Commons Sitting of 16 May 1906

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Accrington District Gas and Water Board Bill [Lords]; Ascot District Gas (Electric Lighting) Bill; Brixham Gas (Electric Lighting) Bill; Metropolitan District Railway Bill; Pontefract Corporation Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
National Assurance Company of Ireland and Yorkshire Fire and Life Insurance Company Bill [Lords] (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.
Oldham and Saddleworth District Tramways (Abandonment) Bill. Report [15th May] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second e time.
Cork and Waterford Railways Bill. Reported [Parties do not proceed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; from Bishopwearmouth (two); Brighouse (two); Bromsgrove; Ferryhill (two); Great and Little Packington; Hackney; Linton in Craven; London (nine); New Radford; Packington; Pallion (two); Wearmouth; Worcester; and Wormleighton; to lie upon the Table.
  JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition from Worsley, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCILS ASSOCIATION BILL.
  Petition from Westminster, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ASSESSMENT OF REAL ESTATE ON THE BASIS OF ITS MARKET VALUE.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 3rd May;Mr. Runciman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 173.]
  POLLING DISTRICTS (WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire, constituting Polling Districts and assigning Polling Places thereto [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FEE FUND (HOUSE OF LORDS).
  Account presented, of the Fee Fund of the House of Lords from 1st April, 1905, to 31st March, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos.3587 and 3588 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COMPENSATION (LICENSING).
  Address for "Return of the amounts levied for Compensation, under the Licensing Act, in each county and county borough during the year 1905."—(Mr. Courthope.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Naval Volunteers—Officers' Uniform Grants.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is now able to make a statement regarding the request that naval Volunteer officers should be placed in the same position as land Volunteer officers in the matter of assistance towards uniforms.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) I hope to be able to make a statement on this subject next week.

  Uig (Lewis) Valuation Roll
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether

  455
  he is aware that out of 670 persons on the valuation roll for the parish of Uig, Island of Lewis, no less than 546 have no vote for school hoard elections, by reason of their rentals being less than £4; and will he take such steps as may he necessary to extend the school board franchise to all persons entitled to vote at Parliamentary and county council elections.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) Pending the issue of the Return inferred to in my Answer to his Question of March 26th, I can express no opinion as to the correctness of the figures quoted by the hon. Member. The question of the school board franchise is one to be dealt with in a general Education Bill for Scotland.

  Land Sales in County Longford.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the total number of applications for sale of estates to tenants in county Longford that have been lodged up to March 31st, 1906, with the Estates Commissioners; how many sales have been sanctioned; and in how many cases inspection has been ordered.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that the numbers are fifty-five, thirty-seven, and forty-six respectively.

  Tredennick Bog.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the bog bailiff on the Tredennick estate, in county Roscommon, poisoned the bog which surround the lands of about 250 tenants; that he gave neither notice or warning; and will he take steps to prevent such action in the future.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the police authorities that the local police are aware that a rumour to the effect mentioned in the Question has been current in the locality, but that they have been unable to discover any foundation in fact for this rumour.

  County Poor Rate Collectors.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant
  456
  of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the provisions of the County Poor Rate Collectors Order, 1899; whether the qualification and disqualifications prescribed in Article 8 of that Order applied to county or Poor Law officers before the year 1898; whether some doubt has not arisen as to the legality of this Order; and whether he will cause the Order to be withdrawn with a view to the reconsideration of its provisions.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) My attention has been called to the provisions of the County Poor Rate Collectors' Order, 1899. The qualifications and disqualifications prescribed in Article 8 were created by the Order and are now embodied in the Public Bodies Order of 1904. Previous to the date of the first-named Order the appointment of all officers of the guardians was subject to the approval of the Local Government Board, who refused their sanction when they thought it necessary to do so. I understand that some doubts have been suggested as to the legality of the Order, and I have invited the opinions of the Law Officers on the subject. It would be impossible to withdraw the Order without considering generally the provisions of this and other similar Orders, and such light as is thrown by the provisions of the law in England, and without at the same time considering what provisions should be included in any Order or Orders to be made in substitution for the existing Orders. These matters will be considered.

  Belfast Police.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what is the entire population of the north-west police district of Belfast, and the number of Protestants and Roman Catholics comprising the population; how many head constables, acting sergeants, and constables are stationed in Leopold Street Barracks, Belfast; how many are Roman Catholics and Protestants respectively; and will he take steps to have more Protestant police in this district consistent with the population.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The population of the district referred to is approximately 76,000, of whom 65,000 are Protestants and 11,000 Roman Catholics.
  The police force at Leopold Street barracks consists of one head constable, five sergeants, one acting sergeant, and twenty six constables, total thirty-three. Of these, the head constable, three sergeants, the acting sergeant, and ten constables, total fifteen, are Roman Catholics; and two sergeants and sixteen constables, total eighteen, are Protestants. The Inspector-General informs me that he cannot undertake to consider the question of religion in connection with the allocation of men to stations.

  Freemount National Schools, County Cork.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in reference to the accidental burning of the Freemount National Schools, county Cork, if he can explain the delay in preparing the plans for repair of the old schools; is he aware that school work is at present being carried on in a barn and shed, and that these premises are available only until August next; and whether, in view of these circumstances, the Commissioners of National Education will expedite, as much as possible, the completion of the plans and commencement of the work of properly repairing these schools.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the delay was partly due to the fact that it was necessary to obtain special Reports on the case from their inspector and the Board of Works. The Commissioners understand that the school work is at present being carried on in two temporary buildings roofed with corrugated iron. The Commissioners have made a proposal for a grant towards the cost of restoring the school-house, and this proposal is under the consideration of the Irish Government and the Treasury. There will, I trust, be no undue delay in coming to a decision in the matter.

  Crofters Acts Amendment Bill
  MR. R. L. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state when it is proposed to introduce the Crofter Bill referred to in the King's Speech.
  458
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) No definite statement as to date can be made at present.

  Cost of Education.
  SIR GEORGE DOUGHTY (Great Grimsby): To ask the President of the Board of Education what was the total cost of education in England and Wales in 1901–2 under the school board; what proportion was borne by the Imperial Exchequer and what proportion by the ratepayers; what was the cost in 1903–4, 1901–5, and 1905–6: what proportion came from the Imperial Exchequer and what proportion from the ratepayers; what was the total cost on capital account for school buildings and loans; and what was paid for interest and sinking fund, or redemption of loans, in each of these years.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Understanding that the concluding phrase of the first paragraph is intended to limit the purview of the Question to elementary education, the reply is as follows, omitting the expenditure of the Board of Education on its own administration and inspection:—(1) The total recorded expenditure on elementary education in England and Wales in 1901–2 was approximately £16,901,276. This included £8,949,650 from Exchequer and Parliamentary grants, £6,508,297 from school board rates, £876,361 from voluntary subscriptions, and £566,968 from other sources, e.g., endowments, fees, etc. But this total does not include any expenditure on voluntary school buildings, for which reliable figures do not exist, while it does include school board expenditure on buildings in the shape of interest, sinking fund, and repayment of principal, though not the loans themselves; (2) The year 1903–4 was largely transitional in character, and. even approximately accurate figures cannot be given; (3) In 1904–5 the transitional character continues, and complete reliable figures are difficult to give. But it may be estimated approximately that the total expenditure on elementary education from public funds was about £19,379,653, allowing rough additions to compensate for incomplete periods. This includes £9,874,364 from Exchequer and Parliamentary grants, £8,762,625 from local rates, and £742,664 from other

  459
  local sources, such as fees, endowments, etc. Voluntary subscriptions for annual maintenance had, of course, ceased. Expenditure from voluntary subscriptions upon buildings, and also upon "managers' purposes" under the Education Act of 1902, are not included in this, as figures are not available, but the total does include interest, sinking fund and repayment of principal in respect of council schools, though not the loans themselves; (4) Complete figures for 905–6 do not at present exist. According to calculations based upon estimates recently collected from local authorities, it is believed that about £20,891,135 will have been expended from public funds on elementary education for the year 1905–6. Of this sum about £10,682,935 is from Parliamentary grants, about £9,909,255 from local rates, and £298,945 from other sources, such as endowments, fees, etc. Voluntary subscriptions and expenditure upon voluntary school buildings being excluded just as for the previous year, while interest, sinking fund, and repayment of principal in respect of council school buildings are included; (5) As regards school buildings and loans, no information is available in respect of voluntary schools, whether before or since 1902. As regards local rates in respect of board schools, the total amount spent in 1901–2 in respect of interest, sinking fund, and repayment of principal was £2,022,306. (This is exclusive of the moneys spent in that year on capital account, from loans, of £2,386,291, which is not included in the total given in paragraph (1) above); (6) In 1904–5, so far as can be estimated, about £2,263,604 was spent in respect of interest, sinking fund, and repayment of principal as regards council schools, while for 1905–6 it is roughly estimated that the amount will have been about £2,396,891. The amount of the actual loan or capital charges in each of these years for council schools is not known, nor any of the expenditure on voluntary school buildings; (7) But it must be clearly understood that all the figures given above for the years 1904–6 are rough calculations, and that no accurate figures are yet obtainable.

  Swansea County Court Offices.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that
  460
  complaints are being made by suitors and their solicitors as to the inadequacy of the Swansea district registry and county court offices; and whether he will take stops to inquire whether such complaints are well founded.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) A representation has been received, and the Treasury is in communication with the First Commissioner of Works on the subject.

  Irish Public Servants' Half-Holidays.
  MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that in the Post Office, Revenue, and several other public Departments, a weekly half-holiday is granted to the members of the clerical staffs; and, in view of the further consideration which he has promised to give this matter, can he now state if arrangements will be made by which this privilege may be extended to the clerical staffs of all public departments on the same conditions on which a fortnightly half-holiday is at present granted.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I am sure that in some Departments half-holidays are more frequently granted than in others; but the privilege is in all cases dependent upon the state of business, and I do not see my way to make any general change in the existing regulations.

  Irish Civil Service Appointments.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Ridley Commission of 1889, which inquired into Civil Service appointments, recommended scales of salary for positions above the rank of Second Division, namely, the scale of £200 to £500 as suitable for the majority of such appointments; whether the Treasury accepted these recommendations; and whether he will urge the adoption of this scale for future appointments in Irish Departments, and have the present salaries adjusted to this scale instead of allowing them to be settled on personal grounds.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Treasury did not think it desirable to establish the absolute uniformity of scale

  461
  recommended by the Royal Commission. I see no reason for any change in the scales in force which have been settled both in Irish and English Departments according to their several requirements.

  Fatalities in Belfast Industries.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can give the number of accidents, fatal and non-fatal respectively, which occurred during the past five years in the shipbuilding, engineering, and flaxspinning industries respectively, in Belfast; and the total amount of compensation paid in respect thereof under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I regret that I have not and cannot obtain information as to the total amount of compensation paid in respect of accidents in Belfast in the industries mentioned, nor would it be possible without much time and labour to give the number of accidents in those trades in Belfast alone.

  Friendly Societies and the Workmen's Compensation Act.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any friendly societies registered in England, Scotland, Ireland, or Wales have a rule deducting part of benefit from members being in receipt of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act; and, if so, can he give the names of the societies.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies informs me that he has not seen any such rule in the rules of any registered friendly society.

  Vehicular Accidents in London.
  MR. ARTHUR STANLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of accidents in the London area during the month of April last caused by horse-drawn vehicles; in how many instances have personal injuries resulted; and in how many cases have such injuries proved fatal.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The number of accidents reported by the police to have been caused within the Metropolitan Police district during the month of April by horse-drawn vehicles
  462
  is: by horse drawn omnibuses, 265, forty-seven of which resulted in personal injury and one in death. By other horse-drawn vehicles, 2,233, 643 of which resulted in personal injury and ten in death.

  Madame D'Angely.
  MR. ASHLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who ordered the shadowing of Monsieur and Madame D'Angely.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I cannot now discuss this matter. The whole question of the police action in the case will be brought fully before the Royal Commission when it is appointed.

  Mr. Brock's Studio on Primrose Hill.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the objection in the neighbourhood to the erection of a studio for Mr. Brock, R. A., on Primrose Hill; whether he will state what are the height, length, and breadth of the proposed building; and whether the dimensions were indicated on the plan to which he gave his approval, and on the strength of which he considers that the building in question is not likely to injure the surrounding scenery.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) My attention has been drawn to this building, the site for which was determined under the late Government. The dimensions of the building are: height to eaves, 25 feet; breadth, 50 feet; length, 100 feet; and appeared upon the plan approved by me. The building will be removed as soon as Mr. Brook's work on the Queen Victoria Memorial is completed. I will endeavour by some external decoration to make the building as little unsightly as possible.

  Trade Waters in Public Sewers.
  SIR JAMES KITSON (Yorkshire, W. R., Colne Valley): To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he intends, at an early date, to promote general legislation dealing with the question of the reception of trade waters into the public sewers; if not, will he otherwise deal with this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) This matter could only be dealt with by

  463
  legislation. The subject is receiving my consideration, but I could not hold out any expectation of being able to introduce a Bill with regard to it during the present Session.

  West of England Telephone Service.
  MR. DUNN: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the delays that are constantly occurring in trunk telephone calls from London to Exeter, Plymouth, and other places in the West of England; that, quite apart from special delays, it often takes two or more hours to get calls through; that the reason given by the authorities is the absence of a direct line beyond Bristol; and whether prompt steps will be taken to provide a direct line or in some other way to put an end to the existing state of affairs.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) A trunk telephone circuit between London and Exeter is in course of construction, in order to provide a more direct means of communication between London and the Devonshire and Cornish towns than at present exists. The delay is, however, not so much due to the want of this direct line as to the non-completion, owing to the difficulties of obtaining wayleaves, of a trunk circuit between London and Bristol which was commenced two years ago. The work is now, however, being pushed on. The delay does not, as a rule, exceed an hour and, pending the completion of the new circuits, every endeavour is being made to give as good a service as possible.

  Royal Army Medical Corps.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE (Hampshire, Fareham): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the block of promotion now existing in certain ranks of the Royal Army Medical Corps, as a result of which no promotions of warrant officers to the rank of quartermaster have been made since 1902, although fourteen vacancies have occurred during that period (all such vacancies having been absorbed): and whether, with a view to mitigating the resulting hardship to senior warrant officers of the corps, he will consider the advisability of absorbing in future alternate vacancies only until
  464
  the ordinary flow of promotion is restored.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The block of promotion in the senior ranks of the corps, which arose from the number of promotions made during the war, was very thoroughly considered in the early part of last year. The remedy proposed in the Question was one of the many suggestions which were put forward, but it was found that inequalities of treatment of individual cases would arise therefrom, and on this account it was advisedly rejected.

  Metropolitan Police Commission.
  MR. ASHLEY: To ask the Prime Minister whether he will communicate to the House the terms of reference to the proposed Commission on the Metropolitan Police; whether any opportunity will be afforded the House of considering the names of the Commissioners; and when the Bill will be introduced.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) The terms of reference have already been indicated in the statement made by me on Monday last; the names of the Commissioners appointed will be included in the Bill which will be introduced at the earliest possible moment.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKE: To ask the Prime Minister if he will enlarge the reference to the Royal Commission proposed to be appointed, so as to include the consideration of the condition and defects of the present laws with reference to drunkenness and solicitation in public places, as well as of the duties of the police in relation thereto.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) The Royal Commission will be appointed to inquire into the administration of the existing law, and to make any recommendations thereon. It will not be charged with the duty of making recommendations for the Amendment of the law, and I do not see my way to enlarge the terms of reference in the sense suggested in the Question. At the same time the Commissioners will not be precluded from calling attention to any defects as arising in their opinion from the existing state of the law.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Colonial Garrisons.
    MR. COX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the annual cost of the troops stationed in Ceylon, Hong Kong, and in the Straits Settlements, respectively; and what is the amount of the annual contribution received from each of these Colonies.
    I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the annual cost of the troops stationed in the West Indies; and what is the amount of the annual contribution received from the West Indian Colonies.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BUCHANAN, Perthshire, E.): The figures for 1904–5 are as follows:—

    Cost.

    Colonial Contribution.

    Ceylon

    £217,003

    £156,718

    Hong Kong (including North China and Wei-hai-Wei.)

    £598,691

    £119,659

    Straits Settlements

    £245,647

    £208,713

    West Indies

    £365,354

    No contribution.

    Indian and Egyptian Armies.
    MR. LUPTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the average annual strength of the British Armies in Egypt and India during the twenty years 1881 to 1900 was approximately 69,751; if the total number of cases of small-pox amongst these men was 1,149, and the number of deaths from small-pox was 113; if all these men were vaccinated when they joined the Army or subsequently; and having regard to the fact that in the Indian and Egyptian Armies during the years 1901 to 1904 the case fatality from small-pox was nearly 13 per cent., when all the cases were those of vaccinated men, and that in Leicester, where there is a large unvaccinated population, the case fatality was only 4 per cent., he will cause an inquiry to be made into the circumstances attending this failure of vaccination to protect His Majesty's Army.
    MR. BUCHANAN: The Secretary of State answered a similar Question of my hon. friend on Monday on this subject, and I have nothing to add to the Answer he then gave. †
    † See Col. 157.

    The Natal Rising.
    MR. MYER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that under the administration of martial law in Natal the Commandant of Militia has empowered the officer in charge of Leuchar's Field Force to inflict thirty lashes with the cat upon any person refusing to give information to any member of his force, vide Blue-book, Enclosure 2, in No. 30, and whether the Home Government has sanctioned such methods; and whether he intends to make any representations on the subject to the authorities in Natal.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): The officer in command of the field force has no such powers conferred upon him as are stated in the hon. Member's Question. Courts of a magistrate, or special courts-martial, have power after due trial and conviction to punish with lashes refusals to give information, but all cases tried by court-martial must be immediately reported to the Colonel-Commandant, and if more than thirty lashes are awarded confirmation of the sentence is necessary. The Secretary of State does not intend to make representations on the subject to the authorities in Natal.
    MR. MYER: But is this in accordance with what is laid down in the Blue-book which I have in my hands?
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid he had no doubt whatever that in framing the Answer the Secretary of State had the fullest cognisance of the Blue-book.
    MR. J. WARDasked whether, in view of the odium attaching to a spy, it was advisable to hold courts-martial on those who refused to play the part of spies.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Will the Government make representations to the Natal authorities against permitting this form of lashing of persons, against whom no form of crime is alleged.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I will make inquiries as to the points mentioned by the hon. Members, and if a Question is put on the Paper I hope to be able to answer it on Monday.
    MR. MYERasked whether the hon. Member's attention had been called to the statement that if any individual "refuses to give information to any member of your force he may be sentenced to receive thirty lashes for refusing."
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have nothing to add to the Answer I have already given to the hon. Member.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked whether the procedure had not the sanction of the Governor of Natal, and therefore presumably of the House.
    [No Answer was returned.]
    MR. LEHMANN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government have any official information from Natal to the effect that Colonel M'Kenzie's force, operating against the natives, had burnt many kraals and secured and divided much loot; whether Colonel M'Kenzie's force is composed in part of native levies; and whether he can say if any burning of kraals or destruction of property was confined to cases of military necessity, in accordance with No. 12 of the Rules published in Appendix I. of the Blue-book [Cd. 2905].
    MR. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by me yesterday to a similar Question, † addressed to me by the hon. Member for Woodstock, in which I indicated that the information in the possession of the Secretary of State does not support the belief that any destruction of kraals or property will take place except as being justified on the ground of military neces-
    468
    sity. The Secretary of State has no information as to loot having been divided: among Colonel M'Kenzie's force.
    † See Col. 351.
    MR. LEHMANN: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries?
    MR. BYLES: We want an assurance that these seizures are not divided amongst soldiers.
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid that, from his recollection of the general appearance of a Kaffir kraal, he did not suppose that loot found there would be worth dividing among Europeans. As to what might have been done by native auxiliaries he had no information.
    MR. LEHMANN: But are we not responsible for the acts of our native auxiliaries?
    MR. BYLES: Surely thousands of cattle and sheep have some value?
    MR. CHURCHILL: In regard to captures of stock made by the column operating in the field, I understand that the stock has been sold and the receipts paid into the Natal Treasury as some off-set against the very large sums of money which the Natal Government have been forced to pay for the purpose of carrying on the operations.
    MR. BYLES: Cannot you give the House the assurance I have asked for?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I will make further inquiries if the hon. Member wishes.

    Chinese Coolie Repatriation.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the number of Chinese employed in the mines of the Transvaal on the date of posting the repatriation notices; and how many coolies, since the promulgation of those notices, have made application for repatriation.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The number of coolies on the Rand on the date mentioned was about 50,000. I have not yet received information as to the numbers who have applied for repatriation.
    MR. SLOAN: Is the recent proclamation now in force?
    MR. CHUECHILL: Yes, Sir, certainly.
    MR. LONSDALE: Will the hon. Member take steps to inform himself of the number?
    MR. CHURCHILL: His Majesty's Government have carefully and closely watched the results of the proclamation which has been issued on their authority, and to which they attach great importance. But it is premature at the present moment to judge of the results. In about ten days it will be possible to judge of the effect.

    Control of Chinese Coolies.
    MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the question of the better controlling of the Chinese coolies employed on the Transvaal gold mines; whether the proposals submitted involve further restrictions on the liberty of the coolies; and what action His Majesty's Government has taken and proposes to take in the matter.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg also to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what action it is proposed to take to carry out the recommendations of the Commission appointed to consider measures for the better control of Chinese minors on the Rand; and whether those recommendations include a system of guarding mine boundaries, the erection of wire fences, the strengthening of European guards, and other such measures.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Lord Selborne has informed the Secretary of State that copies of the Report of the Commission referred to are on their way to this country. One of the recommendations of the majority of the Committee is that wire fences should be erected round the mine premises to prevent egress of coolies except at gates where watchmen would be posted to see that the coolies leaving bounds were possessed of the necessary permit. Until the Report is actually before us it would be premature to form any final opinion of its proposals. But
    470
    His Majesty's Government, while recognising the importance of preserving peace and order on the Witwatersrand, will not be readily disposed to concur in unusual devices in restraint of ordinary liberty. It would appear that the need of such devices might easily be removed by the provision of a more adequate police force; and there seem good reasons to support an opinion that the charges incidental to any such increase in the police force ought properly to be borne by the importers of that class of indentured labour which alone renders the increase necessary.
    MR. MACKARNESS: Arising out of that question, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Secretary of State is aware that 1,850 more Chinese coolies have just arrived at Durban on their way to the Transvaal, and whether in view of the admitted inability of the Transvaal Government to protect British subjects from the outrages of the Chinese already on the Rand, he will decline to allow this large additional importation of coolies to take place.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the facts stated by the hon. Member. The policy of His Majesty's Government upon this question has been explained to and accepted by Parliament. That policy, as the hon. Member is certainly aware, did not contemplate the cancellation of any of the 16,000 licences which had been issued previous to the change of Ministry in December last. His Majesty's Government cannot at any time repudiate definite promises or undertakings which they have made. Still less would it be wise to make changes in a policy deliberately adopted pending the grant of self-government, when the period of delay may be said to be drawing to its close.

    Straits Settlements Harbour Improvement Scheme.
    MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Legislative Council of the Straits Settlements have recently authorised an outlay exceeding £1,000,000 sterling on the first part of an extensive harbour improvement scheme; and that such scheme has been and is opposed by the local trading

    471
    community, including the Singapore Chamber of Commerce, and by the non-official members of the Legislative Council, on the ground that the present and prospective trade of the country do not, in their view, warrant the expenditure; and whether, in view of such opposition, he will arrange to send out some perfectly independent person to examine and report upon the matter, and, pending such Report, will direct that the proposed works be not proceeded with.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State is aware that the scheme in question has been approved by the Legislative Council. The Singapore Chamber of Commerce has in the past made representations against the construction of the proposed works, but the Secretary of State is not satisfied that such representations can be taken as embodying the wishes of the trading community in this matter. The Legislative Council voted unanimously in favour of the expenditure, all the unofficial members being present, except those who represent Penang, and Lord Elgin can see no reason for further delay in the construction of a work which is being undertaken upon high expert's authority and after prolonged consideration both here and in Singapore.

    West African Garrisons.
    MR. COX: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies what is the annual cost charged upon Votes submitted to Parliament for the Military Forces stationed in the West African Colonies.
    MR. CHURCHILL: So far as Colonial troops are concerned, there is no charge upon Votes of Parliament for military forces in the West African Colonies, except that indirectly a portion of the cost of the Northern Nigeria Regiment is defrayed by means of the grant in aid of the revenue of Northern Nigeria. As to the cost of the Imperial troops stationed in Sierra Leone, I must refer the hon. Member to the War Office.

    Land Settlement in the Transvaal.
    SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies,
    472
    what amount now remains unexpended of the £3,000,000 sterling allocated to land settlement in South Africa from the £35,000,000 loan.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Up to February 26th last a total sum of £2,351,924 had been issued from the loan for land settlement out of £2,500,000 voted for that purpose. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, £500,000 has not yet been voted, owing to the fact that there has been excess expenditure under other heads of the loan.

    Tibetan Indemnity.
    SIR H. COTTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the convention between Great Britain and China, which was signed at Pekin on April 27th, provides for the payment by China of the Tibetan indemnity of Rs.250,000 to the Indian Government.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury, for Sir EDWARD GREY): The Tibetan indemnity is not mentioned in the Convention in question.

    Germany and the Island of Laut.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has any information as to the acquisition by Germany of the island of Laut at the south-eastern extremity of Borneo, and as to arrangements now in progress for establishing there a revictualling station and a point of observation for German warships.
    MR. RUNCIMAN (for Sir EDWARD GREY): His Majesty's Government are informed that there is no truth in the report of Germany having acquired the island of Laut or any portion of it, or of any station or post of observation for German men-of-war being established there.

    Chinese Customs Edict.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any reply has been received from the Chinese Government to the note presented on Saturday, demanding a satisfactory assurance that the Customs Edict, issued on Wednesday last, meant no interference with or alteration in the administration

    473
    of the Chinese Maritime Customs as at present constituted; and, if so, whether he will state the terms of that reply to the House.
    MR. RUNCIMAN (for Sir EDWARD GREY): No reply has yet been received.

    Germany and British South West Africa.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether communications have passed between His Majesty's Government and the German Government respecting an alleged violation of the British frontier in South West Africa by German troops in pursuit of the insurgent leader Morenga; and whether any, and, if so, what, explanations have been afforded of the occurrence.
    MR. RUNCIMAN (for Sir EDWARD GREY): The German Chargé d' Affaires informed me on the 14th instant that a German Officer had pursued some insurgents over the British frontier, and that fighting had taken place on British territory. The Chargé d' Affaires stated that the German Government entirely disapproved of this, that it was contrary to instructions, and that they would take steps to prevent its recurrence. The House will no doubt appreciate, as His Majesty's Government have done, both the terms of this communication and the fact that it was made before any explanation had been asked for.

    Cost of Repatriating Coolies to China.
    MR. LAURENCE HARDY (Kent, Ashford): I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now give an estimate of the expenditure out of the Exchequer in consequence of the operation of the repatriation order now in force in the Transvaal whether he has made provision for this expenditure in the Budget; and whether an opportunity will be given in Supply this session for discussing directly this expenditure which has been authorised by His Majesty's Government.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): It will be impossible to make any estimate until it becomes evident to what extent the Chinese are likely to avail themselves of the offer which has been made to them.
    474
    No special provision has been made in the Budget, but, if and when it becomes necessary to ask the House to sanction any expenditure for the purpose, full opportunity will be given for discussion.

    Income-Tax.
    MR. HAZLETON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that, according to the Income Tax Returns for the year 1903–4, there are only 2,913 persons in the United Kingdom, out of an estimated population of 41,600,091, with annual incomes of £2,000 and upwards, he will grant a Return giving the names and addresses of these 2,913 persons, with a view to the exposure of the frauds practised by some of the other persons whose names should appear in the list.
    MR. ASQUITH: The hon. Member appears to have derived his figures from the first Table in the Return of Income Tax Assessments recently published, No. 102 of 1906. These figures do not warrant the inference he has drawn from them, as the Table does not purport to relate to the whole body of income-tax payers in the United Kingdom, but only to such as are assessed under Schedule D. Even of these the figures quoted relate to a fraction only, viz., that fraction which consists of individuals as distinct from members of firms and companies.
    MR. FELLsuggested that fuller returns should be issued to prevent such questions being asked. [Cries of "Order, order."]

    Christian Scientists.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the practices of certain persons styling themselves Christian Scientists; and whether, with the view of preventing danger to the lives of credulous persons by these practitioners, he will take measures, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent them from carrying on their practices.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): The law with regard to these practices will probably be further elucidated by the proceedings

    475
    in the case of the Christian Scientist who has recently been charged with manslaughter in respect of the late Major Whyte. Till these proceedings are concluded I can express no opinion on the subject.

    Inland Post Cards.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that inland postcards are sold at their face value in every Colony of the Empire and in every country of the world except our own; whether he is aware that a profit is made out of the stationery of postcards in Great Britain and Ireland; and whether he will undertake to sell postcards at their face value in the United Kingdom on an early date.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): It is true that postcards are sold at their face value in British Colonies and in most foreign countries, and that a small profit is made on the stationery of inland postcards sold in this country. I recently considered the question of selling postcards at their face value, but I came to the conclusion that the other reforms which have been, or are being introduced, would be of greater advantage to the public and should take precedence.

    French Money Order Fees.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the cost of a money order for 5s. from France to England is 1d.; and that the cost of a money order from England to France for 5s. is 4d.; and, seeing that the French Government make a profit out of this transaction, will he reduce the rate to the same as from France.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The British rate for an order not exceeding £1 payable abroad is to be reduced on July 1st next to 3d. I am not aware that the French authorities make a profit on the orders described.

    Tyneside Telephone Service.
    MR. H. J. CRAIG: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is prepared to consider the
    476
    desirability of improving the telephonic facilities between the various boroughs on Tyneside by readjusting some of the geographical limits which at present operate unequally between neighbouring districts.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The limits of the existing telephone exchange areas were settled under the agreement between the Post Office and the National Telephone Company under which the trunk lines were transferred to the Post Office in 1896. It would be difficult to readjust these limits without disturbing the existing relations between the systems of the Post Office and the National Telephone Company as well as the Company's contracts with their subscribers. I will, however, carefully consider any particular case in which an alteration may be desired, if brought to my attention.

    Canadian Newspaper Postal Rates.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has been in consultation with the Postmaster-General of Canada with regard to the possibility of devising some special arrangement to lower the postal rates on newspapers between England and the Dominion; and, if so, with what result.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am not in a position to make any statement on this subject.

    Private Postcards—Charges for Printing Stamps.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General on what grounds does he charge, for printing stamps on private postcards, a higher rate than for stamps on other documents; will he explain why he does not print stamps on private postcards free of charge beyond the cost of the stamps; and I whether he is aware that no charge what ever is made in the Colonies of the Empire for printing stamps on stationers' postcards beyond the cost of the stamps.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA, Monmouthshire, N.): A charge for printing stamps on private postcards is made because of the additional cost that is

    477
    involved in the production of such stamps as compared with the cost of a corresponding quantity of adhesive postage stamps. The fee charged by the Inland Revenue Department for printing stamps of the class in question is 1s. for every 1,000 stamps and any fraction of that number. As regards the latter part of the Question, it is understood that it is only in a few Colonies that such printing is undertaken without charge; that in the majority of the Colonies it is not undertaken at all; and that in one of the principal Colonies of the Empire a charge is made for the work of 5s. per 1,000 stamps for large quantities, and of 8s. per 1,000 for smaller quantities.

    The Education Bill—Facilities for Religious Instruction.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, when ordinary facilities for special religious instruction are given in a public elementary school, Clause 3 of the Education Bill is intended to direct that such instruction shall be given in the school house; and, if so, how will the cost of warming and other incidental expenses be apportioned between the local education authority and the trustees of the school.
    I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Education whether Clause 7, Sub-section (1), of the Education Bill is intended to prevent a teacher, employed in a public elementary school in which ordinary facilities are afforded, from being present during the time allotted to special religious instruction for the purpose of maintaining discipline.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.): It is impossible to discuss satisfactorily the details of the Bill in a reply to a Question. There will be an opportunity for discussing the points in the Committee Stage of the Bill.
    MR. LAURENCE HARDY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he can now state when the Return of the syllabus of religious instruction at present in force in each local education area will be in the hands of Members; and whether he will undertake that it shall be circulated
    478
    previous to the consideration of the Education Bill in Committee.
    MR. BIRRELL: It is impossible to say when the Return will be available. Circulars asking the local authorities for the information have been issued from the Board of Education; and the date of the completion of the Return must depend largely upon the expedition with which local authorities send in their replies. The volume, however, cannot but be an exceedingly bulky one, and will necessarily take a considerable time to compile and to print, so that it will be quite impossible to delay the Committee Stage of the Bill as proposed by the hon. Member.
    LORD R. CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman held out some hope in answer to another Question that some of this information could be given at once.
    MR. BIRRELL: I am very anxious to give it as soon as I get a sufficient number of answers. I have an interesting collection of my own which I shall be happy to show any hon. Member.
    MR. LAURENCE HARDY: Will you undertake to postpone the clauses connected with this matter?
    MR. BIRRELL: No, Sir.

    Minor Local Education Authorities.
    MR. CHARLES ROBERTS (Lincoln): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he will state the number of minor local education authorities within the area of which not more than one public elementary school is situated; the total number of such schools connected with each denomination or classed as provided schools; and the number of children in average attendance at each class of schools in such single-school areas.
    MR. BIRRELL: The numbers asked for have not been worked out and will take some time to arrive at. I am having the matter looked into, and will give the hon. Member the information he asks for if he will repeat his Question on Monday.

    West Bromwich Electric Car Fatality.
    DR. HAZEL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of

    479
    Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence given at the inquest held on the body of a girl named Emily Beatrice Millington, who was run over and killed by an electric tramcar at West Bromwich on May 5th, in which it is shown that more than half an hour elapsed before the tramcar could be lifted and the girl extricated, and that this delay was due to the lack of any suitable lifting appliance; whether he is aware that similar delays in extricating injured persons have occurred from the same cause in connection with other similar accidents on this and neighbouring tramway systems; and whether, with a view to prevent such occurrences in the future, he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to make compulsory the carrying of hydraulic lifting-jacks on all electric, steam, and cable tramcars.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY, Devonport): The Board of Trade have received a report of the fatal accident referred to in my hon. friend's Question. It appears that the child suddenly ran in front of the car and that the wheel passed over her killing her instantly. The Board of Trade have not hitherto considered the necessity of recommending that all cars should carry lifting-jacks, but it is their intention to hold an inquiry into this accident, and this special point will be carefully considered.

    Butter Adulteration.
    MR. LANE-FOX (Yorkshire, W. R., Barkston Ash): I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the attention of the Board has been drawn to certain prosecutions for butter adulteration that have taken place in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and to certain evidence as to the cause of adulteration given therein; and whether the Board propose to take any steps to inquire into the facts in dispute.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: The circumstances of the cases referred to have received our careful attention and we agree that further inquiry is desirable. We are in communication with the local authority on the subject.

    Fishermen's Feu Charters.
    MR. SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he has received further information regarding the conditions on which numbers of fishermen's houses are held; and, if so, what steps he proposes taking to remedy the grievance.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire): I am informed that the conditions have materially changed since the date of Sheriff Guthrie Smith's Report and that on most estates feu charters are given to fishermen who apply for them. No complaints of hardship have reached me, but I shall be glad to inquire into any instances of grievance to which the hon. Member may direct my attention.

    White Abbey Assault Case.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Samuel Millar, who was tried and convicted at the White Abbey petty sessions on the 10th instant for assault; whether, seeing the solicitor for the defendant was unable to be present at the outset of the case, and witnesses for the defendant were not examined, he will explain why application for adjournment was refused by the magistrates; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY, Liverpool, Exchange): I am informed that the magistrates, at the request of a representative of the defendant's solicitor, postponed the hearing of the case in question until they had disposed of all the remaining cases before them. The solicitor having then failed to appear, the case was heard, and several witnesses for the defence were examined. I have no power to interfere with the judicial action, taken by magistrates.

    Roxborough Road School, Limerick.
    MR. JOYCE (Limerick): I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can state at what amount did the Educational Endowments Commission assess the value of the Roxborough Road school buildings; and was that valuation confirmed on appeal by the Privy Council of Ireland.
    MR. CHERRY: The hon. Member will find full information on the subject of this Question at page 6 of the Final Report of the Educational Endowments (Ireland) Commission, 1894.
    MR. JOYCE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give rue the information here?
    MR. CHERRY: The Report is available to everybody.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he can now state who is the tenant of Roxborough Road schools, Limerick, at present; is there any public trust attaching to this tenancy; is a school carried on in these premises; and is it a condition of admission to it that the child must thenceforth profess the Protestant religion.
    MR. CHERRY: The Commissioners of Education after their last meeting informed me that the present tenants of the Roxborough Road school premises are the Misses Gregg, the executors of the very rev. Dean Gregg, the late tenant; and that they do not hold under any trust. The next meeting of the Commissioners will be held on the 24th instant, and in the meantime I am unable to obtain information upon the concluding inquiries of the Question.
    MR. JOYCE: May I ask whether, in view of the education policy which the Government are carrying to such lengths in England, something cannot be done to protect the rights of the Limerick local authorities.
    MR. CHERRY: That is not a Question I can answer now.

    Irish Land Act—Colonel Smythe's Gaybrook Estate.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland will the Estates Commissioners refuse to advance money to Colonel Smythe, of Gaybrook, Westmeath, in respect of any one part of his property, while on another part, not yet before the Commissioners, an evicted tenant has been obliged, in order to get restored, to borrow money to pay the landlord rent accruing on the farm while vacant, and must ask a grant from the
    482
    Commissioners in such circumstances that the grant would in effect be made to the landlord.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.): The Estates Commissioners inform me that they will, before sanctioning advances in this case, consider the report of their inspector on the matters referred to.

    Town Tenancies in County Cork.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in respect to a number of weekly and monthly tenancies in Kanturk and other towns in county Cork the landlords have refused to adjust the tenants' rents, as provided by the Local Government Act, and have been receiving the old rents, whilst the tenants owing to non-fixity of tenure are compelled to pay the old rents and are responsible for the rates; whether he will introduce some amendment in the rating system with a view to compel such landlords to pay the standard rate as provided in the Act; whether he is aware that in a number of these cases, owing to the poverty of the tenants, these rates cannot be recovered from them, and that representations have been made to the Local Government Board by several county councils drawing attention to the amount of irrecoverable arrears which accrue in this manner from time to time since the passing of the Local Government Act.
    MR. BRYCE: The Local Government Board have no information to the effect stated in the first part of the Question. It may, however, be pointed out that the provision in the Local Government Act of 1898 as to the adjustment of rent between occupiers and landlords applies only in the case of tenancies which existed on the 1st April, 1899. I stated, in reply to a Question of the hon. Member for West Cavan on the 4th April, † the reasons why I am not prepared to introduce legislation to amend the rating system. It is, I am informed, the fact that in a number of cases poverty is alleged as the cause of the non-collection of rates, and representations to that effect have been received by the Board from local authorities.
    † See (4)Debates,clv., 476.
    MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Cork county council has lost several thousands of pounds owing to the operation of this system which was introduced against the wishes of the Irish representatives of the time?
    MR. BRYCE: I am not aware of that. The subject is a very complicated one.

    Estates Commissioners and Sales within the Zones.
    MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland do the Estates Commissioners hold that they have no discretion as regards price when they find that a purchasing tenant has been despoiled of money and means under writs for arrears of rent, that the price has been calculated upon that rent, that it is within the zones, that the agreement was signed in that condition of embarrassment, and that owing to the high price and the purchaser's want of means they would not sanction the transaction if free from the compulsion of the zones.
    MR. BRYCE: My right hon. and learned friend has already informed the hon. Member that if a holding which is held under a judicial tenancy is included in lands declared by the Estates Commissioners to be an "estate" for the purposes of the Act, then, provided the price comes within the zones, the Commissioners hold that they have no discretion as to the price, and are bound to make the advance. If, however, the purchasing tenant should allege that the agreement was entered into under duress, and the Commissioners should find such to be the fact, they will, in the exercise of their powers, refuse to act upon the agreement.

    Dromagh Evicted Tenants.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the estate of Mr. W. N. Leader, Dromagh, county Cork, whether the Estates Commissioners can; now state what steps have been taken to secure the reinstatement of the evicted tenants, Mr. Fitzpatrick and Mrs. Cronin, with the least possible delay; is he aware that the originating application for the sale was lodged in June, 1905; that the holdings are vacant, and the landlord agrees to the reinstatement of one tenant
    484
    and the placing of the other on a holding of equivalent value; that the Commissioners undertook some time ago to send an inspector to the estate; whether the Estates Commissioners will arrange, without further delay, for the replacing of these tenants on the lands before the entire transaction of sale and purchase is concluded; and whether an inspector will be sent to inquire into the possibility of acquiring the whole or portion of the un-tenanted lands now in the landlord's possession, with a view to purchase same for dividing them amongst other deserving evicted tenants and the labourers of the district.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they intend shortly to send one of the recently-appointed inspectors to inquire into the cases of these evicted tenants. In the meantime they are not in a position to deal with the matters referred to in the Question.

    Hungerford and Clorahn Evicted Tenants.
    Mr. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in the matter of the Hungerford and Clorahn estate, barony Duhallow, county Cork, whether he is aware that repeated applications have been made to the Estates Commissioners for the reinstatement of two evicted tenants, James Reen and Goffrey Reen, but no reply has been received beyond a mere acknowledgment of the application; and whether, in view of the fact that a sale of the estate is pending, that the landlord offers no objection to reinstatement, and that the present occupant is willing to surrender the holdings on receiving reasonable compensation, the Estates Commissioners will arrange to send an inspector to the estate with a view to facilitate the reinstatement of these tenants with the least possible delay.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners have been informed by the Owner's Agent that Breen, who occupies the holding in question, has signed an agreement to purchase, and that the owner does not intend to depart from the terms arranged with him. The Commissioners will, however, make inquiries with a view of ascertaining whether an arrangement is possible.

    Knocknagree Estates
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the estates of Mr. W. N. Leader, of Dromagh, county Cork, and Hungerford and Clorahn, Knocknagree, whether the Estates Commissioners will instruct the inspector who is about to visit the Glory estate, Knocknagree, to visit and inspect these estates, which are in the same locality, about the same time, with a view to restore the evicted tenants whose applications have been before the Commissioners for a considerable time.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they intend to make inquiries as soon as possible into the cases of all evicted tenants in the district referred to who have applied to them for reinstatement.

    Dromahane Evicted Tenant.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have any further statement to make in regard to the case of Mr. Timothy C. O'Callaghan, of Dromahane, Mallow, who was evicted from the Newman Estate though he offered to purchase upon the same terms as the other tenants whose agreements have boon sanctioned; is he aware that the Commissioners informed the Member for North Cork some months since that they were in communication with the vendor on the subject of O'Callaghan's eviction; and whether, having regard to the admittedly exceptional nature of this man's case, they are now prepared to take exceptional measures to bring about his reinstatement.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners have forwarded to me a copy of a letter which they sent to Mr. O'Callaghan on the 10th instant, setting forth the reasons given by the landlord for his refusal to sell to Mr. O'Callaghan, or to reinstate him after eviction. The Commissioners are awaiting a futher communication from Mr. O'Callaghan before deciding what action, if any, they may take in the matter. I will forward to the hon. Member a copy of the letter referred to.

    Mayberry Estate—Evicted Tenants.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-
    486
    Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the landlord of the Mayberry Estate, near Kenmare, has refused to reinstate the six evicted tenants on the estate, although application has frequently been made; and whether this matter will be considered by the inspectors appointed to deal with the Question of evicted tenants.
    MR. BRYCE: I have no information as to whether the owner of the estate referred to has refused to reinstate evicted tenants. The Estates Commissioners, however, inform me that they have received applications for reinstatement from five persons who claim to have been evicted from this estate, and that the cases of those evicted tenants will be duly inquired into.
    MR. FLAVIN: Cannot the Estates Commissioners initiate proceedings by sending an inspector to ask the landlord to reinstate these tenants?
    MR. BRYCE: They can only proceed where the sale of the estate is actually pending, and where they have been applied to to take action. May I suggest that Questions involving points of practice should be given notice of?

    Sinn Fein Association.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will ascertain from the Inspector-General if a shorthand note taker was present at a meeting of the Kilcreele branch of the Sinn Fein Association at which Mr. P. J. Kelly, J. P., is reported to have made a speech on the subject of one Antony Daly, who was executed for shooting a land agent; if a note taker was not present, whether notes of the language attributed to Mr. Kelly, J.P., were made by the police present on the occasion, either at the time his words were spoken or afterwards, when the police returned to their barracks; if so, whether the police report substantially bears out the language attributed to Mr. Kelly; and whether he will direct the attention of the Lord Chancellor to them.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Inspector-General that no police shorthand note taker was present on the occasion referred to. As to the remainder

    487
    of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member's previous Question on the 2nd instant, †
    MR. CONOR O'KELLY: Was not the real object of the meeting to protest against the attempt of the landlord to destroy the policy of the present Government with regard to congested districts, and to protest also against the giving of forty years purchase for a farm in a congested district, the rent of which had been fixed by the landlord himself.
    MR. BRYCE: I have no particulars as to that.
    MR. DUFFY: Is it not the case that Antony Daly was executed sixty years ago?
    MR. BRYCE: Yes, more than sixty years ago.

    Crannagh Farm, County Mayo.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the speech made by the hon. Member for North Mayo, at a public meeting of the United Irish League, held on the 4th instant at Ardagh, near Ballina, county Mayo, to protest against the sale which was about to be hold of Crannagh farm; and whether he intends to take any, and, if so, what action to prevent intimidation and inciting to boycott such as this.
    MR. BRYCE: I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave to the Question on the subject put by the hon. Member for Mid. Armagh on Monday. ‡
    ‡See Col. 151.
    MR. DILLON: Is it in order to make the Notice Paper of this House a vehicle for conveying charges against hon. Members? I refer to the last few words of the Question.
    MR. SPEAKER: Had my attention been called to the Question I should certainly have deleted the words.
    AN HON. MEMBER: If it is a Nationalist Member's Question the Clerks take care to do it always.
    † See (1) Debates,c.vl., 56.
    MR. SPEAKER: The original Question contained a variety of quotations which were cut out, and those words which referred to them should also have been omitted.
    MR. LONSDALE: Is it within the province of any Member of this House to attend public meetings outside and use inflammatory language?
    MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid that a good deal of inflammatory language is used outside and inside this House.

    The Rev. Marshall Vincent's Rapla Estate.
    MR. HOGAN (Tipperary, N.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that, some time ago, the Estate Commissioners declared the holdings of nine tenants on the estate of the Rev. Marshall Vincent, at Rapla, near Nenagh, in the county Tipperary, to be a separate estate, although they refused on a previous occasion to do so; that, while these nine holdings have been created since 1902, the four old tenants, whose predecessors had been on the estate for generations, are not enabled to purchase their holding; that a condition sought to be imposed by the landlord, when negotiating for sale to one of the four old tenants, was that he should purchase an evicted farm in addition to his own; and can he state the nature of the correspondence and inquiries which caused the Estates Commissioners to change their mind on the question of the sale.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the holdings referred to, having been declared by them to be an "estate," were sold to and vested in the purchasing tenants on August 4th, 1904. The tenancies were created in 1902 with the object of enlarging the holdings in the occupation of the purchasing tenants. The vendor had applied that certain of the lands in his possession should be excluded from the sale, and the Commissioners, before finally declaring the lauds sold to be an "estate," perused the correspondence which had passed between the vendor's solicitor and the tenants' solicitor, and came to the conclusion that the application of the vendor was reasonable. I

    489
    have no further information in the matter.

    Lisnamrock Evicted Tenant.
    MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application of Martin Maher, evicted tenant on the estate of Mr. George Langley, for reinstatement in his farm at Lisnamrock and Knockolonga, Mid-Tipperary; is this farm at present let on the eleven months grazing system; have any proposals for purchase been made by the tenants; and, generally, will he state what steps have been or will be taken by the Estates Commissioners to secure the reinstatement of Maher in his old holding.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received an application for reinstatement from Martin Maher. No proceedings for the sale of the estate have yet been instituted, but the case has been referred to an inspector for special report with a view to a settlement.

    Captain Carden's Burnane Estate.
    MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: I beg to ask to the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Captain Garden has offered to sell his property at Burnane to the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, in what manner do the Commissioners propose to deal with it.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that no originating application or request in respect of the sale of this estate has been lodged with them, but they have had some preliminary negotiations on the subject with the owner.

    Athlone Workmen's Dwellings.
    MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the site selected by the Urban District Council of Athlone for the erection upon it of workmen's dwellings, whether Mr. Cowan, Chief Engineering Inspector of the Local Government Board, has approved of the selection; and, if so, whether the Board will sanction the scheme and allow the work proposed by the district council to be carried out without further delay.
    MR. BRYCE: The Local Government Board are prepared to sanction a loan for the erection of workmen's houses when a suitable site is secured by the Urban District Council. In 1903 the Council obtained, under a Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament, compulsory powers for the acquisition of a site, but they are apparently unwilling to exercise these powers and have since been endeavouring to obtain another suitable site. Of the alternative sites put forward by the Council, one only has been favourably reported on by the Board's Inspectors. The question of the purchase money for this site has not, however, been settled, and a loan for its acquisition and for the erection of houses on it could not be sanctioned until a Local Inquiry has been held The Board have so informed the Council, and are now awaiting an application from them to have the Inquiry held.
    MR. HAYDEN: Is this the site that Mr. Cowan approves in the correspondence between the Urban Council and the Local Government Board?
    MR. BRYCE: I will inquire.

    Reenard Pier.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any, and, if so, what, steps have been taken to proceed with the construction of the pier at Reenard, near Cahirciveen, under the Marine Works Act.
    MR. BRYCE: I indicated the position of affairs in regard to this matter in my reply to the hon. Member's previous Question of April 3rd., † and am not yet in a position to say more.

    Dublin Police and the Licensing Trade.
    MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police has issued an order stating that there has been a tendency amongst the sergeants of police to avoid making cases against licensed traders in the metropolitan area; if, in order to draw attention to their failure in this respect, the responsibility was thrown upon the
    † See (4)Debates, civ., 365.

    491
    shoulders of the inspectors of police; if the inspectors were told that it was necessary that cases should be made; and, if this order was not issued by the Chief Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner, whether the Chief Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner gave authority to any of their subordinates to issue such an order; and whether an order in this sense has been issued.
    MR. BRYCE: The Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police informs me that neither he nor the Assistant Commissioner has issued any such circular as is referred to, nor has authority been given to any subordinate to issue such circular. The Chief Commissioner has no knowledge that any subordinate officer of the force has in fact issued such a circular, but he is making inquiries into the matter.

    Irish Motor Races—Police Inquiry.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in the police inquiry held in connection with the Irish motor race, Constable Shankey's sworn evidence was contrary to a previous statement signed by him and given to his superior officer; whether the statement and subsequent sworn evidence of Constable Shankey will be laid upon the Table of the House, together with the statements and subsequent sworn evidence of the constables who were dismissed in connection with this inquiry; and, if not, what action, if any, will be taken regarding Constable Shankey.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Inspector-General that no constable named Shankey was examined at the police inquiry referred to, which took place in the year 1903. The Inspector-General is not aware that the suggestion made in the question applies to the evidence of any policeman who was examined at that inquiry.

    Lord Ashbrook's King's County Estate.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many evictions have taken place and are pending upon the estate of Lord Ashbrook, since 1903, on his King's County estate; and will the Estate Commissioners intervene to protect these
    492
    tenants, who are weighed down with arrears.
    MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have no knowledge of any evictions which may have taken place or be impending on the estate in question. The Commissioners have received but one application from a person claiming to have been evicted from the estate. It shall receive due attention. The Commissioners have no power to intervene except where their functions are invoked under the Land Purchase Acts. If tenants who are evicted apply to the Commissioners their cases will be duly considered.

    Marlborough Street Training College— Students' Food.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that complaints have been made by the students of Marlborough Street Training College in regard to the food supplied; whether he is aware that many of the female students were obliged to purchase bread, being unable to use that supplied to contract; and what action, if any, does he propose to take in the matter.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education that complaints have recently been made to them in respect of the bread supplied to the students of the Marlborough Street Training College. It is reported that in some instances female students purchased broad in the city. The Commissioners have fully investigated these complaints, and have taken such steps in regard to the bread supply as will, they hope, prevent a recurrence of any cause of complaint.

    Irish Department of Agriculture.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society, protesting against any interference with the constitution and conduct of the Department of Agricultural and Technical Instruction on lines which would bring it under the control of the General Council of County Councils of Ireland; whether he is aware that this is a purely Nationalist organisation; and whether the council of the

    493
    Royal Ulster Agricultural Association will be permitted to lay its views before the Committee of Inquiry into the working of the Department.
    MR. BRYCE: I have received a copy of the resolution referred to. I have no knowledge of the political complexion of either the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society or the General Council of County Councils of Ireland. The question whether the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society may lay its views before the Committee of Inquiry is one for the determination of the Committee, who, I have no doubt, will give all proper consideration to any request on the subject which may be addressed to them.
    MR. LONSDALE: Does the right hon. Gentleman know the political complexion of the County Councils Association? If not, will he inquire?
    MR. BRYCE: I do not see that I am called upon to do so.
    MR. LONSDALE: Have not the Unionist Members retired from that body, so that it is now composed solely of Nationalists.
    MR. BRYCE: I know nothing about that.

    Ballinasloe Meeting of the United Irish League.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of the East Galway executive of the United Irish League, at a meeting held on Sunday, April 22nd, at Ballinasloe, at which it was decided that all graziers should be written to to surrender their farms; what stops the Government have taken to counteract the action of the league in the matter; and what steps they intend to take to reassure tenants of grazing farms that they will receive adequate protection against intimidation of this kind at the instance of the United Irish League.
    MR. BRYCE: I am informed by the police authorities that the meeting referred to was held within doors, and that the police have no evidence as to what pay have occurred at it. It is the duty
    494
    of the police to afford any protection which may be necessary to all classes of His Majesty's subjects. The police, however, have no reason to apprehend that any special measures of this kind will be necessary in the district referred to.
    MR. HAZLETON: Is the charge of intimidation made in the latter part of the Question in order?
    MR. SPEAKER: I do not think the words are very objectionable. They relate evidently to certain letters written to tenants calling on them to surrender their farms. Possibly a better phrase might have been chosen.

    Armagh Rural Postmen.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that rural postmen in county Armagh are compelled to perform Sunday duty, and are required to travel miles to notify certain persons that no letters have arrived for them; and will he say what extra pay do they receive for this duty, and by whose directions it is performed?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: A number of rural postmen in county Armagh are required to perform duty on alternate Sundays, for which they receive extra payment at the special Sunday rates. I am not aware that in any case a rural postman has to call at a house merely to notify that there are no letters for the occupants. If, however, the hon. Member knows of such a case, and will give me particulars, I will give instructions for the practice to be discontinued.

    Caledon Mails.
    MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the possibility of giving the people of Caledon, county Tyrone, a despatch of mails for England and Scotland at 6 p.m. daily, in substitution for the present 2.40 p.m. mail, the mails being despatched to England via Greenore and to Scotland via Belfast and Ardrossan.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion.

    Irish Postmen's Uniforms.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the cloth used for the uniforms

    495
    of postmen in Ireland is of Irish manufacture; and, if it is not, will he say whether such cloth could be obtained from mills in Ireland.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No contracts for the supply of cloth used for postmen's uniforms are at present held in Ireland, but it is open to all firms in Ireland to tender for these contracts in the general competition, notice of which is given by advertisement annually.
    MR. CHAELES DEVLIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the Question?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am afraid not.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman apply to the mills for samples?
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked for notice of the Question.

    Irish Land Stock.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of stock issued under the Land Purchase Act, 1903, up to March, 1906, the actual cash received, the loss on flotation, the annual charge for the repayment of this loss, and from what source does it come.
    MR. ASQUITH: The total amount of stock issued under the Land Purchase Act, 1903, up to March, 1906, was £13,201,444 8s. 9d. The actual cash received was £11,691,454 1s. 8d., and the difference was £1,509,990 7s. 1d. The annual charge for the repayment of this difference is £49,074 13s. 8d., of which £44,653 6s. 9d. is in respect of advances and is paid from the guarantee fund; and the remainder, £4,421 6s. 11d., is in respect of the Land Purchase Aid Fund, and forms part of the amount provided under Subhead G of the Vote for the Irish Land Commission.

    Curragh Camp Canteen.
    MR. KILBRIDE: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Kildare, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War through what Department or branch of Department Army supplies for the camp at the Curragh of Kildare
    496
    are procured and distributed; is it the custom to purchase supplies, where possible, from the farmers of districts where largo camps are situated; is there any order or regulation governing the purchase and distribution of supplies for the use of such camps; what is the custom, if any, of inspection of supplies; and what experience have those who may be appointed to carry out such inspection.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Army supplies for rations of Provisions and Forage are obtained under contracts arranged by the General Officer commanding, and the supplies are delivered through the Army Service Corps for distribution to the troops. As large camps are ordinarily supplied under contracts it is not customary in such a case to specially purchase supplies from local farmers, but during the manœuvre season purchases from local fanners are frequently made for those places not covered by existing contracts. The answer to the third Question is in the negative. All supplies are inspected on delivery by specially trained and qualified officers of the Army Service Corps.

    The Education Bill.
    MR. BOLAND, on a point of order, asked whether Amendments to a Bill ought not to be printed in the order in which they were handed in. The hon. Member stated that he was second at the Table, and that at the head of the list of his Amendments was one in the name of the hon. Member for Waterford. But on the list of Amendments that Amendment was eighth, not second.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid that there was always particular difficulty in getting the Amendments handed in the moment after the Second Reading had been given to a Bill, especially if a great deal of interest was taken in the Bill. There were about twenty-five pages of Amendments handed in last Thursday, as soon as the figures of the division were announced. Properly speaking, every hon. Member ought to hand in his own list of Amendments, but if that rule were strictly enforced, it would be impossible for the Members in the "No" lobby to get out, because there would be a string of Members reaching from the lobby down to the Table. The late Speaker, therefore, accepted the practice of one Member

    497
    handing in the Amendments of his hon. friends. That was what occurred last week. If any injustice were done by that practice, he would do his best, to amend it. But in this case, although the hon. Member for Waterford stood eighth on the list, he would not in any case have stood first; and, therefore, no substantial injustice was done.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that if his Amendment had been accepted in the order in which it was handed in, it would have stood second on the list. He asked whether, as his Amendment was undoubtedly handed in second, the Speaker would not direct that it should appear second in order.
    MR. SPEAKER: I will consider the suggestion of the hon. Member.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURasked whether the Leader of the House still considered it a convenient thing to any Party in the House to take the Education Bill in Committee on Monday. He had not examined precedents, but he must say the interval allowed between the Second Reading and the Committee stage was extremely small. He doubted whether any first-class Bill which had excited so much animated controversy had ever been pressed on after such a brief interval.
    MR. DILLONsaid it would be a convenience to Irish Members to know whether it was intended to carry on the Committee discussions right up to the eve of the Whitsun holidays.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether, in the event of any change, the Trade Disputes Bill would be put down for Monday.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): I do not think any change is likely to arise. I do not think the time is too short. Although the Bill, as we know, is full of very important points, they are not elaborate, or multiplied, or confused so as to require a very long time for consideration; and I think the time allowed is ample for the purpose. The country as a whole is well seised with the points.
    MR. DILLONpressed for a reply to his Question.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the debate in Committee would probably be carried on to the Tuesday before Whit Sunday.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Will the Trade Disputes Bill be taken immediately after Whitsuntide?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No arrangement has yet been made with regard to the Trade Disputes Bill.
    MR. CHANNING: Is there any limit to the number of Amendments which an hon. Member may hand in on behalf of others? To my knowledge a representative of the Government handed in a very big batch. It might happen that a single Member might hand in the Amendments of a whole Party and so secure precedence. Would not that be an abuse of the rule?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid he was not aware that his predecessor laid down any limit. Such a case as this did not often arise—it was not likely to arise more than once in a session, and to adopt any other course might load to great inconvenience.

    The Police Arrests Commission.
    LORD R. CECILasked when the Prime Minister proposed to introduce the Bill setting up the Royal Commission on the Action and Regulations of the Metropolitan Police, and whether it would contain the names of the members of the Commission and the terms of reference.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Bill requires to be drafted before it is introduced, but the drafting is well advanced. I cannot name any day for its introduction, nor can I now state the names of the members of the Commission. The terms of reference will be the words used by myself in answer to the Question that was put to me.

    The Yarmouth Election Petition
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLgave notice that following the precedent set on the Galway Election Petition in 1872 he would move on the first available opportunity, "That this House do resolve itself into a

    499
    Committee of the whole House to consider and report on the proceedings at the trial of the election petition for Yarmouth and the complaints that have been made of the partisan and political conduct during the trial of that petition of Mr. Justice Grantham."

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEE).
  Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping and Manufactures, in respect of the Merchant Shipping Acts, Amendment (No. 2) Bill:—Mr. Channing; and had appointed in substitution; Mr. M'Laren.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Andrew Bonar Law, esquire, for the Parliamentary Borough of Camberwell (Dulwich Division).
  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Fourth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
NEW BILLS.
  RAILWAYS AND STEAMSHIPS (PARMENTARY FACILITIES BILL).
  " To secure travelling facilities for Members of Parliament in the discharge of their Parliamentary duties," presented by Mr. Crooks; supported by Mr. Jeremiah MacVeagh, Sir Christopher Furness, Mr. Rothschild, Mr. Agar-Robartes, Sir John Brunner, Sir Edward Sassoon, Mr. Watson Rutherford, Mr. Wolff, Mr. Charles Schwann, Sir William Bull, and Mr. Joyce; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 211.]

  PATENTS BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Patents," presented by Mr. Dundas White; supported by Dr. Shipman, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Smeaton, and Mr. Find-
  500
  lay; to be read a second time upon Friday June 15th, and to be printed. [Bill 212.]

  WILLS ACT (1837) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend The Wills Act, 1837," presented by Mr. Dundas White; supported by Mr. Pickersgill, Mr. M'Kinnon Wood, Mr. Molteno, and Mr. Cleland; to be read a second time upon Friday, June 15th, and to be printed. [Bill 218.]

  CENSUS OF PRODUCTION.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs): I have to ask the leave of the House to introduce a Bill to provide for taking a census of production. I think it is generally felt that we have not got reliable statistics as regards our home trade. We have got the volume of our foreign trade, and details more or less classified and complete, but no statistics at all reliable with regard to our home industry. All those engaged in recent controversy must have felt considerably handicapped owing to that fact. The figures on both sides were more or less conjectural. They were biassed with conjecture and partisanship on both sides. There was no means of arriving at dependable data, with regard to our home industries. I have seen a good many estimates of output, and they have varied by something like hundreds of millions, and there was no means of testing their accuracy. This is a matter of great importance. We have to decide a great question affecting our trade without any really reliable information with regard to it. If trade is going buck, or is at a standstill, or not making the progress we expect it to make, the sooner we know it the better. On the other hand, if it is making steady and sure progress, the sooner we allay all anxiety on the matter the better it will be. I propose by this Bill—I cannot now explain it at any length—that there should be a census of our home industries of the output and production of our manufactures; and that it should be taken in the year 1908 under the supervision of the Board of Trade. Forms will be distributed, and particulars will be demanded regarding the nature of the business, the output, the materials used, the days and hours of work, the persons employed, the wages of the employees, the

  501
  plant and machinery used, and such other particulars of a like nature as may be prescribed. The census will be compulsory. It will be quite impossible to have a reliable census at all unless it is compulsory, for the very obvious reason that if a number of men fail to fill in forms, through neglect or opposition to the census, you never can say how much they represent—whether they represent 5, 10, or 15 per cent.; and the absence of whatever they represent would vitiate the whole return. With regard to the period, the first census would be taken in the year 1908, for the output of the year 1907. I proposed at first that this should be a quinquennial census, but I have had representations from many quarters representing all parties that it would be very desirable that the census should be biennial. I should not like to come to a final conclusion on that matter at the present moment. If there was a general desire on the part of the manufacturing community that it should be biennial, I should certainly not oppose it. But for the moment I propose to provide by the Bill that it should be at a time prescribed by the Board of Trade or by Order in Council. The question will be decided afterwards in Committee if there is a general feeling that the census should be biennial. There are provisions with regard to the secrecy of the return. It is exceedingly important that any information given by manufacturers should not be divulged. I can quite understand that there might be considerable objection on the part of manufacturers to giving full particulars of the turnout of their business, unless upon full security that these should not be divulged. There will be the same security as now exists with regard to the income tax. That is quite ample. I do not anticipate any difficulty upon that account, for I do not know that there is an instance of information given to the Income Tax Commissioners or Inland Revenue collectors ever having been divulged. What will be asked is not the kind of information required in the United States of America. There the information sought is much more detailed. We have been warned not to be inquisitorial. I rather agree; and all we want is enough data to form some sort of idea of the position of our home industries and home trade. That we shall be able, I think, to do
  502
  under this Bill, which I now ask the leave of the House to introduce.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for taking a Census of Production."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: This Bill is introduced under the ten minutes rule, and I believe it has been the practice, although I am not certain it is an absolute rule, that the one other speech which is allowed should be a speech against the Bill which is introduced. All I want to say at the commencement is that if there is anyone who desires to oppose the Bill I will give place to him, because I am going to support the Bill. I feel that the object which the right hon. Gentleman has in view is a very desirable one. Whatever opinions we may have on the condition of trade or other matters connected with fiscal reform, there is one thing which we all want, and that is the possibility of having at our disposal correct statistics on which we can base perhaps very different conclusions. At all events, we all want correct statistics—a thing which it is most difficult to obtain. One thing will be admitted, that the statistics of the Board of Trade, collected with admirable care and no doubt with most perfect impartiality, are at the same time altogether inadequate and incomplete. To take one single point, you have pretty full statistics of the exports and imports of the country, but it is conceivable, though I do not believe it very often occurs, that a very flourishing foreign trade may be contemporaneous with a very depressed home trade, and even the consequence of a very depressed home trade. Before, therefore, we can judge of the general prosperity of the country, it is clear that we want to know what is going on at home as well as what is going on in our foreign relations. I entirely approve, therefore, of the object of this Bill, and I also approve of what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman who has introduced it. It is a difficult business; it will want care; and I only say that, so far as my humble powers go, I shall be glad to give him any assistance I can towards securing the efficiency of such a measure. The difficulty lies in this—that our people, our manufacturers especially, are much

  503
  more adverse than seems to be the case in some countries—in our Colonies and the United States—to disclosing any particulars with regard to their business. I hope, and the right hon. Gentleman will agree, I am sure, we shall ask for nothing we do not want. What we ask for we must insist upon having from all. We must give them, as the right hon. Gentleman will give them, an assurance against any disclosure of particulars furnished. We do not want details of particular individual industries; we want details of trades and industries as a whole. I am sure a little experience will convince manufacturers that no injury is likely to be done to their particular trade by such returns as they will be asked to furnish. Great care will have to be taken as to the particulars which are asked for to avoid the charge of unnecessary inquisitiveness, and to secure absolute secrecy. Subject to that assurance being given, I am sure my friends on this side and myself will be glad to give any assistance in our power. I hope the Bill will pass.
  MR. SOARESsaid he supposed that after the precedent set by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, a Bill introduced under the ten minutes' rule might in future be both proposed and supported.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid he hoped the hon. Member would not regard the course taken on that occasion as a precedent. If any hon. Member had risen to criticise the Bill he would certainly have called upon him; but no hon. Member rose, and he felt that the House was probably anxious to hear the right hon. Gentleman.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lloyd-George, Mr. Kearley, and Mr. McKenna.

  CENSUS OF PRODUCTION BILL
  "To provide for taking a Census of Production," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 214.]

  FINANCE BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid that before the debate upon the Amendment upon the Paper was proceeded with it might be advisable that the more general aspects of the Budget should be considered by the House. There were two classes of difficulties to which a Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing a Budget was frequently exposed. The first and greater difficulty was when he had to find new sources of taxation, and the second, which was probably not so great a difficulty, was when he had to make up his mind as to what relief from taxation he should afford and how he should spend and get rid of any surplus that he might have. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, with possibly the echoes of the general election ringing in his ears, was perhaps somewhat overwhelmed with the wealth he now possessed, and as a result had endeavoured to please a greater number of people than he was justified in doing. The complaint he had to bring against the right hon. Gentleman was that he had almost frittered away his surplus. The question which had frequently occupied much attention in this House and in the country in recent years was mainly the question of the Debt. And when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who were now sitting on the Treasury Bench sat upon the Opposition side of the House a good deal was heard of the subject of Debt. The proposal of his right hon. friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer last year to add another £1,000,000 to the Sinking Fund was, it was true, received with approval, though some criticisms were directed against him for not having done enough in that direction. They could not therefore regard without some feeling of surprise the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he found himself in the possession of a considerable surplus, had not devoted more of that surplus to the purposes he advocated so keenly from the Opposition side of the House. The right hon.

  505
  Gentleman had claimed both in this House and outside that a greater sum had been devoted to the reduction of Debt this year than had ever been devoted before, but the question of the amount was not the scale by which they could measure the extent of the right hon. Gentleman's virtue. That must be measured by Clause 7 of the Finance Bill now under discussion. He noticed that the second section of that clause dealt with the indemnity to be recovered from China. He was not a lawyer and therefore did not know whether he could judge the legal effect of that section, but he hoped and believed that that section went a considerable way towards, not only fixing the sum that might be received from the Chinese indemnity this year, but in future years, and in fixing that such sums should be devoted to the reduction of debt. He believed that so far as an Act of Parliament could bind future Parliaments this section would bind them, and that the onus would be thrown upon some future occupant of the Treasury Bench to repeal this clause. They had to measure the extent of the right hon. Gentleman's virtue in the reduction of Debt by the proposals contained in the first part of Clause 7. It was quite obvious that the right hon. Gentleman could not have made any reduction in the figure at which the provision of the Budget for the reduction of Debt stood last year, £28,000,000. The question which many were anticipating with great interest was what further provision the right hon. Gentleman would propose to make, and it was with a certain amount of surprise that they heard that the right hon. Gentleman limited it to the smallest figure that he possibly could. It was not possible to give less than £500,000, and many hon. Members hoped that it would be considerably increased. So far as it went they had every reason to be satisfied, but they could not but regret that the right hon. Gentleman had not seen his way, when he was in the possession of such a surplus, to make a still further reduction. On this question of debt he would like to ask the Government what their intentions were with reference to the loans that were obtained through the Public Works Loans Commissioners. The nature of those loans, he was aware, was not under the
  506
  control of the Treasury, but the Treasury had considerable influence and power in dealing with such loans by the rates of interest which they were authorised by Parliament from time to time to fix. He gathered from the Prime Minister's Albert Hall speech that efforts were to be made by the Government to encourage municipal enterprise, and he thought he detected a hint to the same effect in the Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought they were entitled to know if any change had been made in the rates I of interest which could be fixed from time to time by the act of the Treasury, and whether they were going to depart from the policy pursued by the late Government of endeavouring to limit as far as possible the borrowings from the Public Works Loans Commissioners. He confessed that he read with surprise the statement that the Treasury were considering the advisability of making a departure in the direction he had mentioned. When they considered the weight of the public debt of this country they could not view without the greatest apprehension the very rapidly increasing local indebtedness, and any action of this House in that direction was greatly to be regretted. Turning to the tea duty, it was almost an axiom that any remission of that duty was useless unless the benefit of such a reduction went into the pocket of the consumer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had informed the House that the consumer would benefit by the reduction of one penny, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman was right in that assumption. He had seen it stated, however, that it was impossible to reduce the price although the quality might be improved. Personally he was a little sceptical about that improvement in the quality, and he would much prefer a reduction in the price. He sincerely hoped that eventually the reduction of the tea duty would find its way into the pockets of the consumers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had also removed the export tax on coal, although owing to various causes the coal trade—and especially the export trade—was at present in a satisfactory condition. He hardly thought the repeal of that tax was worth the effort which had been made. It was

  507
  impossible for anyone who was not an expert in the coal trade and thoroughly conversant with all the conditions of that industry to judge as to where that remission of duty would ultimately find its way. He knew that a great deal of electoral pressure had been put upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he doubted whether it was quite wise, at a moment when he was necessarily marking time and when he did not know what would be the effect of his proposals, to deprive himself of so large a source of revenue from a tax which was in no degree pressing upon the industries of the country. It was unnecessary to remind Members that they were awaiting with considerable interests the financial proposals which would be brought before the House during the tenure of office of the present Government. A large sum of money was already ear-marked for next year for the purpose of carrying out the Education Bill which had recently passed its Second Reading. He did not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider that it was due to Ireland and Scotland that he should continue the principle of the equivalent grants. If the Government proceeded upon that line they would be obliged to make a still further inroad upon the finances of the country. The right hon. Gentleman was fully justified in asking his Irish supporters to withhold their hand until he was in a position to judge of their demands. They did not know at the present moment what tire nature of those demands would be or what reply the Government would make to them, but whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed wholly or partially to them they would certainly not lead to any diminution of expenditure, and he would probably find himself in future having to face still further demands, not only in regard to education, but also in respect of other questions. Another reduction the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given was in connection with the vexed question of stripped tobacco and stems. Before dealing with this point he wished to take the opportunity of congratulating his right hon. friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the very interesting announcement which was made a few days ago. He did not know whether his right hon. friend would be able to find
  508
  time to go into this vexed question at any length, but it might be advisable to postpone the details of it until the Committee stage was reached. All he wished to say now was that he regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had deemed it advisable at such an early date to make any alteration in the tobacco duties, because the change proposed must have a considerable effect upon the trade. Unquestionably the consumer would not benefit by a reduction of the duty upon strips, and he did not think the small manufacturers would be any better off, although he was inclined to think that some slight benefit would accrue to the big manufacturers in the tobacco trade. He had also good reason for believing that the alteration proposed in this duty would have a very considerable effect upon a large number of people employed in the stripping industry. He thought he was justified in asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make good his statement that in this Budget the Government were not going to depart from the strictest principles of free trade. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had had time to institute a thorough and minute inquiry into the incidence of taxes on tobacco, and whether he had found that those taxes were in accordance with the strictest interpretation of free trade. He hoped that at a later stage they would have an opportunity of examining this question with fuller minuteness, and that those who were so much interested and affected would be able to lay their views before the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the country. He hoped that in the course of the observations he had made he had justified the proposition that the right hon. Gentleman had not used his surplus to the best possible advantage. It might be an easy retort; to say to the Opposition, "If you had not been turned out of office what would you have done?" It was, of course, impossible for him to say what the late Government would have done, but speaking for himself he thought that the claims of the income-tax payer ought to have received more favourable consideration. There was some justification for complaint on the part of the income-tax payer, and a great effort ought to have been made by the Government to

  509
  endeavour to make a reduction of that heavy burden. Naturally a great deal of interest was being taken in the, heavy expenditure which had to be provided for in the Annual Estimates. In this matter he hoped he might be considered as coming to the assistance of the Government in the few remarks he would make upon the proposal to establish an Estimates Committee. There was a re-commendation that certain classes of Estimates should be submitted every year to a Select Committee in order that they might be discussed in that detail which, under the present Parliamentary practice, it was difficult to secure. This recommendation was carried by a small majority, and he earnestly hoped that before hon. Members urged upon the House the advisability of appointing an Estimates Committee they would read most carefully the evidence given before that Committee. The proposal to appoint a Committee to inquire into the Estimates sounded admirable in theory, but in practice it would be found both impracticable and unworkable. In the first place, it would not be possible for any Committee to do that work. If anything like a complete class of Estimates were referred to such a Committee, it would be physically impossible to give that minute attention to all the details which was absolutely necessary before they could express a reliable opinion. Upon the Committee which was now dealing with Official Publications, which was only a small part of one Vote, they had already had five sittings, and from that illustration it would be seen that it would be impossible for a. Committee to deal with all the Votes in any class in one year. Then there was another strong objection to such a Committee from the point, of view of the House itself. Many of the questions largely affecting the administration of the Votes were dependent upon wages and salaries, and no more vexed question could be brought up in the House than the wages paid in the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments. No doubt every hon. Member was made aware during the election of the pressure which could be brought to bear by the employees in those two Government Departments. If the duty of dealing with wages was thrown upon a Committee, it would be
  510
  a very invidious task to have to refuse to hear evidence on behalf of those employees; and anything like an unfavourable consideration of their claims would at once mark out that Committee, and very considerable pressure would be brought to bear upon them. The object of the House ought to be to make the Treasury Bench responsible for the Estimates. Each department must be responsible for the framing of its own Estimates; the Treasury must be responsible for control over them and for their presentation to the House He thought the intervention of a Committee might have a very damaging effect upon that control if it was exercised in the way he had pointed out. He might ask those interested in this matter: "Are the Estimates to go before this Committee before or after they have been to the Treasury? The matter was one of some importance. If the Estimates were to be approved first by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that would throw upon the Treasury the duty of defending them before the Select Committee. That was a duty which ought to be exercised by the Treasury, and any attempt to throw the responsibility on the Committee would, he thought, tend to a diminution of that strong financial control which should remain with the Treasury. In previous sessions when the Government of the day refused to provide sums of money which any section of the House considered reasonable and desirable the retort to the Government at once was that they were entirely under the thumb of a Treasury official. A Treasury official was generally regarded as a person with no feeling. It was thought by some hon. Members that matters might be better if only they could get away from the Treasury. He hoped there would be no intervention from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer between him and the officials. If the Committee were appointed he believed the Departments would frequently bring forward the argument that the expenditure proposed was justifiable and necessary, and they would be able to say to the Treasury, "At any rate, let us go before the Committee and see if we cannot impress them." The First Commissioner of

  511
  Works frequently was unable to carry out objects brought before him in this House and could not get the money from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He believed the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works could twiddle any Select Committee round his thumb, and prove the absolute necessity of all and everything he asked. He hoped they never would be able to treat the Treasury officials with the same case as they treated a Select Committee of this House. Hon. Members interested in this subject might, at first blush, consider it an admirable idea to have an Estimates Committee, but he would ask them to endeavour to trace out for themselves the course which must inevitably be pursued, and the full effects of it. He believed it would not be wise and that it would be contrary to the best interests of the public service to appoint such a Committee. Speaking as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee he considered it necessary to tell the House that, strongly as he disapproved of the proposed Estimates Committee, it would have no effect on any judgment he had to form or any advice he had to give to the Public Accounts Committee, who, he was sure, would be actuated by the desire to do what they considered to be for the best interests of the House as a whole. The Public Accounts Committee in any selection of Estimates they might make for consideration would act in deference to what they believed to be the best interests of the House. He hoped this question would not be unduly pressed on the Government during the present session when the House was largely composed of new Members who, before anything was done, should have full opportuntiy of making themselves acquainted with the rather complicated and difficult processes of our financial affairs. He thought it would be unfair and unwise to press the proposal on the Government.
  MR. MCCRAEsaid the hon. Member the late Secretary of the Treasury was always an exceedingly fair critic, and in the speech just delivered he had shown his usual moderation, He did not think the hon. Member was
  512
  quite just in his criticism of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said that the right hon. Gentleman had frittered away his surplus. He agreed that the right hon. Gentleman might have gone further without faring any worse with regard to the tea duty. The hon. Member had forgotten that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had endeavoured to achieve two objects with his remission of taxation. The first, and perhaps not the less important, was to free trade from certain restrictions placed upon it, notably in the cases of the coal-tax and the tobacco duty. He reminded the hon. Member that Mr. Gladstone said that more could be done for the taxpayer by freeing trade from hampering duties than even by the direct reduction of taxation. The coal-tax was exceedingly unequal in its incidence. Scotland and the North of England especially suffered more because they produced the cheaper class of coal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had remitted a portion of the tea duty. The right hon. Gentleman was bound to deal with the indirect taxes which had been put on under the guise of war taxes, but the House must not lose sight of the fact that many of those taxes, put on presumably as war taxes, were really to meet the increase in the ordinary expenditure. The hon. Member for West Derbyshire had also criticised the Chancellor of the Exchequer for not laying aside a larger amount for the reduction of debt, and had made some observations with regard to what took place in this House last year. There was no adverse criticism of the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year with regard to the sum laid aside for this purpose. The criticism then was rather as to the method he adopted in paying off the £1,000,000 a year by a lottery process which experience had shown was altogether reprehensible. The hon. Member had altogether lost sight of the fact, which, after all, was the governing factor in considering the sinking fund, namely, that—even with the additional £1,000,000, which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer applied towards the sinking fund last year, and although he had laid aside the large sum of £10,000,000 for the reduction of debt to

  513
  go to the sinking fund—the estimated expenditure under naval and military works loans amounted to £9,000,000, and had this been expended—happily it had not been—the effective sinking fund would have amounted to only about £1,000,000. What was the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? After providing for expenditure under naval and military works loans there would be a net reduction of £9,000,000 in our indebtedness in the coming year. The total sum laid aside was £13,500,000. The late Secretary of the Treasury had also referred to the loans from the Public Works Loans Commissioners. They all admitted that local expenditure should be watched with care, but at the same time they must never forget that great a part of it was remunerative expenditure, and that, in many cases local authorities were getting a revenue not only to provide for the interest on the loans but also for the redemption of the debt incurred. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when dealing with the equivalent grants, would propose some form of local taxation which would enable them to get rid of the wasteful form of grants which tended so much to local extravagance. The House must be indebted to the hon. Member for his thoughtful remarks with regard to the proposed Estimates Committee. Personally, he could not say that he agreed altogether with the proposition laid down by the hon. Member, but he entirely agreed that the Government of the day must not devolve any of its responsibility with regard to expenditure. Anyone who had sat on the Public Accounts Committee must have been impressed by the fact that the Committee were doing useful work in criticising expenditure even twelve months after it had been incurred. He had always maintained that something of the kind was necessary with regard to the Estimates before the expenditure began. It also seemed to him that it would be an improvement if they had some form whereby the Estimates from the different Departments could be laid before the House in order that they might have an opportunity of considering the expenditure of the year as a whole before being finally committed to it, instead of being left, as under present conditions, to criticise it when the Budget pro-
  514
  posals were before the House. If his right hon. friend wished further argument in favour of dealing with the tea duty he would find it in the fact that when the Budget was submitted for 1895–6 the then Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer budgeted Customs duties amounting to £20,756,000. The estimate for the present year, after allowing £1,000,000 for the remission of tea duty, amounted to £33,230,000, so that there was an increase in Customs alone in a comparatively short space of time of £12,474,000. In Excise there had been an increase of £3,400,000. The hon. Gentleman had pleaded the claims of the income-tax payer. They all realised that the poorer class of income-tax payers were heavily rated. The yield of the income tax was now £31,500,000, as against £16,100,000 in 1895–6. He would recommend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a reform which he might carry out in his present Budget in connection with the income-tax, and that was regarding the iniquitous system—he could call it nothing else— of exemptions under the provisions of the Income Tax Act of 1842, which were adopted for quite a different purpose— now being put into force in connection with the renewal of ground leases. He hoped his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give some attention to that matter, because he was sure that it would bring in a much larger sum to the Imperial Revenue than most hon. Members supposed, a sum which would be most equitable. He would like to make a few remarks as to the Debt Redemption proposals set out in the Finance Bill. He had already said that he would have liked to have seen his right hon. friend setting up new terminable annuities in place of those which were falling in. With the position of Consols at present, standing as they did at 90, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be able to cancel £51,000,000 of Consols with those terminable annuities. In addition to that he would have the Chinese war indemnity, and be able to cancel other £5,000,000. The application of the Chinese War Indemnity to repayment of debt would be carrying out the policy of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach and Lord Ritchie, who estimated that the sum of £6,000,000 from

  515
  this source should be applied to the reduction of the War Debt. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer saw no temptation to buy Consols at £90 for every £100, he might, by a scheme of terminable annuities, fund the floating debt and provide for its extinction in twenty years. He would be, therefore, enabled to redeem the floating debt which amounted at March 31st last to £55,770,000—almost exactly what these annuities would redeem in twenty years. He thought that such a transaction would be for the benefit of the State. Another advantage of the proposal he had submitted was that it would stereotype the amount that was to be provided for the reduction of the National Debt; and would put it out of the power of any Chancellor of the Exchequer to tamper with the Sinking Fund. His hon. friend the Member for West Derbyshire belonged to the Party whose Chancellor of the Exchequer had cut down the contribution to the Sinking Fund by £2,000,000 a year on two occasions and £1,000,000 in another year. In 1899 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said the year before the South African War that the revenue was not able to meet the ordinary expenditure. He found that certain annuities were expiring and he anticipated the falling in of the Savings Bank Annuities, and reduced the Sinking Fund by £2,000,000, and as a justification Sir Michael Hicks Beach said—
  "If I do not this, I must increase direct as well as indirect taxation."
  He thought that if his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer looked into this matter he would be able to devise something in the way suggested. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham had characterised this as a humdrum Budget. He would rather say it was an interim Budget, and he admired the courage with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given effect in his Budget to the principles of sound finance which had been so long departed from in this House.
  MR. LAMBTONsaid that his breath was taken away by the statement that the present heavy expenditure was due to the late Government. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had forgotten their own schemes. For in-
  516
  stance, he remembered a most remarkable document which was signed by 119 Members of the House of Commons and sent to the King of Greece. He remembered also the despatch of a fleet in connection with the Armenian atrocities and also the interference of hon. Gentlemen opposite in Macedonia and the Congo. He would remind hon. Gentlemen that all these, schemes had not much effect with foreign nations. One battleship and one regiment of soldiers had more effect than all the speeches made in the House. He wished, however, to draw attention more particularly to the abolition of the coal-tax and the reduction of the tea and tobacco duties. It was not difficult for him as an amateur to decide between two so great fiscal authorities as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right, hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham when they differed and when they agreed he had a shrewd suspicion that they were both wrong. He was sorry to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fallen into the same mistake as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and said that tea was a necessary of life.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQULTH, Fife, E.): Of course it is.
  MR. LAMBTONsaid he should like to know when tea became a necessary of life to any Englishman or a ay English woman. Shakespeare, Queen Elizabeth and Oliver Cromwell never drank tea. No doubt there were modern Shakespeares, but whether they were, better than the old he could not tell. They also had their Cromwells of modern date, and he should have liked to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether their superiority to the old was due to tea drinking. Tea might be soothing to politicians who suffered from acerbity of temper, but he never found it had been beneficial to women or children. He was glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken off the coal duty. When that tax was introduced he was under the painful necessity of separating himself from his party, and the still more painful duty of making a speech on the subject. If he

  517
  remembered rightly, that speech was couched in language of great moderation, considering the iniquity of the tax. He remembered also that he warned the Government of the danger of departing from free trade. The Member for West Birmingham made a speech the other day to the Tariff Reform Section of the Unionist Party, in which he said the repeal of the coal-tax benefited only the mighty men of the north and the foreign consumer. The only people who would be benefited, the right hon. Gentleman said, were the coal owners, of whose unselfishness they had had an illustration by their attitude upon the Workmen's Compensation Bill, and the foreign consumers. He was glad the men of the north were so mighty. He had some respect for the men of the Midlands, but he did not think they in the north wished to be dictated to by the mighty city of the Midlands, or by any other part of the country. The right hon. Gentleman said that the unselfishness of the coalowners was illustrated by their attitude to the Compensation Bill. Did he mean the present Bill or the old one?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The old one.
  MR. LAMBTONthought it rather unnecessary to brand the coalowners of the north for opposition to a Bill which the right hon. Gentleman brought in no less than nine years ago. He remembered, when the coal-tax was first imposed in 1901, the right hon. Gentleman, addressing his constituents in the Midlands, said that either the coalowner who produced the coal, or the foreigner who bought it, must pay the tax, and he did not care which. The right hon. Gentleman had since stumped the country for two-and-a-half years on behalf of the English producer against the foreign competitor. He did not know if there was any Member who would still maintain that the tax on coal was paid by the foreigner.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do.
  ME. LAMBTONsaid it might be so in the case of coal which was a monopoly; but that coal did not come from the north, and it was impossible to argue that
  518
  the foreigner paid the tax on coal from the north. Suppose he wanted to buy a good stout hat to wear at a tariff reform meeting, and he had a sovereign to offer a Unionist Member for his. The owner was willing to sell but the right hon. Member for West Birmingham said, "Before you sell your hat you must give me a shilling." Either he should have to pay 21s. for the hat, which he could not afford, or the owner of the hat would have to accept 19s. and give the right hon. Gentleman 1s. The result would be that he would have to go over to the other side I of the House and buy a hat which would probably not be so good a one. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some indication of his attitude towards the Finance Bill in the future. They had been told since February 14th that there had been a complete concordat in the Unionist Party. When the right hon. Gentleman first started on his missionary attempt there was some doubt whet her the late Prime Minister was in accord with him or not. He certainly wished the missionary God-speed, but perhaps that was less from a desire to spread the gospel than the secret hope that the missionary would be devoured by the heathen. With regard to alternative taxes to the coal tax, he hoped hon. Members opposite would not receive too much support from his side of the House in advocating taxation of mining royalties. The owner of the coal was already taxed like any other person on his property, which was, moreover, a diminishing property. The Royal Commission of 1893 reported—
  "We are of opinion that the system of royalties has not interfered with the general development of mineral resources of the United Kingdom or with the export trade in coal with foreign countries."
  The Royal Commission of 1893, therefore, had no fault to find with royalties but the Report of the Royal Commission published last year, had some fault to find with the coal tax. Why should one form of property be taxed more than another? It must be remembered, as he had pointed out that the coal owners' property was a vanishing one, and he should like on this point to call attention to the evidence of an American witness, Dr. Raymond. He was asked about coal royalties, which in the United

  519
  States were very much in the same position as in this country. He said that for the State to assert a right over the minerals would mean with them confiscation and anarchy. If there had been anything the State had done in America it had been to recognise the right of property in the coal as well as in the land, and they might as well go the whole figure with Mr. George and assert ownership in the land and wipe out all private property as to begin in that way. He would detain the House no longer. He only desired to make these few remarks on coal royalties, but he would warn hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, who sometimes had curious ideas as to what they should and should not support, that this was a question they ought seriously to consider. With regard to the present Budget, he would only say that having regard to the difficulties which the Government had inherited and the difficulties that they had made for themselves it was not a bad Budget.
  MR. TREVELYAN (Yorkshire, W.R., Elland)said he thought that there was very little disposition to complain of the character of this year's Budget, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, so to speak, getting his eye in, and was playing cautiously at first before beginning to hit out. It seemed to many Members all to the good that this year the Chancellor should establish his reputation in the country for circumspection so that he might be more powerful in the future for taking strong action. They eared a good deal more this year about the Chancellor's mind than for his Budget. It was the modest prologue, they hoped, to a very considerable drama. Members on the Ministerialist side of the House felt that the Budget was the pivot round which the success or failure of this Parliament would turn, and the attitude and action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a matter of supreme importance to all reforms. In one direction, this year promised to fulfil their highest hope. The text and burden of the Budget speech was economy. Ministerialists hoped next year for a great reduction in Army and Naval expenditure. He thought, however, that it would be a mistake to suppose that this Parliament was bound by any shibboleth
  520
  of economy. Their main duty, he believed, was to make the position of free trade impregnable and to accomplish great social reform, and for both of these "economy" was not the last word. Should an emergency arise in future it would perhaps give the protectionist his opportunity unless new sources of taxation were opened during this Parliament. There were several social reforms necessary and they would cost money. A million or so would be required for education, a scheme of old-age pensions was hoped for, and many other things such as payment of Members. We wanted not only a doctrine of economy capable of enforcement but a new system of taxation capable of indefinite expansion. He was glad to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was thinking about tapping another great source of possible revenue by increasing the licence duty. He considered that the well-being of the nation depended as much upon having light and just taxation locally as nationally. It was impossible to dissociate national from local taxation. The contribution of £10,000,000 in aid of local rates was much the most alarming part of the national expenditure at present. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would find it increasingly difficult to make a reduction of taxation owing to this enormous pressure to relieve local rates. £50,000,000 was at present raised by way of rates, and if this was allowed to go on the increasing demands for subventions would sweep away the benefit that might be derived from reduced taxation. The taxation of land values was a means by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could place the system of taxation in a position impregnable against the assaults of protection. The right hon. Gentleman had a great majority behind him to enable him to do strong things, and he had the good fortune to be the head of the one Department whose actions could not be injured in the House of Lords. By placing local taxation no longer on the industries but on the land value of the country they might remove a burden from the people even more vicious than the old bread tax.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer

  521
  should have left the House while his hon. friend behind him was giving him his instructions, rather than suggestions, as to what he should do in the future, in the next Budget he brings before us. I was wondering very much when I listened to the hon. Gentleman whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be grateful to his supporter for the manner in which he treated the subject. The hon. Gentleman in the first instance has explained that although he considers the Budget in its present form humdrum, or moderate I think was the term he used, it has to be regarded in connexion with the altogether different, immoderate, and sensational Budget which is to be brought in next year. He approves of the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the present occasion because, he suggests, he is earning a character for moderation as a preliminary to a course of revolutionary practices. While lesser people may possibly misunderstand the right hon. Gentleman's endeavours, he at any rate thoroughly appreciates the policy of appearing at the present moment as a wolf in sheep's clothing; having won esteem in the more amiable character of the sheep, next year we shall see the right hon. Gentleman as a raging, rampant, and daring wolf. The hon. Gentleman went on to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his business was not what was generally understood as the particular work of a gentleman occupying his position and also to present him with a mandate. That mandate was to make free trade impregnable. The hon. Gentleman has perceived, as some of us perceived a long while ago, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will always want a great deal of money if he is to carry out the many mandates of his Party, and, knowing that the money cannot be obtained without an extension of the basis of taxation, he offers as an alternative a policy of confiscation, for it is nothing else. I confess I was not able to follow the hon. Gentleman clearly as he proceeded to unfold his argument; but he seemed to base his demand for this policy of confiscation not so much on the need of the social reforms that are to be accomplished as upon the increasing expenditure of local authorities. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with those outside the House who
  522
  have been preaching that having given self-government to local authorities we should now proceed to control their expenditure? All I can say is that, for my part, I entirely disapprove of this definition of self-government. I say that this interference with local authorities, to whom you have given full control of local affairs, is a mistake, and cannot be made consistent with any theory of local government. Therefore, I cannot under stand how the hon. Gentleman connects his suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the question of the control of local authorities. He seems to think, however, that unless local authorities are controlled their expenditure will be so large that they will be obliged to come to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for assistance, and to that extent encroach upon the money that would otherwise be available for social reforms; and he urges, therefore, that some form of direct taxation, such as land values, should be immediately undertaken. Land values may possibly be a proper subject for taxation. I say "may be." That is a point that I am not arguing at the present moment. But one thing I do say—they are not a subject for confiscation. When Mr. George wrote his interesting book, which made so great a sensation some years ago, he advocated that the taxation of land values was to go on until the value was taxed out of existence. That is confiscation. If it could be carried out, though it would bring many evils in its train, it is just possible that it would raise a sufficient amount of money to carry out the objects which the hon. Gentleman opposite has in view. But, on the other hand, if it is only to be brought in as another item of direct taxation, and if the taxation is to be moderate in amount, it will prove a barren source of revenue indeed. At any rate it will not give anything like the amount of money talked of as necessary to carry out the schemes of social reform. After the speech of the hon. Gentleman I might see an objection to it which I have never seen before. It reminds me of an experience of my own at the time when we were discussing in 1885 the old unauthorised programme, every item of which has since been carried out. One of the questions was graduated taxation, since

  523
  carried out in the Bill of the late Sir William Harcourt. But at that time I had a conversation on the subject with Mr. Gladstone. He said to me—
  "I see you are advocating graduated taxation. In principle, I am not opposed to it, but I am opposed altogether to the graduation to the income-tax."
  When I asked him why, he said—
  "Because I think the graduation of the income-tax might easily lead to confiscation."
  That is interesting, not only in con nexion with this matter, hut as showing the drift of Mr. Gladstone's mind. In like manner, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that while I am willing to consider any new basis of taxation I am not disposed to favour his proposal, as it would lead to confiscation. The hon. Gentleman wants to get a great deal of money. I think I should not be wrong in supposing that he would like to get it from the very rich. "The capitalist is the enemy," as I saw it expressed in a speech made recently to this House. But there are capitalists and capitalists. There are capitalists who are more hardly pressed than people who, nominally, have less property, hut the persons whom some of our friends, socialists and others, want to get at are the very rich men. The worst of all these quixotic attempts at mulcting the very rich is that they are ineffective. It is precisely the biggest capitalists who most easily escape. I am certain that if you try these extravagant proposals you will fail to get what you want. At all events, however much you may press the small capitalist, because he I cannot escape you, you will never succeed in catching the big capitalist by measures of this sort. My suggestion is that the hon. Gentleman should go back to the greatest financier of English history—in this respect, at any rate— and that is King John. King John picked out a capitalist—a mighty man of the north, perhaps—and put him down in a well or a cellar, and pulled out his teeth, day by day, until the unhappy victim presented the requisite sum. There is finance which, for efficiency, has never been exceeded. It is quite as drastic as, and even more practicable than, the procedure suggested by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and it certainly would be much more effective.
  524
  On the last occasion that the Budget was discussed I said a few words on the subject without having had time for much reflection; and I come back to it now, again under the disadvantage— in which I am sure I have the sympathy of the House—of the absence of my right hon. friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, without whose aid we have not that access to a great deal of expert opinion which would make our comments more valuable. But I am confirmed by further reflection that this Budget is a composite Budget. There have been many hands in its making. It is a Budget that would not have been introduced if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had had his own way. At any rate I can see evidence that, when the right hon. Gentleman sat down to consider what he should do with the surplus which he owes to the moderate Estimates of his predecessor, he determined not to make a sensational Budget, but to take up one thing and to do it thoroughly. What I gather he intended to do was to make a really large contribution towards the reduction of the Debt. It would have been very wise on the part of the right hon. Gentleman had he carried out that idea, because by a large reduction of the Debt he would have given confidence to trade and steadied the money market, and thus benefited all classes of the community, but none more so than the industrial classes. But evidently the right hon. Gentleman was pressed with suggestions from various interests; and he proceeded to divide his surplus into a series of small contributions—or doles, as I may call them—to the most clamant of his critics, aid it would seem that of them all the mighty men of the north made the most noise. So the coal-tax had to go. I have said that I thought the late Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to deal with this tax in any reduction of taxation. But what I do not know is whether my right hon. friend would have proposed to put it in the first rank, or whether he would have proposed to abolish it altogether. What I said about the tax the other day— which my hon. friend behind me has failed to understand—was clear enough. I said that the coal consumer in this country would not be benefited in the

  525
  slightest degree by the abolition of the tax. No one will contradict that. Then who is to benefit? I believe the miners' representatives have an idea that the workmen in the trade would gain. It has not always happened that a rise in the price of coal to the consumer has been followed by a corresponding rise in the rate of wages. I think the coal miners will be very lucky indeed if they get that corresponding rise on the present occasion. But, putting that aside, the people who will most benefit will be either the coalowner, who will put the shilling in his pocket, subject to any concession he may be willing to make to the miners, or the foreign consumer. When I speak of the foreign consumer I am ready to recognise that the position may differ in regard to certain classes of coal. There may be coal which comes into sharp competition with foreign coal, and in regard to which, therefore, you will benefit the trade generally by reducing or abolishing the duty. Up to the present time in the Returns I have seen there is no proof that there is serious competition in British coal; but there will be, I venture to predict, serious competition with German and other coal. The expansion of production in Germany And France has been very remarkable. But that is not likely in the least to touch either the Welsh hard steam coal or certain classes of gas coal which are practically a monopoly. I have evidence from foreign sources to prove that the tax did not make the slightest difference in their purchases of these particular qualities of coal. Probably, therefore, it might have been worth while for the right hon. Gentleman to have postponed this change till he could have dealt with it in a scientific way, for he might have found that the tax of what is practically a monopoly might have been continued, and in that case it would have been very wise to earmark it for the further reduction of the Debt. The House will remember the sensation which was created by Professor Jevon's book on coal production, and although our stores of coal are now known to be much greater than he supposed, nevertheless it is true, after all, that the stores of coal are limited. And what Professor Jevons said is true, that long before you have exhausted the coal it
  526
  will have become scarce, and therefore dear; and you have to take into account, at all events in periods which are not to be neglected in dealing with national interests, that we are drawing upon our capital, and that we ought to make provision for it. Mr. Gladstone, who took an immense interest in the subject, declared that while we lessened our capital in the shape of the export of coal we ought to lessen our Debt, for which it was a security.
  As regards the tax on tea, I agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite right to reduce it. And for this reason: that tea is a thing which we do not produce in this country; there is no competition, and accordingly every penny of the tax, in theory at any rate, is paid by the consumer. I should like, therefore, to reduce the tax on tea as much as I possibly could, but by giving a little to one and a little to another the advantage of the reduction has been in my opinion lost. My prediction on that point has to a certain extent been confirmed by the declaration of the tea trade that they are unable to make a reduction in the small packets which affect the consumption of the working classes. I shall get the penny off because I buy tea in quantities of perhaps 14 lb. or 28 lb. at a time, but the working man who buys in 2-oz. packets cannot get any advantage, except that absolutely illusory reduction which is supposed to be represented by an improvement in the quality. The working classes have, on the whole, the quality which they like. The working man does not want an improvement in blends, which very likely he does not appreciate. What he wants is a tea to which he is accustomed, and of the quality of which he does not complain, a penny a pound less than before. Under this Budget he will not get it; and therefore I think it is a pity that, as in coal, so in tea, the changes which the right hon. Gentleman is making in this Budget will not advantage the people whom we most desire to help, but will advantage, as far as I can see, in an extraordinary way certain limited classes of very rich people.
  I asked the right hon. Gentleman the other day, why did you deal with a single branch of the question of the taxation of

  527
  tobacco? Was it as a free-trade question you dealt with it? If so, why did you not deal with it efficiently and completely? If you assume that the present system gives an advantage to the manufacturer of strips in this country, you will be justified, no doubt, in making an alteration; but if that is your case, why do you not deal with the much older and much more important duty which in the manufacture of cigars and raw tobacco gives a very considerable preference to the home manufacturer? It is not I who would attempt the change, but I do know that the very small amount of protection or preference which has been given to manufactured tobacco in this country has had the result of establishing some of the most successful industrial concerns, employing thousands and even tens of thousands of industrious people. If that is good, why not go a little further? Why strain at a gnat and swallow a camel? I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will kindly lay on the Table the calculations on which he has based his proposal in regard to tobacco. I asked the right hon. Gentleman the cither day why did he make the change? He gave me an answer which I did not quite understand. He said that one reason was that the duty brought nothing to the Exchequer. That is quite true, because of the large stocks in existence; but I suppose it would have brought something in time. But even if it did not, I would say that that is not the object with which it was put on. It was put on with the object of meeting an unfair preference in favour of the foreigner, with the deliberate intention of establishing in this country a business of which we had been wrongfully, as we thought, deprived, and it has led immediately to this remarkable change—that while factories for stripping tobacco have been closed in Holland, and factories have been closed elsewhere, factories have been opened here, machinery bought, and workmen employed. I will give some evidence which I think goes to show that at least 6,000, and probably more, people have been so employed. I am told that one stripper does 5,000 lb. in a year. Now the increase of leaf introduced into this country in consequence of the tax, leaf, therefore, which has to be stripped here instead of being stripped abroad,
  528
  is an increase of 42,000,000 lb. Now if a stripper can do 5,000 lb. a year. 8,400 people will be required in order to strip that quantity of leaf. Surely the onus lies on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give us some very good reasons why these 8,400 people should be taken out of employment? It is not, in my opinion, in the least a question of free trade or protection. It is a question of keeping in this country trade which reasonably belongs to us, and which has only been taken from us by an unreasonable differentiation in favour of the foreigner. Put the foreigner and ourselves on an equal footing.
  MR. ASQUITH: The differentiation remains, but only at a proper figure.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The effect of the previous tax on tobacco was to give a distinct advantage to the foreigner. We made changes which I believe removed that differentiation and which we thought represented the differentiation. The right hon. Gentleman says, "I recognise the principle; I do not quarrel with it; but your differentiation was too great; it did not put the Englishman and the foreigner on exactly the same footing; therefore I have altered this differentiation to a halfpenny." From the sources of information at my command I am assured that the effect of this change will be that as the leaf which is now in bond is gradually cleared out, no more leaf will be imported, and that these 8,400 persons will be thrown out of employment. If that is to be the effect, it is no use telling me in these circumstances that a halfpenny is a sufficient differentiation. I say it is not, and that it is proved not to be. I hope, therefore, before we get into Committee the right hon. Gentleman will give us information so that we may judge for ourselves whether this constitutes a fair and reasonable differentiation. If he can prove that, our argument against that part of his Budget will probably fall to the ground. I remember on the occasion of the last Budget that my right hon. friend in making the change desired that we should have more experience and that it was a fair subject of inquiry whether the rate chosen was the right rate or not; but suddenly to make so great

  529
  an alteration seems to me rather risky. May I ask also what is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the rebate on stalk and offal? I understand that no change has been made in that respect. I am afraid that I have necessarily entered into some detail, but the Budget is always a matter of detail. We are certainly not going to oppose the right hon. Gentleman at the Second Reading stage of the Bill, but there are questions of some importance which will arise in Committee, and before hen I hope we shall have full information.
  MR. ASQUITH: I have no objection to offer to the tone and the substance of the criticism which the right hon. Gentleman has made, and I will endeavour to reply briefly to his questions. First of all I will deal with the changes in the tobacco duties. The right hon. Gentleman asks, "Why have you singled out this particular item for a change? Have the tobacco duties as a whole not always contained a protective element?" I think that they have. I think that the tobacco duties do contain a protective element. They were established substantially on their present basis by Mr. Gladstone very nearly fifty years ago, and it must be remembered that the changes made and which prevailed then involved a higher degree of protection than anything that can be alleged against the new duty. The trade has gone on under the system, and whatever; may be said against it as a violation of the free-trade principle, it produces a very large revenue. What is the case with this duty that I am altering? My predecessor two years ago made a change which had never been dreamt of. Strip tobacco had always come in at the same rate, because the process of handling which goes on before the leaf becomes a strip is so slight that no previous Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that it ought to be treated in a different category. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer took a different view, and he established a difference of threepence between the two. It was at once found that the change would not work, and the right hon. Gentleman made a concession as regards all strips then in bond, reducing the duty from threepence to a
  530
  penny halfpenny. As a matter of fact, I am satisfied, from inquiries I have made, that the duty of threepence has never been an effective revenue at all. Strips could not have come into this country if they had continued to pay the duty of threepence. I agree that there ought to be a differentiation. Under my plan leaf will come in at 3s. and strips at 3s. 0½d.; and I intend to make a considerable revenue from that duty. I shall get a halfpenny more on every pound of strip that comes in, and if it is not a prohibitive duty and the strips can come in, then I am adding to the revenue of the country by the change I am making. That is why I am making the change. It will, in the first place, increase the revenue, and, in the second place, I am satisfied that the change is desirable. I have not had a single representation of any sort or kind from the trade in favour of retaining the difference between the two duties. The trade as a whole is well satisfied with the differentiation of a halfpenny. In answer to the plea of the right hon. Gentleman, I cannot lay my calculations on the Table, because they were made in my own head, and I cannot extract them. But I will tell him the materials out of which I have been induced to make the alteration. They will be found in the evidence and the Report of the Departmental Committee which sat two years ago, at the time when my predecessor made his Budget. Our estimate of a halfpenny as being the true duty difference between the strip and the raw leaf as well as our scale of drawbacks is based entirely on the evidence given before and the conclusions arrived at by that Departmental Committee. This is a case where you establish, under the shadow of a protective duty, an artificial trade. When you put on an artificial protective duty and encourage the growth in this country under unnatural conditions of a trade which is not a very desirable trade, judging by the sanitary conditions under which it is carried on, and the wages received are not the wages that any of us would care to adopt as a standard —the moment a Chancellor of the Exchequer comes along and says, "I am going to abolish protection," then you say that he is going to throw out of employment all these poor people. We

  531
  have taken the greatest possible care in the matter. The stock of raw leaf now is so great and the stock of strips relatively so small that for a considerable time to come, by adapting themselves to the new conditions, these people will receive employment in the industry in which they are engaged. I am sure that this readjustment of the duty, which recognises the difference between the casual raw material, is acceptable to the trade in freeing it from hampering restrictions, and that in the long run it will redound to the benefit of the industry.
  I come now to the more serious subject of the coal tax. What is the right hon. Gentleman's attitude with regard to it? Does he or does he not approve of its abolition? I really do not know. If he does, what is the object of the speech he has made? If he does not, then why not oppose the abolition openly and frankly, and move the omission of the change from the Bill? It is interesting to trace briefly the history of the right hon. Gentleman's opinions on the subject. He has told us to-day, repeating an argument used elsewhere, that the coal tax is one which falls on two classes only—first on the coalowner of this country, and secondly on the foreign consumer in the markets to which the exported coal is sent. It is an odd thing if that is so that there is not a miners' representative in this House who is not ardently in favour of the repeal of the coal tax; and I should be very much surprised if we find in the course of this debate, or in Committee, that any representative of the miners' interest will get up and endorse the right hon. Gentleman's contention that this change is for the relief and benefit of the coal-owner alone. Anybody who has investigated the history of the export coal trade since this tax was imposed will agree that the miner has suffered in his wages quite as much as the coal-owner in his profits. If it is the case that this is a tax that falls only on the coalowner, how is it the right hon. Gentleman said the other day that the coalowners and the foreign consumers would share between them the benefit of the abolition of the tax? Anybody who has investigated the history of the export coal trade since this tax was imposed, will agree that the
  532
  miner has suffered in his wages quite as much as the coalowner in his profits. In the stress of the general election the right hon. Gentleman informed a correspondent that he was personally in favour of the repeal of the tax, which was imposed during the War, which had not answered the expectations formed of it, and which, he believed, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had intended to repeal at the first opportunity.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I said the same thing in the House the other day.
  MR. ASQUITH: I know; that is the more remarkable. Having held the opinion, the right hon. Gentleman retained it after hearing the Budget speech, and it is only in the coarse of the last fortnight that he has discovered, what previously was hidden from him, that this tax, of the repeal of which he was in favour, which had not answered expectations, and which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to repeal, was really an ideal tax from his point of view, because it fell only on the rich, and the great bulk of it was paid by the foreign consumer. If that is so, why touch it? Of all taxes in our tariff, it was the one most deserving of the right hon. Gentleman's commendation. My error is that I held the same opinion about the tax that the right hon. Gentleman held in January and seems to have held as late as April, and only changed in the first fortnight in May. As to the suggestion he made, that we should differentiate between the different classes of coal, and, while abolishing the export tax in regard to the bulk of the coal, retain it on that portion in respect of which we have a monopoly—that is to say, the first-class steam coal and some gas coal—my answer is that it would be impracticable. What proportion does the right hon. Gentleman think these classes of coal bear to the whole of our export? I am well within the mark when I say that they are not a quarter; and to keep the tax on that quarter would only disturb the trade without bringing any corresponding advantage to the revenue.
  The right hon. Gentleman apparently does not object to the remission of the tea duty, but he thinks that the actual

  533
  remission proposed will be entirely lost to the consumer. I observe that the right hon. Gentleman did not repeat to-day the language which he used on this subject in an address to a body called the Liberal Union Club, consisting, I should think, of credulous and not very well-informed people; because they loudly cheered the following statement—
  "This is the Government that comes in to redress taxation in favour of the working classes. On the contrary, what do they do? They give instead £2,000,000 to the wholesale dealers in tea."
  Let me pause there. The cost of the sacrifice involved in the remission of a penny in the tea duty is £925,000; the acceleration of the change from July 1st to May 4th is estimated to bring the cost up to £1,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman said £2,000,000. It would really seem as if the right hon. Gentleman had become so demoralised in the protracted orgies of fiscal controversy that two and one were, exactly the same thing to him. But when we have brought the amount down from £2,000,000 to £1,000,000, is it going, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, to the wholesale dealers in tea? It is not a pleasant suggestion in such a contest, because throughout it is suggested that the Government are showing something like a corrupt partiality to persons supposed to have supported them in the country and in this House. I have obtained the best information as to what will take place. The wholesale dealers have already allowed the reduction, and as to the great bulk of the retailers, while it is true that they are not going, possibly in the majority of cases, to give a reduction of 1d. in the shape of a reduction of money price, they are giving it in the shape of an improvement in the quality of the tea they supply. The right hon. Gentleman sneers at that. If he had investigated the subject closely he would have found that one of the worst results of the heavy duty imposed on tea during these late years has been that the poorer consumer has been put off with stuff that he ought not to drink, as being bad for his health. I can see that one of the best results of this reduction of taxation is to be found, not merely and not so much in the lower price charged to the consumer, as in an improvement in the quality of something
  534
  that has become a prime necessity of life. All the evidence before me corroborates the opinion I expressed that the full effect of this remission, either in the form of lower price or better quality, will reach the consumer. An hon. friend has just given me an interesting piece of information. He is a member of a board of guardians, and he tells me that on Saturday last the local grocer wrote to say that he would supply the workhouse tea at 1d. per lb. less than the previous tender. The right hon. Member for Derbyshire said, "You make great, professions of reducing debt, and you only contribute another half-million out of revenue." I should have been very glad to apply a larger sum than half a million; and there were times, while I was framing my Budget, when I hoped to be able to apply a larger sum. But when I found that, partly by means of the old Sinking Fund of last year and partly by this windfall of the Chinese indemnity, I should be able to apply £13,500,000 to the reduction of the National Debt and reduce the gross debt of the country by £9,000,000, I realised that the taxpayer had a claim which could not be ignored to such benefits as he has received from this Budget. I entirely agree with my hon. friend that, in a sense, this is a provisional Budget. But such as it is, and having regard to the conditions which control production and to the general circumstances of the country at the time, I submit that no better use could have been made of the funds at our disposal, and that the criticisms of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham fall absolutely to the ground. I ask the House to give unanimously a Second Reading to the Bill.
  SIR CARNE RASCHsaid he wished to express the views of the agricultural interest on this Finance Bill. He listened for two hours and twenty-five minutes to the Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but although he did his best to make himself acquainted with what was said, he confessed that, being the epitome and incarnation of agricultural distress in the eastern counties, he had been profoundly disappointed with the Budget. This Parliament was elected to pay every one out of every one

  535
  else's pocket; but where did the agricultural interest come in? He should like to know how the duty on wheat hurt the Chancellor of the Exchequer, his constituents, or anybody else. They knew that when it was put on, the price of wheat went down, and when it was taken off the price of wheat went up. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might have imposed as much registration duty as he liked upon wheat and the agriculturists would not have objected to it.
  MR. ASQUITH: Why did your Government repeal it?
  SIR CAKNE RASCH: Heaven knows; they would not have repealed it if I had been on the Front Bench. The hon. Member proceeded to ask why the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not take his courage in both hands and do something for them. He had a considerable surplus, and it would have been possible for him to have given a bounty upon every quarter of corn grown. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen were always talking about people coming from the country to the town and the necessity of getting them back again; about the physical deterioration of the people; about the large number of spindle-shanked people walking about the streets, and so on, but here was a chance of making agriculture pay at all events to some small extent. He always regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not consult the agricultural interest before he framed his Budget. Charles V. of Spain used to say that if he had been consulted by Providence before the world was created he could have given a good many useful hints, and if the right hon. Gentleman had consulted the agricultural interest they could have given him a good many useful hints. Rates in the agricultural districts were piling up, and he should like to know, if men were to be driven from the land as they had been in the past, how the Government were going to secure a virile population upon the soil or keep up a population which would produce sons capable of defending the frontiers of the Empire.
  MR. RICHARDSONdesired to offer a few sympathetic remarks in regard to the reduction of the tea duty. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had said that the consumer would not get the benefit of it, but he was of opinion that those purchasers who bought penny and two-penny packets of tea would get the full benefit of it. He did not speak as an expert but as a practical man. We had some 12,500,000 people in this country who lived on the border line of poverty and who bought these penny and two-penny packets of tea and he said from experience that they would get the benefit of this relaxation of taxation. He offered his thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the remission. He had
  "filled the hungry with good things and the rich he had sent empty away."
  He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham would agree with him that competition did not range fiercest around the highest price but that it was keenest in regard to the lowest price. He was confident that the process of competition would place this benefit in the pockets of the very poor.
  MR. HICKS BEACHregretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not seen his way to reduce the income-tax. The-right hon. Gentleman had himself admitted that it was impossible to justify a tax of Is. in the pound in peace time. It was a burden upon trade, which affected not only profits, but wages, and tended to destroy the most valuable and readily available reserve upon which the State could draw in time of emergency. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had reduced the gross capital liabilities-of the State by £9,000,000; but in making that calculation he had included a net increase of £4,600,000 in capital liabilities which ought not to have been taken into consideration, seeing that these charges were all provided with their own Sinking Funds which allowed for a yearly redemption of capital as well as payment of interest. The right hon. Gentleman had in fact reduced the Deadweight Debt by £13,500,000, and he therefore suggested that more good would have been done to the country if £11,000,000 had been

  537
  devoted to the reduction of debt, and £2,500,000 to the reduction of the income-tax. The coal tax, along with the corn and sugar duties, was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor for the purpose of broadening the basis of taxation, and should have been maintained at any rate as long as the income-tax remained at so high a figure. The corn duty, unfortunately, had two disadvantages; it gave rise to much misrepresentation, and it gave an excuse to certain bakers to increase the price of the loaf. In the case of the coal duty, however, there were no such disadvantages, and the revenue derived from it had been an increasing one ever since its imposition; for in 1902–3 it produced £l,991,767,and since that it had gradually increased until in 1905–6, it amounted to £2.183,973. When this tax was first imposed it was said that the mine owners would be ruined, the mines shut down, the export trade destroyed, and that the miners would suffer great hardship. The results derived from this tax had, on the contrary, justified its existence. It had provided a handsome revenue, and had caused the smallest amount of harm to the trade of the country. The total export of coal in 1900, the record rear, was 58,405,000 tons, in 1905 it had increased to 67,160,000 tons. The total amount produced in 1900 was 225,181,000 tons, and in 1905 236,128,000 tons. The percentage of exports to the total output, had increased from 25·93 in 1900 to 28· in 1905. The House had been told that this duty inflicted a great loss on the export trade, particularly with Russia, Germany, Prance, Holland, and Belgium. In 1902, the total exports to those countries except France amounted to 15,800,000 tons. In 1905 they had increased to 19,745,000 tons. It was quite true the exports to France had decreased to a slight extent but, as had been pointed out in the Report of the Royal Commission which considered this question, that was due to other causes, particularly to the competition of Germany which had made the full use of her natural advantages and had come into serious competition with this country in the markets contiguous to her frontiers. One reason for the slight diminution in our exports to France was that our coal exporters did not try to meet the requirements of foreign markets.
  538
  The methods of Germany were more scientific, and they insisted on cleaning, sizing, and sorting their coal in a way that was not done in this country. Of course no one would contend that a tax could be imposed without to some small extent interfering with the natural flow of the commodity taxed. But the figures he had given proved that the coal trade had suffered to a very small degree, and no tax could have been imposed which would have brought so large a sum to the Exchequer and at the same time caused so little harm. Who would benefit if this tax was taken off? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said he was unable to take this tax off immediately because if he did the only persons to benefit would be the foreigners, owing to a clause contained in the contrasts. He himself believed that only the foreigner would benefit. The miner certainly would not, because if he came to the owner for better wages the owner would refer him to that statement of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had reduced the duty on tea by 1d. and upon that he supposed the body which ought to be congratulated was the Anti Tea Duty League. But though the right hon. Gentleman had used the arguments of that body for this reduction he had not fulfilled their expectations; and they at any rate along with other tea producers were assured that this reduction would not be sufficient to benefit those who bought their tea in very small quantities. He very much doubted whether the poorest of the poor would benefit. But what of the future? What likelihood was there that in the near future the income-tax would be reduced? What the House had to realise was that next year the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to find an additional sum of £1,000,000 to replace the loss of revenue caused by the remission of the coal duty for the whole year; another £1,000,000 to provide for a further reduction of 1d. off the duty on tea, so as to give a real benefit to the poorest of the consumers, and if the Education Bill passed a further £1,000,000 for the purposes of education. What possibility was there, with this probability of increased expenditure in the future and only a faint hope of a

  539
  slight reduction in the expenditure of the naval and military forces, of a reduction of the income-tax? He must also remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman this year had granted a sum of £135,000 for the relief of certain districts in respect of the education charges, and that the tendency of opinion, especially in the country districts, was that education ought to be more of a national charge; which meant that further grants from the Imperial Exchequer would be asked for. He did not hold with those who wanted the whole charge put upon the Exchequer, but he thought that this being a really national question the right hon. Gentleman ought to give further relief to local taxation on this account. What programme had the Party opposite for the reduction of taxation in the future? The House had heard that when the social programme of the Ministerialists was entered upon there would be large demands upon the Exchequer for old age pensions, the feeding of children, and perhaps the clothing of them, the payment of Members, the payment of election expenses, and the payment of the light dues at present borne by the shipping industry. The social programme of the Government was bound to bring further demands for expenditure on the Exchequer, and he thought in a few years to come the right hon. Gentleman would rue the day when in a hasty moment he abolished the export duty on coal—a duty which brought him in a handsome revenue and the abolition of which prevented him from making any reduction in the income-tax.
  MR. ANNAN BRYCE (Inverness Burghs)said although he did not agree with the hon. Member for Tewkesbury in his criticism upon the taxes selected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for reduction, he was disposed to agree with him that the right hon. Gentleman would have done better to devote the whole of his surplus to the reduction of debt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the House that at one time he had meant to take that course, and the best financial authorities, while pleased with what he had done, would have rejoiced still more if he had given effect to his original
  Mr. Hides Beach.
  540
  intention. The right hon. Gentleman in his Budget speech painted in strong colours the evils of a large floating debt. He showed how it not only destroyed the reserve forces of this country against emergencies, but by maintaining a constant drain on the money market hampered commerce and industry. This crippling effect, inherent in all forms of floating debt, was most marked in case of Treasury bills. The new ten-year Exchequer bonds, which might be regarded as semi-funded debt, were taken as quasi-permanent by insurance companies. But Treasury bills, favourites as they were with bill discounters, absorbed funds which would otherwise be available for current loans and discounts, and therefore formed a great factor in raising the rate of interest. It might surprise those who were not familiar with the figures to know the serious effect of even a comparatively small rise in the rates of interest. For the five years before the South African War, the average Bank of England rate was £2 10s. per cent., while- for the five years from the beginning of that war the average rate was £3 14s., or £1 4s. per cent. more. Everybody knew that roughly the rate of interest charged on loans and discounts was determined by the Bank of England rate. The total amount of loans and discounts in the United Kingdom at any one moment, irrespective of loans made by insurance companies and private moneylenders, was estimated at £550,000,000. It would therefore be seen that an additional burden of £6,600,000 per annum, or in the five years £33,000,000, was laid upon the enterprise of the country, during the five years after the beginning of the South African War, as compared with the five years preceding it. The enhancement of the rate of interest was without doubt largely caused by the existence of the floating debt, and especially by the large amount of Treasury bills. If it were too late to make provision this year for the further extinction of Treasury bills, in which only a trifling reduction was being made, he would urge on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so far as the future was concerned, that he should devote as large an amount as possible to the extinction of this

  541
  form of floating debt. In addition to its other advantages he believed the right hon. Gentleman would by this course help to re-establish the credit of the country, and raise the price of Consols, even more rapidly than by the redemption of Consols themselves. Apart from all other considerations, it was an object of the first importance to get Consols to par, in view not only of the block in Irish land purchase, but of the other projects of social reform which might require the issue of stock. He might remark in passing that a rise in the price of Consols meant a general recovery in the price of other securities. It was often forgotten that the loss caused by the South African war was not represented alone by the £300,000,000 which that war cost. It entailed a fall in the value of securities of at least £1,000,000,000, and the re-establishment of the public credit would help to repair that loss, though unhappily not to the many who had been forced to sell since the fall began. While it was tempting to extinguish debt by redeeming Consols themselves at their present price, against this must be set the higher interest paid on the floating debt, and the general advantages of freeing the money market from the incubus of that debt. A subject which he proposed to bring up when the Bill was in Committee was the hardship entailed by the present method of assessing industrial and mining companies for income-tax. Under the present system no allowance was made for depreciation of land, buildings, or leases, nor of development work, while only a limited and often totally inadequate allowance was permitted for depreciation of plant and machinery. The result of the present system of assessment was that many companies had to pay income-tax on an illusory profit and in the extreme case might be bled to death by that tax. He knew a company which in seven years had paid only one dividend amounting to £15,000, and that was in its first year, whilst almost all through it had been paying income-tax, which had amounted in all to about £4,000. The income-tax, therefore, had in fact amounted to about 27 per cent., or 5s. 5d. in the £, on the dividend. He knew another com-
  542
  pany which had never paid any dividend, but which had paid income-tax, and he had no doubt many hon. Members could give other instances of the hardship of the present system. The simplest and fairest plan would be to levy the tax on the sums actually distributed in dividend, which was the course pursued in Belgium and in New Zealand, where, moreover, all allowance was made with the view of preserving the capital intact. Under this method the Revenue would not suffer in the long run, because all companies existed for the purpose of paying dividends, and, to provide against the case of a liquidation for the purpose of dividing reserves, the Revenue might be empowered to charge income-tax on the amount distributed in excess of capital subscribed in cash. The method he proposed would tend to preserve the life of the goose that laid the golden egg, instead of tending, as the present method did, to kill it.
  MR. HILLSsaid he wished to associate himself with all that had been said as to the absolute importance of the reduction of debt. If in prosperous years in the past debt had been reduced instead of taxes remitted we should be in a far better position to-day. But dealing with things as they were, the country was confronted with a very large expenditure and a margin of income over expenditure which was very small. The only way by which the State could repay debt was by the income exceeding the expenditure. There was no royal road to wealth. Was there any prospect of the national income exceeding the expenditure to any great extent? He was very sceptical on that point. All the departments of the State wanted more money. It was said that this Parliament was pledged to economy; but for every mandate in favour of reduction they could quote an equally imperative mandate for increasing expenditure. All that was saved on the Navy would be swallowed up by the payment of Members or feeding of school children. All they could save on the Army would; he wanted for old age pensions or something else. Besides those two great spending departments it was clear the Civil Service would cost far more in the future, because the standard of

  543
  living had been raised all round. He saw no chance of reduction anywhere, but rather the potentiality of an increased expenditure beyond the dreams of the most reckless Chancellor of the Exchequer. If they turned to income he did not think the outlook was any more rosy. All the great items of income were stationary or showed no great elasticity. Customs were a falling market so far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was concerned. A stage had been reached when present taxes ceased to show a natural increase and increased taxes produced a smaller revenue. Excise was levied entirely on food drink, and tobacco. As a convinced tariff reformer he was opposed to food taxes. It must be remembered that it was a part of the scheme before the country that, although certain additional taxation was proposed on some articles, the whole plan contemplated a reduction of food taxation. In fact, all parties, whatever their fiscal creed was, agreed that food taxation should go. No doubt it would be possible to get more from income-tax, and he was in favour of the graduation of the income-tax, but even with a graduation he did not think the gross return from the income-tax would be more than £30,000,000, unless the tax stood at a figure far too high for a time of peace. On these three great sources of income he did not see the prospect of any great increase unless they increased the burdens to such an extent as to press unduly upon industry and to cause the country to suffer. The death duties stood at a very high rate. Eight per cent, was a very heavy tax on capital, and if those duties were increased he did not think they would get very much more from that source, as the number of big estates was small. Supposing, then, they went outside their present held to see what were the new sources of taxation that were suggested. There, again, he confessed he did not see a new field for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of course they could tax land values, but he did not think that land was the Golconda that some land-tax reformers seemed to think. It was a very poor investment, and he did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get very much out of it. And so they were met with a large increasing expenditure
  544
  and an almost stationary revenue, and on every side demands were made for spending more money. It was perfectly clear that all these schemes of social reform would not stand still for want of money. The Government might say that they agreed with those schemes in principle, but they could not find the money. That attitude could not be maintained for long. The demand would become so overwhelming that all thought of economy would be swept away and the reforms would have to be carried out. Where were they to find the additional revenue? He would not go into the intricate question of the incidence of taxation; but it was a mistake to hold that case of collection was the same thing as case of incidence. A tea tax was very easy to collect and a tax on manufactures very hard to collect, but still it might be that the tax on tea would press more hardly than the tax on imports. Again, a tax on sugar was paid by every person in the community. If one man was 100 times richer than another he did not eat 100 times as much sugar as the poor man. The power of bearing the burden was also not equal, although our system seemed to take it for granted that, equality of contribution was the same thing as equality of burden. But anyhow he did plead for a reconsideration of the whole scheme and basis of our taxation. He was not satisfied with things as they were, and he was not to be put off with any stock phrase like "taxation for revenue only." No doubt taxation was a dangerous weapon, but it was one that he desired to see used for the benefit of the whole community and not for one part of it only. The last word had not been said when they were told that no taxes should be imposed except for revenue.
  MR. SCOTTsaid he would confine his remarks to the reduction of the tea duty. Upon this point he was not altogether in accord with the observations that had fallen from his hon. friends on the Ministerial side, because he did not believe under present circumstances that a penny taken off the tea duty would find its way in all cases to the consumer. He wished to place before the House the position which

  545
  the merchant found himself in. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had alluded to the fact that most of the tea merchants were found supporting the Government. Rut why was that? Because they were strong free traders? They submitted each year to the nuisance which was always associated with dealings in any article that was liable to taxation. If they placed upon their posters or labels a particular price, no sooner had the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoken than they had to send the billposter round with a slip to place on their posters indicating an alteration of price, whilst their labels would have to be destroyed. The result of all this was that the tea merchant only knew for twelve months what the regular price of his packet-tea would be. What was the position that this Budget placed the merchant in? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a big surplus next year and again interfered with the tea trade by taking another penny off the tea duty what would be the position of those engaged in the tea trade who had given the benefit of this year's remission to the consumer when they were faced with the difficulty of taking twopence off twelve months from now? They could only do it by decreasing the quality of the tea by one penny in the pound. Consequently they would suffer great inconvenience twelve months hence or cause dissatisfaction to their customers. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give some undertaking that they would not have to submit to these continued alterations in regard to the tea duty every year. During the last half-dozen years there had been hardly a year in which the tea duty had not been interfered with, with the result that whenever those engaged in the tea trade saw any indication of a surplus they at once reduced their stocks to the lowest possible amount, and when the expenditure of the country had been greater than the Estimates the tea merchants crowded into their warehouses as much tea as they could. There ought to be some understanding that they would not have these disturbances yearly, and when the tea tax was either increased or decreased it should be dealt with to the extent of twopence in the pound in order that the alteration might
  546
  be given on a quarter pound packet which was the recognised packet in which most of the tea was sold in the North of England.
  MR. HUNTsaid that during the last election hon. Members sitting on the Ministerial side told the electors that they were the Party above all others to represent the working classes, and they were also great advocates for the free breakfast table. It seemed to him that under this Budget some of the necessaries and all the luxuries of the poor were very heavily taxed. With the exception of alcohol and tobacco the whole of the real luxuries of the rich escaped taxation altogether, because no import duties were paid on those luxuries. He might mention, as an illustration, silk, of which article over £13,000,000 worth was annually imported into this country. There were also such articles as motor cars, furs, toys, gloves, ornamental feathers, turtle soup and expensive foods, and various other things which were only used by the rich, and of which many millions of pounds worth were imported every year. All those luxuries did not pay one halfpenny of taxation. This was a system which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and hon. Members opposite were pleased to call free trade, which they pretended was for the benefit of the working classes. In 1894 the Liberal Government gave India a general tariff and the power of retaliation. Under that system India had prospered exceedingly and had twice been in a position to reduce the salt tax, which was one of the great necessities of the very poor in India. He was quite aware that Lancashire manufacturers vehemently protested against it, and said that they would have to pay the tax and not the Indian consumer, which proved that in some cases at any rate the consumer did not always pay these import duties. Why did the Liberal Government in 1906 refuse to the British Empire a privilege which they gave to India in 1894? Although a penny had been taken off the tea duty he doubted whether the very poor in London and our big cities would get any benefit whatever from it. They had been told that tea was an absolute necessity for the poor of this country, and yet the present Government

  547
  were taxing tea to the extent of 90 per cent, of its value. The poor people had to pay nearly the whole of this tax, because there was no competition with an untaxed supply. In regard to the two shilling duty on foreign wheat the Ministerial Party gave the electors to understand that it would certainly raise the price of bread to double its present amount. [Cries of "No, no" from the MINISTERIAL Benches.] At any rate, if the posters were to be believed, a tax of 2s. on corn would have made the price of bread four or even eight times as much as it was now judging from the relative sizes of the loaves displayed. He had seen pictorial posters in which the "big loaf" was shown four or eight times as large as the "little loaf." He thought that might fairly be called the gigan ic inexactitude of the big and he little loaf. The absurdity of that contention was shown by the fact that, even if the consumer had to pay the whole of the duty suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, its amount would have been only one-tenth of a farthing upon a pound of wheat; while such a preferential duty would have enabled Canada to compete on equal or nearly equal terms with the United States. Members on the Ministerial side believed in the graduation of the income-tax, so that the richer a man was the more he would have to pay. But in regard to the duty on tea—a necessity for the very poor— the Chancellor of the Exchequer had reversed that principle, and made the burden fall most heavily upon the poor. The poor man paid two or three times as much in taxation for his pound of tea as the rich man. In the case of sugar, which was not only a necessity, but the raw material for some of our great industries, the tax was 30 per cent. Cocoa, which might fairly he called a necessity, for it was used by the very poor, was taxed to the extent of Id. in the raw state and from l½d. to 2d. when manufactured He really thought that the Gentlemen opposite should not call this a system of free trade or free imports. Coffee was also heavily taxed, while nearly all the luxuries of the rich escaped taxation altogether. Some of the necessaries of the poor and practically all their luxuries
  548
  were heavily taxed. This was the Budget supposed to be for the benefit of the poor, which the antiquated Cobdenite policy of the strongest Liberal Government of modern times had produced. If the luxuries of the rich were taxed home manufacturers would be helped by being relieved of that portion of taxation which the foreigner would have to bear, and home industries would be able to provide regular work at good wages for British working men. The Home Secretary received 13 per cent, on the money he had invested in jute mills abroad. The mills competed seriously with those of Dundee. The wages paid in the mills were from 1s. 8d. to 5s. a week for men, and 2½d. a day for women. Although it might suit the Home Secretary to get his thirteen per cent., it did not help the Dundee workers who had to compete with him, and who, if paid at the same rate as the workers in the mills abroad, would receive from 2s. to 3s. a week. He contended that all, or nearly all, of the small tax on wheat suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham would be paid by the foreigner. The system of taxation put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer might suit bankers, because they got more pickings out of foreign securities, the rich, because they were able to get their luxuries cheap, and people who had invested their money in foreign securities; but he hoped that before next year the Chancellor would have found a way to reduce the taxes upon the luxuries of the poor.
  MR. CAIRNSsaid that, as a representative of a constituency the name of which was synonymous with coal, he wanted to take the opportunity of expressing the gratitude of the Newcastle district to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having had the moral courage to remove the coal tax, the incidence of which was peculiar and restricted. It was comparatively easy to listen to the voices of the many when a tax had a generally detrimental effect, but when a tax was obscured by its exceptional incidence, it was very much more difficult to demonstrate clearly to the country, and even to Members of this House, the lines upon which it should be removed.

  549
  The coal tax was a tax upon a section of our industries, nay, upon a section of a section, because it was only on the export part of the coal trade. Undoubtedly, other coal-producing countries had received a great advantage—practically shilling per ton export bounty—by the imposition of this tax. This was easily demonstrable in the case of France, Germany, and even Spain. It was also clear that injury had been done to our own coal trade with Canada by America. The hon. Member for the Tewkesbury Division had admitted that the tax had done some harm, and coming from him that was a strong argument. As a proof that the tax was paid by the foreigner, he instanced the contracts now in existence which stipulated that in the event of the remission of the tax the whole amount must be allowed to the foreign buyers. Such contracts proved nothing as to the incidence of the tax. He knew of contracts which, in case of the tax being taken off, stipulated sixpence to the foreigner and sixpence to the British exporter. Did that necessarily prove that the tax generally was paid half by the foreigner and half by the ox-porter? He knew further of contracts when in case of remission the whole amount came to the exporter. Did that prove that the whole of the tax fell upon the British producer? Such facts afforded no explanation as to who bore the tax. They were merely incidents in commercial transactions. He was sure he would enlist the sympathy of hon. Gentlemen opposite when he stated that the coal tax had advantaged foreign countries to the detriment of our own. In these few brief words he wished to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having had the courage to defer to a sense of justice rather than to mere expediency.
  SIR WILLIAM BULLsaid he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have, with some manipulation, given relief to income-tax payers whose incomes were small. He understood that the hon. Member for North Paddington had propounded in the Press a scheme for taxing bachelors. Nothing was said about spinsters, and other members of the fair sex, whom he would leave severely alone. When the limit of exemption was raised some years
  550
  ago from £150 to £160 it was stated by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer that for persons with £400 a year or less, a sum of £160 for maintenance was a fair amount, and the relief granted was upon that basis. Well, that amount, £100, was ample for a single person, but it was totally inadequate for the maintenance of two persons, because extra rent, extra rates, and increased cost of living had to be taken into account. It was not for a moment suggested that the cost of two persons' living and maintenance was double that of one person, but it could be safely taken as one and a half times as much. It was for that reason that he suggested that the limit of exemption should be raised by 50 per cent, for married persons. That was to the extent of £240, leaving the present limit of £160 to single persons. Where there were children there should be a further relief granted, say, £20 per annum for each child. As this worked out a trifle over a shilling a day, it certainly could not be called extravagant, if clothes, food, medical attenance, etc., were taken into consideration. Let him take a concrete case. A man was married, and had two children. He asked that such a man should receive relief of £160 for himself, of £80 for his wife, and of £40 for his two children, making in all £280 relief if the total income was less than £800 a year. For other statutory abatements, other calculations would have to be made, but he did not wish to tire the House by entering into minutiae. No doubt, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say that this system of relief would cost a considerable amount of money. He thought that he could prove the contrary. Let him assume that no less than 50,000 families were to receive this extra relief. The cost to the revenue would be, at the very outside £200,000, or less than one-tenth part of the present yield of a penny in the £ of income tax for the relief granted was only £4 for the wife, and £1 for each of the children. But what did not these few pounds represent to a man who might have less than £300 a year! It might deprive them not only of luxuries, but of actual necessaries. He did not think the Member for Liverpool could have any idea of the struggle which such men had, to pay this heavy

  551
  Income tax to the State. Dealing with, say, 100,000 married couples suffering from taxation, there had to be eliminated first at least one-half whose incomes were under £160, and who, consequently, were already entitled to exemption. Fifty thousand remained who, if they possessed £240 a year would be entitled to the full £4 relief proposed to be granted, but of these 50,000 it might safely be calculated that another half would not have the full £240, and consequently the extra relief granted to them would not, on the average, amount to more than £2. The only persons who would benefit to the full amount of the £4 relief were those owning incomes of from £240 to £600. Dealing with children, relief only came in where the parental income exceeded £240. It would therefore affect a comparatively small number of persons, although at the same time it would be an extreme boon to those to whom the relief was granted. What he proposed was not altogether new, for already there existed a modicum of relief granted to married persons who earned their own living independently one of the other. Where he feared he should meet with the greatest opposition to his scheme was amongst the permanent officials of Somerset House, for it would appear to be their policy to throw every obstacle in the way of persons who, even now, were statutorily entitled to exemption or abatement. Several questions which he had already asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on various occasions must have prepared him for some of the statements which he was about to make. The Board of Inland Revenue were continually making new rules and regulations, even after the sixty-three years existence of income-tax. He might mention their refusal to refund tax to a claimant if the dividends were not exclusively registered in his name. This refusal went as far as not to refund income-tax to a claimant on his share of a dividend in his name if any part of such dividend belonged to another person, and to refund to joint beneficiaries under any circumstances whatever unless a deed of trust or legal documentary evidence as to ownership could be produced to satisfy the Board. Now came one of the greatest difficulties. What was the kind of legal documentary
  552
  evidence which was required to satisfy the Board? The Inland Revenue, should issue such documents as, when completed and submitted, would satisfy them, but they declined to do so, and said that it was for the claimant to supply the evidence, which they would consider. They fully admitted that it was next to impossible for the claimant to produce any evidence which would satisfy them—an attitude worthy of Dickens' Circumlocution Office. Consular and notarial declarations had been produced where the claimant had sworn as to his income, but all of these had been refused. It was against these arbitrary decisions given by the Board of Inland Revenue that he would ask that there should be some appeal. It was absurd to suggest that a person with less than £160 a year who considered himself to be aggrieved should have to appeal to the High Court for a decision upon a legal point. Why not have a simple Court of Appeal where the claimant could state his case and obtain justice? As it was, the Board of Inland Revenue merely gave a decision, and if any argument was brought against them they gave the stereotyped answer that the Board adhered to their original decision, and if applied to again gave the second stereotyped answer that they had nothing to add to their previous communication, sometimes saying that they declined further correspondence.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  Committed for Monday next.

  HOURS OF RAILWAY SERVANTS.
  MR. ALDENrose to call attention to the hours of railway servants; and to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, the hours of railway servants are still in many cases excessive, notwithstanding the operation of the Hours Act of 1893, and call for stringent action by legislation and administration to secure their reduction to a reasonable standard."

  553
  He said that he recognised the efforts which the Board of Trade had made in regard to the hours of railway servants, and the improvement which had taken place in the conditions and hours of this large class of public servants. That improvement was largely the result of public debates in this House, and was also due largely to the action of the hon. Member for Derby, who he trusted would take some part in the present debate, because he was an expert in this matter and would speak with far more authority than he (Mr. Alden) possessed. There was, however, notwithstanding the advance which had taken place, room for further improvement, both as regarded the number of accidents and the hours of labour, and he trusted that suggestions would be made during the debate for further dealing with this evil. He would like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on the interest he had already shown in this matter by the appointment of a Statutory Committee to examine and test appliances, with a view to minimising the danger to which men employed on railways were exposed. He had not the slightest doubt that such a Committee would be able to give satisfactory and sound advice to the great railway companies and to the Government itself. He believed that the hon. Member for Dulwich, who had just been returned to this House, did express an opinion when he was at the Board of Trade that this matter should be inquired into. But he was not sure whether that hon. Gentleman promised a Statutory Committee or not. At all events, he expressed an opinion in favour of it on behalf of a Government suffering at that time from mental and moral fatigue, but nothing was done. He was afraid that all Governments were inclined to give replies of that kind in regard to the appointment of Committees of Inquiry to all hon. Members who raised inconvenient questions, and that these promises were forgotten under what, he should call the pressure of less important business. He trusted, however, that this Government would not be content with expressing a mere pious opinion, but would take some action. Having heard so many expressions of goodwill in the House in regard to this
  554
  matter, he was reminded of the saying of a late Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, who, when asked if his branch of mathematics had any practical bearing, said—
  "Thank God, tins branch of mathematics has never been disfigured by any practical application."
  He trusted, however, that his remarks would be found capable of practical application. He would leave to the Seconder of the Motion, the hon. Member for Newcastle, the task, so far as illustrations were concerned, of proving their case, and would content himself with a very few words of historical survey and some few remarks about the hours of railway work. The Resolution referred to the operation of the Hours Act of 1893, more properly called the Regulation of Railways Act. That Act was the result of a Select Committee which sat for two years, and that Committee was itself the result of a serious railway strike in Scotland. There were two clauses in especial upon which the administration of that Act depended. One was to the effect that if it was represented to the Board of Trade by or on behalf of the servants or any class of servants of a railway company, that the hours of labour of those servants, or of that particular class, were excessive and did not provide sufficient hours of rest, the Board of Trade should have power to interfere. The other clause was to the effect that if it appeared to the Board of Trade upon any such representation, or otherwise, that there was any reasonable ground of complaint against any railway company they should have power to submit to that railway company a schedule of time for working which should bring the actual hours of working within reasonable limits, having regard to all the circumstances of the traffic and the nature of the work. Returns had repeatedly been called for by the House in regard to these matters, and had been supplied after long delay. It had never been felt, however, that those Returns were satisfactory or conclusive. The Act was a permissive Act, and it would be seen from the two sections to which he had referred that the onus of making the complaint as to the number of

  555
  hours worked or any other unfavourable conditions fell upon the railway servant. Those who had experience of railway companies knew that those complaints when made must tell against the chances of a man's promotion, and that in many cases they led to his dismissal. Two days ago he got into a railway carriage where there were seven railway men who had just been relieved from duty. He entered into conversation with them and they complained of the length of the hours they worked. He said, "If, as you say, your hours are so long, why is it you do not make a complaint." They all smiled at him as if he were a child, and he knew the answer that they would give. They said, "If we made any complaint it would be traced, and if it were traced it would be all over with promotion for us and it might mean dismissal." His first point was that they could not expect the men to make complaints, because it was against their interest. His second point was that the Parliamentary Returns were not conclusive. His hon. friend on one occasion moved for a Return which was to be given in December, 1902, and three months notice was given of that Return. The railway companies made preparations accordingly. They issued circulars, and they would be very foolish if they had not done so, telling the officials that the hours of labour must be kept down. At all events there was a most astounding difference between the figures given for that year and those for previous years. In the Return for December, 1902, the number of cases of men working over twelve hours was given as 75,389. In regard to the next Return, which was called for in October, 1903, they did not have the same notice, and the number of cases of men who worked for over twelve hours leaped up to 99,586. Perhaps some hon. Members would say that the difference of the month in which the Return was taken accounted for the figures, but the difference was all in favour of the railway company, because December was the month of fogs and overtime, while in October the same considerations did not apply. The latest Return was asked for in May, 1905, but it was not received until February 1906, and even although the Board of Trade was
  556
  undoubtedly doing its best he thought the railway companies might be made to quicken up their mode of giving these Returns. In March, 1905, on the Great Western Railway there were 4,821 cases of overtime, and of those cases 3,577 were cases of goods engine drivers and firemen and guards. On the Great Central, which employed a far less number of men, there were 1,871 cases, and 1,230 of those cases were in the same class of engine drivers and firemen. He should like to contrast those figures with those of the London and North Western Railway, who employed an enormous number of men, and was undoubtedly one of the most powerful organisations of men in the railway world. There were only 134 cases out of all the men employed on that system, of all grades, and 75 of those cases were cases in the same class of labour. He contended that if the London and North Western Railway could so organise their service as to reduce the cases of overtime to 134 per month, there was no reason why other railway companies should not be compelled to do the same. That would be a point for the Board of Trade to consider, it any railway company raised any difficulty and said it was impossible. The railways of Ireland were in this respect notorious. They were notoriously badly managed, and there would never be a revival of the prosperiy of trade in Ireland while they were managed as at present. He trusted the time would come when the Government of this country would see their way to nationalise the railways of Ireland. The general figures of the latest Return showed 73,686 cases of overtime, a decrease as compared with the figures of 1902 and 1903, though not so large a decrease as could have been wished. Of those; 73,000 cases, 48,000 were of men working thirteen hours, 17,000 cases of men working fourteen hours, and 4,678 of men working fifteen hours. That was a very serious matter, and no one could be surprised that accidents curred. Very responsible work was put on these men, and they were sometimes expected to take extra duty and work overtime when not in a fit condition. This surely was a matter that should come under the purview of the Board of Trade,

  557
  and he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would give his attention to it. Railway companies tried to explain away and minimise these matters as much as possible. For instance, the manager of the Taff Railway said that if they took every hour worked during the week by all grades of the service the overtime only averaged six and a half seconds per hour. That was minimising the matter with a vengeance, but the answer to that was that the law of averages might satisfy the railway company, but it would not satisfy the man who had to work-fifteen hours, nor would it satisfy the right hon. Gentleman, this House, or the public. The Return did not give any idea of the changed conditions of work in this matter. During the last few years British railways had been Americanised; expenditure had been reduced by the carrying of heavier loads with bigger engines. He remembered travelling on an engine for a few hundred miles in the United States, and while he watched the fireman putting on, not two and a half tons of coal as it used to be, but five or six tons for his journey, he could not but contrast his work with that which used to be done on smaller engines. At the end of his journey the man was exhausted and could hardly step off his engine. The companies put men on these engines and doubled the work they had to do and gave no compensating benefit by way of shorter hours of labour, but treated them list in the same way as they treated the men years ago, when they did half the work. The facts he had stated were proved by the number of firemen, drivers, and guards now employed. Since 1901 up to 1905 the number employed had decreased on four railways alone by over 5,000—not because traffic had fallen off, but because heavier loads and bigger engines had sensibly decreased the number of trains sent out and the number of miles run by trains. While he did not blame the railway companies for economising in this manner, he contended that the men ought to have some corresponding gain for the extra work performed. He appealed for increased power to be conferred on the Board of Trade to enable it to deal more
  558
  satisfactorily with all companies with a view to shortening the hours of labour. Under those powers there should be a compulsory Return at stated intervals of all the hours worked over twelve. If it was necessary to amend the Act of 1903 to that effect, the right hon. Gentleman ought to see his way to introduce an Amending Bill for that purpose. The terms of the Compulsory Order should be clearly defined, because, if it was left to the railway companies to give their Returns as they chose, the facts would never be ascertained. The only possible procedure was to have a systematic Return. If railway companies knew that a Return had to be made they would make arrangements accordingly. The number of sub-inspectors should be increased and their powers extended. The chief work of sub-inspectors was to take note of accidents after they had occurred and to hold inquiries in respect to them. The wiser thing in his opinion would be to prevent accidents and sufficient inspection would prevent them. If they had not sufficient inspection at the present time it also called for action on the part of the Board of Trade and more sub-inspectors should be employed. It was not much to ask. Inspectors were now going about all over the country inspecting other industries. This was one of the largest industries in the country, and it seemed to him that there should be this inspection which was as necessary for the public welfare as for that of the men themselves. If inspectors were told off to visit the danger points on railways he believed many accidents would be prevented, but the inspectors should visit those places unexpectedly if they wanted the inspections to effect their purpose. The hours worked by the men were far too long and should be reduced, by legislation if necessary. The words in the Act "within unreasonable limits" were interpreted as a twelve-hour day. Was it too much to ask that those words should be interpreted as a ten-hour day, which, he contended, was quite sufficient? A ten-hour day was sufficient for most workmen on the railway, and if they were worked more it would be at the risk of life and limb. He thought the President of the Local Government Board would agree with him that if they could reduce the hours of labour of railway servants they would do

  559
  something towards the partial solving of the unemployed problem. As it was no new men were being taken on as drivers and firemen on any railway. The numbers were decreasing. That meant more unemployed. If there could be a reduction of the hours of labour more men might be taken on. The President of the Local Government Board had more than once expressed the opinion that the lessening of the hours of labour of those engaged in the working of locomotion and transit was one way out of the problem of the unemployed. Meanwhile the Board of Trade was in the position of guardian of the public safety, and he trusted the President of that Department would feel it to be his duty both in the interests of the travelling public and in the interests of a highly deserving body of men to make some definite statement as to legislation in the near future.
  MR. HUDSONsaid he had to congratulate his hon. friend upon the excellent way in which he had opened up the discussion of this question. Had his hon. friend been an expert in railway matters he could not have done better, and he had considerably lightened his labours as seconder of the Resolution. He thought he could prove conclusively that long hours were not only prevalent to-day but were general. What was reasonably required was that not only should the Railway Regulation Act of 1893 be administered to the full but that that Act should be brought up to date. Might he trouble the House with a few general statements of the long hours of railway men as they existed today? Let them take the locomotive men on the North Staffordshire Railway. In October last year they ranged from eleven hours forty-five minutes up to fourteen hours forty-five minutes. The case of the goods guards at Wakefield, on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, was reported to the Board of Trade; no less than ninety-six cases occurred in which men were on duty for twelve hours for the week ending March 7th, the average time for which these men were on duty being practically thirteen and a half hours each. On the North British Railway at St. Margaret's, Edinburgh, long hours had been worked in the
  560
  months of August, September, and October, a typical case being that of a man working for six days from September 18th to 23rd, inclusive, the shortest being ten hours fifty minutes, two days at twelve hours, one day it twelve hours twenty-five minutes, one day at thirteen hours five minutes, and one day at thirteen hours fifteen minutes. The same man worked on October 23 rd to 28th inclusive, and the lowest number of hours upon any one day was twelve, and the highest fifteen hours fifteen minutes. This was a locomotive man. On the same railway at Portobello the goods guards were working, and this was finite frequent, for thirteen, fourteen, and even fifteen hours a day, and it was a regular custom there for the hours of duty to exceed twelve per day. There was the case of a goods guard on the Caledonian Railway who worked seventeen out of twenty-four times on duty for more than twelve hours. In another case on the Barry Railway, the working for one man showed that for six days the consecutive times were thirteen hours ten minutes, fourteen hours thirty minutes, thirteen hours twenty minutes, fourteen hours ten minutes, fourteen hours forty minutes, and twelve hours twenty minutes. During a fortnight on the Brecon and Merthyr Railway there were no less than fifty-nine cases in which men were on duty for periods ranging from twelve to seventeen hours. On the Great Central Railway of England in the week ending October 28th, 1905, they had the following cases. On Sunday a goods guard worked thirteen hours twenty minutes at Sheffield station. On Monday, there were five cases of long hours, ranging up to fifteen hours forty minutes. On Tuesday, there were nine cases, ranging up to sixteen hours fifteen minutes. On Wednesday, there were ten cases, one of which reached nineteen hours fifty minutes. On Thursday, there were nine cases, ranging up to over fifteen hours. At Ardwick on the same railway, during one month, the hours ranged from a little over ten hours to eighteen hours per day, and at the latter end of the month, they found cases of goods guards who had been on duty thirty-two hours fifty minutes, while there were quite a number over twenty hours per day. Another case reported was

  561
  that of the Swansea Harbour Trust. This railway was worked under contract, but the hours were terribly excessive. They ranged up to twenty-four, twenty-seven, thirty-six, and even forty hours duty at a stretch. It had been claimed on the part of the employers that the men did not object to those long hours. That was admitted, but the Board of Trade had no right to allow it, in the interests of public safety. There were many cases which were not correctly reported to the Board of Trade. He mentioned the case of a cleaner on the' Midland Railway, who, after being on duty as a cleaner from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., after an interval of five hours rest, went on the foot plate of the engine as a fireman for twelve hours twenty-five minutes, and he contended that in such a case the railway company ought not to return simply the time he had worked as a fireman. The Great Northern Railway were also sinners in this direction. The greatest possible difficulty had been experienced at Bradford by the goods guards in getting relief when they had done a full term of duty. From their point of view, the maximum limit, of twelve hours a day was too much, and at the very most that period should not be exceeded. A short time ago a report was made to the Railway Department of the Board of Trade that at Peterborough the locomotive men on the same railway worked up to eighteen hours a day, the hours worked being as follows—

  Hrs.

  Mins.

  Sunday

  14

  15

  Monday

  10

  Tuesday

  10

  55

  Wednesday

  13

  15

  Thursday

  15

  Friday

  14

  Saturday

  18

  33

  There was also a case on the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway, where a signalman worked eight or ten hours in his own cabin, and was then called upon to do fog signalling for several hours—a different grade of duty altogether. At Purley signalmen were called upon to perform fogmen's work after finishing their ordinary duties in the signal-box. This caused them
  562
  to work extremely long hours. The following were few instances of this—

  Time on duty.

  December 18th, 1904.

  Hrs.

  Mins.

  A man worked as Signalman

  13

  Resting

  45

  as Fogman

  10

  15

  Total from start to finish

  24

  March 18th, 1905.

  Ordinary duty.

  Fogging duty.

  Total time.

  Hrs.

  Mins.

  Hrs.

  Mins.

  Hrs.

  Mins.

  8

  2

  20

  10

  20

  8

  45

  6

  16

  45

  8

  5

  30

  16

  with an interval of 2 hrs. 30 mins. in the last case.
  He would also mention cases on the North Eastern line. There was a case at Hull, which was still pending, though it was first reported to the Board of Trade in November, 1904, The hours of drivers there were very excessive. They ranged from eleven to fifteen hours a id fifteen minutes. He was not blaming the Board of Trade at all, though he believed that under the late Administration there was a great deal of laxity, and it was not unusual for them to wait nine or twelve months, or even eighteen months, before any satisfactory reply was received that there had been an inquiry. In this particular case a reminder was sent to the Board of Trade in 1905, calling attention to the fact that it was nothing uncommon for the men to be on duty for thirteen or fourteen or even seventeen hours at a stretch. It was rather difficult to say when that inquiry would finish, if they let the company take their own time about it. Another class of case was that of station porters, He was prepared to admit that there was not the same degree of strain upon an ordinary porter as was put upon trainmen. Nevertheless, there was a limit of physical capacity, and there should be a limit of hours of work. One case was of a porter who worked from 6.30 a.m. to 9 p.m., with only 2½ hours for meals on a total of 14½ hours. The time from start to finish should at least be brought within reasonable limits. They were now spread over an excessive number of hours, and the case he had cited was typical of many of the porters on all

  563
  the railways. Another case was that of the West Clare Light Railway men, who worked, according to the time-table, from twelve to eighteen hours a day. A light railway as compared with a trunk line in this country was of comparatively little importance, but the men on a light railway were worked as far as possible from the time they commenced to the time they left off duty. The railway companies got as much work as possible out of them. In the case he had mentioned this grievance was supposed to have been remedied, and he got a letter from the hon. Member for Derby on March 3rd of this year, informing him that the complaint made by the West Clare men had been put right, and that there had been a rescheduling of hours, which had satisfactorily settled matters. The most amusing feature of this incident was that when he received this letter he happened to be in Ireland, and made a few inquiries from the men who were well acquainted with the West Clare Railway, and one of the first questions he was asked was when was anything going to be done by the Board of Trade in regard to their long hours? That was after he had received the letter stating that the hours had been put right. He mentioned that merely as a typical case to show that even with the best endeavours of the Board of Trade through its railway department very little was done, and their representations had very little effect. Even when they secured a rescheduling of the hours they soon got back to the old system, and consequently they called for the rescheduling every year. What they asked for was a more stringent administration of this particular Act of 1893, if it was to be of any use whatever, so far as having a good effect in regard to shorter hours was concerned. The hon. Member for Tottenham rightly called attention to the Return for December, 1902, and this was proof positive that the hours could be reduced if there was a willingness to reduce them. They had been told that it was very difficult to bring the hours within reasonable limits, owing to the traffic and the nature of the work. He had worked for over a quarter of a century himself on the railway train. He knew that if there was a determination to keep the hours of duty within certain limits it could be done, generally speaking. They did not
  564
  ask anything unreasonable. In cases of fog or accident it was quite possible that excessive hours might have to be worked in one or two cases. They were prepared to allow for these exceptional cases. What they said was that in the scheduling of the work there was no serious intention to bring the hours within the limit which the Board of Trade thirteen years ago considered to be reasonable, namely, a twelve hours limit. The Return for October, 1903, showed that in 64,624 cases men were on duty for thirteen hours; 22,046 for fourteen hours; 7,976 for fifteen hours; 2,673 for sixteen hours; 1,070 for seventeen hours and 1,120 for eighteen hours and over. He wondered how right hon. and hon. Gentlemen would feel when riding comfortably on the railways to and from their duties in this assembly if they knew that the men working the lines were so long on duty. It was considered at the present day that after ten hours work a man's powers of physical endurance were at an end, and that he required a rest. In view of the development of railway traffic, and the higher tension both physical and mental upon the men now, he thought there should be a revision so far as the interpretation of the Act was concerned. The Act was permissive and it was within the power of the Board of Trade to call for rescheduling in all cases where the hours exceeded ten per day. Exceptions might possibly he made in the case of branch lines, or in connection with some grades of the service, but for all practical purposes on the trunk lines of the kingdom ten hours duty at the utmost was enough in the case of 90 per cent, of the men engaged in the manipulation of traffic. The workmen also said that the onus of complaint should be removed to the State department. It was a great deterrent to men reporting to know that their promotion might be endangered, or that they might not receive fair treatment if they were found to have reported cases to the Board of Trade. It was quite true that anonymous reports had long been allowed, but that did not alter the fact that it was possible to find the men who had worked long hours, and to ask whether they had reported. When he was in the service he had heard an inspector question men as to whether they had reported. It would not be difficult for the Board of

  565
  Trade to do in this matter something similar to what was done by the Home Office in the case of factories. He thought the Board of Trade might with advantage to the men, and the public generally, make inquiry wherever they found very bad cases. It was intended, under the Accidents Act of 1900, to take certain grades of the service which were considered dangerous under the supervision of the Department, in the same way as the Home Office under took the supervision of factories. This was one specific matter to which the Board of Trade should give their first attention in the interest of public safety, as well as in the interest of the large number of men employed. He and his friends trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the suggestions they had offered. They were new, but looking to the altered circumstances, and to the fact that the Act had been in operation for thirteen years, they thought that the time had arrived when there should be a change in its administration and definition. The twelve hours day which thirteen years ago was defined as a reasonable maximum was not suited to the altered conditions of railway work, and they thought it would be reasonable now to define the maximum as ton hours. He had great pleasure in seconding the Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, the Hours of Railway Servants are still in many casses excessive, notwithstanding the operation of the Hours Act of 1893, and call for stringent action by legislation; and administration to secure their reduction to a reasonable standard."— (Mr. Alden.)
  MR. MCCRAEsaid he only intervened in this debate because he represented a large body of Scottish railway men. During a strike on the North British Railway in 1890, public opinion in Scotland was much stirred at the revelation of the excessive number of hours worked by the men, and the instances of long hours quoted by the hon. Member showed that the Act of 1893 had a great deal too much elasticity about it. The instances given really showed that some action on the part of the
  566
  Board of Trade was called for. He thought the Board of Trade had a public duty to perform in this matter, and that intervention was loudly called for. Anyone who considered the question from an impartial standpoint must feel that ten hours were long enough for railway men to work. The strike to which he had referred was for a ten hours day. In the case of signalmen he should say that if they worked eight hours a day a sufficient strain was demanded from them, having regard, not only to the men themselves, but to the public safety. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would not only accept the Motion in full, but that he would feel that some kind of action was necessary on the part of his Department. Personally he had given hostages to fortune in this matter, because he had assured his railway constituents that there was now at the Board of Trade a Minister who would look at those questions with a sympathetic mind. He believed there was a strong case calling for investigation in the interest of the public, and he hoped that his right hon. friend would see that it was his duty, not only to make full inquiry, but to take action when the hours worked showed that the Act of 1893 had been evaded.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODdesired to say a few words on behalf of the railway companies. He had no complaint to make of the temperate way in which the case of the men had been presented to the House, and as far as he knew the railway companies were not averse from any examination of the methods by which they carried out the administration of their lines. There were undoubtedly from time to time cases of overtime being worked by the men, but he thought that the number of such cases was smaller than hon. Members believed to be the fact. In regard to the Motion a great deal depended upon the view of the House as a whole as to what it would call "a reasonable standard." Some hon. Members would say that twelve hours a day, others that ten hours, and others again that eight hours formed a reasonable day's work, while some who had practical knowledge of railway work would agree that five hours on an express engine would

  567
  constitute a sufficient strain on the mental and physical energies of a driver. It was, however, the general application of the principle of shortened hours to all railway men that the House had principally to consider. Of course complaints had been made to the prejudice of the men who made them. One hon. Member had said that these complaints were made anonymously; but he would point out that inquiry by the Board of Trade over such a large area into anonymous complaints was impossible. He himself had not heard of any case of dismissal or punishment as the result of an anonymous complaint. The Board of Trade made a yearly Report of proceedings under the Act, and on page 14 a table of cases inquired into since the passing of the Act was given. That showed that in the twelve years—1894 to 1905—there were in all 766 complaints. That was an average of seventy-seven per annum, and, as the Report pointed out, the figures for the last three years showed a great decrease in the annual average. It had to be remembered that there were about 600,000 men employed on English railways, and that no serious complaints had been made by any man confidentially or otherwise. In 1905, thirty-eight cases of complaints were received. In twenty-eight of these cases the Board of Trade reported that some action had been taken whereby the conditions would be improved, and in some of these cases the action had been taken voluntarily by the railway companies. With regard to the return which was made periodically for a stated month as to the number of railway servants who, during that month, were on duty on the railways of the United Kingdom for more than twelve hours, or who, after being on duty for that period, were allowed to resume work with less than nine hours rest, the way in which that Return was made was disputed by the railway company as unfair to them. It did not show the hours of interval for rest or of the time taken in travelling to and from work. The objections to the form of the Return made to the Board of Trade were fully and clearly stated by Mr. Inglis, the manager of the Great Western Railway, who showed the arrangement made by his company for the relief of men in their employment. Similar representations had been made by the managers of the London & North Western Railway
  568
  Company and other railway companies which he need not specialise. But he would take an example from the Midland Railway, which was one of the companies complained of, as to the goods guards being on duty for an excessive number of hours. He might state that arrangements had been made by most railway companies to relieve goods guards and engine drivers whose trains were delayed on the road, and as wages were paid for the time spent in travelling from the point at which relief was afforded to the usual destination of the man relieved, that time had to be included in the Return as overtime. Taking the Midland Railway Return, it showed that a goods guard had been on duty thirteen hours and forty minutes. But of that time six hours and twenty minutes were occupied by debus, and three hours in travelling to and from his work. In another case the gross time of a goods guard on duty was fifteen hours and twenty minutes, but the total time waiting and travelling was only eleven hours and twenty minutes, while four hours and thirty minutes were taken up in travelling home. The Committee presided over by Sir M. Hick-Beach had pointed out that if an absolute standard of hours were insisted on the companies might be compelled to reduce the train service or even close stations in districts where there was very little traffic, in order to avoid the cost of the extra staff. The railway companies did not wish to overwork their men or to encourage overtime. They were fully aware that the safety of the public depended upon a man having his wits about him, and no man who was overworked and overstrained could give proper attention to difficult work. The driver of an excursion train might have six hours at the seaside out of twelve, and the shortening of his hours to ten would mean the shortening of the time of the excursionists at the seaside. The Board of Trade Return did not show the number of hours represented by delays and resting. Railway directors were not without feeling, and looked well after their men. The railway companies had nothing to hide or conceal from the House, and any inquiry instituted would receive every possible assistance from the companies.
  MR. BELLsaid he felt indebted to the mover and seconder for

  569
  bringing forward the Motion. It had been his misfortune or perhaps his privilege to bring this Motion before the House nearly every session since he was returned in 1900, and he was not a little gratified on this occasion to have the assistance of two hon. Members who had dealt with the details very fully and had relieved him to a great extent of that task. He was also gratified to find that the right hon. Gentleman who was now at the head of the Board of Trade was familiar with some of the statements which he had put forward previously. At the time of the passing of the Act of 1893 he would admit that there was a great flurry in the railway companies' offices, and a tremendous drop in the long hours worked upon the railways. But unfortunately for the men employed on the railways, the Government who brought in that Act were not in office very long to administer it, and during the reign of the late Government it was impossible to get the Act administered as it should be. He was hoping, however, for better things now, and he was prepared to give a reasonable allowance of time in order to see what the President of the Board of Trade was prepared to do. The Resolution was not of a very drastic character, and simply called for more stringent action by legislation and administration to secure the reduction of hours to a reasonable standard. The right hon. Gentleman had a very great deal of power over administration, and what he asked was, that this Act which had not been administered to anything like the extent it ought to have been should now be properly administered. In saying this he did not desire to reflect upon the action of the permanent officials of the Board of Trade, who of course were not called upon to frame the policy of the Department: that rested with the Minister at the head. Therefore he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would pursue a more stringent policy with regard to administration, and if in a few years it was found that the Act did not
  570
  give him sufficient power let him bring in a more stringent measure. It was quite clear that railway directors sitting in that or in the other House could not make themselves familiar with all the details of railway work, and even the head officials of the railways could not make themselves familiar with all the details; they had to collect them from the different districts and from subordinate officials. He asserted, however, that there were good grounds for believing that inaccurate Returns were sent to the Board of Trade. It was said that many of the railway men who worked fifteen hours spent six of them at the seaside, but that was not the case in many instances. His complaint was that the Returns were "cooked" before they were sent to the Board of Trade. That was, and always had been, his complaint. He held in his hand an original document in regard to the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway. He would not quote the exact time when the man went on duty or left duty, nor the date nor the place where the long hours occurred, because in previous cases where he had given such details as to overtime the railway companies had spent as much money in tracing particular cases as would, he believed, have sufficed to relieve the men of these excessive hours. When the case had boon traced the men had been interrogated as to when they sent their complaint to him, and why they did so. The Return in question made out by the man showed that he went on duty at 4 a.m. and came off at 7.40 p.m. He was a goods guard so that at all events he did not have any six hours at the seaside. When this Return went into the superintendent's office deductions were made of periods of from ten to fifteen minutes and ranging up to fifty-five minutes during the course of the day. This was done in accordance with an instruction that in making out a long-hours form "travelling time, etc., should be deducted." In this way the man's time was reduced by six hours and thirty minutes, and was reduced to nine hours and ten minutes.

  571
  That was the way the time during which the man was on duty was reduced. He knew of a great many of these cases, existing upon other railways beside the Lancashire and Yorkshire. No doubt hon. Members who defended the railway companies in this House spoke in good faith, but the Returns were, he contended, dealt with in the way he had indicated. Moreover, if a man sent in a Return showing excessive hours, he might be chastised for doing so. With regard to the Return published under the Act of 1893 which had been referred to, there was a brief statement in it to the effect that the whole of the complaints under it from 1894 to 1905 only numbered 766 cases, and he remembered that when that Return was issued for 1904 the Secretary of the Board of Trade, Sir Francis Hopwood, made a very complimentary reference to the railway companies because in 1904 there were no more than eleven complaints under the Act. If it had only been a case of eleven complaints he would have considered the matter unworthy of notice, but, in a Return obtained for him by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in 1903, they found a very high standard of hours of overtime, namely, 99,506 in one month. That figure did not compare very favourably with eleven cases in one year. He had already explained the reason why complaints were not made by the men. He could not understand why extraordinary and unnecessary delay occurred in securing these Returns. He might mention in reply to his right hon. friend the Member for Epping that in regard to the Midland Railway, although he did not like to specify any railway, if his hon. friend would only inquire how many complaints he (Mr. Bell) had sent in from that railway company during the last eighteen months he would find that they amounted to an enormous number; indeed, so numerous were they that he should have required assistance to bring them down. This was shown by a document he received from the President of the Board of Trade dated the fifth of this month,
  572
  which referred to men upon the Midland Railway who had worked excessive hours. Under no circumstances should men be permitted to be on their engines or with their trains for such an excessive number of hours. The Board of Trade had had an admission from the Midland Railway that these long horns were worked, and it should not be allowed. In his opinion also it was necessary that something should be done in order to check the Returns of the railway companies. He had been in conflict with the Department on several occasions and found that they had no method of checking those Returns The method by which complaints were dealt with was that when complaints were received by the Board of Trade of long hours being worked, the railway company was applied to to supply a Return or schedule of hours worked over an area sufficiently wide to include the place complained of. The company sent the Return and it was then compared with that which he or the person complaining had sent in. If the statement of the railway company was favourable the Board of Trade said they could not further act. What he wanted to know was what guarantee had the Board of Trade that these Returns were accurate? He wanted some system by which they could be checked. If he sent in a complaint of men working an excessive number of hours and the Returns supplied by the company did not correspond or come up to the Return which he sent, why should the Board of Trade accept the Return of the company as against his? The Board of Trade was the judge in this matter, but the judgment was entirely on one side. What he wanted the right hon. Gentleman to do was, when he found the Return of the company differed from the Return of the complainer, that he should have some method of checking the accuracy of the Return. That could be done by an inspector or sub-inspector being sent down to look at the books in which the men signed on and off duty, and in which the facts appeared. The Act of 1903 would not be satisfactory

  573
  until some such method had been adopted. If the right hon. Gentleman had not the power under the Act he hoped he would seek it. In any case it was in the interests of the men and of the public that such a course should be taken. Everybody knew that there were men on every railway who did not object to a few extra hours for a few extra shillings at the end of the week, but that was a matter that should be left out of consideration altogether. In one case in regard to the Lancashire and Yorkshire Hallway he made a representation which ultimately resulted in the hours being reduced at one particular depôt. Immediately men who were not members of his society got up a petition to protest against his action. That was essentially a case where the Board of Trade having received such a petition should have sent their officers down to ascertain whether the statements made by those men were correct or not. He knew they were not accurate, and he was not afraid to say either in this House or outside that the men who signed that petition were men who did all they knew to keep in with the gaffer and to curry favour. The inspector who inquired into the serious accident at Broad Street in August, 1904, owing to the mistake of a signalman, attributed it to the excessive hours the man had been working prior to the date of the accident. The signalman in question had worked continuously 50 per cent, longer every shift than he ought to have done. In most instances of personal injuries or accidents to the public it was found on inquiry that the men concerned had not been working very long hours at the time of the accident, but it did not follow that they had not been working excessive hours for days prior to the occurrence, during which their alertness and energy had been sapped. He urged the Board of Trade to hurry the railway companies in the matter of presenting Returns. Surely it was not unreasonable to expect them to supply information to the Board of Trade much quicker than they were accustomed to do. He had called for
  574
  Returns for five years, and he should continue to call for them until there was a substantial reduction in the hours of the men. On each occasion when he had called for a Return he generally got it from eleven to thirteen months afterwards. The companies could obtain information quickly enough when they wanted it for their own purposes. Let the Board of Trade be as smart. The hon. Member for Tottenham in his very interesting speech had referred to the statement made by the general manager of the Taff Vale Railway Company, who was great on averages, and who said the average overtime worked by the men on that line was 6½ seconds per hour, but the figures from which he produced his average were as follows:—314 men worked for 13 hours, 39 men for 14 hours, 21 men for 15 hours, 5 men for 16 hours, 3 for 19 hours and 7 for 18 hours and over in one month. The fact that the average worked out at six-and-a-half seconds was not much consolation to men who had worked for eighteen hours. Owing to the adoption of larger engines and other changes the number of engine drivers, firemen, and guards employed on four railways had decreased between 1901 and 1905 by 5,600 men. With such a reduction of numbers in tour years, and with the excessive hours worked on the other hand, there was good reason why the President of the Board of Trade should co-operate with the President of the Local Government Board in an endeavour to get the Railway Companies to reduce hours within reasonable limits, and in that way help to case the congestion in the labour market. He asked the President of the Board of Trade to consider very seriously whether he had power under the Act of 1893 to take stronger measures to enforce the reduction of excessive hours, and in particular to check the Returns furnished by the railway companies by means of inspection of their books. If the right hon. Gentleman had not got that power he hoped he would consider whether he should not, in the very near

  575
  future, ask the House to give it to him. If the railway companies knew that the Board of Trade might pay surprise visits to their offices and inspect their books they would take good care that the hours worked by the men were kept within reasonable limits. The evidence given before the Royal Commission by the railway companies was that it was absolutely impossible to reduce the hours of their employees, but the Act of 1893 altered the matter to some extent, and the railway companies were able to fall in with it. The companies would be able to do so again, perhaps with some little extra expense and inconvenience at first, but that would soon disappear if the new conditions were met by the companies in an earnest spirit. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take the matter seriously in hand, and that by next year a great reform would have been made.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid they had just listened to a most able exposition by the hon. Member for Derby of the defects of the administration of the Board of Trade in regard to railways, and this Motion had been seconded by one of his oldest friends among the railway workers, the hon. Member for Newcastle, in an admirable and practical speech. He only wished to refer to two points. He wished to remind the House that although the Report of the Railway Hours Committee who sat in 1892 had been referred to, no allusion had been made to the suggestion made by Lord St. Aldwyn, who laid down that in his opinion a ten hours day was sufficient for the regular staff upon railways and an eight hours day for some signalmen. The Committee had reported that ten hours was a sufficient day's work and should be accepted as the standard, and he urged the President of the Board of Trade to adhere to that standard. The hon. Member for Derby had rightly complained of the intolerable delay which had occurred in obtaining Returns. Apparently it had been overlooked that
  576
  in the year 1886 this House passed the Second Reading of a Bill which provided not for an occasional Return once a year, but for a Return once a month, if the Board of Trade required it, of all these excessive hours of labour. He wished to support most strongly the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newcastle that the initiative should be taken by the Board of Trade, so that the men should not be exposed to the risk involved in making complaints on behalf of their fellow workmen. The Board of Trade had ample power to obtain as frequently as it desired Returns of excessive hours. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would follow the advice of the hon. Member for Derby and have these Returns checked, and the books inspected by an officer of the Board of Trade.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs)said the case of the railway servants had been stated in very moderate speeches. The cases of excessive hours given by the hon. Member for Newcastle must have made a deep impression on the few Members present at the time. For men to work fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen hours a day was beyond human endurance. That condition of things ought not to be tolerated. He regretted that some of these cases had not been brought to his notice before. He would be exceedingly obliged if hon. Members on both sides of the House would call his attention more specifically to cases in regard to which they would like him to take action. He agreed that a strong case had been made out for interference in many of these cases. For instance, in the case of the North-Eastern Company, subject to what he should find on investigation, he thought something ought to be done. The first complaint was made in 1904. He understood that the company made no defence of their action. They made promises of amendment, but that amendment was not forthcoming. He promised to look into the matter as soon

  577
  as possible. He was not sure, without taking further advice on the question, whether the powers of the Board of Trade under the Act of 1893 were adequate to accomplish the objects which hon. Members had in view. The hon. Member for Derby, who was a great authority on these questions, suggested that they should check the Returns made by the railway companies, and that the Board should not accept without inquiry the Returns made by the railway companies.
  MR. BELL: When they differ.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that first of all the hon. Member contended that when the statements of the men were controverted by the railway companies there should be some sort of independent investigation. He thought that a very strong case had been made out for that. There were difficulties to overcome. One difficulty was that the Board of Trade was understaffed, and they had very few inspectors. It appeared to be the impression in some quarters that the Board of Trade had an army of inspectors and that they could send them off to West Clare, to places on the North-Eastern Railway, the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, the light railways, and others to inspect them and report upon the hours of labour. As a matter of fact they had very few inspectors, and they were very much understaffed in the office of the Board of Trade itself. They were also very much overworked, and they would be very glad to get a ton hours' day for the officials. This was a question which they were considering at the present time. He agreed that where there was a conflict between the men and their representatives on the one hand and the railway companies on the other with regard to hours of labour and matters of that character, there ought to be an inde-
  578
  pendent inquiry. He was satisfied that the Board of Trade had power to do that under Clause 1 of the present Act. There was no limit to the powers of inquiry, and his hon. friend should have no cause to complain in that respect. As to the delay in the issue of Returns, he could not without inquiry say why it arose, but he was perfectly certain it was not due to the Board of Trade. Certainly a delay of a year in the issue of a Return for a particular month was an extravagant time, and the railway companies should be wakened up. He promised to look into that matter carefully at the earliest possible moment. Other suggestions had been made of a much more sweeping character, and he was not sure that he had yet had time sufficiently to consider them. Up to the present they had proceeded on the assumption that twelve hours should be the maximum standard of labour, and a reduction to ten hours would have a far-reaching effect. A good many railways in the kingdom were practically working at a loss, and he really did not know what would happen with the poor old Cambrian Railway if the hours were cut down from twelve to ten. [An HON. MEMBER: Let the State take it.] That raised a much wider question not under discussion. He did not know that he would agree with that suggestion, or that the State would make a good bargain. Shareholders could not be compelled to work a line at a loss. It was as much as many railways could do now to pay current expenses. It was not a question of what the railway companies said they could do; it was a question of actual results.
  MR. BELLsaid his point was that ten should be recognised as the standard, and beyond that the hours should be considered excessive, and in no circumstances should they be more than twelve.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the House must have more knowledge of the facts before adopting that view. Upon many light railways those who had put their capital into the undertaking never expected to see the colour of their coin again; but he was not prepared to enforce such a regulation against these lines or against small branch lines in the country, where the work was certainly not arduous and was carried on in a leisurely manner. If, however, the great main lines would conform to the twelve hours standard that would be a great step in advance. There had been only one champion of these companies in the debate, and he had been wisely chosen. He was a popular Member of the House, and the company chosen was the one against which there was the least complaint. The London and North-Western Company gave the least trouble so far as hours of labour were concerned; and if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could persuade the other companies to conform to the standard of the London and North-Western Company there would be little to say; but, judged by that standard, their great rival, the Great Western, was notoriously bad. There was no excuse for such a rich and powerful company. With the little light railways in the country he had really some sympathy; they took their time and worked leisurely. There were the workmen on the Cambrian Railway—he did not think thirteen hours a day in their case would bring tears to the eyes of any man. He did not think there were many cases of nervous breakdown on the part of these men. His hon. friend the Member for Newcastle said he would make an exception in the case of branch lines, and would not enforce the same standard as on the busy trunk lines. It was not for
  580
  him to criticise the management of great railways by men of ability and experience; but it seemed to him that when one great company had found it possible to adopt a twelve hours standard, pressure might well be brought to bear on companies like the Great Western and the Great Central to conform to that standard. In their criticisms Members had not done full justice to the Board of Trade. The Department had accomplished much under the Act. A few figures would illustrate this. A good deal had been said about goods guards. He would take the Great Eastern Railway, and he found from the Report that the percentage of days when thirteen hours and over were worked in 1895 was 19·78, but in 1905 it was reduced to 6·04. The percentage in the case of goods enginemen had also been reduced from seventeen to four. Many other instances could be quoted showing that a great deal had been accomplished. That a good deal more remained to be done he readily admitted. He would endeavour to carry the suggestions of his hon. friends into effect so far as the Act of 1893 would allow. He believed a great deal could be done with that Act. He wished the Board of Trade had greater power in individual cases. They had the power rather of suggesting schedules than of enforcing them. There was certainly the Railway Commission, but he was not sure that it was the best tribunal for dealing with hours of labour or for railway rates. But that was another story which he hoped the House of Commons would some day investigate thoroughly. He was obliged to his hon. friends for bringing this subject forward, and in the course of the next few months he hoped they would be able to clear up many of those cases in which there had been delay, and press the

  581
  railway companies into conforming to the standard of twelve hours, which was rather high for any man.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the hours of railway servants are still in many cases excessive, notwithstanding the operation of the Hours Act of 1893, and call for stringent action by legislation and administration to secure their reduction to a reasonable standard.—(Mr. Alden.)

  MUNICIPAL POWERS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEYin moving the Second Reading of this Bill, craved the indulgence of the House in view of the fact that he had only just learned that he might have the opportunity to speak on the Bill that night. He said that the measure was of a very simple, he might almost say of a non-contentious character. Nothing was more remarkable in our social life in recent years than the rapid growth of municipal trading. It was remarkable not only for the rapidity of its growth, but also for its success, especially in connection with such undertakings as water works, gas works, tramways, electric lighting, and other spheres of economic production. Experience of many of the largest provincial cities in England and Scotland had shown that municipal trading, so called, had passed beyond the bounds of the experimental stage; and the result so far had been, as was proved by a Return moved for by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, a triumphant vindication of municipal enterprise. Not only did these undertakings pay interest on
  582
  capital, and for a sinking fund, but there was a balance left over in each case for the reduction of the local rates. That was a very remarkable fact, and if one took the trouble to compare the towns which had undertaken many municipal works with those which had undertaken few, it would be found that the rates in the towns where there were few municipal undertakings were much higher than in the towns where there was great municipal activity; and the profits had gone in relief of the local rates. He could multiply indefinitely instances in which towns by means of municipal undertakings had relieved their rates, but it was unnecessary to do so. A wise policy for our towns was that of large extension, and they should free themselves from that fringe of slums which disgraced them. Towns should look forward and purchase and control a large area outside their present boundaries with a view to the future construction of roads, tramways, light railways and make other public improvements possible. These things should be considered in advance as they were in Germany, and if the policy he advocated was to be carried out successfully, it became obvious that a town must secure a wide belt of land around its present area. If they did that in advance they could buy land very cheaply and their future developments would be comparatively inexpensive and easily carried out. If room were left for healthy development the town of the future would be a very different place from what it was to-day. To realise this, hon. Members had only to go round London and see the huge towns which were growing up in places where, under proper conditions, we might have garden cities. Let them take, for instance, Tottenham, or worse still, Walthamstow. Walthamstow was built

  583
  upon a site the natural beauties of which were so great that he doubted whether they could be equalled in any part of the United Kingdom. It was on the borders of Epping Forest, but under the conditions now prevailing it was rapidly becoming a slum. It consisted of sordid-looking houses of uniform pattern. If they were to improve this condition of things they must give the municipalities power to purchase land in advance as was provided for in this Bill. If that were done, the land values would in future belong to the community instead of to the individual. He passed over the clause in regard to housing, because it dealt with some considerations of which he had been speaking, and in view of the few minutes at his disposal pass to the important fifth clause. That clause dealt with the problem caused by the fact that the State could not have, and had not, proper control over these monopolies that had sprung up, and were springing up, in this country. That very evening they had been discussing some of the evils which sprang from private monopoly of common services. It was the same question which the Government of the United States of America had to face. His proposal was that they should oppose to the private trust and private combination public ownership. By that means they would get, not only economic production and proper management, but the full result of the application of labour, capital, and material to a particular undertaking. If this course were pursued, real cheapness would be secured, which would contain no elements of nastiness. Let them take, for instance, the system of the distribution of that common necessity coal, which was permeated by the worst tricks of commercialism. If they gathered that distribution together
  584
  under one control, and that a popular one, they would get the coal supplied to the consumer at a much lower price. That principle might, it was true, be taken up to the fountain head of the production of coal, but at least it might apply to its distribution. If we had economic production and distribution we should get the very best results out of our capital, and out of our labour, and we should thus settle not only the question of cheapness but the labour question, which was the greatest question of all. Then we should have our production and distribution conducted not for private gain but for public good. There would not be the incentive to make profit, but that of getting the very boat result from our capital, labour and material. That was the principle of this Bill, the Second Heading of which he begged to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. CAVEthought that this was one of the most ridiculous Bills over brought before the House of Commons. In the first place, the Bill provided that the local authority should be able to buy any amount of land without giving any reason whatever for doing so. In the second place the local authority could carry on any trade without giving any justification, and could in that way speculate with the ratepayers' money to any extent.
  And, it being Eleven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.
  Adjourned at three minutes after Eleven o'clock.