the facts as to their treatment? The average salary of headmasters in Scotland was £176 14s. 3d., in England and Wales £151 9s. 11d. and in Ireland £102. The Irish headmaster received 33 per cent, less than the Scotch and 25 per cent, less than the English and Welsh headmaster. The same proportion was maintained through the different branches of the service. The Irish headmaster got £20 a year less than the English assistant master. The Commissioners would not pay the salary to the teacher direct. He was paid through the manager who might be on his holidays. Not only was the salary meager but the teacher had sometimes to wait months before getting it. The teachers had to produce every three months testimony of their good character. That might be all very well regarding the man, but it was a little contumelious regarding women. He would suggest to the new Chief Secretary that the rule
  1356
  regarding the three months good character might be struck out altogether. Very often, as the inspectors' reports stated, the Irish teachers had to pay the cost of fuel, and of cleaning and repairing the schools, and they had to buy prizes for the children—things absolutely unknown in England or Scotland. With regard to their houses he found the following in the current Report of the Commissioners:
  "The Commissioners expect that all teachers shall have done at their own expense the following, viz.:—Limewashing; cleaning and repairing glass; cleaning privies and ashpits; gravelling yards and walks, and keeping surface I channels in order; sweeping chimneys; making good any damage arising from carelessness or neglect; maintaining fences and gates, except damages from lapse of time; and, in cases of residences built by grants for teachers of national schools vested in the Board of National Education or in trustees, the Commissioners will inflict such penalty as they may deem adequate if the teacher fails to fulfil these conditions."
  That was rather a moderate demand, but among the
  "practical rules" to be strictly observed by the teachers of the national schools was the following:—
  "To avoid fairs, markets, and meetings—but above all political meetings of every kind; to abstain from controversy—"
  The instruction to abstain from controversy was the most self-denying ordinance that could be laid upon an Irishman, and if he only observed it he would be entitled to a pension. The Commissioner's Report stated in regard to the qualities they required that—
  "National teachers should be persons of Christian sentiment, of calm temper, and discretion."
  That was a very good rule to apply to Chief Secretaries and Attorney-Generals—
  "They should be imbued with a spirit of peace of obedience to the law, and of loyalty to their Sovereign; they should not only possess the art of communicating knowledge, but be capable of moulding the mind of youth, and of giving to the power which education confers a useful direction. These are the qualities for which patrons or local managers of schools, when making choice of teachers, should anxiously look. They are those which the Commissioners are anxious to find, to encourage, and to reward."
  When he considered the salaries paid to the teachers and the scandalous treatment they received it was the climax of hypocrisy to put into the

  1357
  rules conditions such as those he had read.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid one of the rules which the hon. Member had read might be adopted in another sphere. He thought that before the quarterly salaries were paid Ministers should present a certificate of character. There was another rule which he was bound to say had a bearing on what had been a burning question lately, namely, the rule which enjoined teachers to avoid controversy. The frank absence of the Chief Secretary was a deliberate confession that the Irish Government was absolutely powerless where Irish finance was concerned, and that the Irish Minister, although he sat in the Cabinet, was subordinate to the Minister who represented the Treasury. Practically, Ireland surrended its revenues at the time of the Union into the hands of a Treasury clerk. He was far from saying anything disrespectful of the hon. Gentleman the present Financial Secretary of the Treasury, who was of noble lineage and belonged to a family long associated with Ireland. He would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that when he had to represent the Treasury on Irish financial questions he should get a Treasury clerk to speak into a phonograph, put the phonograph on the table, and let it make the statement. In that way the hon. Gentleman would be saved from personal dishonour, and from involving himself in financial misstatements, which, if made by Whitaker Wright or Jabez Balfour, would entail prosecution by his colleagues at his side. If any ordinary man of business or board of directors issued a prospectus which contained statements which were false they were liable to be prosecuted as criminals. He did not take much interest in English frauds, but he read the other day of a remarkable scheme called the Nelson Tea Pensions, whereby a number of old women by paying for 2s. tea 3s. 6d. per pound were to become entitled to pensions for the rest of their natural life when they had bought so many hundred pounds. It was a splendid scheme, and at present the Government were engaged in prosecuting the authors. At all events they had been recommended for prosecution simply because they made an
  1358
  actuarial mistake. The worst thing they did was to issue a prospectus to the public and to sell tea at high prices. But their proceedings were not sanctified by an Act of Parliament. The British Government first seized this public Irish treasure to the extent of £1,300,000, and then said to the 12,000 national teachers of Ireland: "All you good people come to us, come to our schools, and we will teach you law and order and loyalty to the Sovereign; and then we will give you salaries, and if you consent to pay, not to Jabez Balfour, or Whitaker Wright, or to the Nelson Tea Pension Fund, but to the Lion and the Unicorn over which the Union Jack triumphantly waves—if you pay John Bull and Company so much a year, we, the British Government, whose flag floats on every sea, whose Army brings the true religion to Lhasa—we will guarantee you Protestant teachers as well as Catholic teachers"—for it was a fraud on the Orangemen in the North as well as on the idolator in the South—"we will guarantee to you, according to the schedule put into an Act of Parliament passed by a Conservative Government, pensions varying from £70 to £80 a year in proportion to your payments." And when these unfortunate men and women had spent ten, twenty, or thirty years under the most awful slavery, viz., the teaching of youth, on a miserable pittance, this great Government, a Government of hon. Gentlemen with names to which they were expected to attach every sentiment of reverence and respect, turned round on these unhappy men and women who had no redress against them, no law Court in which to drag John Bull and Company, and said: "We did not mean what we have said, and unless you agree before a given date to accept new terms and take £45 a year instead of the £80 a year which we guaranteed we won't give you a shilling." And this was the Government, remember, that expected loyalty and respect for the law in Ireland! They expected the flower of loyalty to grow out of the seed of discontent. That was why he invited the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury not to make himself the mouthpiece of the under clerks of Downing Street, whose one idea of business—he

  1359
  said this after twenty-five years experience in the House—was chicane. The late Lord Salisbury attributed nearly all the evils of England to the Treasury. That was said in the House of Lords, and the words were extant. What protection had they, the minority in the House? He asked if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had tried to go into this matter himself? Could the hon. Gentleman get up and say that he had given to this question one hour's honest thought, or would he say anything beyond what some puny whipster in the Treasury had written out by a typewriter that he, a man of noble birth, should read it at that box as if it were a fourth Gospel? He held that fraud was written on every line of the action of the Government in regard to the Irish national teachers—indefensible fraud.
  What was the very modest demand put forward from those benches? They did not say, "Put us on a level with Englishmen. Oh, no, we are too pigmy for that. We do not even ask to be put on a level with Scotchmen. All we ask is, that a British actuary shall be allowed to investigate the doings of John Bull and Co. in regard to our own money." The Solicitor-General had put on record his opinion that the rules which the Treasury forced down the throats of the Irish teachers were illegal, and not binding. He asked the Government to say by what authority they enforced those rules when their own law officer made that declaration. Would the Secretary to the Treasury venture to rise at that Table and contradict the Solicitor-General? Which of them on those benches were they to believe? They were all honourable men! The Solicitor-General said that the
  1360
  rules were illegal and that teachers had for years been defrauded of their rights.
  He had not seen till that day the Return referred to by his hon. friend the Member for Kerry, but in looking at it what struck him with astonishment was that, in a Return issued by the Treasury for the purpose of giving information to the House, care was actually taken not to put in the totals, so that anyone trying to make out the sense of it would have to add up something like eight columns of figures, so as to arrive at the facts. So far as he could understand, the fund originally stood at £;1,300,000, and something like £700,000 had been paid out. But the teachers' contributions had amounted to something like £1,000,000. Therefore the fund was better off to-day by £300,000 than it was when it was established. This was the fund which was declared to be bankrupt by the Treasury! If the fund was bankrupt to-day when it was £300,000 better than when it was started, what were they to think of the late Sir Stafford Northcote and other able men, who, in this House in the year 1879, said the fund was a competent fund to provide for all the pensions? He held that if the Government undertook to manage an insurance business, for that was what this fund was, they had a right to expect from them the same competence that they would get from any of the great insurance companies, like the Norwich Union, the Globe, or the Ocean. If ordinary human beings sitting as a board of directors could do their business competently, why should not the British Government? There was not the poorest friendly society managed by labourers, not to speak of artisans, and not to

  1361
  speak of such friendly societies as the Oddfellows and the Foresters, which would not be disgraced if it had to confess itself guilty of such malfeasance as the Government had had to own in regard to this matter. Such a society would render themselves criminally liable, and why was the Government, because it was a Government, to escape when poor humble people convicted and sentenced.
  He himself would have put his demand higher than the Resolution went. He maintained that the Government ought to keep faith with these unfortunate teacher, and that every man and woman who had subscribed to the fund was entitled to get what was promised by the Act of 1879 Supposing they carried the Motion, and the Government gave them an actuary, would the actuary present a report of the same kind as in the Humbolt case in Paris? To his thinking they wanted something more than an actuary; they required that the promise of the British Government, on the faith of which the teachers paid their contributions into the fund should be kept, and the national teachers in Ireland would never cease to agitate until the British Government fulfilled its statutory contract.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.)said he should like, in the first place, to say that although the hon, and learned Gentleman who had just spoken, and the hon. Member for Camberwell, had put a little vigour into the debate, he personally had no reason to complain of the line they had taken. Although a good deal of the history of the fund had been recalled there had been
  1362
  no mention of the fact that in 1885 when the first valuation was made, there was a considerable balance of assets.
  MR. FLYNN: Was he a Treasury valuer?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: He was. That valuation was followed by what he would call a distribution of profits Certain advantages were given to the teachers by way of benefits and of reduction of premiums. That latter fact ought to be borne in mind. In 1890 the actuary reported that there was a considerable deficiency, and that report was confirmed in 1895. A Committee was thereupon appointed. They investigated the matter and made several recommendations, three of which were that the deductions from the salaries of teachers, for the fund should be increased, that a grant of £18,000 should be made from the British Exchequer, and that part of a lump sum which voted for the purposed of Irish education should be allocated to the pension fund. At the same time the highest class of pensions was abolished. These proposals were discussed in this House, and they had the approval of the Irish National Board of Education. Rules were framed in 1897 in accordance with these recommendations, and they had remained in force until the present time. He admitted candidly that there had been cases of hardship; but it was only fair to point out that the teachers who were in the service on January 1st, 1898, had the option of remaining under the old rules or of coming under the new rules [Cries of "No, no" from the IRISH Benches.] He thought he was correct.
  DR. MACNAMARA: They were compelled to accept the new rules.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid he was told that teachers in the service prior to 1898 had the option. He was unable, on behalf of the Government, to accept the Resolution, but he was ready to suggest a compromise. It was perfectly true that the other day in answer to a Question he stated that he did not think it would be advisable to have an independent valuer; but if it was only as an earnest and a proof that the Treasury was not quite so lax as hon. Gentlemen would have the House to believe, he was prepared to waive his objection on that point, to let bygones, be bygones and to accept an in dependent valuer appointed on behalf of the teachers at the forthcoming valuation at the end of the year. If that proposal would do anything towards bringing to a conclusion these disputes, which were raised far too often across the floor of the House, he would be only too glad. He would undertake, on behalf of the Treasury, that the report received on this valuation should receive the most careful attention, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite would confine their Resolution to the representation of the teachers by an independent valuer, he should not take any objection to it.
  MR. SLOANasked if the investigation would be at the cost of the Treasury?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid he presumed so. He would not make any objection. Of course it was understood that everything would be done to diminish the expense.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he would like acknowledge the tone in which the hon. Gentle
  1364
  man had spoken, and the concession such as it was, which he had made. But when the hon. Gentleman asked the Irish Members to withdraw the Resolution and let bygones be bygones, that was a course which he could not advise his friends to take. This Resolution asked for more than an actuary. It asked that—
  "The Government should at once secure its solvency by making towards the fund a grant from Imperial sources, as is done in respect of the teachers of British primary schools, subject the Fund to more efficient management, and at he forthcoming quinquennial examination permit the teachers, who are at once contributors to and sole beneficiaries of the fund to be represented by an independent actuary."
  Therefore, he could not agree to the withdrawal of the Resolution, although he thanked the hon. Gentleman for his concession in regard to the appointment of an actuary.
  MR. GORDONsaid that if the hon. Gentleman would assure them that he would put the fund in a condition to carry out the Act of 1879 then they ought all to be satisfied. He took that ground, not by referring to the pensions given to the Royal Irish Constabulary, or to the pensions given to the English and Scotch teachers but to the Pensions Provided for by the Act of 1879. It was on the faith of that Act that the teachers were induced to make their contributions. Without the smallest regard to sanctity of contract some gentlemen met together and said these sums should not be paid in future. That was neither reasonable nor fair. The hon. Member for Camberwell referred to the vital part of this matter when he mentioned the provisions of the Act of 1879, the advantages of which to the teachers

  1365
  had been destroyed. It was not denied that the fund was £200,000 richer than when it was created, but it had also to be remembered that the numbers had also increased, and they had a right to expect that when the investigation had taken place and the actuary had reported the Treasury would make good the deficiency to the teachers.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL, Dublin University)said the last speaker who had addressed the House was still under a misapprehension with regard to the actual facts of the case. The hon. Members in introducing and seconding this Motion did so in speeches characterised by great ability and great moderation, and, speaking as they did with actual knowledge and experience of the working of this system, the moderation of their language contrasted favourably with the extreme and exaggerated speech of the hon. Member for Camber-well. What were the actual facts as to what occurred in 1897? The Act of 1879 was passed on the assumption that teachers would contribute about one-fourth of the total amount to provide the pensions under that Act. Unfortunately, in assessing the amount which the teachers were to pay in order to produce that one-fourth these premiums were not assessed on the age of teachers on joining the scheme, the result being that the premiums were assessed at too low a figure. In 1885, when the quinquennial valuation took place, the actuary employed entirely overestimated the position of the fund, and owing to his sanguine overestimate a large distribution of the assets of this fund was made to the teachers who retired during those years to an
  1366
  amount far in excess of that which their premiums or the state of the fund justified. It followed that when the examination was made in 1890 it was found that the fund which in 1885 was thought to be in a very flourishing condition was then really insolvent. That condition of insolvency was found to have increased to a serious extent in 1895. The fund was then threatened with bankruptcy, and it became necessary to consider what could be done to put it in a solvent condition again. A Committee was appointed who recommended that the highest pension that was payable to first-class teachers in the first division should be abolished. The hon. Member for Camber-well made a complete mistake in supposing that these rules of 1897 deprived existing teachers of any right whatever in respect of that pension, because whilst the rules abolished that pension in the case of future teachers of the first division it wag expressly provided that any teacher of that class who paid at the old rate was entitled to continue to pay at that rate and to receive the pension on the old scale.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLinterposed to remark that only on the previous day he was informed of the case of a teacher in the first class who, when the rule came into force, was not retained on the first-class list.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid he had the rule before him and it stated that any first-class teacher in the first division who had to pay the premiums on the old rate would have his rights secured. Rule 19, to which the hon. Member doubtless referred, expressly safeguarded that right. But in addition to that, and in order to save this fund from insolvency,

  1367
  Parliament agreed to vote in that year, and had voted every year since, a sum of £18,000. That sum was not fixed but might be increased or reduced according to the result of the quinquennial valuation. The next valuation would be made in a few months, and until that had been made they could not say whether the condition of the fund was healthy or insolvent. If unhealthy and it was thought that the £18,000 was insufficient, Parliament was not bound to that sum but could vote any additional sum that might be required to keep it in an efficient state.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the Resolution before the House only asked that the fund should be put in a solvent condition.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLthought that the Motion was entirely premature because at present, so far as anyone knew, the fund was in a solvent condition. Its actual state would not be ascertained until they knew the result of the quinquennial valuation which would take place in a very few months. The Treasury had gone very far in their endeavours to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, because all sections of the House were united in desiring to meet the wishes of the teachers and in recognising the efficient way in which they did their work. It was the general desire that justice should be done. His right hon. friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had conceded their right to
  have their interests protected by the appointment of an independent actuary at the next valuation. Why, therefore, should they anticipate that valuation? Why should the House be asked to commit itself to a Resolution calling upon Parliament to put this fund in a solvent condition when it might already be perfectly solvent?
  There was another point to which he desired to call attention. The hon. Member for Camber well forgot to mention that whilst the national teachers in Ireland had been enjoying these pension rights ever since 1879, it was not until 1898 that either English or Scotch teachers were conceded any pension rights whatever. That was a fact which should not be overlooked. He agreed that the scheme under the Act of 1898 was somewhat higher for England and Scotland than for Ireland, but on the other hand Irish teachers had possessed these pensions for nearly twenty years before the same rights were conceded to their brethren in Scotland and England. He would suggest to hon. Members from Ireland that they had accomplished the purpose of the Resolution in obtaining the power to be represented at the next inquiry by an actuary of their own, and that the Motion might be withdrawn.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 113; Noes, 137. (Division List No. 133.)

  EDUCATION.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That there be laid before this House a Return relating to Education for England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1905, in the following form:—
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University): was understood to say that he had explained to the hon. Member why the Return could not be granted in the form asked for. The Scottish and Irish Offices had informed him that they could not supply the information desired. With regard to University education, that was a matter for the Treasury, and it would be extremely difficult to supply the particulars asked for in connection with secondary education. Certain portions of the Return could be given, and he suggested that the hon. Member should consult him as to the form in which it could be granted.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLpointed out that practically all the information he asked for could be obtained from the Estimates, and the Departments concerned might very well compile the table showing the comparative amounts granted to the different parts of the Kingdom. The only reason he could give for the refusal to grant the Return was that the Government were afraid that it would prove that Ireland was very unfairly treated in the matter. Ireland received not a penny from Imperial funds for University or secondary education, while hundreds of thousands of pounds per annum were given to England and Scotland.
  THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton)said that so far as Scotland was concerned several of the particulars asked for could not be given, and the result, for the purposes for which the hon. Member desired the Return, would be altogether misleading.
  1374
  The Scottish Office were quite prepared to give the information so far as they had it, but the Return, if granted in the form asked for, would have to be based upon estimates and figures which would bring out an inaccurate result.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLasked which part of the Return it was that could not be given.
  MR. FLYNNsaid that, in as much as the Government Departments were able to get from foreign countries Returns relating to such questions as armaments and so forth, there could not be much difficulty in the Board of Education getting from the Treasury the information required for this Return. He was unable to accept the statement that it could not be given. There was evidently some desire for concealment, and the refusal was only another proof of the changed attitude of various Departments towards the reasonable demands of Irish Members.
  MR. T. M. HEALYpointed out that in the last Motion they asked for money for education, and it was refused; they now asked for information about education, and that also was refused. All the items of this proposed Return were important from the point of view of showing the discrimination against Ireland, but the House of Commons by its majority, and through the mouthpiece of the Education Department itself, refused to enable the comparison to be made. The House had given a magnificent exhibition of their incompetence to manage Irish affairs, and he congratulated them upon it.
  DR. MACNAMARAsubmitted that all the figures asked for were in existence. The particulars required for the first twelve items were in the educational Blue-books for England and Scotland and the Report of the Commissioners for Ireland; those necessary for the next four or five were in the Blue-book issued annually in connection with grants made to University Colleges, and by the aid of those documents combined with the Census Returns all the particulars asked for could be given.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 112; Noes, 124. (Division List No.134.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Black, Alexander William

  Caldwell, James

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Boland, John

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Allen, Charles P.

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Ambrose, Robert

  Burns, John

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S. )

  Burt, Thomas

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Crean, Eugene

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  O'Dowd, John

  Crooks, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  O' Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Langley, Batty

  O' Kelly James (Roscommon, N.

  Delany, William

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. )

  O'Malley, William

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  O'Mara, James

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  O' Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Dillon, John

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lough, Thomas

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Duffy, William J.

  Lundon, W.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Reddy, M.

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Crae, George

  Roche, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Kean, John

  Rose, Charles Day

  Field, William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Runciman, Walter

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Seely, Maj. JEB. (Isle of Wight)

  Gilhooly, James

  Mooney, John J.

  Shackleton, David James

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Moss, Samuel

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Hammond, John

  Murnaghan, George

  Sheehy, David

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murphy, John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Spencer, Rt. Hn G. R. (Northants)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

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

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Ure, Alexander

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, Luke (York. E. R.)

  Johnson, John

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Young, Samuel

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

  Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.

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

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H-

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Kerr, John

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dewar, Sir TR (Tower Hamlets)

  Keswick, William

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lawson, Hn. H L. W. (Mile End)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N R

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants Fareham

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Bigwood, James

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Bill, Charles

  Finlay, Sir RB (Inv'rn' ss B'ghs)

  Lowther, C. Cumb., Eskdale)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Bowles. Lt.-Col H F (Middlesex)

  Forster, Henry William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Brassey, Albert

  Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bull, William James

  Gordon, Hn. J E (Elgin & Nairn)

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Butcher, John George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Campbell, J. H. M (Dublin Univ.

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

  Cavendish, V. C W (Derbyshire

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Morgan, David J) Walthamstow

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. A (Worc.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Muntz, Sir Philip A

  Chapman, Edward

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hoult, Joseph

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Howard. John (Kent Faversham

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hunt, Rowland

  Percy, Earl

  1370

  1371

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Turnour, Viscount

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Vincent, Col Sir CEH(Sheffield)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Welby, Lt.-Col ACE. (Taunton

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Purvis, Robert

  Smith, Rt. Hn J Parker (Lanarks

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset).

  Rankin, Sir James

  Spear, John Ward

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Stewart, Sir Mark J M'Taggart

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Tollemache, Henry James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Tuff, Charles

  and Viscount Valentia.

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Allen, Charles P.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow W.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Henderson. Arthur (Durham)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Black, Alexander William

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Boland, John

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

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

  Brigg, John.

  Johnson, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Jones, Lief (Appleby)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Malley, William

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Mara, James

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Reddy, M.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Langley, Batty

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Crean, Eugene

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Dongal, W.)

  Roche, John

  Cullinan, J.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Delany, William

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Rose, Charles Day

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Runciman, Walter

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Dillon, John

  Lundon, W.

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

  Doogan, P. C.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Shackleton, David James

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Duffy, William J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sheey, David

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Crae, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Ellis John Edward (Notts.)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sullivan, Donal

  Fenwick, Charles

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mitchell, Edw (Fermanagh, N.)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Field, William

  Montagu, Hon. J Scott (Hants.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark NE

  Mooney, John J.

  Young, Samuel

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Moss, Samuel

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Murnaghan, George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Murphy, John

  Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

  Gretton, John

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Bill, Charles

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Purvis, Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H F (Middlesex

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Brassey, Albert

  Henderson, Sir A (Stafford, W.)

  Renwick, George

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hope. J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hoult, Joseph

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Bull, William James

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Butcher, John George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Campbell, J. H M (Dublin Univ.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon Col. W.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ed. W. H.

  Kerr, John

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Keswick, William

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Cecil, Evelyn (Ashton Manor)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (MileEnd)

  Smith, H. C. (North'mbTyneside

  Chapman, Edward

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N. R)

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Tuff, Charles

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Turnour, Viscount

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Vincent, Col Sir C H E (Sheffield)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn Sir Joseph C.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Dyke, Rt. Hn Sir William Hart

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Finlay, Sir R. B (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, William Graham

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES,—Sir

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

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Viscount Valentia.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Percy, Earl

  Gordon. Hn. J E (Elgin & Nairn)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  MR. LOUGHsaid that this question of the granting of Returns was supposed to have been amicably settled, but now the whole question was to be reopened because of the refusal of Ministers to grant information most reasonably asked for. Members could not be expected to make these calculations for themselves, and he submitted that the refusal was one of the most outrageous ever made.
  Question put.

  UNEMPLOYED RELIEF (WORK) (LONDON)
  Return ordered, "showing, in respect of the Common Council of the City of London, and each of the Metropolitan Borough Councils, the amount expended in wages for work undertaken specially for the purpose of providing work for unemployed workmen during the six months ending on the 31st day of March 1905, distinguishing the Proportion of such expenditure which was met out of (a) local rates, (b) voluntary subscriptions received by the council, and (c) contributions by the Central Unemployed Committee, and specifying the nature of the work undertaken, the number of men employed thereon in each month,

  England and Wales.

  Scotland.

  Ireland.

  1. Elementary Education, total State grant for day schools for year ended March, 1905

  2. Cost of administration and inspection

  3. Pupils on roll

  4. Average daily attendance

  5. Cost per pupil in average daily attendance

  6. Number of schools

  7. Number of certificated teachers

  8. Average salary of teachers

  9. Total rates and voluntary contributions

  10. Total State grant for Secondary Education

  11. Number of pupils in average attendance

  12. Cost per pupil to State

  13. Total State grants for Universities and Colleges

  14. Total number of pupils

  15. Average cost per student to State

  16. Total grants for all purposes from State

  17. Average per head of population

  the rate of pay given, the period for which the work, or each kind of work, if more than one kind was undertaken, lasted, and the average number of days work allowed each man; also, showing the estimated amount which would have been paid in wages if the work had been Carried out under ordinary condition."—(Mr. Whitmore.)

  CLOSING OF LICENSED PREMISES (CHRISTMAS DAY) (IRELAND) BILL.
  As amended, considered; Bill read the third time, and passed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
  MR. MOONEYasked the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury whether he could explain the Chief Secretary's absence from the House during the discussion of Irish affairs; whether the right hon. Gentleman would also be absent to-morrow night and on Thursday when Irish questions would also be under discussion; and whether the cause of the right hon. Gentleman's
  1378
  absence was his presence at Punchestown; Races.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHasked whether the Prime Minister proposed to be present to-morrow night when the House would really be discussing an academic question which was not before the present Parliament.
  MR. RUNCIMANasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was; aware that important statements had been made in another place with reference to the calling of a Colonial Conference; that, contrary to the practice in the House of Commons, the statements were peculiarly definite; and that, also contrary to the practice in the House of Commons, when the

  1379
  question was raised Ministers did not run away. One of the important features of the statement of the noble Duke who spoke for the Government was that the Prime Minister was definitely opposed to the protective taxation of food. That was a most important statement which ought to have been made by the Prime Minister himself. But a statement in so few words was quite beyond the Prime Minister's mental capacity. He took refuge in circumlocution, evasion, and verbiage, for the purpose not of enlightening but of bamboozling the House of Commons. The only reason that could be adduced why that statement should, not have been made in the House of Commons was that it would have been distasteful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. If the right hon. Gentleman was able to confirm that statement of the noble Duke, the House would have it on authority that the views of the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman for West Birmingham were not coincident but divergent. If any declaration so, satisfactory had been made at an earlier stage of the controversy it would not have been necessary for the Government to take refuge in flight.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid the House of Commons was afflicted by having not only a run-away Prime Minister, but also a racing Chief Secretary. The Ministers of the Crown divided among themselves out of public funds £92,500 a year, nearly one-half of which went to the Prime Minister and his relations. As to the Chief Secretary, his duty was to attend to his business in the House of Commons, not to make a book at Punchestown. It was necessary to show the material interests of
  1380
  these sons of Empire. The Chief Secretary had been pitchforked into a position with £4,500 per annum, with house and coals for nothing, and housemaids and gaslight thrown in. He was also allowed expenses, in which no doubt his fare to Punchestown would be included. Why was he not in the House to discharge the duty for which he was paid? Any trustee who so neglected his obligations would be relieved of his duty on the ground of fraud—in the legal, not the moral sense. According to an evening paper, on the very day when Irish University education was to be discussed in this House the Chief Secretary was to be the guest of Lord Iveagh, so that he could attend Punchestown Races more conveniently. He submitted that that was an outrage on Parliament. After that the right hon. Gentleman was to be the guest of Lord Londonderry, and Irish business in Parliament was apparently to be left to take care of itself.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD, Somersetshire, Wellington)said he had been very much occupied in looking after the business of the House, and had not, therefore, had the advantage of listening to what had been said in another place. In regard to the presence or absence of the Prime Minister the following evening, the hon. Member for Anglesey would have ocular demonstration if he was himself in his place. As to the Questions of the hon. Members for Dublin and South Donegal, he could assure them that the Chief Secretary had gone over to Ireland on purely Irish business.
  Adjourned at eighteen minutes after Twelve o'clock.