Commons Sitting of 1 July 1907

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Pasley Children Legitimisation Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—York (Micklegate) Strays Bill [Lords]; Colne Valley Water Bill "[Lords].
Ordered, That the Bills be read a. second time.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.: Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a. second time To-morrow.
General Accident, Fire, and Life Assurance Corporation. Limited, Bill [Lords];Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered: to be read the third time.
Merthyr Tydvil Stipendiary Justice Bill [Lords]; Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees, and Thornaby Tramways Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
Birkenhead Corporation Water Bill [Lords] (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to: Brighouse Corporation Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional

321
Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Castleford, Egham, Formby, Grimsby (Extension), Liver-sedge, Maldens and Coombe, Mansfield (Extension to Mansfield Woodhouse), Paignton, Selby, and Stoke-upon-Trent (Extension)." [Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to dissolve the marriage of Gwenllian Pascoe Killery, the wife of St. John Brown Killery, a Captain in the Royal Army Medical Corps, with the said St. John Killery, and to enable her to marry again; and for other purposes." [Killery's Divorce Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Urban District Council of Broadstairs and St. Peter's to construct additional waterworks and to confer on the Council further powers in relation to their waterworks undertaking; and for other purposes." [Broadstairs and St. Peter's Urban District Water Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Alton Military Hospital to be utilised for the purposes of a Cripples' Home and College." [Alton Military Hospital Bill [Lords.]
Broadstairs and St. Peter's Urban District Water Bill [Lords]; Alton Military Hospital Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill [Lords].—Read the first time: Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 261.]
Killery's Divorce Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; to be read a second time.

PETITIONS.
  WEEKLY REST-DAY BILL.
  Petition from London and other places, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EXPLOSIVES.
  Copy presented, of Thirty-First Annual Report of His Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives, being for the year 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3844 and 3845 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Regulations for Secondary Schools (from 1st August, 1907, to 31st July, 1908) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION (CODE 1907).
  Copy presented, of Code of Regulations for Public Elementary Schools, with Schedules, by the Board of Education [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT, 1888.
  Copy presented, of Report to the Board of Trade of Inspection of the Cromford Canal, under Section 41 of The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN ON LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
  Copy presented, of Statement showing the number of Women serving on Boards of Guardians and other Local Authorities [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  WOODS, FORESTS, AND LAND REVENUES.
  Copy presented, of Eighty-fifth Report of the Commissioners, dated 27th June, 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 227.]
  ISLE OF MAN.
  Account presented, of Revenue and Expenditure for the year ended 31st March, 1907, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 228.]
  GLEBE LANDS (SALES)
  Return ordered, "showing for each county the Sales of Glebe Land effected under The Glebe Lands Act, 1888, giving in each case the benefice or parish the situation of the land sold, the acreage, the purchase money, and the number of purchasers."—(Sir Walter Foster.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Navy Votes and Cost of Vaccination, Etc.
  Mr. LUPTON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty under what heading in the Estimates the cost of vaccinating and the cost of vaccine matter are included; and what is the amount of the cost of vaccination and the cost of vaccine matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Vaccination of officers and men in His Majesty's Navy is carried out by naval medical officers as part of their ordinary duty, no additional cost being incurred on that account. Supplies of calf lymph for this purpose are obtained at the cost of Vote 3, Sub-head H, of the Navy Estimates, the annual expenditure being £300.

  Pensions and Compensations for Injuries received in Royal Dockyards.
  MR. BRAMSDON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the number of persons to whom pensions and compensations or gratuities respectively were granted or paid in respect of injuries sustained in the royal dockyards during the year 1906, in pursuance of the scheme of compensation certified and adopted under The Compensation Act, 1897; also the total amounts of such pensions and compensations or gratuities; and will he stat; under which Vote they are accounted for.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.)Pensions, compensations, or gratuities were granted to 371 persons. The total amount was £7,935 16s. 3d., which included gratuities. amounting to
  324
  £2,415 9s. 6d. to the dependants of twelve deceased workmen. These charges were brought to account under Navy Vote 15 Sub-head B. The above figures are in respect of the calendar year 1906.

  Armourer Ratings in the Navy.
  MR. HART-DAVIE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is in contemplation to abolish. the existing armourer ratings; and whether, in the event of a new rating being established instead of the higher armourer ratings, the existing branch will be allowed to qualify for it, and no be debarred from the promotion which they were led to expect on entering the service.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson). No steps are being taken in the direction of abolishing the existing armourer ratings.

  Hours of Duty in Strabane Post Office.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether it is part of the duty of the Post Office surveyors department to direct and to supervise the arrangement of the duties and the hours of attendance of the indoor officers employed in the various head offices within their districts; is he aware that no alteration in a duty chart so compiled can be permanently effected without the surveyor's consult; if so, whether his attention has been directed to the hour of attendance in the Strabane Pos Office where one duty is spread over a period of fifteen hours daily and com prises a normal attendance of from 2.45 a.m. till 5 a.m., 10 p.m. till noon, and 2.10 p.m. till 5.40 p.m., and that between March and October the officer performing this duty is obliged to perform in addition overtime from 8 p.m. till 10 p.m., and also to that of two other duties comprised within fourteen hours per day and to which the same condition of liability for overtime from 8 p.m. till 10 p.m. is attached; is he aware that a term of these duties extends over four weeks, and that these hours of attendance are effected by a recent revision and what course he proposes taking in relation to them, and also in reference

  325
  to the surveyor's action in permitting officers giving such attendances to be obliged to perform overtime
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) It is part of the duty of the surveyors to supervise the arrangement of the duties and the hours of attendance of the staff employed at head offices within their districts, and no permanent alteration of a duty chart can be made without the surveyors authority. My attention has already been drawn to the hours of attendance in the Strabane Post Office, and to the amount of overtime occasionally being worked there during the absence of officers on sick and annual leave. There has been no need to oblige any officer to perform overtime. A revision of the indoor force at Strabane is under consideration with a view to making full provision for the work.

  Celebration of Saints' Days in Schools.
  MR. MONTGOMERY: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that under existing regulations affecting religious instruction in council schools. Lady Day, Midsummer Day, Michaelmas Day, Empire Day, Mafeking Day, and the 4th of July, are days in the year on which children, whose parents have expressed a desire to that effect in writing to the head teacher, may attend at a place of worship selected by the parents during the time set apart for religious instruction in the school; and whether the celebration of these days as saints' days is to be henceforth regarded as the particular prerogative of the Established Church.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) I have no official information as to regulations of the kind referred to. If a concrete case is brought to my notice I will cause inquiries to be made.

  Macclesfield Educational Charity.
  MR. CLYNES: To "ask the President of the Board of Education whether he has considered the communication forwarded from Macclesfield respecting the Miss Roe legacy for the education of poor chil-
  326
  dren; whether the proceeds of the legacy are left unused or have been misapplied and whether he can meet the request which has been made to hold a public inquiry into the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Board of Education in November, 1904, advised the trustees of Miss Roe's Endowment (being the vicar and churchwardens of Christ Church, Macclesfield) that, in the altered circumstances of education, a scheme was required for the regulation of the foundation. The trustees appear to have acted rightly in accumulating the income (amounting to about £l6 per annum) pending the establishment of the scheme, the preparation of which will be proceeded with as soon as possible. A question has been raised with regard to the application of a sum of £12 by the trustees some years ago, and this is being investigated by the Board. I do not think it is necessary to hold a public inquiry with respect to this small charity.

  Government of the Island of Alderney
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state how far the island of Alderney is under the government of parish meeting and how far under that of the States of Guernsey; whether the Lieutenant-Governor of the island of Alderney holds a separate appointment as such, or is the Lieutenant-Governor of Guernsey and its dependencies; how far the Channel Islands are being treated in the correspondence concerning the views of the Board of Agriculture as a single Government; and whether there is any authority common to the Governments of the States of Guernsey and the States of Jersey except that of the Crown. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The island of Alderney has its separate assembly of the States, and is not under the Government of the States of Guernsey. The Lieutenant-Governor of Alderney is the Lieutenant-Governor of Guernsey and the other islands thereto belonging. He does not hold a separate appointment as Lieutenant-Governor of Alderney. The Channel Islands have

  327
  not been treated as a single Government in the correspondence respecting the proposed establishment of an abattoir in Alderney, but the authorities of the various islands have been separately consulted, because the Board of Agriculture are of opinion that it would be their duty to prohibit the landing in Great Britain of animals from any of the Channel Islands, in the event of the admission to any one of those islands of anima's brought from any of the countries from which the importation of cattle into Great Britain is for the time being prohibited. There is no authority, save that of the Crown, common to the Governments of the States of Guernsey and the States of Jersey.

  Rates for Royal Dockyards.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the fact that the £22,000 paid in lieu of rates for the ordnance factories under the Civil Service Votes is repaid as an Appropriation-in-Aid, and is, in accordance with business principles included in proportionate charges for all work done at those factories, whether the Treasury will consider the advisability of adopting a similar procedure in regard to Navy Estimates, and cause the Royal dockyards to repay as an Appropriation-in-Aid the sum of upwards of £60,000, which the Civil Service Estimates will in future be called upon to pay in respect of rates for the Royal dockyards.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) A comparison cannot well be made between the dockyards and the ordnance factories. Funds are not provided directly by Parliament for the latter, which are conducted like an ordinary trading concern, the actual outlay being reclaimed within the year from the Departments on account of which the work is performed. It is not proposed to alter the present practice as regards the dockyards.

  Board of Trade Returns—Sugar Imports from Australia.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade
  328
  if he is aware that according to the Annual Trade Returns of the United Kingdom the imports of sugar from Australia are 20 cwts. in 1898, 36,504 cwts. in 1899, and nil in subsequent years, whereas, according to the Colonial Statistical Abstract, 43 rd number, pages 316–7, the exports to the United Kingdom from the Australian Commonwealth were nil from 1897 to 1903 inclusive. 27 cwts. in 1904, and 4,000 cwts. in 1905; and if he can explain these discrepancies.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The apparent discrepancies are probably due to the fact that imports are recorded in the official Trade Returns as received from the countries whence they were shipped direct to the United Kingdom. Since 1904, however, additional information has been separately recorded and published in a supplementary volume to the Annual Returns, giving the details according to the countries from which the goods were first consigned to the United Kingdom. A reference to the supplementary volume for 1905 will show the hon. Member that 3,969 cwts. of our imports of sugar in that year were recorded as consigned from Australia, a figure which closely corresponds with the 4,000 cwts. of exports which he quotes.

  Date of Prorogation.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Prime Minister whether, for the convenience of hon. Members, he can state at or about what date it is intended that Parliament shall be prorogued in August, so that hon. Members may make their arrangements for the summer.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Banner-man.) This must depend upon the progress of business during the remainder of the session.

  Coal Exports.
  MR. FELL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the amount of the exports of coal from this country for each of

  329
  the months since the export duty was abolished compared with the corresponding months of the previous year and distinguishing smokeless from bituminous coal.

  Statement showing the Exports of Coal from the United Kingdom for each month from November, 1906, to May, 1907, inclusive, compared with the corresponding months of the previous year, and distinguishing the principal descriptions of Coal exported.

  Month and Year.

  Anthracite

  Steam.

  Gas.

  Household.

  Other sorts

  Total.

  Tons.

  Tons.

  Tons.

  Tons.

  Tons.

  Tons.

  November, 1906

  160,676

  3,612,676

  714,531

  105,696

  169,290

  4,762,869

  November, 1905

  159,186

  2,972,408

  590,832

  118,525

  149,847

  3,990,798

  December, 1906

  147,066

  3,371,612

  628,543

  125,401

  192,820

  4,465,442

  December, 1905

  138,824

  2,990,015

  570,721

  130,786

  182,827

  4,013,173

  January, 1907

  100,610

  2,510,791

  113,511

  85,105

  2,319

  2,812,336

  January, 1906

  97,444

  2,322,511

  90,685

  72,353

  2,282

  2,585,275

  February, 1907

  144,368

  3,313,660

  669,407

  103,090

  170,804

  4,401,329

  February, 1906

  127,388

  2,928,174

  551,840

  96,174

  186,112

  3,889,688

  March, 1907

  84,992

  2,570,084

  116,638

  79,730

  3,200

  2,854,644

  March, 1906

  79,536

  2,553,938

  77,837

  84,877

  3,854

  2,800,062

  April, 1907

  150,341

  3,823,945

  821,674

  115,002

  216,769

  5,127,731

  April, 1906

  135,976

  3,273,312

  678,605

  116,751

  176,692

  4,381,336

  May, 1907

  90,530

  2,937,498

  147,485

  96,166

  1,747

  3,273,426

  May, 1906

  106,041

  3,013,693

  111,864

  96,535

  6,675

  3,334,808

  Post Office Saving Bank Depositors and Investments in Consols
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Post Office Savings Bank still continues to invite its depositors to invest their savings in Consols, notwithstanding the fact that such investments now show a loss of some £30 per £100, compared with ten years ago, under the administration of Robert, third Marquess of Salisbury; and if he will consider the desirability of poor persons being warned of the condition of the national credit before their money is accepted.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.):The exports of coal from the United Kingdom are classified into exports of anthracite, steam coal, gas coal, household coal, and other sorts.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I cannot add anything to the replies which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member on this subject on the 12th of November last, and that which I have just given to my hon. friend the Member for North Lambeth, †

  Messing Allowance in the Army and Navy.
  COLONEL LONG: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether in view of the much larger mess allowances made to
  †See page 354–5

  331
  the officers' messing in the Navy compared with those made to the officers' messing in the Army, he will endeavour to have the officers of the two services placed in a more equal position and the discrepancies of the mess allowances remedied.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The conditions of service in the Navy and Army are so widely different that no comparison can fairly be drawn between their emoluments; still less therefore is it practicable to select one item for purposes of comparison.

  Customs Duties on Imports into the Australian Commonwealth.
  MR. J. D. WHITE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state what was the aggregate amount of the Customs duties collected on imports into the Australian Commonwealth from the United Kingdom during the last financial year or any preceding year.

  Quarter ending.

  Arrears of annuities and deficiency of income.

  Drawn for exeess Stock.

  Total. Drawn (+). Repaid (-).

  Drawn.

  Repaid.

  Net amount drawn (+) or repaid (-).

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  At 31st March, 1907

  99,480

  31,193

  + 68,287

  116,308

  + 184,595

  At 30th June, 1907

  1,236

  19,482

  - 18,246

  35,111

  + 16,865

  100,716

  50,675

  + 50,041

  151,429

  + 201,460

  Cost of Literary Section of British Museum.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will ascertain and state approximately the average annual cost under all heads during the last ten years of the literary section of the British Museum, as distinguished from the other sections of that institution, the amount of this covered by Parliamentary Vote,
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I have not the information for which the hon. Member asks, but I will ask the Governor-General if he can supply it.

  Financial Losses in Connection with Irish Land Purchase
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state under the respective heads of loss, all the financial losses incurred n connection with land purchase in Ireland in the three months ending 30th June 1907, and the total loss from 1st November 1903 to 30th June 1907.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The figures given below complete up to date the information with which I have furnished the hon. Member on the 2nd May last.† To these should be added the sum of £102,000 appropriated from the amount paid from the Ireland Development Grant to the income account of the Irish Land Purchase Fund, as was explained to the hon. Member in a reply given by my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary on the 19th ultimo.
  and the amount, if any. defrayed from other sources.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman) I am not sure that I understand what section of the British Museum the hon. Member has in his mind, but I am informed that any inquiry respecting the cost of a particular section over a number of years would be
  †See (4) Debates, Clxxiii., 1040.

  333
  extremely laborious, and I see no sufficient reason for asking that it should be undertaken.

  Amalgamation Marine Artillery and Marine Light Infantry—Rumours of.
  COLONEL LONG: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether there is any intention of amalgamating the Marine Artillery and the Marine Light Infantry; and, if so, whether the officers of the corps will be on the same list for promotion.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The reply is in the negative.

  Finding of Wreckage.
  MR. W. HOPE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether there exists any definition of the wreckage which it is the duty of boatmen who find it to report to the Customs authorities. (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) By Section 510 of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, the expression "wreck" is defined as including "jetsam, flotsam, lagan, and derelict found in or on the shores of the sea or any tidal water," and by Section 518 of the same Act any person finding wreck within the limits of the United Kingdom must deliver it to the Receiver of Wreck, and if he fails to do so he renders himself liable to a fine not exceeding £100. By Section 72 of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, Section 518 of the Act of 1894 is made applicable to wreck found outside of and brought within the limits of the United Kingdom.

  The Companies Bill.
  MR. WHITE HEAD: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends to proceed with the Companies' Bill this session.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I am still in hopes that it may be possible to proceed with the Companies Bill this session.

  Stamping of Papers at the Patent Office.
  MR. G. CROYDON MARKS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the long-felt disadvantage experienced by patentees in having their money refused
  334
  at the Patent Office can be now removed, seeing that the new extension of the Patent Office is completed, by making such arrangements with the Inland Revenue authorities as will enable any documents and forms to be impressed with the necessary stamps upon the presentation of cash for such purpose at the Patent Office.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The question raised by my hon. friend was considered by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in 1902, but the cost of adopting the suggestion was then held to be prohibitive. I will, however, communicate with the Commissioners again on the subject and will inform my hon. friend of the result.

  Loans for Constructions of Buildings by the Ferro-concrete process.
  MR. WHITEHEAD: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the adoption by local authorities of the method of construction known as ferro-concrete is discouraged by his Board; and whether his Board require a much shorter period for repayment of loans if this method is adopted than the normal period; whether he is aware that ferro-concrete has been proved both on the Continent and in the United States after many years experience to be durable and fire-resisting, and that it is about to be used in the construction of the new General Post Office; and whether, having regard to the importance of this question both to local authorities and to those interested in the manufacture of cement, he can see his way to treating loans for purposes which involve this method of construction on at least as favourable a footing as loans for construction with bricks and mortar.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am advised that it is doubtful whether ferro-concrete is a suitable material for permanent structural works under all conditions, and that there is need for caution in dealing with it. The Local Government Board have had under their notice examples of the failure of works constructed with it. I believe that this material is intended to be used in the construction of the new General Post Office, and it is the case that it has

  335
  been used for some years on the Continent and in the United States, but its use has not always been successful. I am not at present satisfied that the periods allowed for the repayment of loans for works constructed of ferro-concrete can properly be extended.

  Ordnance Survey—Pay of Civilian Employes.
  MR. POWER: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the rules as to rates of pay to civilian employees on the Ordnance Survey, laid down in the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the position of civil assistants employed on the Ordnance Survey, 1892, are still in force; and, if not, will he supply a copy of the existing regulations.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The rates of pay in force in 1892 have been amended in several respects since that date. The alterations are practically all in favour of the men. The regulations as a whole are of a confidential character, and my noble friend does not think it would be of advantage that publicity should be given to them.
  MR. POWER: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will furnish a Return giving the names of the civilian superintendents at present employed on the survey of the United Kingdom, with the dates and nature of their several appointments, the salary of each immediately prior to appointment to such office, the salary received on appointment, and the salary of each of those officers at the present time.
  MR. POWER: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will grant a Return showing the various positions held on 1st July, 1890, by the twenty-two Board's assistants and others in charge of duties, etc., included in Appendix VII. (Report of Departmental Committee on Position of Civil Assistants employed on the
  336
  Ordnance Survey, 1892); and a Return, similar to Appendix VIII. In the same Report, giving the number of civil assistants in receipt of the various rates on 1st April, 1907, and showing separately the numbers employed in Great Britain and in Ireland.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) Perhaps I may be allowed to give the Answers to these two Questions together. The grant of the Returns asked for would entail considerable expense and labour and my noble friend, as at present advised, does not consider that any commensurate public advantage would be gained by their preparation.

  Licences for Horse and Motor Cabs.
  MR. STEADMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the number of licences issued for horse-drawn cabs, likewise the number of motor cabs, up to 31st May, 1906; and the number of licences for horse-drawn cabs and motor cabs for the same period up to 31st May, 1907.
  (Answered by Mr Secretary Gladstone.) On the 31st' May, 1906, there were licensed 10,792 horse-drawn cabs, and fifty-three motor cabs. On the 31st May, 1907, there were licensed 10,25l horse-drawn cabs and 284 motor cabs.

  Branch Post Offices at Hackney and Leytonstone—Female Staff.
  MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the opening of branch post offices at Hackney and Leytonstone have been under consideration; whether hitherto a male staff only has been employed in the eastern district; and whether it is intended to continue this practice.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The question of establishing branch offices at Hackney and Leytonstone, respectively, is now under consideration. If it is ultimately decided to open such offices they would, in the usual course, unless the local circumstances were unfavourable to their employment, be staffed by female officers.

  Suggested Super-Tax on Irish Agricultural Rents.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the resolution passed by the Lismore Board of Guardians and other public bodies in Ireland suggesting that, in order to facilitate the raising of money for land purchase in Ireland and to discourage landlords from obstructing the policy of purchase, a super-tax over and above the ordinary income-tax should be levied on agricultural rents in Ireland; whether he is aware that, while a large proportion of the landlords of Ireland decline to sell their estates, such a special tax on the agricultural rents received by them would go a considerable way towards making up for the losses at present incurred in the flotation of land stock and prevent inconvenience to landlords who arc willing to sell and to their tenants; and whether he will propose such a tax at the earliest opportunity.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I do not think the resolution referred to has been communicated to me; but the suggestion described in the Question is not one which, in my opinion, it would be practicable to adopt.

  Stamp Duty on Irish Land Transactions.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that on the Committee Stage of the Irish Land Bill of 1903 the right hon. Member for Dover and Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, who acted with him, both undertook to consider the grievance created in reference to holdings purchased under Land Purchase Acts in Ireland by reason of the fact that on the sale or transfer of such holdings from the tenant purchasers, by private treaty or public auction, the stamp duty is chargeable not only on the actual money passing, but on the outstanding advance in respect of the previous purchase of the holding from the landlord; whether he is aware that this grievance has been accentuated by the fact that under the Land Act of 1903 landlords are receiving prices not previously dreamt of; and whether he will introduce an amendment of the law to remove this tax which constitutes an increasing burden on Irish agriculture.
  338
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I have nothing to add to the reply which was given upon this subject by my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury on the 4th of March last.†

  Provision of Funds for Restoration of Evicted Tenants
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended to provide funds for restoration of evicted tenants in Ireland or for the provision of new holdings, and money to stock them, by withdrawing money from the Irish Land Purchase Fund, or otherwise diminishing the moneys available for purchase of, their holdings ay existing tenants who have not been evicted for non-payment of rent.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Answer is in the negative.

  Consumptive Immigrants into Ireland.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state how many persons have landed in Ireland from the United States and other countries within the last year to remain in the country and who were suffering from pulmonary consumption; will he say whether this serious disease is still on the increase in Ireland; and will he acquaint himself with the legislation at present in force in Australia and other British Colonies which deals with preventing the spread of this scourge, with a view to introducing similar legislation at once in Ireland and thus deal effectively with this drain on Ireland's dwindling population.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Irish Government have no information as to the number of immigrants into Ireland who are affected with pulmonary consumption. The proportion of deaths from this disease in Ireland has been practically constant for a good many years past, and in this respect Ireland shows a regrettable difference from the rest of the United Kingdom, in which the death rate from consumption has been steadily diminishing. The question of undertaking legislation for Ireland in regard to
  †See (4) Debates, Clxx., 450.

  339
  this important matter has already engaged the attention of the Government I regret that I cannot hold out any hold of immediate legislation, but the matter will not be lost sight of.

  Completion of Work at Boat Cove and Roads, County Kerry.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when the Congested Districts Board will complete the necessary work at Boat Cove, Glen. and at Roads, county Kerry.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Congested Districts Board will have the landing place at Glen Boat Cove completed as soon as the weather permits and a suitable foreman can be obtained. The Board are awaiting a further report from their engineer before taking further action in regard to the removal of a ledge of rock at Roads Slip.

  Re-valuation of Captain Hugh Henry's Estate, County Galway.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on what date the grass lands on the estate of Captain Hugh Henry, in the union of Tuam, county Galway, were striped by the Estates Commissioners; on what date were the names of the new proprietors with particulars of the land sold to them sent to the Commissioner of Valuation; and why the revisor has not yet visited the estate for the purpose of revising the valuations.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they placed the purchasing tenants in occupation of the untenanted land in this case in November, 1905. In June following the secretary of the county council, with whom the initiative for revision of valuation rests under the Valuation Acts, included certain of the townlands in the annual list of tenements and hereditaments requiring revision which he furnishes to the Commissioner of Valuation, and the Commissioner, having obtained from the Land Commission particulars of the acreage of the allotments of the townlands in question, had the revision carried out at the earliest
  340
  date which was possible under the Valuation Acts.

  Delay in Construction of New Road from Snowy Glen to Straid, County Antrim.
  COLONEL McCALMONT: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what has caused the delay on the part of the Estates Commissioners in sanctioning the making of a new road from Snowy Glen to Straid, County Antrim, a distance of 287 perches, at a cost of £719, all parties concerned being in accord in the matter, which was sanctioned by the county council in 1904, previous to the tenants entering into agreements for purchase with the trustees of the Marquess of Downshire.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The purchase agreements relating to the portion of the Downshire estate referred to in the Question were lodged with the Estates Commissioners in July, 1906, and the case has not yet reached its turn to be dealt with. The Commissioners cannot identify the particular matter alluded to in the Question, but in any case the matter would not appear to be one for their consideration at the present stage of the proceedings.

  Untenanted Land in County Westmeath.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is now in a position to say what the Government propose to do in the cases of Messrs. Featherston, Gradwell, and Wilson, who have not answered the inquiry of the Estates Commissioners regarding their untenanted lands in Westmeath; and what steps, if any, arc being taken to provide for the people who have petitioned to be allowed to become purchasers of portions of those lands.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell) The Estates Commissioners inform me that, as regards the estates of Messrs. Richard Gradwell and Wilson, the owners have not expressed their willingness to sell the untenanted land. The Commissioners have no power to compel these owners to sell. It is presumed that the third case to which the hon. Member means to refer is that of

  341
  General Richard Fetherstonhaugh. This gentleman has furnished particulars of 667 acres of untenanted land which he is willing to sell, and the Commissioners will have the land inspected in due course.

  Fixing of Prices of Irish Land.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will ascertain and state the practice of the Estates Commissioners in cases of sales to tenants within the zones, when the so-called judicial rents have been fixed not by any court but privately, without official inspection or production of evidence; how is the value of the respective interests of landlord and tenants ascertained and the tenants protected against buying what is their own; and how is the public protected against the consequences of the prices exceeding the gross value.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) In the first section of the Act of 1903 no distinction is drawn between judicial rents fixed in court and judicial rents fixed on consent or by agreement. The Estates Commissioners hold that advances must be made in all cases in which judicial rents have been fixed, provided that the prices come within the zones and that the holdings are included in lands declared to be an estate.

  Housing Accommodation for Working Classes in Irish Towns
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if any inquiries have been made or information prepared regarding the want of proper house accommodation for the working classes in towns in Ireland; and if he is now in a position to say that the favourable consideration which his predecessor promised to give to this subject will result in legislation next session.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board are in full possession of the facts with regard to the housing of the working classes in the towns of Ireland. I am not in a position to give any undertaking as to legislation next-Session.

  Irish Land Purchase—Advances on Town and Village Holdings.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, inasmuch as, under the regulations issued in February, 1906, under the Irish Land Act, 1903, the Estates Commissioners have refused to make any advance in respect of the purchase money of eleven village holdings at Clashmore, on the estate of the Earl of Huntingdon, and have also refused to make any advance in respect of twenty-three village or town holdings on the estate of Earl Fortescue at Dunmore, county Waterford, and advances in similar cases were made under the previous regulations, he will advise the Lord-Lieutenant to cancel the second regulation of February, 1906, with a view to enabling Irish tenants to get rid of landlords who are willing to sell; whether, in these cases, the security for at least a portion of the advances applied for would be sufficient by providing that the purchasing tenants should insure their dwelling-houses against fire; and whether, under previous Land Purchase Acts, there was any restriction on the making of an advance for the purchase of a town or village holding.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I beg to refer the hon. Member to my Answer to his previous Question on this subject on 21st Tune, when I stated that the Government have no intention of withdrawing the regulation referred to. The effect of this regulation has, I am informed, been to facilitate, rather than to restrict, the sale of town and village holdings under the Act of 1903. In dealing with applications for advances for the purchase of such holdings, it is the practice of the Commissioners to accept insurances against fire as collateral security for portion of the advances in cases in which they consider they would be warranted in doing so. Such insurances, however, cannot provide against the total or partial disappearance of the premises by dilapidation during the sixty-eight and a half years for which the land-purchase annuity would be payable. Under the previous Land Purchase Acts advances were not made on the security of houses, but on the security of the land, including the sites of houses, when there were any.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of John M'Enter.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from John M'Enter, son of Edward M'Enter, who was evicted fifteen years ago and died some two years after eviction from his farm, in Killymullen, near Drury, county Cavan, held under James Thompson; and if notice for reinstatement is not received will this be accepted as such.
  (Anwered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners cannot trace the receipt of an application for reinstatement from the person named. If he wishes to apply he should address an application to the Commissioners giving full particulars of his case.

  Payment to Land. Purchase Fund from Irish Development Grant
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will say what was the actual sum paid to the Irish Land Purchase Fund from the Irish Development Grant for the years ending March 31st, 1905, 1906, and 1907.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) £50,000 in each year.

  Licences (Ireland) Act, 1902
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR.: To ask the Prime Minister whether the Licences (Ireland) Act, 1902, is to be renewed or allowed to lapse.
  (Answered by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.) Yes, this will be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

  Qualification of Women (County and Borough Councils) Bill — Suggested Extension to Ireland.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will take steps to extend the Qualification of Women (County and Borough Councils) Bill to Ireland, either during the passage of the Bill in another place or in this House; and, if not, whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation of a similar character in the case of Ireland.
  344
  (Answered by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.) If there is any general desire expressed by Members for Ireland for the extension of this Bill to that country an opportunity will no doubt occur to effect this while the Bill is passing through this House, bur there is no intention of introducing a separate Bill for Ireland.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (MR. MORLEY, Montrose Burghs): I have no direct information as to the present consumption of Indian opium in China, and it may be some time before comparative figures are available. I may point out that the export of opium from India this year to foreign countries is estimated considerably below the average export of preceding years. It will be under 62,500 chests, as against an average of 67,000 chests in the five years ending 1905, and the decrease is mainly due to smaller consumption of Malwa opium in China.
  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    H M.S. "Victory."
    MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the estimated cost during the present financial year of the upkeep and crew of H.M.S. "Victory"; and what has been spent on this service during the last three financial years.
    THE CIVIL, LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (MR. LAMBERT, Devonshire, South Molton): The estimated cost of the upkeep and crew of H.M.S. "Victory" during 1907–8 is, approximately, £3,700. £11,700 has been spent on this service during the last three financial years.

    H.M.S. " Dreadnought.''
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the estimated cost of the construction and equipment of battleships of the "Dreadnought" type when constructed under contract at private yards: and how much of that sum they consider to be profit.
    MR. LAMBERT: The only vessel of this type under construction by private contract is the "Superb," and it would be contrary to the practice of the Admiralty to publish the figures as to cost at this early stage of her construction. It is impossible to answer the second part of the Question.
    MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when H.M.S. "Dreadnought " is expected to take her place with the Home Fleet, and at what port on the eastern coast will she be stationed.
    MR. LAMBERT: The "Dreadnought" has already taken up her place as flagship

    345
    of the Home Fleet, and is now cruising with the Nore Division. She will generally be stationed at the Nore, but may be at the other naval ports on which the Home Fleet is based at the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief, Home Fleet.
    MR. GEORGE FABER: Is there any harbour on the east coast where the "Dreadnought" can be docked?
    MR. LAMBERT: She can be docked at Portsmouth and at Devonport.
    MR. GEORGE FABER: On the east coast?
    No Answer being given, the hon. Member repeated the Question.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has had an Answer.
    MR. GEORGE FABER: With the greatest possible deference, Sir, I said on the east coast.
    *MR. SPEAKER: I heard the hon. Member's Question perfectly, and I heard an Answer given. Two ports were mentioned. The hon. Member can deduce whatever conclusion ho chooses.

    Dover Promenade Pier.
    MR. HART DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether excursion steamers have been prohibited from making use of the promenade pier in Dover Harbour; and, if so. whether, in view of the public convenience, he will consider the advisability of rescinding this order.
    MR. LAMBERT: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the negative, and therefore the second part does not arise.

    Reserves of Ammunition.
    MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the present reserve of small-arm ammunition is larger than that existing in 1904; whether this is also the case with the general stock of ammunition; and whether the supplies are based on an expeditionary force of 167,000 men.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (MR. HALDANE, Haddington):
    346
    The present reserve of small arm ammunition at home is somewhat lower than that existing in 1904. The reason is that there has been a reduction in the number of Regulars to be provided for. This is also the ease with the general stock, but both stocks are ample, and are based on scales which are the same as in 1904. The expeditionary force is of course provided for.
    In reply to a further Question—
    MR. HALDANEsaid the expeditionary force was provided for on a larger scale than under the old system.

    The Artillery.
    MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: On behalf of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what was the rank and file strength of the Royal Horse and Field Artillery on the 1st October, 1906, and the 1st June, 1907, respectively.
    MR. HALDANE: The strength of the rank and file of the Royal Horse and Field Artillery on the 1st October, 1906, and 1st June, 1907, was as follows:— 1st October, 1906, 27,910; 1st June, 1907, 27,089. This reduction in strength is due partly to ordinary causes such as the operation of the three years system, and the low number of men left at home at this period of the year, and partly to reduction of establishment. The reductions in establishment were caused by (1) six Field Batteries having been withdrawn from the Colonies and placed on the Lower Establishment at Home: (2) by the number of depots having been reduced, in the case of the Field Artillery by three, and of the Horse Artillery by one. The reduction of depots was a matter of administrative convenience and had nothing to do with any scheme. The total amounts given at the beginning of this Answer relate to batteries at Home and in the Colonies; if India be included the total establishments show a slight increase.
    MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: On behalf of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he still proposes to reduce the Royal Horse and

    347
    Field Artillery by 3,700 men and sixty-seven officers, or by any other number; and, if the original proposal is to be abandoned, what is the amount of the reduction, if any, now proposed.
    MR. HALDANE: The question of the future establishment of the Royal Horse and Field Artillery is now receiving the careful consideration of the Army Council, and I hope to be in a position to deal with any changes in the establishment of the Royal Artillery when Estimates are presented next year. I may observe that I have at no time proposed or even suggested the reduction of the total number of men available for Horse or Field Artillery by 3,700 or any other number. On the contrary, I have pointed out that there exists at present a serious deficiency in the numbers required for the mobilisation of this Arm. What I have proposed is largely to increase the total number of men available by getting on a Militia basis as many for the ammunition columns as can safely be taken for that purpose. As a means to this end I have proposed in the case of the Field Artillery to substitute for a certain proportion of Regulars a much larger number of Special Contingent men.

    The Cordite Committee
    VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty who are the members of Lord Rayleigh's Committee now considering questions arising out of defective cordite; and what is the estimated cost of the inquiry.
    MR. HALDANE: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the hon. Gentleman. The names are as follows: Lord Rayleigh, F.R.S., Sir J. Dewar, F.R.S., Sir A. Noble, Bart., F.R.S., Sir W. Crookes, F.R.S., J. A. Ewing, Esq., F.R.S., A. Dupre, Esq., F.R.S., absent through illness; Major General D. D. T. O'Callaghan, president, Ordnance Committee; Rear-Admiral R. F. O. Foote, vice president, Ordnance Committee; Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. L. Nathan, Superintendent, Royal Gunpowder Factory; Captain B. H. Chevallier, assistant to Director Naval Ordnance; Captain J. H. Thomson, H.M. Inspector of Explosives, Home Office; Major A. McN. C. Cooper-Key, H.M. Inspector of Explosives, Home Office; R. Robertson, Esq.,
    348
    Superintending Chemist, Research Department. Those not in the service of the Crown give their services gratuitously, and those who are in the service of the Crown are not paid extra for being on this Committee. There will therefore be no cost involved beyond a small amount for travelling expenses.
    MR. BELLAIRSasked the right hon. Gentleman whether this Admiralty Committee was the same as that appointed by the Home Office.
    MR. HALDANEsaid it had arisen out of that Committee, and the personnel was much the same.

    The Royal Patriotic Fund
    MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War will he state the dates on which the several annual meetings of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation for the passing of the annual accounts have been held, and on what subsequent dates those accounts have been presented to Parliament; whether the accounts for the past year are yet completed; and, if so, is there any good reason why they should not at once be laid upon the Table.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): The dates of the annual meetings of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation were 27th June, 1905, 24th May, 1906, and 3rd June, 1907; and the annual Reports and Accounts adopted at such meetings were presented to Parliament on 31st July, 1905, 11th June, 1906, and 24th June, 1907. The Reports became available to Members of both Houses of Parliament as soon as the necessary copies could be printed as Parliamentary Papers by the Stationery Office in the years 1905 and 1906, and the third Report is now in the hands of the Stationery Office for that purpose.

    Indian Opium.
    MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether there has been any diminution in the demand for Indian opium since the promulgation of the anti-opium edict by the Chinese Government.

  Natives on Indian Council.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India when it is proposed to appoint one or more Indian gentlemen to the Indian Council.
  Mr. MORLEY: I hope to make the appointment very shortly, but correspondence with India takes time.

  "All-Red" Steamship Line to Australia
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for the Colonies whether, since the meeting of the Colonial and Imperial Conference, a Ministerial Committee has been appointed to consider the proposal of Sir W. Laurier for an all-red steamship line, via Canada, between England and Australia.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. CHURCHILL, Manchester, N.W.): I have to refer the hon. Member to the Answer which the Prime Minister gave on the 29th May to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Hoxton.†

  Johannesburg Tramways.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the Johannesburg tramway by-laws, gazetted on the 17th May last, and especially Section 33, which empowers the council at its discretion to sot apart and licence any carriage or portion of a carriage for the use of passengers of European race only, or for the use either of passengers of Asiatic race or of coloured passengers only, or for the
  †See (4) Debates, Clxxiv., 1656.
  350
  exclusive use of both coloured persons and persons of Asiatic race; whether such legislation falls within that contemplated under subsection (a) of Section 39 of the Letters Patent, providing for the constitution of responsible Government in the Transvaal Colony, which requires the Governor to reserve any law whereby persons not of European birth or descent may be subjected or made liable to any disabilities or restrictions to which persons of European birth or descent are not also subjected or made liable; and whether there has been such reservation in respect of these by-laws.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The section of the Letters Patent which the hon. Member mentions relates to laws passed by the Transvaal Legislature. It does not cover municipal by-laws.

  Newfoundland Fisheries.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in the settlement of the Newfoundland fishery question with the United States; and when Papers will be laid embodying the representations made by Sir Robert Bond on behalf of Newfoundland.
  MR. CHURCHILL: It is not yet possible to make any statement as to the negotiations now in progress with the United States Government as to the Newfoundland Fishery. The representations made by Sir Robert Bond will be found in the Blue-book containing the Report of the Proceedings of the Colonial Conference.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Have any representations been made by Sir Robert Bond since the Conference?
  MR. CHURCHILL: The matter may have been discussed, but I am not aware of any representations of a formal character.

  Repatriation of Chinese Coolies.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now say how many applications have been received during the present financial year from

  351
  Chinese coolies of a desire to return home under the repatriation proclamation of last year.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Inquiry has been made by telegraph, but an answer has not yet been received.

  Colonial Office and Transvaal Correspondence.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether duplicates of official correspondence sent from the Colonial Office to the Governor and the Government of the Transvaal, and received by the Colonial Office from the Governor and Government of the Transvaal, are sent to the Agents General of the Transvaal in London; and whether it is the custom to furnish the High Commissioners and Agents-General of the self-governing Colonies with duplicate copies of correspondence passing between this Government and the Colonies on the despatch or the receipt of such correspondence.
  MR. CHURCHILL: No such general practice as is indicated by the hon. Member exists, but there is, of course, no reason why copies of particular despatches passing between the Secretary of State and the Governors of the self-governing Colonies should not be communicated to the High Commissioners or Agents-General whenever such a course is found convenient.

  Central African Natives for the Transvaal Mines.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of the Government to remove their veto upon the recruiting of Central African natives for the mines in the Transvaal; whether this question will be considered before the repatriation of the Chinese; and whether the most recent figures available show any diminution in the death-rate amongst tropical natives imported into the Transvaal for labour in the mines.
  MR. CHURCHILL: No application has been made so far to recruit during the coming season. The Secretary of State is in communication with the Transvaal Government with regard to the mortality. Figures for the last
  352
  detachment of labourers imported have not yet been received, but for the previous importations the death-rate, though still high, has dropped, owing to the men getting acclimatised.

  Herero Refugees.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the conditions under which a number of Herero refugees are to be settled on the land of the Anglo French Exploration Company in the Transvaal; and whether any special condition as to labour in their landlords' mines is attached to the tenure of their holdings.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have no official information on the subject.
  MR. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I do not know that it is a matter on which it is desirable to inquire officially.

  Transvaal Mines- Labour Statistics.
  MR. MYER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give the number of Chinamen, Kaffirs, and white working men now employed in the Transvaal mines, and the increase or decrease in any of these classes of labour.
  MR. CHURCHILL: In April, the last month for which official figures have been received, the number were, Whites, 17,886; Coloured, 114,470 Chinese, 53,164. For March of this year the figures were respectively: Whites, 17,861; Coloured, 112,914; 'Chinese. 53,679; This shows an increase in the month of April of 25 Whites and 1,550 Coloured; and a decrease of 65 Chinese. April, 1906, the figures were, Whites, 18,035; Coloured, 93,739;Chinese, 49,832. This shows a decrease during the last year of 149 Whites, and an increase of 20,731 Coloured and 3,782 Chinese.
  MR. MYER: Are the mine-owners sending home the white men in order to prove the necessity for Chinese labour?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Japanese Tariff.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House what stage the Japanese Government has now reached in the revision of its tariff, and upon what general principle the new tariff is to be arranged.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. RUNCIMAN, Dewsbury; for Sir Edward Grey): The revised Japanese tariff has been issued, and the text will be found in the Supplement to the Board of Trade Journal of June 14, 1906. It was to come into force on October 1st last.

  Freights to Basra.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if there is any difference at the present time in the rates of freight paid for the transport of goods of the same class on German or British ships to Basra, and other ports for Bagdad, from ports in the United Kingdom or Germany; whether, if such conditions exist in favour of German trade, this is due to preference given by a German company to goods shipped by them in German ships from a German port; whether the effect of this preference is to shut out cheaper classes of British goods for which there is a large and growing demand in the Persian market. and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government can suggest any means for removing the disabilities under which British traders labour in that region.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. friend has no information as to whether such difference of freights does exist, but he will inquire.

  Poppy Cultivation in China.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a notice issuing from the Chihle Office of Native Opium Consolidated Taxation, wherein it! is stated that the growing of poppies is not to be discouraged, that if opium is suppressed a great source of revenue to the State will be removed, that poppy farmers are to continue their business as usual, in case any attempt is made to blackmail them under cover of the Imperial edict prohibiting the cultivation of
  354
  the poppy; and whether he will inquire if this document was issued with the direct or indirect authority of the Chinese Government.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: As regards the first part of the Question, my right hon. friend must refer the hon. Member to his Answer of the 24th ultimo to the hon. Member for North Hackney.† Inquiry will be made of His Majesty's Minister at Peking as to the last part of the Question.

  Gold and Silver Traders' Licences
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has boon directed to the fact that every poison trading in or selling any article composed wholly or in part of gold or silver is compelled to take out an annual licence in respect of every place where his business is carried on, costing £2 6s. a year, where the gold in any article exceeds two pennyweights, or the silver exceeds five pennyweights, and costing,£5 15s. a year whore the gold in any article exceeds two ounces, or the silver exceeds thirty ounces; and whether having regard to the fact that this annual duty bears hardly upon a number of artistic workers in gold or silver, he will consider the desirability of freeing their industry from the peculiar tax at present imposed upon it.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (MR. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): The duty is as stated, and yields about £36,000 per annum. It may, however, be taken that the purpose of the tax is not so much to produce revenue, as to afford protection to the public against the fraudulent sale of articles made of debased gold and silver, and I doubt whether the traders themselves, who pay the duty, would favour its abolition or reduction.

  Savings Bank Investments in Consols.
  MR. MYER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the Government has in the past not only advised the purchase, but has actually acted as the agent in the investment of money for depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank in
  †See (4) Debates, Clxxvi., 882.

  355
  Consols at prices above the present market value, he is prepared to redeem such purchases at par, so that these poor persons may not suffer loss.
  MR. ASQUITH: Facilities have been given for many years for the purchase of Government stock through the Post Office Savings Bank, but the Government has never taken the responsibility of advising such purchase. The terms upon which the bank has acted as agent for depositors in this matter have never been open to doubt, and there has been no guarantee—explicit or implied— against a depreciation in the market value of the stock so purchased. I can see no sufficient reason for giving preferential treatment to this particular class of holders of public securities at the expense of the general tax-payer.
  MR. MYER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of changing the system so that these poor persons may not suffer loss?
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir. I do not see how that can be done.

  Terminable Annuities
  MR. MYER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state what is the present position of the terminable annuities held by the National Debt Commissioners on behalf of the Post Office Savings Bank; whether there is a surplus or a deficiency on the capital replacement account; what is the amount, if any, of that surplus or deficiency; whether there is or is not a deficiency in the stock replacement account relating to the savings bank annuities of £773,637, expiring in 1924–5, created to replace £15,000,000 of stock cancelled belonging to those banks; and whether the Trustee Savings Banks Deficiency Annuity of £83,672 12s. created in 1880, and originally constituted to expire in 1908, but extended to 1917, is or is not at the present time short of the amount actuarially determined to be necessary to secure the full replacement of the deficiency at the postponed date of expiration.
  MR. ASQUITH: The terminable annuities held for the Post Office Savings Banks Fund are of two kinds—first, those which have been created to replace a
  356
  certain amount of stock; and, secondly, those which have been created to replace a certain amount of cash When the annuity is for replacement of stock, the law provides for the periodical adjustment of its amount on the basis of a valuation, so as to ensure that at the end of its currency the annuity shall have replaced exactly the amount of stock required. When the annuity is for replacement of cash, its amount is calculated once for all so as to replace that amount of cash within a stated period with interest at a fixed rate. In neither case, therefore, can any question arise of ultimate surplus or deficiency on the operation of these annuities. The Post Office Savings Bank annuity in replacement of £15,000,000 stock was last adjusted in 1903, and will be due for further adjustment next year. The Trustee Savings Banks deficiency annuity, as reconstituted by the Savings Banks Act, 1904, is not charged with the replacement of a definite amount of stock or of cash. It is a fixed annual payment of £83,672 12s. from the Consolidated Fund to the capital account of the Trustee Savings Banks Fund, which is to continue until May, 1917.

  Loan for Jamaica.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when the loan of £800,000, for rebuilding purposes, will be made to the Government of Jamaica; and from what sources it is proposed to provide the required sum.
  MR. ASQUITH: It is proposed to make the advance from the Local Loans Fund by instalments as the money is required. The necessary powers will be asked for in the Public Works Loans Bill of this session.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government intends to issue a loan for the relief of Jamaica during the present year; and, if so, at what time.
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir. It is proposed, as I have just explained to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, that the loan should be made out of the Local Loans Fund.

  Transvaal Loan.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when he anticipates that the Transvaal Government will issue the short-dated securities which are to be guaranteed by His Majesty's Government; and whether His Majesty's Government will withhold their guarantee until the sanction of Parliament has been obtained to their proposals.
  MR. ASQUITH: I cannot specify the precise date, but it will not be until after the necessary legislation has passed the Transvaal Parliament, and the issue of £1,000,000 may be by more than one instalment. No guarantee will be given by the Government until the proposal has been approved in principle by this House.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the purposes to which the Transvaal Government proposes to apply the £1,000,000 which they will raise by short-dated securities guaranteed by His Majesty's Government.
  MR. ASQUITH: A full statement of the purposes to which the loan of £5,000,000 is to be applied will be made when the proposal for the guarantee is before the House. The £1,000,000 to be raised by short-dated securities will be treated as an instalment of that loan applicable towards any of the services to which the proceeds of the loan are authorised to be devoted.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us no idea as to what the £1,000,000 will be appropriated to?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not able to say now, but full information will be before the House when the Bill comes on.
  MR. LYTTELTONasked whether the objects for which the loan was granted were specified to his Majesty's Government before the assent was given to the guarantee, and, if so, what objection was there to stating them now.
  MR. ASQUITH: I think they have been stated by my right hon. friend the
  358
  Under-Secretary for the Colonies more than once, but we will give full particulars of them before we ask the House for its assent.

  Irish Land Purchase
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can inform the House of the nature of the arrangements by which he proposes to avoid any fresh issue of Local Loans Stock or Guaranteed 2¾per Cent Stock for Irish land purchase before 31st December next; how much money will be required for each of these purposes in the interval; and how the required amounts will be provided.
  MR. ASQUITH: At the present time the repayments to the Local Loans Fund in respect of outstanding loans are more than sufficient be provide for the now loans, and no difficulty is anticipated in providing for the loans this year out of the available moneys of the fund. The National Debt Commissioners expect to be able to supply the requirements of the Irish Land Purchase Fund for the remainder of the present year out of the moneys in their hands for investment, for which stock will be issued to them from time to time in respect of their advances to that fund. Owing to the nature of the demands upon the Local Loans Fund and Irish Land Purchase Fund it is impossible to make any precise forecast of their requirements to the end of the year, but I see no reason to doubt that it will be possible to dispense with any issue of stock to the public in either case during that period.
  MR. LEVERTON HARRIS: What is the price the 2¾ per cent. Irish stock is issued at?
  MR. ASQUITH: That depends on the market.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is the money invested in Irish Land Stock Savings Bank money?
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes, mainly.
  MR. GEORGE FABER: Under what statute do the National Debt Commissioners take power to hold Irish Land stock at all?
  MR. ASQUITH: I had better have notice. There is no doubt about the power.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is not £30,000,000 required for Irish Land Purchase now?
  MR. ASQUITH: No.

  London Motor-Omnibus Traffic
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the increasing nuisance caused by motor-omnibuses, and to the losses sustained through those nuisances by householders on motor-omnibus routes; if ho is aware that many London thoroughfares are blackened by oil dropped from these vehicles, and that the clothes of foot passengers are frequently spoiled from the same cause; and whether, in view of the inherent defects of both horse and mechanically drawn heavy vehicles not run on rails, he can see his way to represent to the London County Council that the construction of a complete London electric-tramway system, to make omnibuses unnecessary, would be for the common good and profit of all classes in London.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): My attention is constantly being directed to the whole question of motor-omnibus traffic, but I am disposed to consider that the objectionable features of that traffic show signs of diminution rather than of increase. The dropping of oil is being dealt with specially by the police and by an influential trade association. I have no authority to make to the London County Council any such representation as is suggested in the last part of the Question.

  Welshpool Interment Scandal.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, during the current month at Welshpool, a body was exhumed during an interment; whether he is aware that the only burial place Free Churchmen have at Welshpool is in the custody of the Church; and whether he will take such action as will prevent the recurrence of an incident such as that
  360
  to which reference is made, which has given rise to considerable feeling in the locality concerned.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir, and I have already made inquiry into the case. I propose to take all practical steps to vindicate the security of human remains against disturbance which is demanded by natural and proper feeling and is provided for by law.

  Police Traps and the Press
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the duties of the police are interfered with by newspapers publishing roads on which it is stated police traps are set for offending motorists; and if it would be within his province to strengthen the hands of the police by offering rewards to such persons who would give such evidence as would secure conviction of offenders.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am aware that the police are hampered in performing their duties by this practice, but the suggested remedy is one which, I am advised, would not prove effective and is undesirable on other grounds.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONasked whether it was not the fact that the hon. Member had himself been fined.
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Exports to Germany.
  MR. REMNANT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, in reference to figures recently given by him relating to exports to Germany, whether the item manufactures includes woollen tops; if so, what is the value of this item, and what is the approximate amount of textile wages paid in their manufacture.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (MR. LLOYD-GEORGE, Carnarvon Boroughs): Woollen tops are classed among "articles wholly or mainly manufactured " in the trade statistics of the United Kingdom. The value of the exports of woollen tops to Germany from the United Kingdom was £824,000 in 1904, £1,033,000 in 1905, and

  361
  £1,266,000 in 1906. No official figures are available showing the amount of wages paid to operatives engaged in the manufacture of such tops. I hope, however, that the inquiries now being prosecuted into wages in the United Kingdom will throw some light on this question.

  Coal Exports.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the amount of the exports of coal from this country for each of the months since the export duty was abolished compared with the corresponding months of the previous year and distinguishing smokeless from bituminous coal.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The exports of coal from the United Kingdom are classified into exports of anthracite, steam coal, gas coal, household coal and other sorts. I will have a statement printed in the Vote† showing the quantities of each description exported from the United Kingdom in each of the months November, 1906, to May, 1907, inclusive, with the figures for the corresponding months of the previous year.

  Exports of Woollen Tops.
  MR. REMNANT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the distinction drawn in the Board of Trade Returns between articles mainly unmanufactured and articles mainly manufactured; and whether, and, if so, why woollen tops are classed with articles mainly manufactured, whereas woollen noils are classed with articles mainly unmanufactured.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: With regard to the distinction between articles mainly manufactured and mainly unmanufactured I can only refer the hon. Member to a reply which I gave to a Question on the same subject by my hon. friend the Member for Chester, on April 24th inst,? The matter, which is too complicated to be dealt with in an Answer to a Question, is fully discussed in Cd. 2337, p. 236. Woollen tops have gone through stages of manufacture which entitled them, in my opinion, to be classed among semi-manufactured articles. Noils (like cotton and
  †See page 329.
  ‡(4) Debates, Clxxiii., 34.
  362
  silk waste) are treated as waste products and classed with unmanufactured articles.

  Sanitation of St. Asaph.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the medical officer of health for the St. Asaph (Flint) district has expressed the opinion that the sanitation both of St. Asaph and Rhuddlan is unsatisfactory; and will he communicate with the local authority with a view to ascertaining to what extent effect can be given to the recommendations of their medical officer of health.
  MR. MORTON: I beg also to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether in view of the recommendations made by the medical officer of health for St. Asaph (Flint), ho will ascertain from the local authorities whether they will consider the expediency of dealing with the sewage of the villages of Meliden and Dyserth.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. JOHN BURNS, Battersea): I have just received the Report for last year of the medical officer of health, and I find that he refers init to the matters mentioned in the Questions. I understand that the rural district council regard the Report as inaccurate and incomplete and have asked the medical officer further to consider it and submit it at the next meeting, when the various matters dealt with will be fully considered.

  Calves for Calf Lymph.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state how many calves have been purchased during last year for the purpose of producing glycerinated calf lymph and their cost; also the number sold during the same period, and the amount thus realised; and will he explain why the amount derived from the sale of calves by the National Vaccine Establishment is not indicated in the Estimates.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The calves in question are not purchased and resold, but a payment is made in respect of each calf supplied for purposes of vaccination, the calf being afterwards returned to the

  363
  contractor. The sum paid during the last financial year was £860 17s. 6d., in respect of 505 calves.
  MR. WEIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my Question?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I believe on investigation the hon. Member will find the information there. If it is not I shall be pleased to put it in.

  Local Government Board Report
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will arrange for the Report of the Local Government Board to be issued before the Vote is taken.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The Report is in preparation, but it will not be practicable that it should be issued before the Vote is taken.

  Government Bacteriologist
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, having regard to the fact that the bacteriologist employed by the Local Government Board at the National Vaccine Establishment receives a salary of £600 per annum, will he explain why he is allowed to make a profit on vaccine lymph sold to the Local Government Board for Scotland.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The bacteriologist referred to has not hitherto been required to devote his whole time to the duties of his office, and he has received an extra payment in respect of his services in connection with the supply of lymph by the English to the Scottish Local Government Board, such payment consisting of the sum received from the Scottish Board, less the cost of producing the lymph supplied to them. The arrangement has, however, now been altered. The bacteriologist is required to devote his whole time to his duties; he receives an inclusive salary and no extra allowance is payable to him in connection with lymph supplied to Scotland.

  Grants for Imbeciles in Workhouses
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that certain boards of
  364
  guardians are strongly in favour of the extension of the grant of 4s. weekly now made under The Local Government Act, 1888, in respect of each lunatic maintained in a lunatic asylum, to imbeciles and lunatics certified for treatment in workhouses; that the cost of maintaining lunatics in asylums and in providing asylum buildings bears very heavily upon local funds; that the Act of 1890 provides all sufficient safeguards against improper detention; that in some local areas ample accommodation exists in unnecessary workhouses which could be made available for the reception exclusively of such cases; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am aware of the facts of this matter. Some extension of the grant in the direction desired was recommended by the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, subject to certain conditions. As I stated in reply to a previous Question, the matter will receive consideration when the subject of Local Taxation is dealt with by the Government.

  Motor Speeds on the Bury Road
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that the speed limit of ten miles an hour on the Bury Road is habitually disregarded, and that the fines imposed prove no deterrent; and if he will consider the possibility of taking some steps to prevent privileged persons taking the law into their own hands.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers I would like to ask whether "privileged persons" include Members of Parliament, and whether the fine recently imposed on the hon. Member who asked this Question is a breach of privilege?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: In the framing of the regulations by the Local Government Board no advantage will be given to privileged persons or to chartered libertines who ride in motor-cars. In Answer to the Question on the Paper, I assume that my hon. friend refers to the speed limit imposed by an Order of the Local Government Board from 1st February last in respect of the Bury Road, Newmarket, from "the Toll Gate

  365
  to its junction with High Street." I have no information as to any disregard of the speed limit thus imposed, nor have I any power to enforce its observance. If the provisions of the Order are infringed, the attention of the police should be drawn to the matter.

  Stornoway Mails.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Post master-General whether he is now in a position to state how the figures showing the number of letters and parcels respectively despatched to and from Stornoway last year compare with the figures ten years ago.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (MR. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): The estimated number of letters and parcels dealt with in the Stornoway Office are as follows:—

  Year ended 31st December, 1896.

  Letters delivered

  458,328

  Letters posted

  353,704

  Parcels delivered

  19,708

  Parcels posted

  11,180

  Year ended 31st December, 1906.

  Letters delivered

  863,824

  Letters posted

  679,224

  Parcels delivered

  48,204

  Parcels posted

  24,128

  As my hon. friend is aware, I am inquiring into the question of the postal arrangements at Stornoway.

  German Lottery Circulars in the English Post.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if the Post Office practically delivers the circulars advertising the Hamburg and other German lotteries without receiving any payment for the services rendered, as the German Post Office is not required to perform this duty in respect of similar English circulars; and whether he can take any steps to remedy this state of affairs and save the expense and loss occasioned to our Post Office.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Lottery circulars sent in open covers, and thus recognised as lottery circulars, are not delivered at all. If the closed letters from Germany for this country include lottery circulars, the Post Office has not
  366
  the means of knowing what are the contents, and must deliver them like other letters.
  MR. FLYNNasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that a large number of enclosed letters dealing with these lotteries were posted in English towns.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was fully aware of that, but the position he had taken up, which he thought the House would probably endorse, was that if letters wore sealed it would not be right for the Postmaster-General to open them, but if they were unsealed they could always be stopped.

  Teachers' Superannuation
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education is he aware that wide dissatisfaction is felt by elementary certificated school teachers at the existing rules for superannuation, under which each teacher is required to pay a sum of £2 to.£3 and to continue the payment till the age of sixty-five; is anything returned in the case of death before that age; whether local school authorities have complained of these conditions; and what percentage of male teachers and of female teachers respectively actually comply with all the conditions and receive the pension.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (MR. LOUGH, Islington, W.): I am aware that some dissatisfaction exists, but I think that is a feature common to most pension schemes. Teachers who are subject to the Superannuation Act are only required to contribute to the Deferred Annuity Fund so long as they are in recorded service. No repayment is made in case of death before qualifying for an allowance. I am not aware that local education authorities have complained of the conditions. All teachers who have contributed to the fund are entitled to an annuity based upon their contributions provided they survive to the age of sixty-five.

  Royston School.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education what are the dates of

  367
  the Reports laid upon the Table on 22nd April of the local authority and the Boards inspector upon Mr. Milnes, who had been selected by the managers as head teacher for Royston School, in the West Riding of Yorkshire.
  MR. LOUGH: His Majesty's Inspector's Report is dated the 26th January, 1907. The local authority's Report was conveyed to the Board in an official letter dated the 7th January, 1907.

  Mutton for Members.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Mid. Derbyshire, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether he will consider the propriety of substituting Welsh mutton for Canterbury lamb.
  SIR. J. A. JACOBY: In reply to the hon. Member, I am not prepared to substitute Welsh mutton for Canterbury lamb. I am informed that Welsh mutton is on sale in the London Market between the months of October and March, when I shall be pleased to have it supplied to Members.
  *MR. REES: Is the hon. Member aware that he somewhat exaggerates, indeed immensely magnifies, the merits of the Colonial animal by describing as Canterbury lamb what might be more properly called New Zealand mutton?
  MR. A. DEWAR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Scottish black-faced mutton is the best mutton on the market?
  MR. WEIR: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the expediency of obtaining mutton from the West Highlands?
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the hon. Gentleman see that Irish mutton is supplied? It is the best mutton of all.
  SIR J. A. JACOBY: All these suggestions of hon. Gentlemen shall have the best attention.

  Balintore Harbour.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state on what date the harbour
  368
  at Balintore, Ross-shire, was last inspected, and by whom the Report as to its condition was made.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (MR. SINCLAIR, Forfarshire): The information was obtained by the Fishery Board through one of its officers in April last.

  sanitation in the island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that, although the local authority in the Island of Lewis has for some years imposed the maximum assessment of Is. per pound for public health purposes, it is quite unable, owing to lack of funds, to give effect to the recommendation of the Report by Dr. Dittmar, medical inspector for the Local Government Board for Scotland; and will he state why the Board have taken no steps to see that the Public Health (Scotland) Acts are not ignored in this part of the United Kingdom.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I am aware and I am convinced that under these circumstances it is impossible at present to exorcise further pressure upon the local authority.
  MR. WEIR: Do the Local Government Board intend to pay no regard to this matter at all? Am I to understand that?
  MR. SINCLAIR: No, Sir. The Local Government Board cannot exercise further pressure.
  MR WEIR: I will put another Question.

  Water Supply in the Island of Lewis.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the fact that no provision is made in the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill for the supply of water in insanitary districts in the congested area of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, such as the Island of Lewis, will he state how he proposes to give effect to the repeated pledges in regard to such supply, especially bearing in mind that nearly every outbreak of fever in the island has been attributed to the defective water supply.
  MR. SINCLAIR: Improvement of the water supply is a matter for the local authority, whose funds are not at present adequate for the work that should be undertaken. I can only assure my hon. friend that I am fully convinced of the importance of the question.

  Aiguish Water Supply.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state why the Congested Districts Board, when forming the new township at Aiguish, Island of Lewis, failed to arrange for a water supply, as provided for under Clause 5, Subsection (3), of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897; and will he state whether any arrangements have yet been made for a supply of water to the 32 houses of this new township.
  MR. SINCLAIR: The Congested Districts Board, in ordering the settling of these tenants, were advised that the water supply was sufficient and came under no obligation to provide a further supply. No further arrangements have yet been made.
  MR. WEIR: There never has been any water supply there.

  Roscomroe Unlawful Assembly Prosecution.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that at the third hearing of the charge of unlawful assembly at Roscomroe preferred against sixteen men before the Roscrea bench, when the magistrates for the third time disagreed, the Crown Solicitor said the Attorney-General would send the case for trial himself, they were not going to have throe or four adjournments for nothing; and whether it is his intention to send these men for trial, having regard to the fact that a majority of the Roscrea bench, at the fourth hearing, refused informations.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL For IRELAND (Mr. BARRY, Tyrone, N.): My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. The Crown Solicitor has reported that he made no such statement as is attributed to him in the Question. It was one of the magistrates who remarked that the Attorney-
  370
  General could himself send up a Bill at assizes. It is a fact that the magistrates eventually refused to receive informations in the case. My right hon. friend has since fully considered the case, and having regard to the fact that eight of the accused persons have already been returned for trial at the next assizes for a similar offence as regards the same farm at a later date, he has decided that it is not necessary to take further action in this case.

  Gort Disturbance.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Saturday night, 22nd June, an armed party attacked the dwelling-house of Joseph O'Donohue, near Gort, and fired shots through the windows; and whether the police have discovered the offenders.
  MR. BIRRELL: The police have been informed that on the night of 22nd June, shots were fired at the house of Joseph O'Donohue, breaking two panes of glass. There is nothing to show whether more than one person was engaged in committing the offence. The police have not succeeded in discovering the offender or offenders.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Are they endeavouring to discover them?
  MR. BIRRELL: Certainly they are.

  Knockadrive Disturbance.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a report of a constabulary post having been fired into at Knockadrive, near Brosna, county Kerry; and whether any arrests were made.
  MR. BIRRELL: The reply to the first inquiry is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.
  MR. LONSDALEasked if the right hon. Gentleman could explain why there had been no arrests.
  MR. BIRRELL: The police can only make arrests in a reasonable manner; they cannot go about arresting anybody.

  Holly Park, Athenry, Disturbance.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a Report of an attack by armed men upon the residence of Mr. H. P. Blake, J.P., at Holly Park, near Athenry, on Sunday night, 23rd June; whether several shots were fired into the mansion; and whether any arrests have been made.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have received a police report showing that several shots were fired into Mr. Blake's house on the night of 23rd June. No arrests have been made. The police have been instructed to afford full protection to Mr. Blake, and patrols have been ordered about his house at night.

  United Irish League—Drumraney Branch.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been brought to his notice that at a meeting of the Drumraney, South Westmeath, branch of the United Irish League, on Sunday, 23rd June, three farmers were compelled to apologise publicly for having assisted a man who had purchased an evicted farm; whether he is aware that the chairman, who is a county councillor, informed one of the farmers that this was his last chance of forgiveness; and what action he proposes to take with reference to the intimidation practised by the United Irish League.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am aware that a statement to the effect mentioned in the Question has appeared in the newspapers. The meeting at which these proceedings are said to have taken place was held within doors, and the police have no evidence as to what occurred at the meeting.

  Crime in Galway.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in addressing the grand jury at the Galway quarter sessions on Monday, Judge Anderson stated that he had had no reports furnished him by the police as to the state of the county, and he could only judge of what had been going on by what he saw in the newspapers; whether the usual reports were withheld
  372
  of set purpose, and whether the police acted upon instructions from headquarters; and, if so, whether he will state the nature of those instructions.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Recorder of Galway is reported to have said that he refrained from making any observations on the state of the county because the police did not furnish him with reports on the subject and he had no information save that which he had gathered from the newspapers. It has never been the practice to furnish Recorders and County Court Judges with police reports as to the crime of the district. Such reports are furnished to Judges of Assize only.

  Armagh Agricultural Grant.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution passed by the Armagh Rural District Council protesting against the action of the Treasury in using the Agricultural Grant to meet the deficiency caused by the working of the Land Purchase Act, and thereby withdrawing the grant which has been given in lieu of the portion of the poor rate formerly paid by the landlord, and urging the Government to appoint a committee of financial experts to consider as to the cause and report on the whole matter, and devise some means whereby the proposed great loss to the local rates shall be averted; and whether the Government have arrived at any conclusion as to methods by which future losses arising out of the issue of Irish Land Stock can be made good without making further demands upon Irish Local Government grants.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have received the resolution referred to. As the hon. Member is aware, the subject of Irish Land Purchase finance is shortly to be debated in this House, and it would not be convenient to anticipate the debate by making a statement on the matters referred to in the Question.

  Roscommon County Council Chairman.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the chairman of the Roscommon County Council

  373
  has become treasurer of the County Council Defence Fund, started on behalf of men who have been sent to gaol for agrarian offences; whether, in view of this gentleman's duties as a justice of the peace, his conduct has been brought to the notice of the Lord Chancellor; and, if so, what action has been taken in this matter.
  MR. BIRRELL: Mr. John Fitzgibbon, chairman of the Roscommon County Council, has been appointed treasurer of the defence fund referred to in the Question. I understand that Mr. Fitzgibbon, though a justice of the peace ex officio, has declined to act as such, but in any event, the fact that he is treasurer of the defence fund in question, does not call for interference on the part of the Government.

  Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. HAZLETON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a national school teacher whose school hours extend from 10 a.m. to 2.40 p.m. is at liberty, not having any class from 2.40 to 3.30 p.m., the hour at which the school closes, under the rules of the National Board, to teach in an adjoining school after 2.40 p.m., at the request of its manager, subjects on the National Board's programme such as singing, mathematics (higher), or elementary science.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Commissioners of National Education inform me that as a general rule a teacher is required to remain on duty in his own school for the entire school day as shown by the timetable. If the facts of any particular ease of the kind referred to in the Question should be submitted to the Commissioners, they would consider whether an exception could be made.

  Belfast Strike Riots.
  MR. SHACKLETON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any attack on the police was made by the strikers in Belfast before the soldiers wore called out; whether anything happened in connection with the strike which has been alleged as a reason for employing the military to overawe the trade unionists; and whether
  374
  he is still in a position to state that no pickets have been interfered with.
  MR. BIRRELL: No attack on the police has been made by the strikers in Belfast. The military were in no sense called out with the object of overawing the trade unionists, but simply for the purpose of assisting the civil power in preserving the peace. The police have not taken sides in the dispute, but have carefully confined themselves to their duty of securing order. I am informed that pickets have not been interfered with by the police or military. Persons describing themselves as pickets have been allowed to pass through the military cordons. I am in communication with the authorities in Belfast on the subject of the necessity for continuing the intervention of the military.
  MR. SHACKLETON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that seven out of the ten companies have come to terms with the workmen? Does this not show a peaceful disposition, and can he not see his way to urge the removal of the military?
  MR. BIRRELL: I do not think the hon. Member ought to press me for an Answer. I must support the civil authorities in this matter. I am making myself fully acquainted with the facts of the dispute. Everyone will agree that the quicker it conies to an end the better.

  Irish Court of Judicature.
  MR. HAZLETON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the present Registrar and Clerk of the Crown in the King's Bench Division of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland acted, prior to his promotion to that position, as private secretary to the Lord Chief Justice; whether he still receives, in addition to his salary as registrar and clerk of the Crown, the salary formerly paid to him as private secretary; and whether the chief part of the secretarial work is, as a matter of fact, performed by a writing clerk who is paid out of court fees.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I am informed that the reply to the first two parts of the Question is in the affirmative and to the last in the negative.

  Rostrevor Foreshore.
  MR. MOORE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Crown has conveyed its rights between high and low water-mark on a portion of Carlingford Lough to Colonel Ross at Rostrevor; and, if not, under what title does this gentleman prevent the taking of sand and gravel from the shore there.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The foreshore at Rostrevor is under the management of the Board of Trade. The Board have not conveyed to Colonel Ross any foreshore at this place, nor have they received any complaint that he has prevented the removal of sand and gravel therefrom. Any such complaint that may be addressed to them will be carefully investigated.
  MR. MOORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Colonel Ross has put up a notice prohibiting people taking sand from the foreshore.
  MR. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not aware of it. He has no authority from the Board of Trade.

  Castleblayney Post Office.
  MR. MOORE: I bog to ask the Postmaster-General if the postal authorities have concluded their negotiations with the landlord of Mr. Fleming's premises in Castleblayney for the purchase of the same for the new Post Office; what price has been arranged, and what are the additional advantages which render these premises more suitable than the present Post Office; and do these premises comply with the requirements laid down by the official advertisement issued by the postal authorities for a site in Castleblayney.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It is not the intention of the Post Office to purchase the premises in question. The landlord has arranged to pull them down, and to erect on the site a new building suitable for Post Office purposes, of which the Department will be the lessee. The new building will afford suitable accommodation for Post Office work, which the present office does not. When completed the new building will fulfil the requirements of the advertisement.

  Irish Council Bill.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister on what date it is intended to move the discharge of the Order for the Second Heading of the Irish Council Bill.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This formality may be gone through at any time.

  Peers and Parliament.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister when he proposes to give effect to the Resolution adopted by the House on Wednesday, 26th June, by introducing a Bill to define the relations between the two Houses of Parliament.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That is a matter on which the Government reserve their decision, as I stated to the House when moving the Resolution.

  Evicted Tenants Bill.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it is intended to proceed with the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill; and, if so, how many and what days are to be allotted for the Second Reading.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this Question, may I ask whether he will consider the advisability of postponing the further consideration of the Bill until he has ascertained the opinion of the Irish Nationalist Convention?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNER-MAN: The Government are always ready to consider any advice. What we may think of it is another matter. I hope to be able to refer to this Bill in the statement as to the business for next week, which will be made on Thursday.
  MR. MOORE: Will the Bill be dealt with in Committee of the House or in Committee upstairs?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That is covered by the Answer I have just given.

  New Peers.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether he proposes

  377
  to advise His Majesty, in conferring the dignity of a Peerage upon the hon. Member for Colne Valley, Sir James Blyth, Baronet, Sir Samuel Montague, Baronet, and Alexander Peckover, esquire, so to alter the form of Letters Patent hitherto granted to Peers as to bring it into accordance with the Resolution of this House?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The noble Lord's suggestion that the four Gentlemen upon whom the honour of Peerage is about to be conferred should be constituted into a sort of House of Peers by themselves with different rights and privileges from their compeers is not an idea that has occurred to me or that commends itself to me.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we are to understand that the patents to be given to these noble Lords will confer the rights, privileges, immunities, and advantages which Peers of their estate have hitherto quietly and honourably enjoyed, although it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention compulsorily to dispossess them?
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: May I ask whether, before these gentlemen were granted this high honour, there was any stipulation with them as to their action in the other House?
  [No Answered was returned.]

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 229.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 229.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 260.]

CRIMINAL APPEAL [EXPENSES].
Resolution reported: "That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the
378
salaries of the Registrar of the Court of Criminal Appeal and his staff appointed under any Act of the present Session to establish a Court of Criminal Appeal and to amend the Law relating to Appeals in Criminal Cases, and of the expenses of taking shorthand notes and of making transcripts in pursuance of such Act."
Resolution agreed to.

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. EMMOTT (Oldham) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
*MR. NIELD:moved to amend the clause by inserting the words "50 per cent. ad valorem, but not to exceed 5d." He said he had some excellent precedents for this Motion in speeches delivered by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The imposition of a high tea duty had often been deprecated on both sides of the House on the ground that it was oppressive upon the poorer consumers, to whom tea was a necessary article of food. He had it on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton that it was—
"A tax which presses upon the poor—for a large section of our working classes tea is essentially an article of food."
The hon. Member for West Islington, who was specially well informed on this subject, had told them that—
"In Ireland the poorest inhabitants depended on tea because it was the cheapest drink, and, therefore, this tax hit those who were dependent most on this form of food. Twopence in tax meant to Ireland £300,000 per annum, viz., from £900,000 to £1,200,000; it was an increase of 2s. 8d. per head of population, equal to 16s. to a family of six."
The hon. Gentleman had asserted further that the tea duty was a tax which ought to be removed at the earliest possible moment. The tax was not condemned only in England: it had also been the subject of bitter denunciation by Irish Members. The hon. Member for Water-ford had declared that incomes of £20 a year in Ireland contributed £5 17S. to the tea duty, while they were informed

379
by the hon. Member for South Donegal that out of poor incomes of £10, as much as £3 was spent on tea by a family of five, and of incomes of £25 a year and upwards no less than £7. He could not help quoting one phrase used by the hon. and learned Member in 1904—
"Let them go into any of the abodes of misery in Ireland and they would always find a teapot there, whatever else there might be. Tea was the cheapest drink of the poor, and it cheered them without doing any harm … While 2d. increase in the tax would scarcely be seen in the case of the English people, it would produce ruinous results in the cottagers' homes in Donegal."
The Liberal Party had been equally eloquent in denunciation of the tax on tea, and undoubtedly many hon. Members of the present Parliament owed the substantial support they got at the election to the promises they gave in regard to the abolition of the duty. He thought they were all agreed that some relief at any rate ought to be given to the cheaper teas in the market—the teas which supplied the staple requirements of poorer families. The hon. Member for North Norfolk, speaking in 1904 from the Opposition Benches, said—
"As he believed that tea was invariably sold in bond he could not conceive that it passed the wit of the Inland Revenue to devise some means by which an ad valorem duty might be placed on this commodity. That would do away with one of the great objections to the tax."
Again Mr. Henry Broadhurst, then the Member for Leicester, said—
"The tax on tea was an unjust one when levied on weight …. The argument applied equally to tea as to tobacco …. Although the case represented by the Irish representatives might be quite true, he doubted whether there were not thousands of agricultural labourers in this country and casual workers in our streets who relied upon tea as an article of consumption and an encouragement to appetite, as did the Irish labourers. Tea and tobacco should be taxed according to their value, and if that were done a considerable cause of justifiable complaint with regard to those two taxes would be removed."
The present Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and the president of the Board of Education in 1904 supported a similar Motion to the one he was now proposing. Indeed, the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade moved an Amendment against the late Government's Finance Bill in 1904, in identically the same terms as this one, and the hon. Gentleman was received with the cheers of his Party.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY, Devonport): I had just come back from winning a by-election at Devonport, and the House cheered me when I rose.
*MR. NIELDsaid that he had been unable to find in the official debates any reference to the hon. Member having been resworn a Member of the House, and he fancied he had been in the House sometime previous to 1904. But the hon. Gentleman, at any rate, thought the cheer was in support of the Motion, for he remarked that "it was evident from the cheers that his Amendment was an attractive one." And what were the arguments he adduced? The hon. Member said—
"It was evident from the cheers of hon. Members that his Amendment was an attractive one. He was not surprised, for it was neither a novel nor an unreasonable one. Until about 1833 the system of levying duties was an ad valorem one. Up to that time the East India Company bad practically a monopoly of all tea coming into the country— indeed he believed there was an Act making it illegal for anybody else, to import tea except by the ships belonging to that company. In 1830, however, it became necessary to curtail and limit this monopoly because, as with all monopolies, abuses grew up, and consumers found themselves assailed by the exorbitant prices being charged. A Parliamentary Committee sat in that year and it advised that the monopoly of the company should be brought to an end as far as tea was concerned, and at an opportune moment the privilege was withdrawn. The Government accepted the opportunity of changing the system, and he believed it was in 1830 that a system of levying a simple duty came into vogue. This historical statement would show that ad valorem duties were possible, and that they had been practised in this country. What title had he to ask the House to agree to an ad valorem duty not to exceed 50 per cent.? He had taken some pains to examine the percentage of duty in relation to the cost price of tea in bond. He found that in the past forty years the percentage of duty to the cost of tea in bond had never exceeded forty-five. He was more generous than that; he wanted to levy an ad valorem duty equivalent to 50 per cent.; and, judging by the imports of the past, the tea duty would bring in as much or more than the varying duties of the past forty years. When the duty was reduced to 6d. in the pound, he found that from 18G5 to 1875 the average price of tea in bond was 1s. 6d. per pound, and therefore the percentage of duty was 33 per cent. During the next ten years, when the average price was 1s. 1 ½ d. per pound, it rose to 45 per cent. If they took the year when the duty was reduced to 4d., the year 1890, when the

381
average price of tea was l0 ¾d. per pound, they found that the relation of duty to the cost price in bond was only 37 per cent. From 1890 to 1896, when the average price of tea in bond was l0d. per pound and the duty 4d., the percentage was 40 per cent. Thus for forty years, right down almost to the present year, the duty had never exceeded 45 per cent. in relation to the cost of tea in bond. How-did they stand to-day? In 1900 the duty was raised to 6d. and now it was proposed to raise it to 8d. The average price of tea was 7 ¾d, and the duty would therefore be over 100 per cent. Considering, too, that an enormous quantity of tea sold did not fetch more than 6d. per pound, a duty of 8d. was altogether excessive. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would say that a system of ad valorem duty was altogether impossible—that it had broken down before and that it would be impossible to put it in practice at the present time. He denied this. It would be quite easy, because 95 per cent. of the tea sold was sold by public auction, and those who dealt in it did not buy in their own name but through a broker, who delivered a contract, which could no doubt be turned into a document sufficiently adequate for the purposes of the tax; and there would be no difficulty in merchants sending, as they did now, cheques to the Customs House accompanied by a declaration that the tea had cost so much and no more, Over 90 per cent. could be checked, because it was sold in this way. The rich bought high-priced tea, and therefore the proportion of duty they paid was smaller than that paid by the poor. It was the poor who paid over 100 per cent., and this was why he considered an ad valorem duty would be more equitable. Why did they not put some of the duty on coffee and cocoa, which mainly came from foreign countries, while tea came from India and Ceylon? Here they went to their dependencies, and if for no other reason than that it would bring relief to the Colonies and at the same time a great amount of relief to the tea consumers of the country. He begged to move."
Following that ho wished to quote one other speech made on that occasion, but in opposition to the Motion by the then hon. Member for the Bright-side Division of Sheffield (Mr. Fitzalan Hope) which was somewhat remarkable for the prophecy it contained and the manner in which that prophecy had been fulfilled. The hon. Member said —
"He was rather surprised that the hon. Member for West Islington was not yet in his place, but he took it that it would be rather dangerous for him to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Devonport. It was possible that perhaps in a few years these hon. Gentleman would find themselves on that side of the House. In that case when the ad valorem question was raised what would the Chancellor of the Exchequer do? He presumed the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be either the hon. Member for Devonport or the hon. Member for West Islington. It was even possible that both of them would have to make way to the superior claims of the hon. Member
382
for Oldham. In that event one of the hon. Gentlemen would have to console himself with the office of President of the Board of Trade and the other with the office of Financial Secretary to the Treasury."
It was curious that the prophecy had been so far fulfilled that one of the supporters of the Motion was now Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and another was Minister of Education and had been Financial Secretary to the Treasury. From all the speeches delivered on that occasion there could be no doubt that a very strong feeling existed in favour of an ad valorem duty, if not a general objection on the part of the Radical Party to the duty on tea. The right hon. Gentleman who was now Minister for Education said—
"If they were to have the tax on tea, why should it not be imposed in such a way as would not raise the price of tea to the poorest classes? The right hon. Member for West Bristol spoke of tea being taxed on the average of 75 per cent. of its value and the proposed addition to the tax would increase that to 100 per cent. He was told that tea was sold at present as low as 6d. per pound. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to impose a duty of 100 per cent. ad valorem he would raise exactly the same amount. The result of an ad valorem duty of 100 per cent. would be that the cheapest tea would be sold as at present at 6d., while the consumption of the higher class of Chinese and Ceylon teas would not be decreased. If 2d. per pound were added to the price of the cheapest teas it would immediately diminish the consumption of them, hut if 100 per cent. ad valorem duty were put on all teas he would leave the consumption of these cheap teas exactly where it was, and yet would obtain the revenue which he anticipated. He therefore suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Resolution from the consideration of the House and introduce a duty of 100 per cent. ad valorem."
Following that speech came one for the hon. Member for the Barnstaple Division of Devonshire who declared that—
"They had long been anxious for a free breakfast table, but so long as the present Government remained in office the vision of a free breakfast table receded more and more into the dim and distant future. When one considered the incidence of the tea tax he was driven to the conclusion that it was not defensible. It affected the rich infinitely less than it affected the poor. Very few wealthy people had suffered from the heavy duties which had been placed on tea by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but on the other band there could be no doubt that the poorest class had suffered to a very considerable extent."
It seemed to him that under the protecting care of the Radical Party, and notwithstanding their platform utterances a

383
free breakfast table was as "dim and distant " as ever. How were they to be put in a position to be able to redress this grievance? The Anti-Tea Duty League had again and again extracted promises from candidates, and in particular from Radical candidates, that they would endeavour to secure the abolition of this duty. The more cautious Members (and he thought they had been more cautious on that side than on the Government side) refused to pledge themselves to reduce the duty, but when last year the proposal was made to reduce it to fourpence instead of fivepence, 144 hon. Gentlemen on the other side who had given their promises on the subject to the Anti-Tea Duty League forgot those pledges and supported the Government. He hoped the division on this Amendment would make those hon. Members realise that they had still an unfulfilled promise to perform, for it would afford them another chance to redeem it. In regard to the question of a "free breakfast table" he suggested that the consciences of many hon. Gentlemen would be seared with a red-hot iron when they were reminded of their promises by the Anti-Tea Duty League and of the material assistance which was given them in their election contests as a result, and in consideration of their promises. He was informed that an agent of the League, meeting one of those hon. Gentlemen in the lobby, reproached him bitterly for having forgotten his promise and asked him why he had supported the Government. The answer of the hon. Member was, "I had no option but to do it. Whiteley told me to do it and I did." [MINISTERIAL cries of "Name."] If hon. Gentlemen opposite were anxious to know the name of their hon. and learned colleague he would no doubt be able to obtain it, but he was quoting from statements made in a letter from the Anti-Tea Duty League. He thought if the truth were known the whole of these 144 Members might be put in the same category as the hon Member to whom he had just alluded. This was a matter for serious consideration. They had a tea duty standing at fivepence and they ought to take every means in their power to alleviate the tax in regard to its operation upon the cheaper qualities of tea. He did not mean that kind of tea in regard to which an hon. Member, speaking in reference to the Islanders of Orkney, said that by reason of the high
384
duty and therefore high price of tea it was necessary for them to extract the last drop of tannin from the cup at the risk of ruining their digestive organs in order to obtain the beverage. He said that there were many other qualities of tea which would be drunk by the poor, and drunk cheerfully, if the duty gave them a chance of being sold at a reasonable price. He would ask those hon. Members who in l904 supported the proposal he was now making to be consistent and to remember that there was something higher than giving a mere Party vote, also that this duty pressed most severely upon thousands of their poorer constituents, and to bring such pressure to bear upon the Treasury Bench as would induce their colleagues to reduce the tax by adjustment which would and could be obtained by an ad valorem duty and put it upon a reasonable basis. At present as the tax stood it constituted one of the most glaring anomalies in our fiscal system. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 21, after the word 'pound' to insert the words 'fifty per cent. ad valorem, but not to exceed.'"—(Mr. Nield)
Question proposed, "That these words be there inserted."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH, Fifeshire, E.)said the hon. Gentleman in the speech which he had made had, he thought, mixed up two questions which were not necessarily connected. The one was the general desirability of reducing the tea duty, and the other was the question of an ad valorem duty to which his Amendment referred. It was with the latter of these he would deal. Nobody was more anxious than ho was to reduce the tea duty; in fact, he had reduced it already. It was sixpence when the present Government came into office and it was fivepence to-day. If this or any other tax was not further reduced it was not to be taken as an indication that in his opinion it should permanently remain at the figure at which it stood. The main argument of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment was that in 1904, when they were sitting on the Opposition Benches, many Liberal Members had spoken in favour of the substitution of

385
an ad valorem duty for the present tax. His own withers, at any rate, were un-wrung. for ho took no part either in the debate or in the division; moreover, he had been looking at the division lists, and he could not find a single Member of the Conservative Party voting in favour of such a proposition.
SIR F, BANBURYwas understood to say that he voted in favour of it.
MR. ASQUITHsaid the hon. Baronet only showed the consistency which generally characterised him. But those who, unlike the hon. Baronet, had not the courage of their convictions had endured a conversion as rapid and as complete as that of his hon. friends. Me might set them off one against the other and turn to the question on its merits. In the first place, the average value of tea at the present time was very little less than 8d. a pound, and a 50 per cent. ad valorem duty at fourpence would involve a loss to the revenue of £1,100,000, or if it was taken from 1st July only, of £800,000, before the end of the present financial year. That was a loss he could not see his way to sustain, and that in itself was a complete answer to the Amendment. But he must go further. Every Chancellor of the Exchequer for seventy years, whatever the Party to which he belonged, had steadfastly resisted this proposal. And why had they done so? Before 1836 the provision of tea to the London market was a monopoly which belonged by charter to the East India Company, and as they sold the tea by auction it was a comparatively easy matter to fix the price of the different qualities. But when the monopoly came to an end that security for fairly discriminating between the different qualities came to an end also, and although an experiment was made in the way of a graduated duty, it broke down completely, and Mr. Spring Rice, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said in 1835 that, as the result of the experience they had had, they thought the time had come to fix a rate of duty on all teas. To require them to ascertain the particular quality of a tea imported was to impose on the Customs an impossible duty, and another important consideration was that the adoption of an ad valorem duty would offer a great inducement to fraudulent statements on
386
the part of importers. Ho was not at all sure that it would be found, speaking generally, that the working classes consumed mainly qualities sold at below l0d. a pound. Ho believed that a large proportion of the tea they consumed would derive no benefit from this proposal. Therefore, on that ground, and on the ground of precedent and administrative difficulty, he was obliged to adhere to the position maintained for seventy years whatever Party was in power, and to ask the Committee to keep the tea duty at a fixed sum.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose that all the Members on that side of the House supported the proposal which had been made, but he had too keen a recollection of his recent responsibilities to support the Amendment. If he might say so without egoism, when he listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer he felt that the right hon. Gentleman was travelling over ground that was familiar to him, and that he was putting his foot down step by step exactly in the places where he, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, had put his foot. The hon. Members for Devonport and West Islington when in opposition had sat side by side on the Opposition side of the House and they habitually supported each other and showed a unanimity which was remarkable. But when this question arose there was a fierce conflict between the allies. The case stated by the hon. Member for Devonport had the bottom knocked out of it by the hon. Member for Islington, and the case stated by the hon. Member for West Islington had the bottom knocked out of it by the hon. Member for Devonport. The hon. Member for West Islington said he was always averse to these proposals and was opposed to this Amendment, but he found from Hansard that on the last occasion on which they discussed the matter the hon. Member for Devonport said he had succeeded in converting the hon. Member for West Islington and he found that the latter voted for this iniquitous proposal. No doubt, however, the hon. Member was carried away-by a desire to vote against the Government for once. Personally he agreed with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said on the merits of the question. There was something attractive in the

387
idea of turning a specific into an ad valorem duty. It was not always possible to work it out in practice, and in the case of the tea duty it was increasingly difficult to do so. There was a time when all tea was sold at public auction, but he thought that now a larger proportion year by year never passed through public auction at all. Great firms on this side had begun to interest themselves in tea plantations and now imported their own tea, which was therefore never subjected to a public sale. He was quite sure that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave way to his hon. friend he would meet with very great opposition from the trade, which, so far as he had been able to gather their views, would regard with horror anything in the nature of converting the impost into an ad valorem duty. When as Chancellor of the Exchequer he received a deputation from the trade on this matter, he put the question to them, "Do you wish to have an ad valorem duty instead of a specific duty?" and they replied with one voice "Certainly not." Therefore it was a dishonest argument to present that the tea duty was unjust because it was not i ad valorem. That argument could only be used honestly by those who were prepared to replace the present duty by an ad valorem duty. It was because he thought it would result in a great disturbance to trade that he would not support the Amendment, and he also agreed that in many cases it would result in a higher tax being paid by the poor though not by others. He remembered on one occasion he was very anxious to get information as to Irish budgets, and he consulted some very interesting evidence given in a report of the Congested Districts Board as to the expenditure of certain families on tea. It was very high, but the price was not mentioned. He then made inquiries of Irish Members as to the number of pounds purchased. He was told in reply that he might take it for certain that the Irish peasant purchased good tea and would not have anything else. He believed the same to be true very largely of our own working classes. The hon. Member for West Islington used to say that it was a mistake to suppose that poor people bought cheap tea, that on the contrary it was the mean rich people who bought cheap tea to give to their servants. It was, he thought, wrong to assume that cheap tea was bought by people who had to
388
live on these small budgets. They kept a very sharp eye on quality as well as price. If the hon. Member went to a division he would with regret find himself voting against him and in favour of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the right hon. Gentleman had quite correctly represented the state of affairs in Ireland, and he might have found better authority than a casual conversation with Irishmen on the subject as to the kind of tea taken by the Irish people. It came out clearly in the evidence given before the Financial Relations Commission that in the poorest parts of Ireland what might be regarded as expensive tea was consumed. As a matter of fact, taking Ireland as a whole, he believed it could be shown that more expensive tea was used in Ireland than in England, and the same thing could be proved in reference to tobacco. He was in favour of every possible reduction of the tea duty, and he saw that some hon. Members had Motions for the reduction of the duty. He would vote in favour of every one of those, because he considered that a high tea duty inflicted great hardship upon the poor people in every part of the country, especially in certain districts in Ireland. He would not, however, vote in favour of the Amendment before the House, because he did not think it would give any relief at all.
SIR F. BANBURYthought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a little premature in saying hon. Members on the Opposition Benches had changed their views almost as quickly as they had changed their seats. The right hon. Gentleman now found there were two, and probably if a division was taken he would find there were a few more, who had not. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment was not a Member of the House in 1904, and therefore he was sincere in moving his Amendment. [Laughter.] He did not know why hon. Members laughed, unless it was that they were not sincere. There were four Cabinet Ministers—the Postmaster-General, the Chancellor of the Duchy, the Secretary of State for War, and the Home Secretary—all of whom voted for this Amendment a short time ago. The Postmaster-General went still further,

389
because he had said when on this side they were sincere in supporting this Amendment, and that those opposed to them wore only obstructing, and he was called to order by Mr. Speaker for imputing motives. Lot them now see who really was sincere. He himself was going to vote for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What was the Postmaster-General going to do?
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar)said that, as he had been referred to, ho might say that if the hon. Gentleman had read a little further he would have seen that he did not express himself as being in favour of the Amendment, but that he voted for it because if it were carried it would upset the balance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and a larger amount would then have to go on to direct and less on indirect taxation.
SIR F. BANBURYthought that by his explanation the right hon. Gentleman had placed himself in a still more awkward position. He hoped his hon. friend would go to a division in order that they might see who on both sides really regarded the pledges they had made. He appreciated the difficulty of hon. Members opposite who with the object of assisting the poor—he could see the posters now—had said that over 100 per cent. was charged upon tea, that it was an injustice to the many poor who consumed the cheaper article, and that the rich man was picked out to obtain the benefit. Now that they were in power with an overwhelming majority they used the same arguments that those now in Opposition used four years ago, and 146 who voted for this Amendment then were going to eat their words. The Committee owed a. debt of gratitude to his hon. friend for moving the Amendment, and he hoped the debate would be reported in the Radical newspapers.
AN. HON. MEMBER: It will not be.
*MR. GEORGE FABERsaid it was not his intention to follow the hon. baronet into a matter involving the fiscal morality of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He was not in the least surprised
390
that they should have left undone what they ought to have done and done that which they ought not to have done. When they were in opposition they spoke emphatically for the very policy which they were now opposing. Apart from any question of Party politics, he must confess that in this matter he was against the Amendment, and in favour of the line adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because a lower ad valorem duty would not assist the poorer classes, and would open the door to fraud. The right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer said cheap tea was only purchased by mean rich people for the use of their servants. If that were so, he thought that what would ultimately find its way into the family teapot would be the cheap tea which was obtained for the servants, and the servants in their turn would enjoy a cup of that most salutary fluid at the higher price paid by the master.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the language was not his own. He was only quoting the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education.
*MR. GEORGE FABERsaid he must apologise for having attributed the words to the right hon. Gentleman. In his carelessness he had thought that it was the right hon. Gentleman who was giving way to those somewhat extraordinary sentiments, whereas he was only quoting the hon. Gentleman opposite. He was rather surprised that that hon. Member now in a high position should have enunciated such sentiments. He was informed by an hon. friend behind him that there was only one occasion in the annals of the House on which a certified lunatic took part in a division, and the division in which he took part was in support of an ad valorem tea duty. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Name!"] He had no doubt if the annals of the House were searched they would show the name, but so many years had elapsed since that took place that doubtless in the ordinary course of nature the generation in question had long since passed to that bourne from which no traveller returned. If the matter went to a division he would be obliged to vote against the Amendment for the reasons he had given.
*MR. REESsaid the right hon. Gentleman opposite had referred to the placards and posters issued by the Anti-Tea Duty League, of which he was the only one of the Vice-Presidents who happened to be a Member of the House. When the right hon. Gentleman said that placards and posters and what not were issued recommending that an ad valorem duty should be adopted, he thought he was in error; he did not think they asked for that. What they asked was a reduction of the tea duty. The percentages to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred were merely illustrations; but they did not urge upon the Government that there should be an ad valorem duty. He might be wrong, but that was his impression. Doubtless it might be considered that some of those placards were rather highly spiced. His own taste in such matters was simple, and he thought they were. But he would point out that this was the reason why the Anti-Tea Duty League had dispensed with the services of their highly energetic and capable secretary, who was immediately responsible for those posters, and who had probably in some cases issued them without first submitting them for assent to those who directed the League. [An HON. MEMBER: After the election.] As the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the League and to his own responsibility he had told them what he had got
to say with regard to its action. It was quite true that he had previously written a pamphlet on the subject of the tea duty, and this was issued by the league among their pamphlets. If the right hon. Gentleman would confront him with any statement in that pamphlet of which it could be shown that he ought to be ashamed, or should depart from, in any way, he would be very much astonished. He thought the right hon. Gentleman's solicitude for the tea planters was rather belated. The tea planters did not regard the Government of which he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which raised the duty on tea as particularly friendly to them, and they were the best judges of what was done with their money, and not any hon. or right hon. Gentleman in this House. He understood that they were at any rate more satisfied with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and were grateful to him for having taken a penny off that tax, and believed that he intended to take off another penny, as, he thought, the right hon. Gentleman had that day as good as promised to do. An ad valorem duty would disturb the balance of the Budget, and for his part he was going to vote against the Amendment.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 18; Noes, 212. (Division List No. 255.)

AYES.

Beckett. Hon. Gervase

Craig,Captain James(Down,E.)

Percy. Earl

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Fardell, Sir T. George

Stanley,Hon Arthur(Ormskirk

Bull, Sir William James

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Turnour, Viscount

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Carlile, E. Hildred

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Corbett. T. L. (Down, North)

Moore, William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES — Mr Nield and Mr. Fell.

Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

Morpeth, Viscount.

NOES.

Ashley, W. W.

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Cameron, Robert

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Bennett, E. N.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Asquith,Rt.Hon Herbert Henry

Bertram, Julius

Carr-Gomm. H. W.

Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt. Hon.SirH.

Bethell,SirJ.H (Essex,, Romford

Castlereagh, Viscount

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Billson, Sir Alfred

Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Balfour. Robert (Lanark)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cavendish. Rt.Hon.VictorC.W.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Boulton, A. C. F.

Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Wore.

Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Branch, James

Chance, Frederick William

Baring,Capt.Hn.G.(Winchester

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Channing, Sir Francis Allston

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Brunner,J.F.L. (Lancs.,Leigh)

Cleland, J. W.

Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone,N.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Clough, William

Beale. W. P.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Coats,SirT.Glen (Renfrew, W.)

Bell, Richard

Buxton, Rt.Hn. SydneyCharles

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Bellairs, Carlyon

Byles, William Pollard

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

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Runciman, Walter

Cox, Harold

Lehmann, R. C.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire,Wirral)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Craik, Sir Henry

Levy, Sir Maurice

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Crombie, John William

Lockwood, Rt, Hn.Lt.-Col.A.R.

Sears, J. E.

Davies. M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Seaverns, J. H.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Lough, Thomas

Shackleton, David James

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Shaw. Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N.

Macdonald,J.M. (FalkirkB'ghs.

Sheffield,Sir BerkeleyGeorge D).

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Duncan,Robert(Lanark,Govan)

M'Crae, George

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Dunn. A. (Edward Camborne)

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall

M'Micking, Major G.

Soares, Ernest.J.

Edwards, Sir Frank (Radnor)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Spicer, Sir Albert

Elibank, Master of

Marnham, F. J.

Stanger, H. Y.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Everett, R. Lacey

Massie, J.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Faber, George Denison (York)

Menzies, Walter

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Faber. G. H.(Boston)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Fenwick, Charles

Mond, A.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Montagu, E. S.

Sutherland, J. E.

Fletcher, J. S.

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Morgan, J.Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Tennant,SirEdward Salisbury

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Morrell, Philip

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Gardner,Col. Alan (Hereford,S.

Myer, Horatio

Toulmin, George

Gill, A. H.

Napier, T. B.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

Nicholls, George

Verney, F. W.

Glendinning, R. G.

Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncaster

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds. S.)

Gordon. J.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Ward,WDudley(Southampton)

Grant, Corrie

O'Grady, J.

Waring, Walter

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Greenwood. Hamar (York)

Parker,SirGilbert (Gravesend)

Wason,Rt.Hn.E.(Clackmannan

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Parker, James (Halifax)

Wason,John Cathcart(Orkney)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Partington, Oswald

Waterlow, D. S.

Hart-Davies, T.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Watt, Henry A.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington)

Weir, James Galloway

Haworth, Arthur A.

Philipps,Col. Ivor(S'thampton)

Whitbread, Howard

Hedges, A. Paget

Philipps,J. Wynford(Pembroke

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Helmsley, Viscount

Pollard, Dr.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Higham, John Sharp

Price,Robert John (Norfolk,E.)

Williamson, A.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Pullar, Sir Robert

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Holland. Sir William Henry

Rainy, A. Rolland

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

Idris, T. H. W.

Raphael, Herbert H.

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

Jackson, R. S.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Rees, J. D.

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

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Jones,Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Kearley, Hudson E.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield,Ecclesall)

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

Kekewich, Sir George

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)

Yoxall, James Henry

Laidlaw, Robert

Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradford

Lambert, George

Rogers, F. E. Newman

TELLERS FOR THE NOES — Mr.Whiteley and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Lamont, Norman

Rowlands, J.

MR. BRIDGEMANsaid that on behalf of his hon. friend the Member for Central Hull he desired to move the Amendment standing in his name, to substitute "four pence" for "five pence." They had been told that this was the most prosperous year the country had ever known in trade. If that was so, why did the Government not take advantage of it to reduce this duty still further? The principle followed by Chancellors of the Exchequer in the past had been to
394
reduce concurrently, whenever it was possible, direct and indirect taxation, but this year that maxim had not been followed out, the reductions which had been made having affected direct taxation. At the general election hon. Members opposite directed their remarks to proving that indirect taxation was too high and bore so heavily upon the working classes that they would spare no effort to reduce it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had also stated that some day he hoped

395
to be able to reduce the tea duty. Upon what did he base those hopes? As hon. Members were aware, the right hon. Gentleman had pledged himself to a scheme of old-age pensions, the cost of which would be very high. Under those circumstances how could he reasonably hope to reduce the tea duty in the future? The right hon. Gentleman took credit for reducing the tea-duty last year, but the effect of that reduction had not been to benefit the consumer.
MR. ASQUITHdissented.
MR. BRIDGEMANsaid the right hon. Gentleman stated that if he had not reduced the tea-duty last year by 1d., tea would have been more expensive than it was now. In his opinion only the tea dealers and not the consumers had benefited by that reduction. The same argument applied to the repeal of the coal tax, from which the consumers had not benefited at all.
MR. FENWICK: Those who get the coal have benefited.
MR. BRIDGEMANsaid he was speaking of the benefit to the general public. Were hon. Members opposite prepared to get up and argue that the direct taxpayers were the greatest sufferers, and that they were the people who most needed relief? It was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to relieve those who needed it the most, but instead of doing this he had selected the middle-class income-taxpayers. He did not think it could be contended that the middle classes were the people who suffered most under the present system of taxation. It was only sound finance that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should balance the burden as equally as possible between the direct and the indirect taxpayers. He bogged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 21, to leave out the word j 'five,' and insert the word 'four.'"—(Mr. Bridgeman.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'five' stand part of the clause."
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid there was no difference of opinion as to the
396
object which the Mover of the Amendment had in view. He would like to see the tea duty reduced to 4d., and even abolished altogether. But it was a question of time, opportunity and money, and in the present condition of the national finances the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in a position to find that £1,000,000 which would be involved in the proposed reduction. The hon. Member opposite said that his right hon. friend had given a reduction in the case of direct taxation which he had not given in an equal proportion to indirect taxation. Surely that was not so in regard to this year's Budget. They were all agreed that reductions ought to be fairly divided between direct and indirect taxation, and, if anything, more in favour of the latter. But it was not a fact that direct taxation was to be reduced this year. It was true that by a readjustment of the income-tax relief would be given to some payers of income-tax, but it was counterbalanced by an increase in the tax upon another class of income-tax payers. These who suffered most from the burden of taxation were those who were going to be relieved. The relief proposed by the Mover of the Amendment would probably not go to the full extent to the consumer. The object of a reduction of indirect taxation ought to be that nearly the whole of it should go directly to the consumer, and they did not desire to give a reduction of indirect taxation which would only benefit the trader and the retailer, and not the consumer. That was the primary view the Chancellor of the Exchequer must keep in mind. The present condition of the tea market was singular, for the tea duty had been jumping up and down for the last few years, very much to the detriment of the tea trade, and the position of the tea consumer as well. It was raised from 4d. to 6d. and from 6d. to 8d. It was next reduced to 6d. and last year it was reduced to 5d. They desired now that the tea trade should have a rest, because its present condition was very peculiar. There had recently been great fluctuations in the price of tea, and a great demand, and under the circumstances experts were of the opinion that a reduction of one penny would be, to a certain extent, wasted. He understood that there had been a great fluctuation in the price of tea for the past few months and a reduction of a penny at the present moment

397
would not be expedient from the consumers' point of view. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, explained the financial position of the country, and stated what they on that side of the House desired to do. They were still in favour of what was called the "free breakfast table," which meant the extinction of the duties on tea and sugar, but unfortunately reductions and remissions of taxation cost money to the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman opposite wanted to know why a further reduction in the tea duty was not made this year. The answer was very simple. When the present Government came into office they found that the peace expenditure of the country had been raised by something like £35,000,000, and that was sufficient to cripple the power and the opportunity for dealing with this matter in the way they desired. While they wanted to carry out the policy of the free breakfast table, they were also strongly opposed to the policy which hon. Members opposite desired, namely, the taxation of the dinner table. They did not desire to place taxation on other articles of consumption. The Government were bound under present circumstances to resist this particular Amendment as the revenue involved was not forthcoming from other quarters.
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was illuminating in that he had shown conclusively that the resources of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for reducing taxation were very limited. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, like his predecessors, had found that with the present basis of taxation he could do very little at once, and he had asked for time. That was very plausible, but when Liberals were in Opposition and criticising the previous Government, they were not willing to give time at all; they wanted things done at once. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out to the Committee, in opposing the Amendment, that the consumers would not get the whole value of the reduction because of the fluctuations in price.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Not immediately.
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid it was a poor rule that would not work both
398
ways. Hon. Members on that side of the House urged in connection with another question that a shilling tax would not fall with its full weight upon the consumers when fluctuations occurred, but they were told that they were wrong. Now the right hon. Gentleman used exactly the same argument in support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he referred to special fluctuations which affected the price.
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that the right hon. Gentleman, when speaking of fluctuations, gave no information as to their extent. He made an ex cathedra statement, expecting the Committee to accept his argument. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends had continually said that tea was practically an article of food of the people. The whole production of tea in the world amounted to 615,000,000 lbs., and of that England took 255,000,000 lbs., or 42 per cent. of the whole. This country stood second as a tea consumer. Australia consumed 8 lbs. per head of the population. Holland consumed tea at the rate of 1 ½ lbs. per head of the population, Russia 1 ¼ lbs., and the United States 1 lb. It was a remarkable fact that in all the countries which consumed tea to any extent proportionate to the amount consumed in this country there was practically no duty on the article; that was to say, they regarded it as a necessity of life, and made the tax as light as possible. In Belgium there was no duty on tea, and in Holland it was 2 ½d. per lb. Holland stood next to Great Britain and the Colonies as the chief consumer of tea. Russia came next to Holland, and there the tax was 2 ¾ d. per lb. The United States, which was next in order as a consumer, admitted tea free. In this country we were going on the basis that the more tea was consumed the more it should be taxed. He believed that to be a thoroughly unsound policy. In all the high Protectionist countries of the world where protective duties were imposed on manufactured goods, the tea duties wore only 50, 30, or 20 per cent. of what was levied in this country. In France, where coffee was chiefly consumed, the duty on tea was from 9 ¾ d. to 11d. In Germany, where tea was used much less than coffee,

399
the duty on tea was 5 ½ d. per lb. Where-ever tea was considered a luxury the tax was high, and where it was considered a necessity it was low. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was, he said, hampered by restrictions which were placed upon it—he presumed the right hon. Gentleman meant restrictions in connection with our present fiscal system—and that he could not give relief in this particular direction. The right hon. Gentleman found it difficult to do what he wanted to do on account of financial considerations. If he and his friends had been true to the principles laid down when they went to the country at the general election there would have been greater relief for the poor than had been given by the Budget this year. The Government did not want to tax meat, corn, and butter. Was it to be assumed that future Budgets were to be of the same kind as that presented this year, and that there was to be no broadening of the basis of taxation? He supposed the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be driven to put up the income tax in order to give relief to the consumers of tea, and then when the great middle class, who paid income-tax so heavily, complained, he would give them relief by again increasing the tax on tea. If the right hon. Gentleman was only going to ring the changes in that way, the policy would not be satisfactory to the consumers of tea.
MR. SHACKLETONsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been rather unfortunate in his method of dealing with the tea duty. When the right hon. Gentleman proposed a reduction of a penny last year he himself did not think that the small consumers would receive any benefit. He did not think the consumers who bought in small quantities had received any benefit. It had been said that the quality had improved, but he defied any hon. Member to show that more cups of tea per quarter of a pound packet were obtained now than before. The millions of people who earned small wages bought their tea in quarter-pound packets, and he was not aware that there had been any reduction in the price of those packets. He said last year that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been well advised to have kept the tax at 6d. until he could make a reduction of 2d. He believed
400
that the price of tea went up or down mostly by taxation. They never saw any change in the price except when the tax went up or down. He believed the proposed reduction of the tax by 1d. was needed to give the consumers the benefit of the 1d. which was taken off last year. Personally ho would not support the Amendment if he did not think that it would decrease the taxation of the poor. He would have supported an Amendment of the Finance Bill which would have kept up the present income-tax, leaving the extension of the death duties as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. The people who were suffering most would get the benefit of this reduction of 1d.; and the income tax-payers did not need to grumble. [Dissent from the OPPOSITION Benches.] If hon. Gentlemen who dissented would only get in contact with the men who were earning 20S. or 25s. a week they would not want to increase the burdens on the poor. A man with an income of £3 a week did not know what these hardships wore, and he would never get to the workhouse unless he was careless.
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he should support the Amendment. His only regret was that the Amendment was not to make a greater reduction than 1d. He would have preferred to support the next Amendment, which proposed a reduction of 2d. The tea tax was one which bore heavily on the poor, and specially on the poor of Ireland. He had the greatest sympathy with the Member for Clitheroe when he spoke of the poor people in certain districts of England who with only 20S. or 25S. a week had to pay that tax. Yet the tax hit more hardly the people of Ireland whose incomes were £10, £15, or £20 per annum, and who had to pay out of that income a quarter of it and sometimes more in tea duty. The hon. Gentleman who moved the last Amendment made sympathetic reference to Ireland, and alluded to the evidence given on this point by a distinguished ecclesiastic in Ireland before the Royal Commission. If the House would allow him he would quote from what his reverence said on that occasion. The expenditure was given of "a fairly well-to-do family in Ireland"—let them mark the words " fairly well-to-do "—whose income was a little over £20 a year, out of which

401
£5 17S. was spent on tea. When they had talked about the tax falling heavily on the poor it had a special significance for them. More white bread and more tea were now consumed, and less meat. Irish farmers rated at £10 a year were almost entirely vegetarian. Those at £4 a year had no kind of meat excepting parhaps two or three times a year. A substantial portion of their food was composed of potatoes. Their main food was Indian meal. Sometimes the poor people had milk for their "stir-about," and it was this want of milk which had a great deal to do with the use of tea, so that tea had now become a necessity of life. Tea was truly a necessity of life, as it enabled the toiler to go back to his task, and the hardship it was for these people, out of their miserable little incomes of £20 a year—the fairly well-to-do—to pay this tea tax could be imagined. They were paying a quarter of their income on tea, a necessary article of food to them. There was another consideration which made the tax very hard. The tendency had been to reduce the indirect taxation and bring it about on the level of direct taxation. But in Ireland there had been nothing of that kind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary to the Treasury in answer to a question the other day produced figures for a number of years past, showing that something like 78 per cent. of the whole taxation of Ireland was on the poor people, while in this country indirect and direct taxation were equal. The Irish felt that under the circumstances it was deplorable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been unable to do or to hold out any hope of doing anything for Ireland. A few years ago, as the House was aware, a Royal Commission sat to inquire into the financial relations between Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom; there was a British majority on that Commission, and it found that Ireland was overtaxed by £2,750,000 per annum. The taxation had increased since then every year. The people felt keenly that no effort was made by successive Governments to meet the harshness of the taxation on the people of Ireland. He entered this protest, therefore, against the reduction of the income-tax while leaving the tea and sugar duties on the poor cottier of Ireland. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would do something to
402
mitigate this hardship which, great though it was in England, was ten times greater as applied to the poor of Ireland.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that there was a great deal in what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, and he entirely sympathised with him. He did not think he had ever shown any insensibility to the financial necessities of Ireland. When they came to analyse them they were comparatively greater than the necessities of even the poorest parts of the United Kingdom. That was a real Irish grievance. It did not depend on any assumption of separate entities, and a comparison of the relation between them. It meant that there was a relatively poor population in Ireland, and under the system of taxation—which, although the balance between direct and indirect taxation during the last thirty years had been enormously shifted from indirect to direct taxation— [An HON. MEMBER, "Not in Ireland."] He thought it was in Ireland also. Owing to the prevalence of poverty in that country the people of Ireland had suffered far more severely than the great bulk of the population of the more fortunate parts of the United Kingdom. He could assure the hon. Member for Clitheroe, whose speech he had listened to with interest, that nobody was more desirous than he to reduce the weight of indirect taxation. In regard to this particular duty on tea, a few years ago it reached 8d. per lb.; it was then reduced to 6d.; and last year by a 1d., so that in the course of three years there had been a very substantial reduction of the burden of the tea duty. Speaking for himself, after carefully examining all the facts, if he were asked what was the indirect tax which was most felt by the bulk of the poorer cottagers of the country, he would say it was not the tea but the sugar duty; ho would not hesitate between the two. He thought that the present rate of taxation on sugar carried greater hardships than did the tea duty. Although tea had become part of the staple food of the people, it could hardly be classed as a necessity of life. It was near the line, but it did not reach so clearly the line of a necessity as sugar. After corn and bread, which they were asked by hon. Gentlemen opposite to tax in order to relieve the taxes on other commodities, he thought that sugar came

403
nearer to the definition of an actual necessity of life than any other commodity of general consumption on which we had any kind of taxation. At a later stage, no doubt, an Amendment would be proposed asking him to get rid of the sugar duty or to reduce it, but he would have to reply that he could not afford to do it at the present moment. He, recognised, however, that when the financial situation admitted of it, sugar had the first claim of all taxes on commodities of general consumption to relief. As regarded tea it had always been a matter of dispute as to whether the reduction of the tea duty given last year had gone appreciably to the benefit of the consumer. He had had a great deal of evidence submitted to him that the benefit to the consumer had gone in the shape of increased quality. When he came to consider the question as to whether he might not this year go a step further and reduce the duty by another 1d., he was confronted with an almost unanimous body of opinion from experts concerned during the past twelve months that such a reduction could not be expected to benefit the consumer, because last year there had been a very remarkable change in the conditions of the trade. There was a record consumption of tea in this country last year. Side by side with that advance in the United Kingdom there had been a development in other quarters of an unexpected kind. In Russia there had been a heavily growing demand for tea, particularly of that kind in which the British Empire was interested. This unforeseen, and, to a large extent, unforeseeable, demand from foreign countries, together with an increased consumption here, had very considerably raised the wholesale price, and in the present condition of trade a further reduction in the duty this year would certainly not in any appreciable degree percolate, if he might use the word, to the consumer. It would be taken advantage of almost entirely by the middleman. Sooner or later the benefit of a reduction in the import duties on articles of general consumption would come down to the consumer; but when they were dealing with a duty which could be reconsidered at the end of twelve months, it was very material to consider what was the amount of reduction that would have to be made in order to give
404
any appreciable benefit to the consumer, and, in his opinion, a reduction of a penny would not have that result. It had been said that the Government were leaning, on the indirect taxpayer, but when they came to the discussion of the income-tax he hoped he would be able to show that that was not the case. They were making a readjustment as between different sections of direct taxpayers of the burden of the income-tax, which would make it a much more elastic and useful weapon of finance in the future. A reduction of the duty on tea from 5d. to 4d. would involve a loss of revenue amounting to over £1,000,000. He could not afford to incur that loss, which, without affecting the consumer, would dislocate the whole framework of the Budget. This Budget was not merely a provision for a particular year. It was intended to lay the foundation of and lead the way to larger changes in the future, which might include proposals for the relief of the indirect taxpayer. The notion had been sedulously propagated in some quarters without any foundation that he was seeking to stereotype indirect taxes, whether on tea, sugar, or other articles of consumption. That was totally remote from his intention. He hoped for years in which he might be able to deal with the matter. All he now wanted to impress on the Committee was that, if he asked them in the circumstances of the present year to maintain the tea duty at its present figure, at which he himself thought it ought not to be maintained for many years, it was for the reasons he had given—the condition of the particular trade at the moment and his desire to preserve the equilibrium between the different parts of the Budget and to have a free hand to make proposals next year which, he hoped, would meet with general approval.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid it was difficult to refuse one's sympathies to the right hon. Gentleman when he presented himself to them as a good man struggling with adversity. The right hon. Gentleman said he thought the tax was too high, but when he was asked to reduce it he replied that he was unable to do so on his present means, and that, in addition, another tax—the income-tax —called for reduction. The right hon. Gentleman said he was quite unable to

405
make the reduction, but he consoled himself and tried to console the Committee under these circumstances by assuring them that, although he was not able now to make any reduction, he still cherished the hope that he would be able to do so before long. He, however, could not understand on what ground the right hon. Gentleman based, he would not say the hope, but the expectation which he entertained, because he had foreshadowed very large expenditure. A moment ago the Postmaster-General had explained that he and colleagues of his had voted for such a reduction as was now moved when they were in Opposition, but they were unable to give effect to that view now because expenditure had so largely increased. But surely the right hon. Gentleman and his friends must have been aware of that increasing expenditure when they voted for the reduction of the tea tax. [Mr. BUXTON was understood to dissent] Well, he had understood that the right hon. Gentleman voted for the reduction. But at all events the right hon. Gentleman, having had his attention drawn to the fact that some friends of his had voted for a decrease of the tea tax, seemed to think that they should now vote against such a reduction, because of the increase of expenditure. But hon. Gentlemen when they voted for the reduction must have known of the increase of expenditure which was then taking place, and they must have had in their minds some means of giving effect to their views when they came into power.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that what he desired to lay before the Committee was that the expenditure of the late Government had made the reduction of indirect taxation much more difficult than it was before, and he pointed out that the present Government had reduced expenditure and reduced taxation.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not agree that the Government had reduced taxation, although they had reduced expenditure to a certain extent, and on certain items he thought they had reduced it to a dangerous extent, which he thought might lead to some costly disaster later on. He did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever pretended that he thought it would be possible to reduce
406
expenditure and taxation to a substantial extent. In view of the right hon. Gentleman's promise with regard to old-age pensions it seemed to him that in spite of reductions which he feared they might live to regret the expenditure of the Government must go up. He could not understand on what the Chancellor of the Exchequer could base his expectation of making an absolute reduction. He believed, however, that it was possible to reduce taxation, and to arrange it with more fairness to the taxpayer and the country at large, and he should accordingly support the Amendment. There was only one thing which made him doubtful about giving that vote. He agreed that the trade in recent years had been very much disturbed about the lowering of the tax or the increase of the tax and there was a danger in making a further change after three successive years in which the tax had been altered. The right hon. Gentleman had tried to differentiate in regard to the urgency of a reduction between the tea tax and the sugar tax. He had made a similar effort before. On a previous occasion he defended his reduction of the sugar tax on the ground that sugar was the raw material for other industries and therefore, in that respect, it was unlike the tea duty. Today his argument was based on the fact that the sugar tax pressed heavily upon poor people, but he (Mr. Chamberlain) did not think that there was any difference between the two taxes in that respect. In the case of Ireland, tea was a more important article in the household than sugar. An hon. Gentleman had referred to some of the Irish household budgets and the staple articles of food upon which some of the very poor in that country lived. He thought that they would find families at home whose budgets would very nearly equal those which had been brought forward. It was a very sad subject to deal with when one considered the dietary and sustenance of labourers and their families in some parts of England. Anyone who read a very interesting account published the other day by his right hon. friend the Member for Bordesley, in which he showed the articles of food of country production which were in common use in households in his youth, and which now one rarely saw, would see that the progress which had been made in England had not been so extended or so widely

407
beneficial as they would all of them hope to see. Then the right hon. Gentleman had attempted to show that under present circumstances, if he reduced the tax by a penny, that reduction would not reach the consumer, and that was a subject for grave consideration. He agreed that it was extremely difficult to trace the effect of this taxation in connection with the price of the article, and it would always be difficult to ascertain it even when they had ascertained the facts as closely as possible. No crude statements such as were made on platforms at the last election would satisfy the Chancellor of the Exchequer when piloting a Budget through Committee. He thought the right hon. Gentleman did not express the whole truth. He thought the effect of the tax would be largely regulated by the state of the market at the time. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that so far as the present year was concerned, and had quoted it in his own support, but he made altogether an insufficient allowance for it in the ordinary course of trade. He was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Clitheroe say the price of tea did not vary except by the amount of the tax: the price of tea varied constantly on the markets, and sometimes very greatly, without the imposition of any new tax. If they took the rise to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred that day, it was such a rise as would, if it were in the form of a tax, immediately go to the pockets of the people. The effect of a rise following a tax was different from a rise from any other course. A little time ago when it was his duty to put the tax up to 8d., a figure far too high in his opinion, there was for the moment a great production. Over-production was stimulated because the planters hoped to make good the losses they had sustained before and they filled the market with a great deal of coarse tea. On the other hand he agreed with the hon. Member for Clitheroe that the people did not get the benefit of the penny taken off tea last year. The incidence of these duties was always an interesting study, but was still more interesting at this time, when many thought that preferential treatment should be given in these matters. If we admitted any large part of our supply either duty free or at a lower duty on a preferential basis, those who paid the higher tax would have to sacrifice part of
408
it, unless they had the control of the market, in order to insure the sale of their goods. He would support the Amendment but not as an enemy of indirect taxation. Our system must combine both direct and indirect taxation, but he did not consider that our system of indirect taxation was well adjusted. Taxing a few articles as we did at a very high duty inevitably resulted in hardship on a particular portion of the population whose habits of life made them more subject to the tax than others living in other parts of the country in a different manner but upon the same income. That could only be regulated, not by abolishing the duties altogether, but by making them lower and spreading them over many articles. By that means they would obtain a larger proportion from the taxation of luxuries and a smaller from necessities. He believed that the system would be still more elastic and reliable from a revenue point of view and much fairer from the point of view of the consumers.
MR. BELLOCadmitted that there was a very strong argument in favour of the line taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The sum involved in the proposed reduction was a large one, well over £1,000,000. It was a sum taken off a tax which had for some time been and which seemed likely to be for some time to come a foundational tax. It was direct, sure, and for the moment, from the point of view of purchase, minute. Then there was the strongest argument of all, that in matters of finance especially a Chancellor of the Exchequer must follow the presumably honest advice of the experts who advised him. This course had been advised by experts, including one who by the common consent of the House was as strong a Chancellor of the Exchequer as had sat in the House since the days of Mr. Gladstone. Nevertheless he would not be doing his duty if he did not support the Amendment. In the first place he not only gave a direct pledge in the matter, which was a most important thing, but he went into the figures carefully and consulted the managers of local co-operative societies, who assured him it was by twopences and not by pennies that the reduction was felt. Secondly, last year it was necessary for him to explain to his constituents

409
that he did not support such a proposal because of the recent advent of the Government to power, and he could not swallow his words. The third reason and the most important of all was, and this was a thing that could not be proved, but it was common knowledge, that when one penny was taken off tea a considerable sum was put into the pockets of a few prominent people. He was convinced that that was not the motive, especially after listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, who stated that on the advice of his experts he believed a large proportion of the penny went into the pockets of the consumer. It was largely because these few fortunate persons had been greatly benfited and the rest of the community not, that he was compelled to support the Amendment. If this House was more representative than it could ever be under present conditions, and contained a larger proportion of those men who could witness personally to the effect of this tax on the poorer consumers, he was convinced that this Amendment would be passed.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that whether it was a fact or not that tea in this country was regarded as a luxury he did not know, but he could most positively declare that in Ireland it wag a most necessary part of the diet of the people. Hardly a meal was taken in the cottage homes in his constituency at which tea did not form an important part of the meal. The people must take something. What were they to take? In this country he believed the working classes consumed a great deal of beer. He might be told that a certain amount of beer was consumed in Ireland, and no doubt that was true, but only of the towns. He was speaking of the large agricultural population; the small farmers and the agricultural labourers who lived in the country did not consume beer. They could not afford it. They could not, as formerly, use their milk, because they now made butter of it, which they sold to meet their rent and other engagements. As they could have neither beer nor milk, and could not be expected continually to drink cold water with their meals, what were they to take? In these circumstances tea had become an absolute necessity to them. For his part, he thought a great many of the Irish people drank too much tea, and in the preparation
410
of it they did not follow the wisest possible course. However that might be, the fact remained that tea was a very essential and important article of diet among the poor of Ireland. It was not necessary to go beyond his own constituency. He knew perfectly well that in County Clare poor farmers and agricultural labourers would not know how to live at all if they had not their small quantity of tea, and it was one article of all others in regard to which they ought to get some relief of duty. It would be a great disappointment to everybody in Ireland, certainly in his own constituency, to learn that no relief was to be given. He remembered the wave of indignation which swept over Ireland when the duty was increased for the purposes of the war. It was really pathetic to see the poorest people, among them old women, going to the local grocer and finding that they had to pay what was to them a considerable increase in the price. When they asked why they were told that it was in order to carry on the war in South Africa. The only consolation given them was that, at any rate, when the war was over, and this tremendous expenditure at an end, the taxation would be decreased, and they would get relief. Now that the war was over, these poor people said that they were not getting that reduction of taxation which they had been led to expect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might take it from him that ho was not making a protest for the purpose of prolonging the debate, but simply for the purpose of stating what was a very real grievance among the poorest people of Ireland. He had expected that afternoon to see the Liberal Benches crammed to suffocation by hon. Gentlemen representing the Party who supported the Government; he had thought that they would be there in their hundreds in order to show their enthusiasm in the cause of a free breakfast table. Instead of that, one or two, speeches had been made, and, since he had come into the House one hon. Gentleman had told them in a straightforward way, though with something of an apologetic air, that he was going to keep his pledge to his constituents by voting for the Amendment. He did not want to say anything which might be considered in the slightest degree offensive, but it was astounding to him, something passing belief, that, when a suggestion was

411
made for the reduction of the tea duty, a reduction upon an article of diet which was used by the poorest of the poor, there were hardly any Liberals present to advocate it, and probably they would see how many Liberals were prepared to vote for it. He could only say that these things really shook his confidence and belief in the genuineness of a great many declarations which were supposed to voice the true spirit of Liberalism. The tea duty was to remain as it was, and, as far as he understood, it was to be stereotyped and not to be reviewed each year as formerly.
MR. ASQUITH: Oh, yes, it is.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he understood that by the provisions of the Bill some of the taxes were not to be reviewed each year.
MR. ASQUITH: Not the tea duty.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he understood now that the tea duty was not to be included; he had been mistaken, and he was very glad to learn that the tea duty was not to be subjected to the arrangement. But he thought that there ought to be no such arrangement with regard to any duty. At any rate there was to be nothing taken off tea. They had all this talk about a free breakfast table, and when it came down to business the high duty was retained. Why not tax champagne and motor cars and a thousand other things besides, and not the tea of the poor people of this country and of Ireland? With all due respect, the retention of such heavy taxation was not carrying out the true spirit of Liberalism, nor did he think it was carrying out that spirit to create a large number of now Peers from the ranks of the Liberal Party. Let them come up to their professions. After their talk about excessive taxes on the food and the necessities of the people, let them vote in favour of removing this tax and giving some relief to those who most required it.
SIR J. RANDLESsaid the hon. Member was in the last Parliament, and he must have seen those benches filled by a protesting crowd of Members who earnestly voted against any increase of the tax on tea.
412
At the same time they did so with considerable regret, owing to the well-known necessities of the case for the rise in taxation. But as the hon. Member for Salford had reminded the House, since then there had been a general election at which certain pledges were given, and apparently he was the only Member of the Party, who, in the last Parliament, were so loud in their denunciations of the tax, to get up in his place and say he intended to redeem his pledge. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in replying to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had stated that he was in entire sympathy with Ireland. That was often the attitude of the Government, but their sympathy did not find its expression in any change of this particular tax. The tax on tea would be levied just the same, whether the consumer was in Ireland or in England, and would have its due weight and burden. What he wanted to point out was that not only the poor in Ireland, but a large number of the working classes in England, were compelled to take their meals at their place of employment. They wore obliged to carry those familiar cans containing tea, which one saw so often, at any rate in the North of England, because of the necessities of their employment. They were compelled unless they took intoxicating liquors—a matter which many professed to deplore—to use this particular article of food. Factory girls, workers in iron and steel works, and coal miners all made use of tea. They were obliged to take it and use it as an article of food, and it was on that particular class referred to by the hon. Member for Clitheroe, the class who only bought a quarter of a pound at a time, upon whom they were putting a burden which everyone would agree pressed unduly on a particular class of consumer. Listening to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech, he began to wonder whether the burden did fall on the consumer or not, because the right hon. Gentleman rather indicated that the consumer would not get the benefit of this particular reduction of one penny. He was inclined to think that the penny coupled with the reduction of last year would give to the consumer some substantial relief. If that was not the case, however, they were not fastened to the resources indicated by the Postmaster-General, who seemed to

413
think that a tax on corn, meat, or butter would have to be substituted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer lightly threw away millions from the tax on coal. Did that fall on the consumer? If it did fall on the consumer, the country benefited by it. If it did not, then the matter was open to argument at any rate, with a view to relieving a heavily burdened section of the community on whom the incidence of this tax pressed most unfairly. There was every reason why the House should fulfil the pledges which so many Members had given and reduce the tax by a penny. That course would not be objectionable to many Members, because it would benefit in indirect fashion by an increased consumption a part of the Empire with which t hey were supposed to have great sympathy. They would do India and Ceylon no harm if they reduced the tax which bore heavily on their production. He should vote with the greatest pleasure for a reduction of the duty.
*MR. REESsaid the hon. Member for Oswestry proposed to take another penny off tea, the hon. Member for Gravesend had taken advantage of this opportunity to deliver a little lecture upon the fiscal system, and the right hon. Member for Worcestershire had told him he must to be consistent vote for this reduction. It had been said that the supporters of the Anti-Tea Duty League were pledged to vote for a reduction of the tea duty. Although he had given no such pledge ho associated himself entirely with hon. Gentlemen who had pledged themselves to bring about a reduction. The Opposition were offering by this Amendment something which they had not got to give, It should not be overlooked that it was the Party opposite who put this duty on. It was quite true that many of those sitting on the Ministerial side were pledged to bring about a reduction of the tea duty, and they were ready to take any action which would lead to that result, but what would be the effect of supporting this Amendment? It would be just the same as running their heads against a stone wall. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken a penny off, and he said that he had not sufficient money at his disposal to take off another penny. The argument that the reduction of the tea duty by a penny last year amounted
414
to nothing was an extraordinary one, because if it did not bring about an actual reduction of price the consumer got the advantage by receiving a better tea. It was a great advantage to have better tea, because bad tea was exceedingly mischievous, whilst good tea was exceedingly beneficial. No man who had lived all his life amongst tea planters as he had done, and knew something about tea, would deny that it was a matter of the greatest importance that the public should have good tea, and if by reducing the duty they could give the public a better class of tea they were conferring upon the consumers a very great benefit indeed. He confessed that he was disappointed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been able to reduce the tea duty by 2d., and he entirely associated himself with those hon. Members who considered that tea was a necessity of life to the poor. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had, however, held out the strongest hopes that he would be able to take off another penny next year. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, however, were now offering pennies which they had not got in their pockets, and which their own Party when in power put on instead of taking off. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them, moreover, that this was not the proper psychological moment to make a reduction, because of the peculiar condition of the tea trade, and said that ho knew of no time in the tea trade when the taking off of another penny would have less effect. While there were some grounds for this opinion, he could not but greatly regret that another penny was not taken off, and he resented the policy of putting sugar before tea in the list for relief. They must either accept or reject the Budget, and if they accepted it they must do so as a whole. It would be impossible to introduce the change proposed by this Amendment without refusing to accept the Budget as a whole. He did not accept the argument put forward by the Postmaster-General that the tea trade wanted a rest. The middlemen might be satisfied with the present position, but the producer and the consumer were not and wanted further relief. What they wanted to do was to benefit the consumer, He was pleased to hear hon Members refer to the tea planters; they were people who had suffered to the last degree by taxation,

415
and by a spurious and faked-up agitation in Eastern Bengal, whence four-fifths of the tea came. The planters had not only suffered by currency legislation, but they had suffered all "round. Notwithstanding this, there were no more loyal people, for they came forward during the war to help in the most handsome manner, and there was no class more deserving of the sympathy of the House.
Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL: Let them pay for it.
*MR. REESsaid they went out while the war was going on and paid their way; they helped the country and the country should help them.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What has that got to do with the tea duty?
*MR. REESsaid it was only another proof that they deserved a reduction in taxation on tea, but ho thought he was justified as one of the vice-presidents of the Anti-tea Duty League in supporting the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this occasion and that hon. Members who had pledged themselves to take effective action to reduce the taxation on tea would be justified in declining to walk into this open trap and oppose a Minister who had done something and would do more, in order to support the Opposition which had piled penny after penny on tea.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs had said he was in favour of taking effective action to secure a reduction of the tea duty, and yet he was going to vote against the Amendment. That was very extraordinary, and he did not think the Members of the League of which he was one of the vice-presidents would thank him for his "effective action." He had had the pleasure of listening to the hon. Member's speeches on several occasions, and he thought as a rule his remarks were very apposite, but he was amazed at the arguments he had used to try to extricate himself from the position of having to vote against his conscience and his pledges in order to support his Party. He was surprised that the hon. Member for East Clare had only just discovered that hon. Gentlemen opposite made statements on the platform which they did not carry out in that
416
House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that it was no use taking a penny off because it would not make any difference to the consumer, and the Postmaster-General had said the same thing. The latter's arguments on this point were so good that he had made a note of them to use the next time he addressed a Tariff Reform League meeting. He had always understood that fluctuations in the market meant that prices went up and down, but in the case of tea the price had gradually risen and that was not a fluctuation. That showed that these duties did not fall upon the consumer but upon the producer. The mover of the Amendment had said they ought to reduce indirect taxation at the same time as they reduced direct taxation. He wished to point out that last session the Chancellor of the Exchequer took some £2,000,000 off indirect taxation in the shape of the coal duties and £1,000,000 off the tea duty, but he had taken nothing off direct taxation since his Party returned to power. Now the right hon. Gentleman was taking £1,250,000 off direct taxation by reducing the income tax, but he was putting more on by means of the death duties. As a matter of fact he was this year taking £500,000 off direct taxation whereas last year he took £3,000,000 off indirect taxation. He was afraid, however, that on this question he would have to vote with the Government again, because it was the lower middle-classes who felt taxation most, and they would be benefited by the reduction of the income-tax on earned incomes. It was after all necessary that revenue should be raised, and in view of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already taken so much off indirect and not so much off direct taxation he would have much pleasure in supporting the Government on this point.
MR. HAROLD COXsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had rather implied that because there had been fluctuation in the market price of tea a reduction in the tax would not reach the consumer.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that these reductions ultimately reached the consumer, although sometimes there were arresting forces which prevented him from getting immediate advantage.
MR. HAROLD COXsaid he was glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made that clear. But if it was made more difficult to reach the consumer, that did not in any way alter the fact that a duty might also injure the producer. With fluctuating prices it might happen that if a duty were imposed when price was high there night be a fall in price soon afterwards; but that did not mean that the duty did not fall on the consumer; the price would have fallen still lower but for the duty. Sooner or later the duty must tell, but so also must the relief from duty, and the sooner it was taken off the better for the consumer. Undoubtedly there were strong reasons against the tea duty, which fell with exceptional severity on poor consumers. He agreed with what was said by the hon. Member for Waterford that this was a duty which bore specially on the Irish people, and that that was a strong reason for abolishing it. But when they came to the practical question whether they could get rid of the duty at the present time, he thought they had to consider whether there wore not other duties which should first be dealt with. Ho had given notice of a proposal to reduce the sugar duty and as he thought tea was a luxury as compared with sugar, and as the reduction could not be made on both articles, he should support the Chancellor of the Exchequer against the present Amendment.
MR. MARKHAMexpressed regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not seen his way to reduce the tea duty. Personally he intended to vote for the reduction. He was also going to support the hon. Member for Preston in regard to the sugar duty. Believing that tea was a necessary of life, he had always voted against its taxation. His hon. friend the Secretary to the Admiralty in an able speech last session dwelt at great length on the question of the tea duty, and pointed out that tea was as much a necessity of life as corn. It was absolutely necessary that the Liberal Party, if they were to be consistent, should vote for the total abolition of the tea duty. Tea and sugar being necessaries of life; there were other sources from which revenue should be'derived. It was illogical for Liberals to tax the necessaries of life,
418
and for that reason he would vote for the abolition of the tea tax. Hon. Members on the other side of the House favoured the putting of a shilling on corn. What difference was there between putting a shilling on corn and a penny on tea? They were both necessaries of life. There was one commodity on which the working classes spent about 8S. a week, and, although it would not be in order to discuss the matter now, he believed that the money so spent was absolutely wasted. The 1d. on tea was a war tax, and he thought the people were now entitled to have relief from it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had no right to come down to the House and say, "I have been in office for eighteen months, and still I cannot give you relief in this matter." The excuse last year was that the estimates submitted to the House were those of the previous Government. Among the other sources from which revenue could be obtained were mining royalties and land values.
MR. LEVERTON HARRISsaid that one of the strange features of the debate was the fact that hon. and right hon. Members who were now opposing the Amendment almost to a man supported a similar Amendment when the Conservative Government was in power. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Barnstaple in 1905, when the Finance Bill was under discussion, was practically the same as that now before the Committee. They were told then that 4d. was the maximum amount of tax that tea could bear. It was argued that, the increase having been put on for war purposes, the amount of the duty should be reduced to the figure at which it stood from 1890 to 1900. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Barnstaple was supported by many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the Postmaster-General, and in the division the present Prime Minister and 157 of his supporters voted in its favour. He admitted that there had been a change in circumstances, but he claimed that the change was entirely in favour of the reduction of the tea duty. The price of tea was higher to-day than it was last year, and that alone was some reason why relief should be given to the consumer. Hon. Gentlemen opposite

419
who formerly said that tea was a necessity no longer said so. In their opinion it had now become a luxury. It was pointed out in 1905 that tea was largely consumed by the poorer class of citizens upon whose shoulders the burden of the taxation fell. At the general election speeches were made by hon. Gentlemen opposite to their constituents maintaining that tea was a necessity. He would quote only one speech. Before the general election the Lord Chancellor stated that the tea taxation was the most cruel of all taxes because it fell on the poorest of the poor. And last year the present Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House that tea was a prime necessity of life to the poor. Since then a strange change had come over the right hon. Gentlemen's opinion. He now said that tea was in no sense a necessity of life, but a luxury: and while this gigantic somersault was being performed the right hon. Gentleman had discovered that sugar was a prime necessity, so that the economics of the tea-cup had been frequently changed. When hon. Gentlemen were entertaining their friends on the Terrace they would have the advantage of knowing that the sugar which they put into the tea-cups was a real necessity of life but that the tea was not! They were told that tea was a luxury. Ninety per cent. of the tea imported into this country came from our Colonies, and if the tax was not to be reduced from 5d. to 4d. it would not only constitute a burden on the community but do an injury to our trade with the Colonies. In some cases the duty on tea amounted to 100 per cent. on the value of the tea, and when there was an increase in price it not only affected the poor but our colonial trade. The consumption of tea in this country was 6 lbs. per head, which would amount on each individual to between 2s. 6d. and 3s. per annum or 15s. for a family of six. They had been told that the proposed duty of 2s. per quarter on corn would be an unendurable burden on the working classes
and drive thirteen millions who were now on the brink of starvation into the workhouse. But he would point out that the effect of a tax of 5d. per lb. on tea would be proportionally vastly in excess of the effect of a 2s. duty on corn, provided that the duty were paid by the consumers.
*MR. DEPUTY-CHAIRMANcalled the hon. Gentleman to order. He was discussing the question of a duty on corn. The question before the Committee was a duty on tea.
MR. LEVERTON HARRISsaid that if a 2s. duty per quarter on corn imposed a burden on the consumer, the present duty on tea imposed a far heavier burden on the people, and it was on these grounds that he supported the Amendment.
MR. R. PEARCEsaid that it was a pity hon. Members spoke of tea as a necessity and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had carefully distinguished it as near the border line of necessity. Really it was the luxury of the poor. Indirect taxation was mainly on drinks and smokes. And the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget had created three classes of taxpayers. There was the millionaire class who paid Is. in the £, the middle class who paid 9d. in the £, and those who were not compelled to pay at all, but were voluntary contributors to the revenue, because not one of them was compelled to buy tea or the other subjects of indirect taxation save from motives of taste and patriotism. There was therefore no hardship in keeping the tax on tea at 5d., having regard to the necessities of the revenue of the nation.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 195; Noes, 136. (Division List No. 256.)

AYES.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Banbury, Sir FrederickGeorge

Bennett, E. N.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Baring,Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

Bertram, Julius

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Barker, John

Bethell,SirJ.H.(Essex,Romford

Asquith,Rt.Hon.HerbertHenry

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Billson, Sir Alfred

Astbury, John Meir

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Boulton, A. C. F.

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Baker,Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Beale, W. P.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Beck, A. Cecil

Brooke, Stopford

Brunner, J.F.L.(Lancs., Leigh)

Jones,SirD.Brynmor (Swansea)

Robertson,SirG. Scott(Bradf'rd

Bryce, J. Annan

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Roe, Sir Thomas

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Jones,William(Carnarvonshire)

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rose, Charles Day

Buxton, Rt.Hn. SydneyCharles

Laidlaw, Robert

Runciman, Walter

Cairns, Thomas

Lambert, George

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Cameron, Robert

Lamont, Norman

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland))

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Lehmann, R. C.

Sears, J. E.

Chance, Frederick William

Lever, A.Levy(Essex, Harwich)

Seaverns, J. H.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Lever,W.H. (Cheshire,Wirral)

Seely, Major J. B.

Cleland, J. W.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Coats,SirT.Glen (Renfrew, W.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W.

Lough, Thomas

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Lupton, Arnold

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Cox, Harold

Lyell, Charles Henry

Spicer, Sir Albert

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Macdonald,J.M. (Falkirk Bg'hs

Stanger, H. Y.

Crombie, John William

M'Callum, John M.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

M'Crae, George

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal>

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Duckworth, James

M'Micking, Major G.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Dunne,Major E.Martin(Walsall

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Marnham, F. J.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Edwards, Sir Frank (Radnor)

Massie, J.

Sutherland, J. E.

Elibank, Master of

Menzies, Walter

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Essex, R. W.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury

Esslemont, George Birnie

Molteno, Percy Alport

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Everett, R. Lacey

Mond, A.

Thomasson, Franklin

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Tomkinson, James

Ferens, T. R.

Montagu, E. S.

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Toulmin, George

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Ward,W.Dudley(Southampton)i

Fuller, John Michael F.

Morse, L. L.

Waring, Walter

Furness, Sir Christopher

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

Myer, Horatio

Wason,Rt. Hn.E. (Clackmannan

Glendinning, R. G.

Napier, T. B.

Wason,John Cathcart(Orkney)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Nicholson.CharlesN.(Donecaster

Waterlow, D. S.

Gooch, George Peabody

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Watt, Henry A.

Grey, Rt. Hon.Sir Edward

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Weir, James Galloway

Griffith, Ellis J.

Partington, Oswald

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Gurdon,RtHn.Sir W.Brampton

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Pearson, W.H.M. (Suffolk, Eye)

Whitehead, Rowland

Harcourt. Rt. Hon. Lewis

Philipps,Col. Ivor(S'thampton)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Philipps,J.Wynford (Pembroke

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Wiles, Thomas

Hart-Davies, T.

Pollard, Dr.

Williams,Llewelyn(Carmarthen

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central)

Williamson, A.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Pullar, Sir Robert

Wilson,Hon.C.H.W. (Hull, W.>

Hedges, A. Paget

Radford, G. H.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Henderson,J.M. (Aberdeen,W.)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Herbert,Col. Sir Ivor (Mon.,S.)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Rees, J. D.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Holland, Sir William Henry

Ridsdale, E. A.

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Hyde. Clarendon

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Idris, T. H. W.

Robertson,Rt.Hn. E. (Dundee)

NOES.

Abraham.William (Cork, N.E.)

Beach,Hn. Michael HughHicks

Burke, E. Haviland-

Acland-Hood,Rt Hn.SirAlex.F.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Byles, William Pollard

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bell, Richard

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Belloe, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Carlile, E. Hildred

Ashley, W. W.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Aubrey-Fletcher,Rt.Hon SirH.

Boland, John

Castlereagh, Viscount

Balcarres, Lord

Boyle, Sir Edward

Cave, George

Baldwin, Alfred

Brace, William

Cavendish,Rt. Hon.Victor C.W.

Baring,Capt.Hn.G.(Winchester

Brodie, H. C.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Barnes, G. N.

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A (Worc.

Hodge, John

O'Malley, William

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hogan, Michael

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Clough, William

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Parker, James (Halifax)

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

Houston, Robert Paterson

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hunt, Rowland

Percy, Earl

Cowan, W. H.

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Craig,Captain James(Down,E.)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Redmond,John E. (Waterford)

Craik, Sir Henry

Jowett, F. W.

Redmond. William (Clare)

Dalrymple, Viscount

Joyce, Michael

Remnant, James Farquharson

Dixon-Hartland,SirFred Dixon

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

Renton, Major Leslie

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

King,SirHenry Seymour(Hull)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield.Ecclesall

Duncan,Robert (Lanark,Govan

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Shackleton, David James

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lockwood.Rt.Hn. Lt.-Col.A.R.

Sheffield,Sir BerkeleyGeorge D.

Faber, George Denison (York)

Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham)

Smyth,Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants,W.)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Stanley,Hon.Arthur(Ormskirk)

Fell, Arthur

Lundon, W.

Starkey, John R,

Fenwick, Charles

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Ffrench, Peter

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Thornton, Percy M.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal,E.)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Fletcher, J. S.

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Turnour, Viscount

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Killop, W.

Valentia, Viscount

Forster, Henry William

Magnus, Sir Philip

Walker,Col.W.H. (Lancashire)

Gardner, Ernest (Berks. East)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Walrond, Hon. Lione

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Gill, A. H.

Masterman, C. F. G.

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

Gordon, J.

Meagher, Michael

Wardle. George J.

Gretton, John

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Haddock, George R.

Mooney, J. J.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Halpin, J.

Morpeth, Viscount

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Murnaghan, George

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Nield, Herbert

Young, Samuel

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Nolan, Joseph

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hazleton, Richard

O'Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid

Mr. Bridgeman and Sir Gilbert Parker.

Helmsley, Viscount

O'Doherty, Philip

Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS. Edm'ds

O'Grady,J.

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

MR. FELL: moved to insert the words, "Provided that tea which has been grown and manufactured in any English Colony or Dependency shall be charged only a duty per pound of 4d." The hon. Member said that the great bulk of the tea imported into this country came from India and Ceylon, and, therefore, if his proposal were adopted, a large amount of reduction of tea duty would be the result. He would try, in moving the Amendment, although it involved a preference to the Empire, to keep it separate from the subject of tariff reform, partly because that topic had been discussed on another Amendment, and partly because he thought his case was a good one without the considerations involved in the previous discussion. Ho would like to refer to the extraordinary change which had taken place with regard to the consumption of tea derived from our Dependencies and foreign countries such as China. Forty years ago nine-tenths of the tea consumed in this country came from China, although it was then
424
grown in small quantities in Assam and in Ceylon. The bulk of our tea came from China, however, and the change which we had seen in the lifetime of the ordinary man was that, while nine-tenths of the tea was formerly grown in China, now nine-tenths of the tea consumed here was grown in India and Ceylon. The change which had taken place showed that, fluctuations of this kind having occurred in the past, they might possibly occur again. If that happened the money invested in the plantations in India and Ceylon would, of course, be jeopardised. He could not say where our tea would be imported from fifty years hence. Tea was being grown in Natal, in Uganda, and in Swaziland, and it might be grown in other countries than those in which it was produced at the present time. If that was the case the sale of the tea grown in India and Ceylon and our other great Dependencies, might be jeopardised. The tax of 5d. which was levied on all tea alike produced a revenue of between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000 a year, and

425
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that, however favourably disposed towards the reduction of the duty on tea he might be, he could not reduce it because he had not the revenue to do so. He could not help feeling, however, that since the introduction of the Budget something might have happened to induce him to change his opinion, because it would give him more money to carry out the reduction. It was suggested that the change might involve a reduction of duty of £1,000,000, but under the reduced duty a much larger revenue might be produced. That frequently happened in the days of Mr. Gladstone. Supposing the change would involve a loss of £800,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had since his Budget saved some £600,00y in regard to the Irish Council Bill.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that not a penny of that £600,000 would have fallen in his financial year.
MR. FELLsaid the right hon. Gentleman would have the benefit of it next year at all events. He was sure, however, there was plenty of money. £100,000 under the English Allotment Act would be paid into the Bank of England, and there would be.£100,000 under the Scottish allotment scheme, and if these various sums were taken into account, the right hon. Gentleman would have ample means to grant a reduction at any rate to India and Ceylon. That would give them some small token of the interest felt in them In this country. The question of China tea and India tea was the crux of the matter, because the tea we consumed came mainly from India, and the tea we used to consume came from China. He proposed that China tea should pay 5d. and India and Ceylon 4d. and he might point out that in the tea-shops China tea commanded a. higher price than India tea. That showed that if the richer people wanted China tea they were prepared to pay for it, and that was the tea which he proposed should pay the higher duty. He did not wish to labour the point, but he could not conclude without pointing out that it would be a graceful act on the part of the Committee if it could in some way show our friends that we were looking after their interests in this way, and that
426
the revenue was sufficient to stand the loss, if any, to the Empire. He also pointed out that when we ceased to import Russian sugar Russia retaliated by putting a surtax on Ceylon and Indian tea, but the consumption of those teas in Russia had trebled since the duty was imposed, which completely proved the fact that those who wished to drink these teas were willing to pay the extra duty. It might also show a possible change of taste, but his whole argument was that tastes might change and that times might not always continue as they were now. There might come a time when they might lose the markets they had so successfully gained, and he wanted to help them as much as he could to retain the markets which they had. He hoped that would be done by the Amendment he now moved.
*THE. DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid if the hon. Member looked at the Amendment which he proposed to move he would see that it referred to tea grown and manufactured in any "English" Colony or Dependency. There was no such thing as an "English" Colony or Dependency. He would therefore put the Amendment in a slightly amended form and substitute the word "British" for "English."
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 21, at the end to insert the words 'Provided that tea which has been grown and manufactured in any British Colony or Dependency shall be charged only a duty per pound of four pence.' "
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. ASQUITHsaid that even with the very proper change that the Deputy-Chairman had made this Amendment did not require a very lengthy answer from him. The hon. Member had cut away the ground from his feet by his concluding observations. The truth was that India and Ceylon and the other Dependencies which the hon. Gentleman desired to help had already ousted China tea from this and other markets. Nothing could be more startling than what had taken place, if they only went back fifteen years. Fifteen years ago the British Indies sent us tea to the amount of 101,000,000 lbs.; they now sent

427
us 160,000,000. China sent us then 54,000,000, and now 5,000,000. So far from there being any necessity for any help for our fellow subjects in this matter, they had helped themselves to such an extent that they had not only captured our market, but the foreign markets as well, including that of Russia. So far as he could follow the arguments of the hon. Gentleman, this was a precautionary measure in case these gentlemen should be so different in the future from what they had been in the past that they lost the markets which they had captured. Before they accepted this proposition, which he quite recognised was not put forward on the ground he expected it to be, namely, the ground of Colonial preference, they should wait for the circumstance which the hon. Gentleman feared, to arise. He could not possibly accept the Amendment.
CAPTAIN CRAIGthought the right hon. Gentleman had given a most cold and unsympathetic answer. The Amendment was an out-and-out preferential Amendment, and for that reason it appealed to him most strongly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had a great opportunity by accepting the Amendment to tone down the impression of disappointment given with regard to Colonial preference in the recent Colonial Conference, and to show Britishers beyond these as that we were looking after their interests as well as our own. He pressed upon the Committee the advantage it would be to give preference to the Colonies, and to supply tea at a cheaper rate to the poorer classes in Ireland. They had been constantly told, not only in the House but in the country, that the Radical Party were in favour of taking all taxes off the food of the people, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had himself declared that the people would not stand taxation of food. He did not know whether tea was a luxury in England. In Ireland it was the staple drink of the poor people. He had hoped, when he saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer engaged upon his figures, that he was going to give way on this point. He thought that out of the enormous surplus he had in his hands the right hon. Gentleman might make this small and judicious relaxation of the burden of taxation on an article of the food of the people.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid he desired to support the hon. Member for Yarmouth, Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Budget statement, the Conference of Colonial Premiers had been held in this country, and when the Government refused to consider the general principle of preference to the Colonies, a Resolution was passed unanimously, saying, "Show your sympathy for us and give us a preference on your present taxation. True, it will not afford us much relief, but it will show your sympathy towards us." The Amendment afforded an opportunity for the Government to show practical sympathy to our brothers and sisters beyond the seas by giving them this little preference. True, it would not give preference to our self-governing Colonies, but we did receive tea from British Possessions; we received it from India and Ceylon in very large quantities. Parliament should try to show the Colonies that they were anxious to take every step possible to draw them nearer to the Mother Country; and this, though a small step, would give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity to try and reassure those who had left our shores very disappointed.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the question before the Committee did not affect the self-govering Colonies largely, and therefore it was of no use bringing them in.
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid that a reduction would not at present give relief largely to the self-governing Colonies, but it would show that we were anxious to give preference to our brothers and sisters beyond the seas. Although this was no doubt only a small matter, as far as our Colonies were concerned, ho urged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take this opportunity of manifesting that sympathy which he was sure the right hon. Gentleman wished to show the Colonies.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid he had been in the unfortunate predicament of voting with the Government on each occasion that day, but he could not support them in this instance. Though he admitted that the Amendment would have the effect of altering the

429
Budget, yet he thought it would be a great step in the direction to which at any rate the Party on his side of the House were committed, that of promoting trade between the different parts of the Empire. He did not think they could find a better part of the Empire with which to commence than the great Dependency of India. His hon. friend who had moved the Amendment had stated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have money to spare, as he had some £600,000 which was no longer required for the Irish Council Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman had already appropriated that sum, as he was informed, then it could not have gone to the Irish Council. However, discussion of that would be out of order, and he would not pursue it. But undoubtedly the returns were going on well, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by making a little shift in his Budget, could meet this particular point. It was a step in the direction which they all had at heart, and he believed the President of the Board of Trade was being rapidly converted to their views with respect to trade within the Empire ["No."] Certainly, the right hon. Gentleman was coming round. He would have much pleasure in voting for the Amendment.
*MR. CHARLES ROBERTSsaid that once or twice in the course of the debate a suggestion had been made in favour of retaliating on Russia in response to the surtax on Indian tea. As a matter of fact, some high-priced varieties of tea from China came through Russia. Consequently us we might be differentiating against a Russian import, if this Amendment passed, he was in order in referring to this proposal for retaliation. His constituency happened to be seriously interested in the Russian trade in agricultural implements, and the effect of retaliation in respect of the surtax would be to seriously and directly injure the trade of his constituency. In fact, we could not retaliate against Russia unless we denounced the Treaty of Commerce with her, made in 1859, under which we agreed to avoid differential duties and all retaliatory duties in our intercourse with her.
CAPTAIN CRAIG: What would Russia do with regard to us? Does not Russia tax us very heavily.
*MR. CHARLES ROBERTS: That, surely, is not the point.
CAPTAIN CRAIG: It is the point, and very much the point.
*MR. CHARLES ROBERTSsaid that his point was that this treaty of commerce forbade any differential duties on either side. Now under that treaty we got most - favoured - nation privileges, including a reduction of 15 or 25 per cent. on some agricultural machinery. If the treaty were denounced those reductions would automatically cease, and the trade of his constituents in agricultural machinery would be crippled. The duties against us would rise by 15 or 25 per cent., and the German duties on similar articles would not rise, so that the immediate effect of the retaliation and differentiation, proposed by the Amendment, would be to cripple quite unexpectedly and unintentionally the trade in which we were competing with Germany, to the considerable damage of the constituency which he represented. He gave that as an illustration of the way in which retaliation and differentiation acted like a boomerang.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he presumed that, as the hon. Gentleman had been allowed to proceed, ho would not be out of order in making some observations in reply, though he confessed that the remarks of the hon. Member were somewhat wide of the Amendment. It appeared to him that there were two observations to be made in reply to the speech of the hon. Gentleman. He thought the hon. Member was entirely misinformed as to the treaty in question, and also that he was under a misapprehension as to the effect of the most- favoured-nation treatment we received. He had yet to learn that we had any treaty with Russia that would prevent our treating any portion of the United Kingdom or our oversea dominions more favourably than a foreign nation. The hon. Member, if he looked, would find that the treaty did not exclude preferential treatment within the Empire; it would only prevent our giving less favoured treatment to Russia than to other foreign nations. What was the most-favoured-nation treatment which we received in Russia? It was the result of the

431
tariff negotiations of other Powers. The concessions which they secured for themselves became ours by reason of our having the most-favoured-nation treatment. [An HON. MEMBER: Why not?] He knew of no reason why not, but he did not desire to argue it. Naturally, as those countries were concerned with their own trade, and not with ours, the concessions which they sought were those which would bring them the greatest advantage. If the Russian Government wore able to point out to the foreign nation with which it was negotiating that the benefit of the concession they asked for would come to us instead of to that nation, that would be a reason for that nation's ceasing to demand that particular concession and seeking another. If, however, we reorganised our fiscal system in order to secure that power of negotiation for ourselves which all other nations possessed, and in order that we might no longer be dependent on the crumbs that fell from the table of other negotiators, but might be able to carve the joint for ourselves, there would then be no reason why we should suffer any more than any other nation. Why should we be less well off when we were able to protect ourselves than when we depended wholly on whatever concessions were got by the action and interaction of rival powers concerned in their own and not in our trade? He did not think the speech of the hon. Member had rendered great assistance to the cause which he represented. The Amendment gave the House the opportunity of differentiating between Indian and Ceylon teas, which were mainly consumed by the people, and China tea, which was the luxury of the few, thus reducing the taxes on food and at the same time rendering a real service to our great eastern Dependency. It was quite true that they had secured a position in our market. In the changes of the last quarter of a century there was nothing more remarkable than the capture of the British market by the Indian and Ceylon producers, and the consequent ousting of the China teas to such a conspicuous and overwhelming extent. He did not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would argue that if they reduced the duty on Indian tea they would not be conferring a benefit upon the producer of those teas as well as upon our own people. His own opinion was that they would. But apart
432
from the material benefit they would confer by reducing this duty they would be responding to a sentiment which, in his opinion, they could not afford to neglect, which it would be unwise to neglect, and which, on the contrary, they ought to cultivate at every opportunity in their power. He should certainly support the Amendment which had been moved by his hon. friend. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one other question. He thought the competition of the future, if there was to be competition, would probably come not from China, but from other places. While he was at the Exchequer his attention was drawn to the large and increasing importation of tea from Java. This tea was more akin in quality and flavour to Ceylon tea than was China tea, and he imagined that if there was keen competition in the future with Indian tea, it would come, not from China, but from Java. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have figures bearing upon that point.
MR. ASQUITHsaid the right hon. Gentleman had raised an interesting and important point. The return he had before him showed the teas imported in 1906 for home consumption were as follows:— British East India, 159.000,0001b.; Ceylon, 92,000,0001b.; making a total of 251,000,0001b. imported from countries within the British Empire. From China there were imported 5,000,0001b., and from other countries 13,200,0001b., the whole of which he thought he was substantially right in saying came from Java. The importation from Java was also steadily rising, for the tea imported from other countries in 1900 amounted to 6,000,000lb. and in 1903 to 11,000,0001b.
*MR. REESsaid he was very doubtful whether the acceptance of this Amendment would be any advantage to India. The real point was that China tea was imported mainly for the purpose of being blended with Ceylon tea, and he doubted very much whether any differentiation would be to the advantage of Indian tea. He was quite as anxious as hon. Gentlemen opposite that everything should be done for India and the Colonies, but be had his doubts as to the effect of this proposal. As for what the right hon. Gentleman had said about quality, he disputed

433
altogether the statement that China tea was better than Indian and Ceylon tea. It had been said that Indian tea had more tannin in it, but he knew that the preparation of Indian tea was very much more satisfactory than that of China tea, and nobody who had seen both processes could have any doubt whatever on this point. The Indian and Ceylon manufacture was cleanly, efficient and up to date, no colouring matter was used, and the best machinery was available.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not say that China tea was better. What he stated was that it had a special taste and some people preferred it.
*MR. REESsaid the point had been made in the debate that China tea was a higher class article than Indian tea, which ho altogether disputed. At the present moment Indian tea was gaining a hold upon the Russian market and it was ousting China tea there from. Sixteen years ago when he was living in Russia nobody would look at Indian tea, because they had made up their minds that there was no tea like China tea. That opinion was very much altered now in Russia, and what he wished to protest strongly against was the assumption that China tea was better than Indian tea. An hon. Member had said that only the higher class of China tea was sent into Russia. He might remind the hon. Member that Indian tea was now being imported into Russia in enormous quantities, and that knocked the bottom out of the argument from a preferential point of view and showed that the Russians had not been able to retaliate effectually on account of our action in respect of sugar. The Russians had never had any intention of keeping out Indian tea, but their idea was to develop its transit along the Siberian railway instead of by way of their western ports. Tea was an article which got seasick and spoiled by being too long in ships, and consequently when it was conveyed to
Russia by the overland route it arrived there in the best possible condition.
*THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot have all these explanations. The Amendment is simply whether the duty should be fourpence or fivepence.
*MR. REESsaid he only followed other speakers and he doubted, for the reasons he had given, whether this proposal would be of any advantage to India.
MR. T. L. CORBETThoped the Committee would not take the narrow, selfish view advanced by the Member for Lincoln that the interest of the Empire must be sacrificed to the interest of Lincoln's trade with Russia in agricultural implements. Instead of taking a narrow and selfish view he hoped the Government would look at the question from the wide and Imperial standpoint embodied in the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that very little tea was now grown in our Colonies.
MR. ASQUITH: I did not say so.
MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he was glad to hear that denial. The right hon Gentleman did not always state facts [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] If this Amendment were carried it might lead to a great encouragement of the growth of tea in many of our Colonies which were quite adapted to its production. Instead of tariff reformers being charged with taking a narrow and selfish view of trade interests it had now been proved that the hon. Member for Lincoln was prepared to sacrifice Imperial interests in favour of the particular trade of his own constituency.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 53, Noes 217. (Division List No. 257.)

AYES.

Acland,Hood,RtHn.Sir AlexF.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bignold, Sir Arthur,

Cecil, Lord John V. Joicey-

Ashley, W. W.

Boyle Sir Edward

Chamberlain, RtHnJ. A. (Wore

Balcarres, Lord

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Baldwin, Alfred

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Craig,CaptianJames(Down,E.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Carlile, E. Hildred

Craik, Sir Henry

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Cave, George

Dalrymple, Viscount

Douglas, Rt, Hon. A. Akers.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Starkey, John R.

Duncan,Robert(Lanark, Govan

King,SirHenrySeymour(Hull)

Thornton, Percy M.

Fletcher, J. S.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Turnour, Viscount

Forster, Henry William

Lockwood,Rt.Hn.Lt,-Col. A.R.

Walker,Col.W.H.(Lancashire)

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Gordon, J.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Haddock, George R.

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

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

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

Helmsley, Viscount

Nield, Herbert

Hervey,F.W.F. (BuryS.Edmd's

Pease,HerbertPike(Darlington)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Houston, Robert Paterson

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Mr. Fell and Mr. Samuel Roberts.

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

Smith, F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

NOES.

Abraham,William (Cork, N.E.)

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal,E.)

Adkins. W. Ryland D.

Fenwick, Charles

M'Callum, John M.

Alden, Percy

Ferens, T. R.

M'Crae, George

Asquith,Rt.Hon.HerbertHenry

Ffrench, Peter

M'Laren, Sir C.B.(Leicester)

Astbury, John Meir

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

M'Micking. Major G.

Baker,Joseph A.(Finsbury,E.)

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Marnham, F. J.

Baring,Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

Furness, Sir Christopher

Meagher, Michael

Barker, John

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Menzies, Walter

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Gill, A. H.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Barnes, G. N.

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

Molteno, Percy Alport

Barry,RedmondJ.(Tyrone,N.)

Glendinning, R. G.

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Beale, W. P.

Glover, Thomas

Montagu, E. S.

Beck, A. Cecil

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mooney, J. J.

Bell, Richard

Gooch, George Peabody

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Bellairs, Carlyon

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Bennett, E. N.

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Morse, L. L.

Bertram, Julius

Gurdon,RtHn.SirW.Brampton

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Bethell,Sir J.H.(Essex,Romford

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Murnaghan, George

Billson, Sir Alfred

Halpin,J.

Murray, James

Boland. John

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Myer, Horatio

Brace, William

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Napier, T. B.

Bramsdon, T. A.

Hart-Davies, T.

Nicholls, George

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Harvey,W.E.(Derbyshire,N.E.)

Nicholson,Charles N.(Doncaster

Brodie, H. C.

Haworth, Arthur A.

Nolan, Joseph

Brooke, Stopford

Hazleton, Richard

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Brunner,J.F.L.(Lanes..Leigh)

Hedges, A. Paget

O'Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid

Bryce,J. Annan

Henderson, J.M. (Aberdeen, W.)

O'Connor. John (Kildare, N.)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Hodge, John

O'Doherty. Philip

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Hogan, Michael

O'Grady,J.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Holland,Sir William Henry

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Buxton,Rt.Hn. SydneyCharles]

Horniman, Emslie John

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Byles, William Pollard

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Parker, James (Halifax)

Cairns, Thomas

Hyde, Clarendon

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Cameron, Robert

Idris, T. H. W.

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Pearson,W.H.M.(Suffolk,Eye)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Jones,SirD.Brynmor (Swansea)

Philipps,J.Wynford (Pembroke

Clough, William

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pollard, Dr.

Coats,SirT.Glen(Renfrew, W.)

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

Price, C. E. (Edinburgh,Central

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Jowett, F. W.

Pullar, Sir Robert

Collins,SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Radford, G. H.

Corbett,C.H.(Sussex,E.Grinst'd

Kekewich, Sir George

Rainy, A. Rolland

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Redmond,John E. (Waterford)

Cotton, Sir H, J. S.

Laidlaw, Robert

Rees, J. D.

Cox, Harold

Lambert, George

Ridsdale, E. A.

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Lamont, Norman

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Crombie, John William

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Roe, Sir Thomas

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lehmann, R. C.

Runciman, Walter

Duckworth, James

Lever, A.Levy(Essex,Harwich)

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire,Wirral)

Samuel,HerbertL.(Cleveland)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Lewis, John Herbert

Sears, J. E.

Elibank, Master of

Lough, Thomas

Seaverns, J. H.

Essex, R. W.

Lundon, W.

Seely, Major J. B.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Macdonald,J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs

Shackleton, David James

Everett, R. Lacey

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Thomasson, Franklin

Whitehead, Rowland

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Thompson,J.W.H.(Somerset,E.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer,

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Toulmin, George

Wiles, Thomas

Spicer, Sir Albert

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Williams,LlewelynCarmarthen

Stanley, Hn.A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

Ure, Alexander

Williamson, A.

Stewart. Halley (Greenock)

Verney, F. W.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Ward,John(Stoke upon Trent)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wardle, George J.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Waring, Walter

Young, Samuel

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Wason,Rt.Hn.E.(Clackmannan

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Wason, JohnCathcart(Orkney)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Sutherland,J. E.

Waterlow, D. S.

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Taylor,TheodoreC.(Radcliffe)

Watt, Henry A.

Thomas,SirA.(Glamorgan,E.)

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Question proposed, "That Clause I stand part of the Bill."
MR. FLETCHERsaid there should be greater fairness shown to the Dependency of India in our system of taxation. We did not pay sufficient attention to the bearing of fiscal questions on our Indian fellow subjects. It was a great injustice that we should put so heavy a tax on tea, one of India's chief industries, and that India should be compelled to pay an excise duty on her cotton goods. This duty was a violation of free trade principles. He was of opinion that the proper policy for this country was to favour free trade in the real sense, that was to say, to have free exchange between the United Kingdom and India. If we admitted tea
and tobacco free from India, and if India admitted cotton and woollen goods and cutlery free from this country, it would be the greatest step in favour of real free trade that had ever been taken. Ho strongly objected to the tea duty, and he had given a pledge to his constituents that lie would vote against it. There were many hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House who were pledged to vote against the tea and sugar duties, and he appealed to them to act accordingly. If they did not vote against those taxes, he earnestly hoped that their constituents would dispense with them at the next election.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 71. (Division List No. 258.)

AYES.

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Essex, R. W.

Alden, Percy

Burt, Rt, Hon. Thomas

Esslemont, George Birnie

Asquith,Rt.Hon.HerbertHenry

Buxton,Rt,Hn.Sydney Charles

Everett, R. Lacey

Astbury, John Meir

Byles, William Pollard

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cairns, Thomas

Fenwick, Charles

Baker,JosephA. (Finsbury,E.)

Cameron, Robert

Ferens, T. R.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Banbury. Sir Frederick George

Causton,Rt.Hn.RichardKnight

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Baring,Godfrey(Isle of Wight)

Cheetham, John Frederick

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Barker, John

Cleland, J. W.

Fuller, John Michael F.

Barlow. Percy (Bedford)

Clough, William

Furness, Sir Christopher

Barry,RedmondJ.(Tyrone.N.)

Coats,SirT,Glen(Renfrew,W.)

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Beale, W. P.

Collins,SirWm.J.(S. Pancras.W

Gladstone,Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

Beck, A. Cecil

Corbett,CH(Sussex,E,Grinst'd)

Glendinning, R. G.

Bell, Richard

Cornwall,Sir Edwin A.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Bellairs. Carlyon

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Gooch, George Peabody

Bennett, E. N.

Cox, Harold

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Bethell.SirJ.H.(Essex,Romf'rd

Crombie, John William

Gurdon, RtHn.SirW.Brampton

Billson, Sir Alfred

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Brace, William

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Bramsdon, T. A.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hart-Davies, T.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Duckworth, James

Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire,N.E.

Brodie, H. C.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Haworth, Arthur A.

Brooke. Stopford

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

Hedges, A. Paget

Brunner,J.F.L. (Lanes.,Leigh)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Henderson,J. M.(Aberdeen,W.)

Bryce, J. Annan

Elibank, Master of

Hodge, John

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Myer, Horatio

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Napier, T. B.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Hyde, Clarendon

Nicholls, George

Sutherland, J. E.

Idris, T. H. W.

Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Thomas,SirA. (Glamorgan.E.)

Jones,SirD.Brynmor (Swansea)

Parker, James (Halifax;)

Thomas,DavidAlfred(Merthyr

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Thomasson, Franklin

Jones,William(Carnarvonshire)

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Thompson,J.W.H.(Somers't,E.

Kekewich, Sir George

Pearson,W.H.M. (Suffolk.Eye)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Philipps,J.Wynford(Pembroke

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Laidlaw, Robert

Pollard. Dr.

Ure, Alexander

Lamb,Edmund G.(Leominster)

Price, E. C. (Edinburgh,Central

Verney, F. W.

Lamont, Norman

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Radford, G. H.

Walton,SirJohnL.(Leeds,S.)

Lehmann, R. C.

Rainy, A. Rolland

Ward,John (Stoke upon Trent;

Lever,A.Levy (Essex, Harwich)

Rees, J. D.

Ward,W.Dudley(Southampton

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wardle, George J.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Waring, Walter

Lewis, John Herbert

Roe,Sir Thomas

Wason,Rt.Hn.E.(Clackmannan

Lough, Thomas

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Wason,John Cathcart(Orkney)

Macdonald,J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs)

Runciman, Walter

Waterlow, D. S.

M'Callum, John M.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Watt, Henry A.

M'Crae, George

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

White.J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Sears, J. E.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Seaverns, J. H.

Whitehead, Rowland

M'Micking, Major G.

Shackleton, David James

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Marnham, F. J.

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Wiles, Thomas

Menzies, Walter

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Williamson, A.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Molteno, Percy Alport

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wilson,P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Soares, Ernest J.

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

Montagu, E. S.

Spicer, Sir Albert

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Stanley,Hn.A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Morse, L. L.

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Murray, James

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

NOES.

Abraham,William(Cork, N.E.)

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Murnaghan, George

Acland-Hood,Rt Hn.SirAlex.F.

Gill, A. H.

Nield, Herbert

Ashley, W. W.

Glover, Thomas

Nolan, Joseph

Balcarres, Lord

Gordon, J.

O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Baldwin, Alfred

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

O'Connor, John (Kidlare, N.)

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Haddock, George R.

O'Doherty, Philip

Barnes, G. N.

Halpin, J.

O'Grady, J.

Beach,Hn.MichaelHughHicks

Hazleton, Richard

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Boland, John

Helmsley, Viscount

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

Boyle,Sir Edward

Hervey,F. W. F. (BuryS.Edm'ds

Randles. Sir John Scurrah

Brotherton. Edward Allen

Hogan, Michael

Redmond. John E. (Waterford)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Houston. Robert Paterson

Roberts,S.(Sheffield. Ecclesall)

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Jowett, F. W.

Smith,F.E.(Liverpool,Walton)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Kimber. Sir Henry

Smyth,Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.;

Cave, George

King,Sir HenrySeymour(Hull)

Starkey. John R.

Cecil,Lord John P. Joicey-

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Thornton. Percy M.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Turnour, Viscount

Craig,CaptainJames (Down.E.)

Lockwood,Rt.Hn.Lt,-Col.A.R.

Walker.Col.W.H.(Lancashire)

Craik, Sir Henry

Lundon, W.

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Duncan,Robert(Lanark,Govan

MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal,E.)

Young, Samuel

Fell, Arthur

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Ffrench, Peter

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Flynn,James Christopher

Meagher, Michael.

Mr. Fletcher and Viscount Dalrymple.

Forster, Henry William

Mooney,J. J.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

And it being a quarter past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the
Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

KING EDWARD'S HOSPITAL FUND FOR LONDON BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER).
Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
DR. RUTHERFORD: moved that this Bill be recommitted to the former Committee with an instruction to insert clauses to. provide that the control and management of King Edward's Hospital Fund should be vested in the president and council, and that the council be constituted on representative lines. He said that his action was dictated by no hostility to the Fund started by His Majesty the King in 1897 in commemoration of Queen Victoria. By doing this, His Majesty had dug another deep well of affection and gratitude in the hearts of the medical profession and of the people of this country, especially of the sick poor. The Fund, owing to His Majesty's guidance, had been extremely beneficent, and had opened new sources of supply, and had tapped rich veins of support for the London hospitals which had been crippled in their finances. It was now the chief reservoir for feeding the funds for the support of the hospitals, and many persons who had previously given their subscriptions to particular hospitals now contributed to this Royal reservoir. The Hospital Sunday Fund in 1905 amounted to £75,000, the Hospital Saturday Fund to £34,000, while the King's Hospital Fund reached,£111,000, so that the latter was the richest source of revenue for the hospitals of the Metropolis. Besides that, the King's Hospital Fund had now a capital of over £1,000,000. The promoters of this Bill could have done what they aimed at by Royal Charter, or by Incorporation by Act of Parliament. Clause G of the Bill enacted that—
"The direction, control, and management of the affairs and property of the corporation shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, be vested in the president and general council; and the members of the general council shall from time to time be appointed by the president as he may think lit, so however that the number of councillors so far as may be practicable, shall not be less than twelve. All the councillors and members of committees constituted under this Act shall hold office until the end of the year in which they had been
442
appointed, and may be re-appointed from year 10 year."
By Clause 7 the president—
"may from time to time, by writing under his hand, constitute committees for the administration of the funds and property of the corporation, or for any of the purposes of this Act, and appoint the members thereof, and may delegate to any committee all or any of his powers under this Act…, which power if delegated to a committee of two persons shall be deemed to be sufficiently exercised by each of such persons signing an approval in writing of the Act approval thereof is required."
Further, the president—
"may appoint and remove any treasurers; secretaries, auditors and other officers of the corporation and fix their remuneration, and he shall have power in his sole discretion to direct the distribution and allocation of the Funds."
It would be seen, therefore, that the president had full and complete power, unlimited, uncontrolled, and unchecked. Let them contrast this constitution with the constitution of the Patriotic Fund as established by the Act of 1903, and it would be found that that constitution was on very definite and representative lines. The constitution of the Patriotic Fund was to be found in the schedule of the Act. The corporation was to consist of twelve members nominated by His Majesty; the Lords-Lieutenant of counties; the chairman for the time being of every council of a county, or if that chairman was unable or unwilling to act the county council might appoint some other person in place of the chairman; of every person for the time being entitled to the style of Lord Mayor, and the Mayor for the time being of every county borough in England, Wales, and Ireland; of every person for the time being entitled to the style of Lord Provost, and the Provost for the time being of every Royal, Parliamentary, o?? Police Burgh in Scotland with a population of, or exceeding 50,000; and of any number of persons, not exceeding seven, whom the council of the corporation might think fit to co-opt as members, each of whom would be nominated as the representative of a charitable fund founded for the like purposes as the corporation. And the schedule went on to say that the executive committee should consist of not less than twelve nor

443
more than twenty members of the corporation, of whom three should constitute a quorum. Four members in the first instance, and thereafter one member of the committee should be appointed by the Treasury, two by the First Lord of the Admiralty, two by the Secretary of State for War, and the remainder by the general council. According to the present constitution of the general council of King Edward's Hospital Fund, the principle of representation was well recognised indeed. The Church of England was represented by the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Southwark; the Roman Catholic Church by Archbishop Bourne; the Free Church Council by the Rev. Dr. J. Guinness Rogers; the Wesleyan Conference by the Rev. Dr. T. Bowman Stephenson; and the Jews by the Chief Rabbi, the Rev. Dr. Adler. Then there were the Presidents of the Hospital Sunday and the Hospital Saturday Funds, the Chairman of the London County Council, the Governor of the Bank of England, the President of the Royal College of Physicians, the President of the Royal College of Surgeons, and other gentlemen nominated. All that he and his friends asked for was that a representative council should be included in the present Bill which would meet public requirements, and its constitution could be put in a schedule to the Bill, as was done in the case of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. That representative council might consist of so many members to be nominated by the president, and the remainder to be elected—one by the Corporation of the City of London, one by the London County Council, one by the London University, one by the Royal College of Physicians, one by the Royal College of Surgeons, two by the British Medical Association which represented 20,000 physicians and surgeons, 3,000 of whom practised in the metropolis, and who gave their services free to the hospitals; one by the Hospital Sunday Fund, one by the Hospital Saturday Fund, and one by the Central Hospital Council. He felt that it was not in the interest of the fund that the whole power should lie in the hands of the president, nor was it fair to the president himself, because it would place him in a false position, impose upon him great responsibility, and lay him open to criticism, some of it of a very unkindly
444
character. The constitution of the corporation of the fund as provided for by the Bill was without precedent for a hundred years, and was contrary to the spirit of the times. The chief defence of the Bill was that the fund was a private one. It was true that in its initial stage it might have been a private fund, but now it had become a public fund for public purposes, and that was becoming more true every day. They had been told that Amendments had been offered by the promoters of the Bill, but these consisted only of an offer that the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor, and the Governor of the Bank of England should be allowed to nominate the president when it became essential. But it was no concession at all. In the opinion of a large section of the medical profession and those interested in the hospitals and their management, the president would be placed in an injudicious and unfortunate position. In the Committee on Unopposed Bills, the measure, received drastic censure on the part of certain Members. There was a Royal Commission sitting at the present time to inquire into the distress existing, the administration of the Poor Law, and the question of medical relief, and he thought that was a reason for delaying the further consideration of the Bill during its recommittal. They did not know what the recommendations of the Commission might be in the direction of municipal control. In foreign countries must of the hospitals were under municipal control and received State aid, and they did not know what the Commission might decide with reference to those points. He appealed to the Government not to make this a Government question by putting on the Government whips. They wished the future of the hospitals of London to be assured and in the interests of the hospitals and in the interests of the present promoters of the Bill he hoped they would see their way to accept his Amendment.
*MR. TREVELYAN,in seconding the Amendment said that everyone in the House was very anxious that the Bill should be passed, as they realised the value of the fund. He considered, however, that it would be surprising if some of its provisions were passed without protest

445
and comment by the present House of Commons. The main issue they were raising did not concern merely the present moment. What they challenged was that the Bill was to establish a constitution in perpetuity and create a governing body which was unchangeable, unless they resorted to the invidious proceeding of passing an Act of Parliament to supersede it, if its administration of the fund proved to be unpopular. The question therefore was not for the present but for the future; there had been no complaint of the administration of the fund in the past; on the contrary, there had been nothing but praise. The council lad been chosen with discretion and the same discretion had been shown, in the opinion of everybody, in the disposal of the money. There had been universal testimony to the tact with which the administration had been conducted. But dealing with the future and with personalities of which they knew nothing he must point out that they were handing over in the next generation these enormous sums upon which the London hospitals would depend, to the entire and unfettered control of some person who might not have the qualities of the past or the present president, or, having the qualities, might not exercise them because he was not so deeply interested in these funds. He hoped the Government would consider the enormous public and not private interests which were involved in the large sums of money which the president and the council would have to administer. There was at the present moment the considerable amount of £100,000 being disposed of by the president and the council, and it was an increasing sum, because as the result of the rising popularity of the fund the number of the subscriptions given to the different hospitals had been diminished. If all the donations and legacies to hospitals were now going to this central fund, more and more the London hospitals would have to depend for their prosperity upon the administrators and distributors of it. The sums of £500 to £3,000 might be vital. It was a very serious, dangerous, and questionable power to give a council of this kind. What they would like to see in the Bill was some security for the continuance of the present wise
446
administration of these hospitals; but in the system which it was proposed to set up the council might, if it pleased, dictate the policy of a hospital in re turn for money. There was a growing public opinion in favour of public management, and the time for large and uncertain charity in the judgment of some people had passed. The hon. Member for Brentford had mentioned the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Surgeons, and the Medical Association as bodies which should be represented, but what he wished to see in the Bill was a constitution making the council representative, not only of the medical profession, but of public bodies also. The constitution should make the council representative of the medical profession by including the bodies he had mentioned and also the City Corporation, the London County Council, and in order to enable the views of those managing the hospitals to be heard he thought it would have have been a wise thing to have some representatives of the hospitals themselves in the persons of those who were on the Central Hospital Council. No doubt it would be pointed out that the hospitals themselves were beneficiares of the fund, but they should have some power of representation through the central council. He could not understand why it was so difficult for the advisers of the promoters of the Bill to accept a proposal of that kind, as he was practically suggesting to perpetuate a kind of composition of the council actually in existence hitherto. He merely wished to secure the basis of the right of representation for bodies hitherto honoured by invitation. In fact all the proposals would do was to stereotype and make obligatory on his successors what the wisdom of the first president had dictated. Nor would his proposal violate the ideas which were prevalent at the time of the foundation of the fund. In the original letter in regard to it these words occurred—
"It may be desirable in the future to seek the assistance of representatives chosen by the hospitals; but for the first year we shall rely upon the co-operation of the Distribution Committee of the Hospital Sunday Fund."
For these reasons he supported his hon. friend's suggestion that the Bill should be sent back to the Committee in order

447
that it might be strengthened by adding the representative element which would add to the popularity and usefulness of the fund. He believed that this would be the case if it was known not to depend in the future on the continuance of the great interest of one man. The proposal he made would insure the check of public opinion, and well-informed professional opinion, while it would not materially alter the management of the fund as it was conducted at present.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the words 'be,' to the end of the Question, and add the words 'recommitted to the former Committee.' "—(Dr. Rutherford.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question."
MR. JOWETTsaid he supported the Amendment, not only for the reasons given by the proposer and seconder, but for other reasons of a far wider character than those already given. He respectfully objected to the fundamental principle upon which the Bill was drawn, and with all due respect to H.R.H. the Prince of Wales he could not agree that any one man should be placed in such a position of power as the provisions of this Bill would place him in. It seemed to him at any rate that on the other side of the House, if the professions which they heard from time to time were sincere, as he believed they were, one might expect a very large vote indeed in favour of the Amendment and against the principle upon which the measure was drawn. As had been said already by the two Members who had spoken, the fund was already a very important one and was likely as time went on to become more and more important. The mover went so far as to say that it would be the chief source from which the support of the London hospitals would be drawn in future. The fund would be made up of donations and subscriptions from members of all classes of society, and he was not satisfied even with the suggestion of the mover and seconder that the various medical organisations, the College of Physicians, the College of
448
Surgeons, and the Medical Council, should have representation. That would not satisfy him, and he ventured most respectfully, feeling that on this matter he was entitled to speak for many others besides himself, to ask what appeared to him to be n, most pertinent question, and it was, "Where do the people come in?" Nothing short of some form of representation would, he thought, satisfy the reasonable and just demands of those people who would sub-scribe in years to come to this fund. He objected to the suggestion that there should be this over-powering representation of the medical profession guiding and controlling these hospitals. He admitted that it was true, as the seconder of the Resolution had said, that to appoint these members of the medical profession would be only stereotyping what had been the practice under which the late president acted, but whether what was done was done by a single president, however exalted a personage he might be, or by the work of any committee he might select or selected by this House, he objected to the over-powering representation of the medical profession. In the past the public had to his mind serious ground for complaint against the medical profession for the way they had utilised public funds to support their own professional interests in education, and he thought it was true that between 1897 and 1903 no less than £40,000 of money subscribed by the public for the conduct of hospitals supposed to be maintained for the relief of the poor went to support medical students. If public support was needed for medical schools let that support be directly applied for. Under the present system all kinds of subsidiary interests connected with the medical profession were sought to be served. The fund was largely controlled by the medical profession without any real representation of the people. They all knew that prominent medical men sought assiduously for honorary posts in connection with our great hospitals, and under such a system there would be, with the committee largely composed of the medical profession, power to exclude any man. It had also been suggested, and he believed with truth, that the medical profession utilised these hospitals unfairly for the

449
training of future members of the profession, and that surgical operations were conducted by men who would not be allowed to carry out such operations outside upon richer patients. All that had been said pointed to the necessity for representative control over this fund, and in the belief that the rejection of the Bill, or action antagonistic to the Bill, would emphasise, the necessity, he supported the Amendment.
THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.)said there were one or two features connected with the constitution of the fund which he thought should be borne in mind by Members who criticised the provisions of the Bill. It should be recollected that the fund was in existence, and that it had been under the control of the president, to whom it was proposed to give power by legislation. There could be no doubt that the very great affection and regard of the people of this country for the Royal Family had created the fund at present at the disposal of those; in whose hands it was placed for the benefit of the hospitals of the Metropolis. It might be said the Bill might have been avoided by the grant of a Royal charter to perpetuate a constitution which most commended itself to those who advised the Sovereign in regard to this matter, and that was for some time under consideration. But it was the wish of the highest persons interested in the proposal that the matter should be left to the consideration of Parliament, and it was intimated that any provision Parliament should think wise would be cordially accepted by those entrusted with the administration of the fund. Therefore the Bill passed through the other House and had been considered by a Committee of the House of Commons. There was a weakness in the Bill indicated and remedied in the House of Lords. No one had cavilled at the powers of the present president during the time he had been graciously disposed to discharge the duties of the office, but it was contemplated that on the resignation of the Prince of Wales of the position of president there might be a question in reference to his successor and the qualifications his successor might possess for the discharge of the duties and responsibilities legislation might cast upon
450
him. That suggestion was put before the House of Lords' Committee, and a provision was introduced that on the termination of tenure of office by the present president the office should pass to his successor, to be chosen on the unanimous recommendation of the very prominent individuals who were named in the Bill. When the Prince of Wales resigned his post as president it would be necessary for the Lord Chancellor, the Prime Minister, and the Governor of the Bank of England for the time being to concur in the recommendation of some Member of the Royal Family whom they considered qualified to accept the post now occupied by the Prince of Wales, the member of the Royal Family being son, grandson, or brother to the Sovereign. Therefore, there was assurance that three persons holding high and responsible public positions would unite in recommending a qualified president; but if they did not concur, if they were unable to agree in their recommendation, then the duties of president would devolve into the hands of three persons; there would no longer be a president, but three governors. The public, therefore, had the guarantee of a unanimous recommendation with all the responsibility of the three high officials mentioned, or failing that there was the responsibility of the three persons who would fill the place occupied as president by the Prince of Wales. Then it was said the council should be elected; but the difficulty was to give the council an elective character, seeing that it was almost impossible to specify a constituency to carry out election. It had been suggested that it should largely consist of the medical profession, and, again, it had been suggested that subscribers to the fund should be the electorate, and if that was adopted he believed that the majority, and those who contributed the largest amounts, had no wish to interfere with the discretion of the Royal Family. If these were not to be the electorate, then was it to be the county council, or who? The fund had been in existence for ten years, and had been exceedingly successful; it had risen to a large amount, and its administration in the past was an indication of what it should be in the future. If reference was made to the names of the present council it

451
would be found a representative council in the best sense of the term. It was clear there would be a large representative element on the council.
DR. RUTHERFORD: All we ask is that the representative element shall be actually inserted in the Bill.
SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he was trying to show that that was not necessary. If public confidence was to be secured and public support of the fund maintained, it was obvious that the counsels of prudence which had regulated the constitution of the council as it now stood would continue to regulate its constitution. If it was found that a large representative element was necessary for these purposes they might rest assured the representative element would be secured in future. It was exceedingly undesirable, however, to stereotype a scheme by means of a statute, because what a statute did could only be undone by statute. The hon. Gentleman behind him might rest assured that in hospital management there must be a large representation of the medical element, under whose counsel and guidance the spending of this money must be regulated. The hon. Member who had spoken on the other side regretted that they had put so much power into the hands of the committee; but some concessions had been made, and he thought the House would bear with him while he read the provision which had been inserted in the Bill, and which limited the individual power of the president, so that on his part, and on his own authority, the president could deal with neither the distribution, nor the investment, nor the application of the property; and that covered nearly the whole of the objects of the fund.
[The Attorney-General here read the clause.]
Therefore the objects were the collection of the fund, its investment, its application, its expenditure, and its distribution. The president was controlled by the majority of his council in all matters relating to the investment, expenditure, application, and distribution of money. His power of his own motion was
452
limited to the mere collection of money. That came in Clause 6, as part of Sub-section 3. Let him point out what full appreciation this concession showed of the observations which had been made with regard to the provisions of the Bill. It was of importance that the name of the Royal Family should be connected with appeals made to the public for funds. It was absolutely that association which had made the fund and given it its great success. It was all important that this association should continue. Those who were anxious that no undue influence should be brought to bear on His Royal Highness with regard to the distribution of the money had the guarantee of this clause that in all such action he would not only have the council in association with him, but would be subject to the control of the majority. Subsection 3 made it plain that the Prince's control was subordinate in all those matters of account. Therefore on all those questions the Prince was subject to the control of the members of the council. Those who came to the council were there by the president's invitation, and they were men whose public position was a guarantee that they would not give advice that they could not wisely and properly give, and they would be responsible for any course they invited the president to adopt. The suggestions he had made in a report he was called on to make, and which had been adopted by the Committee, were to the best of his judgment, and in his honest opinion, a moderate proposal to carry out the scheme consistently with its original constitution, and he commended it to the adoption of the House.
*MR. G. GREENWOODsaid there was an Amendment on the Paper in his name in very similar terms to that of his hon. friend behind him, though from a paternal interest he somewhat preferred his own. It proposed that certain representative persons should be appointed as ex-officio members of the general council of the fund, which would really be left very much in its present position. He felt very strongly the force of what the Attorney-General had said. No one in the House or out of it would offer anything

453
like unreasonable opposition to the Bill. One must remember the origin of the fund, its voluntary character, and the noble work which it had done. It would be not only unreasonable but it might be called ill-conditioned to offer factious opposition to a Bill of this sort. But he must say that he thought it was not, unreasonable, when the promoters of the Bill came to the House of Commons and asked for very large powers to deal with very large funds, which they were told now amounted to a million of money, that they should take precautions, or at any rate make suggestions with a view to safeguarding the interests of the public in the future, and also of commanding its confidence, which was so essential to the fund. It was said sometimes, "After all, this is a voluntary fund," but it would not be a fund dependent on annual subscriptions. It now amounted to a million of money; there would be large investments, and the promoters asked for very large powers, as, for instance, to hold land without licence in mortmain. No doubt in the future, as had already been pointed out, the controllers of this fund would be able to dictate the policy of the hospitals and really control their management. What had fallen from the Attorney-General, he thought, really constituted the justification of those who had put down Amendments asking that the Bill should be recommitted, because there had now been made a most substantial concession which they all welcomed, and for which they were all most grateful to His Royal Highness the president. Of course it was for his hon. friend to consider whether this concession was sufficient. As had already been said, they had most entire confidence in the present management, but they were legislating for the future, and they did not know whether in the years to come this rich fund might not come under the management of a president who would not command the confidence of the nation as it was now commanded by the present president. Under this Bill the entire power was vested in the president. The members of the council were appointed by the president for a year only, and nothing would be more easy, at the end of such period, than to say that it was not desired to reappoint such and such a mem-
454
ber. The president, therefore, had entire power in the constitution and election of the council, and he had entire power in appointing the secretary and treasurer, auditors, and other officers. If there was any difference of opinion, the president's determination was final; and, as the Bill originally stood, the president had control of the application not only of the funds but of the capital. He might have applied the money given to the hospitals to the medical schools, to which his hon. friend opposite had already called attention. That matter had already been inquired into by a Committee, who reported in very clear terms that the money subscribed to the hospitals ought not to be diverted to the medical schools. That was laid down very definitely in the report which he held in his hand. He agreed that it was a monstrous thing that public money subscribed for the sick in hospitals should be diverted to the medical schools, where practices went on which many of them disapproved of. They did not ask that the whole council should be representative, but only that some re presentation should be secured for the future, and he. thought it was reasonable to ask that such representative men as the Lord Mayor and the Chairman of. the County Council should be ex-officio members. He did not desire that the medical profession should have a preponderating influence in this matter. It had been suggested on behalf of the hospitals that certain bodies like the City Corporation, the County Council, the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and other similar bodies should be allowed to nominate members of the council, but that scheme had not been accepted. He was anxious that certain representative persons in whom the public had every confidence should be members of the council. He had put forward these views in the interests of the public, and he would support the Amendment of his hon. friend.
*SIR W. J. COLLINSsaid there seemed to be a suspicion that there was a danger of this Fund being too largely controlled by the professional element. Even if that suspicion were true in regard to any of the London hospitals—and he doubted it—he could

455
assure the House that with regard to the Fund and its Council it was quite untrue, because out of some thirty-nine members of the general council at most five or six belonged to the medical profession, and out of fifteen members on the executive committee only one belonged to that profession. Therefore there was no danger that the King's Fund would be unduly dominated by medical men. It had been stated that funds subscribed for the sick poor had been diverted to the medical schools; but it was at the instance of the King's Hospital Fund that a committee of inquiry was set up, and in adopting their report the executive committee laid down clearly the recommendation that henceforth no assistance should be given from the fund to such hospitals as used the subscriptions for the relief of the sick poor for maintaining medical schools. The hon. Member for Brentford had referred to the future of the London hospitals; but what of the past? Looking back to the year 1892, before the King's Hospital Fund came into existence, a committee under Lord Sandhurst was appointed to inquire into the condition of the London hospitals, and their report went to show that, apart from the three endowed hospitals, the general hospitals were maintained principally by legacies and large but uncertain donations, and the subscriptions from annual subscribers did not suffice to pay the servants employed, to say nothing of the cost of administration. That was in the year 1892. Since the King's Fund was inaugurated £750,000 had been collected and distributed by it for the benefit of London hospitals, and this had been done without injuring other funds such as the Hospital Saturday and the Hospital Sunday Funds, and other sources of revenue upon which the hospitals had previously relied. That £750,000 had been raised in addition to the ordinary revenue of the hospitals of London. He confessed that when he first saw the draft of the Bill in its original form he shared some of the misgivings of the mover of this Amendment, but he rejoiced to know that modifications had been made which vested in the president and the general council the direction,
456
control, and management of the Fund, and that changes had also been introduced in regard to the power of nomination of any future president, and to the summary removal of members of the council, which existed in the original form of the Bill. He was also glad to hear from the Attorney-General the further concession he indicated that evening in regard to the distribution and investment of funds. The House would have heard with satisfaction the assurance of the Attorney-General that as in the past so in the future an ex-officio representative element would be found in the body controlling the fund. Out of thirty-nine members no fewer than fourteen were ex-officio members. He saw great difficulty in the way of securing representation of the various London hospitals upon the body which would distribute this money annually. If they were beneficiaries they wore hardly bodies which ought to be represented on the fund. During the last ten years the Fund had added £750.000 to the resources j of London hospitals, by introducing economies they had enabled sixteen hospitals to save £20,000 a year, they had facilitated the redistribution and the j amalgamation of hospitals, and they had assisted the transfer of King's College, Hospital to a more suitable site at Camberwell. The fund had been the moans of opening 443 beds which were previously closed. After the assurances they had heard he doubted whether any further opposition was likely to be offered to this Bill. Last Wednesday, in the debate on the Prime Ministers Resolution, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the veto of the Crown in matters of legislation had been obsolete for over 200 years. It was gratifying to know that the beneficial influence of the Royal Family was exerted in matters of voluntary administration like this, and he rejoiced to think that it had been through their personal agency that this large sum had been reaped in.
MR. MORTONsaid everybody in London would be more satisfied when they could have some representative body to manage the whole of the London hospitals instead of their management being conducted in secret, as was the

457
case at the present moment. The medical profession ought not to predominate on any of these bodies. He did not think that members of the medical profession ought to be nominated at all on any of these governing bodies; their business should be strictly confined to their medical duties. He happened to be the Governor of a hospital, and his experience of the duties of hospital governors was to say "ditto" to what the medical profession recommended. He hoped the Prime Minister would say whether it was possible to provide for the audit which was asked. He thought it was absolutely necessary if they were to retain the confidence of the public. The audit would give to the public the confidence which was necessary in the carrying out of the objects of this great Fund—confidence which the public had not got in connection with certain other institutions whose accounts were not audited in the way he desired in this case. He was most anxious to make the management of this Fund effectual in the best way, and to give all the assistance he possibly could.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): Though this is a private Bill, it is of such a character that I think it is only right I should say a few words about it. The speech of my hon. and learned friend has sufficiently explained to the House what the object of the Hill is. It must not be forgotten, although it seems sometimes to be forgotten, that this is really a fund created by the first president, the present King. It was he and his influence that obtained the money, it was to him that the money was given—money which would not have been obtained if it had not been given to him. And therefore he and those connected with him are not the least unreasonable, or going beyond their proper limits, in desiring to have at least some say in the management of this large sum of money. Then we have, as my hon. and learned friend has pointed out, the further fact that the Fund has been the most conspicuous success. It has done, as my hon. friend the Member for West St. Pancras testified, an im-
458
mense amount of good in the improvement of methods, and also in the interests of economy. I believe, as a matter of fact, that the expenses of the fund during the ten years it has been in existence have only been at the rate of l.35 per cent. It has been a model in the matter of management among all the infirmaries and hospitals throughout the Kingdom. That has to be remembered. Therefore it must have been well managed hitherto. Hitherto the members of the council have been selected so as to include a large number of public interests. Many Members of the House may not be aware that these are all members of the council—the Lords Lieutenant of London and Middlesex, the Bishops of London and Southwark, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, the President of the National Council of Evangelical Free Churches, the Chief Rabbi, the Lord Mayor of London, the Chairman of the London County Council, the Governor of the Bank of England, the President of the Royal College of Physicians, and the President of the Royal College of Surgeons. These gentlemen have, no doubt, rendered good service, and they are an ample proof of the desire of the president and his august predecessor to take advantage of the counsel of persons so well qualified to give advice as these are There is no reason whatever to doubt that the same practice will continue in the future. It has been said that these names ought to be inserted in the Bill. I can understand that desire, because it may be that this practice may be departed from, though I do not think it is at all likely that the president, whoever he may be, will wish to dissociate himself from the support he may obtain from having these names among his council. One of my hon. friends has said that we are legislating for the future, and that many things may be changed in the future. If the names were inserted in the Bill they might come to be held by those who would not be so much entitled to this position, and, on the other hand, if we followed this course, it would be difficult, without further legislation, to recognise any new body which might come into existence and would equally deserve to be acknowledged. That is how the

459
matter stands at present. A further step has been announced to-day. The whole of the financial control of the fund was left, practically, by a subsection of Clause 7, in the hands of the president, but that is now put an end to, and the council has an equal voice with the president in all that concerns the investing, collecting, and distributing of the fund, and in the general treatment of the finances. That is a very large concession. I think it does away to a large extent with the necessity for the Motion in regard to something like representation being required. My hon. friend the Member for Sutherland has an Amendment with regard to the audit. The president entirely agrees that it would be desirable to have a public audit. The council, I believe, are satisfied with the audit at present, but to satisfy the not unreasonable feeling which my hon. friend has expressed, an Amendment will be moved to the following effect: "The accounts of the fund shall be annually audited by an auditor nominated by the President of the Local Government Board, the remuneration of such auditor to be fixed by the President of the Local Government Board and paid out of the Fund." I think the great concessions which have been made to meet the very reasonable criticisms which were made upon the Bill are of extreme importance and deserve to conciliate the support of some who have regarded it with some degree of suspicion. All who have had anything to do with the preparation and progress of the Bill will be glad to acknowledge the great willingness of the members of the Royal Family who have been concerned in the matter to meet the feeling and desire of the public. This was shown at the very first step by their adoption of procedure by Bill rather than by Royal Charter. That procedure testifies to their confidence in themselves, in the work they have done, and in the good sense of Parliament, which has its result in the discussion of this evening. This discussion can have no effect, I hope, but to add to the popularity and success of the Fund and to the confidence of the public in its management.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope the speech of the Prime Minister and the two Amendments which have
460
been announced from the Treasury Bench, will enable the House to come to a unanimous vote. I trust that the hon. Gentlemen who have thought it their duty to move Amendments from motives, I am sure, which were honourable, will not consider it necessary to press them. The mover of the Amendment now before the House seemed to think that there was a parallel between this Fund and the Patriotic Fund. There is no parallel at all. In the case of the Patriotic Fund, one of the reasons which made legislation necessary on more than one occasion was that funds subscribed for one purpose had, for reasons which I need not go into, to be diverted to another, an alteration which required Parliamentary sanction. We are now dealing with a Fund subscribed for a purpose which still remains, and will always remain, unless the public take over the hospitals altogether, one of the primary necessities, and the money was subscribed to the first president of the fund. That wholly differentiates this case from that of any fund so far as I know with which the House has ever meddled at all. The question is whether these powers are of a kind which Parliament ought to give having regard to the unique circumstances of this particular case. I submit that Parliament ought undoubtedly to do so. We have had criticism from two quite different quarters. The hon. Member for the Brentford division of Middlesex has expressed a desire to see the medical profession with large statutory powers of representation on this fund, but an hon. Gentleman below the gangway who supported the Amendment seemed to think nothing could possibly be worse for a fund devoted to hospital purposes than large representation of the medical profession.
DR. RUTHERFORD: I only asked for a small representation of the medical profession in comparison with the number of the council.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Even that modest representation seems to be regarded as too great by the hon. Gentleman below the gangway. These funds have been largely contributed through confidence in the first president, and it is to the same

461
confidence that we look for large contributions in the future. If there are hon. Gentlemen who think that a body framed on what is called a representative basis with ex-officio members representing various public bodies, learned and unlearned, or a body having direct democratic election, would be more successful in obtaining the confidence of the subscribing public, they have only to try the experiment. If representative bodies come into competition with this Fund and tap large sources of supply which are not now coming to this Fund, or any other fund, I am sure we all wish them every success. When the House is dealing with a living fund of this description, which exists for purposes of ever increasing importance and whose subscribers are largely in existence, I urge hon. Members not to interfere with a constitution that has proved to be invaluable in inspiring confidence among the subscribers in the past. I hope that after what has fallen from the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General as to the modifications to be made in the Bill, the House may come to a unanimous decision now, and proceed to the consideration of the details of the measure on Report without going through the form of a division, which I am sure would be ungracious and probably in all respects inexpedient.
DR. RUTHERFORDsaid that if the House was agreed that the concessions offered by the promoters of the Bill were valuable—and, speaking for himself, ho thought they were good—he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion that the Bill be referred back to the Committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered."
MR. MORTONsaid that if he understood rightly what the Prime Minister had said, the right hon. Gentleman proposed in somewhat different language what he suggested in the new clause standing in his name on the Paper, that the accounts of the corporation should be annually made up and audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and
462
laid before both Houses of Parliament. He begged to move.
New clause not seconded.
Bill, as amended, considered.
Amendments made to the Bill.
Bill to be read the third time.

FINANCE BILL.
Postponed proceeding, resumed.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[MR. CALDWELL, Deputy-Chairman, in the Chair.]
Clause 2:—
COLONEL LOCKWOODmoved to leave out the words ''Parliament otherwise determined," and insert ''the 1st day of July, 1908." He said that he moved this Amendment, first, because the pressure of the tax was unfair on one particular class, secondly, because the taxation now to be made permanent was promised to be temporary, and, thirdly, because by this clause there would be a partial withdrawal of these taxes from the consideration of Parliament in the annual Budget. It was as well that he should quote the amount of the taxes which would be affected by his Amendment: one shilling per barrel on beer, which yielded £1,672,000; 6d. per gallon on spirits, £1,000,015; and 4d. per pound on tobacco, and 6d. per pound on foreign cigars, £1,100,000. It was proposed to make these taxes permanent, and practically to withdraw them from debate in Parliament. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated early in May that his reason for making these taxes permanent, and partially withdrawing them from the consideration of the House, was that although they had been imposed as temporary war taxes, the war debt had not yet been fully discharged, and, in the second place, because the withdrawal of these taxes from debate

463
in the House was a convenient course. No doubt it was highly convenient for any Chancellor of the Exchequer, but to withdraw from Parliament, wholly or partially, the right to review in the fullest and most complete manner any tax, or portion of a tax, was a very serious precedent; and the convenience of other people besides the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be taken into account. The question should be considered in a very serious way not only by the Opposition, but also by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, however strong the opinions they held, were sometimes on economical doctrines absolutely sound. If it were a sound principle that they should enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to withdraw from Parliament wholly or partially the right to review any tax, the principle must be stretched further and applied to the tea tax and the income-tax. The Bill was a serious departure in our system of finance. The powers given in regard to the raising of these additional Customs duties on tobacco, beer, and spirits were exceptional and quite apart from the general sources of income of this country. They affected not only the brewers, distillers, and licensed victuallers, and their dependents, but also the shareholders in a trade which was licensed by the country and on which certain heavy burdens were imposed. These people were entitled to be considered by both sides of the House. He ventured to say that this was a serious departure, because it merged these additional taxes into the general system of finance. He could prove that these taxes were never meant to be permanent, but were imposed for a specific purpose and at a specific time in order to meet a national emergency, and that they were intended to be repealed when the war was over. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, in answer to an inquiry from that side, that as these taxes were meant for war purposes they might fairly be left on until the whole of the war charges had been met. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer been present he would have asked him to consider the facts of the malt tax imposed during the Crimean War. The increase of the tax was impossd "until the fifth of July next after the ratification of peace and no longer."
464
That was a concrete example of a war tax which was supposed to hold good during the duration of a war and very properly ought to have been repealed immediately after peace had been proclaimed. These taxes to which he called attention, however, remained imposed for war purposes on one class of the community with very little hope of their ever being taken off. Sir Michael Hicks Beach, now Lord St. Aldwyn, when these taxes were imposed, said that he looked upon them as a temporary addition to taxation, and proposed that they should last till 1st August, 1901, not that it might be necessary to leave them on so long, but that they might be dealt with in the Budget of the year. He was not expecting every Chancellor of the Exchequer to be bound by every word of his predecessor, but where it was so clearly laid down that the tax was a temporary war tax they expected that some deference should be paid to the statement, especially when no more formal expression of opinion could have been given to the House. With regard to the view that these taxes might be fairly kept on until all the war expenditure was paid, he would like to know why some of the taxes should be left on while others had been removed, and why exceptional treatment should have been dealt out to alcohol. He knew that there were many Members on both sides of the House who regarded alcohol with detestation. He admired their principles although he did not follow them or agree with them, but it seemed to him that although they had determined to support temperance reform they should not sacrifice everything in favour of it. He did not know whether all the occupants of the Treasury Bench were total abstainers, but he thought not, although he knew that they had temperance opinions. He thought, however, they should limit those opinions within the scope of justice. After all, if the House of Commons was to be set up as the mirror of the opinions of the country that mirror should reflect justice—that common justice which they did not deny to any felon. He asked that justice should be extended to this trade. However much it was disliked by certain Members of the House

465
it should be treated with justice and equality. Hon. Members seemed to think it right, however, that a selected portion of the community, already heavily taxed, should be the bearers of a burden which, if inflicted at all, should be borne by the whole of the community—and this was to be done in perpetuity, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer saw no prospect of being able to relieve the trade of these taxes. The right hon. Gentleman said in reply to a deputation which he received from the licensed trade in March, 1906, praying for a remission of war taxation, that in regard to the main object of their visit he had listened impartially to what had been said, and would take into consideration the arguments brought forward. He would not like the deputation to go away with the impression that there was any probability of any immediate change in the taxation being made, but he would in the future, if it were possible, give effect to the views put forward. Anybody who heard the speech would be of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman had fairly made up his mind that though he could not at the moment change this taxation it was his intention to make the change. But in 1907 not only did the tight hon. Gentleman seek to make the tax permanent, but when challenged said it would make no difference in fact. The change was a great one and inflicted on the trade a very heavy burden, and it was unfair to argue now that the continuance of these temporary taxes made no difference. The total yield derived from the liquor trade was 25 per cent. of the Exchequer receipts, and if the amounts given in aid of local taxation were included the liquor trade paid no less than 32 per cent. of the taxation of the United Kingdom, whilst the yield in Prance from the same source was 9 per was so small a matter that the right hon. Gentleman did not think it worth while to bring it every year before Parliament and had inserted in his Bill "till Parliament otherwise determine." Then there were the taxes on tobacco and cigars. The burden of taxation had been largely aggravated by the increased assessment of licensed property. Moreover, the liquor trade had to meet the
466
various charges under the Compensation Act of 1904, which amounted to £1,200,000. Those charges, it was true, were not taxation, but they were compulsory, and when all these matters were considered the injustice of making these taxes permanent was clear. He considered the withdrawal by the Government from the consideration of the House of all these war charges really added insult to injury, and was a very considerable departure from the rules. The right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that he had endeavoured to make out a fair case for those who thought they were being badly treated, and he thought he was entitled to a better explanation than the two he had received, namely, that this taxation must be continued till the war charges were paid, and secondly, that it was a matter of convenience with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 6, to leave out the words "Parliament otherwise determine," and insert the words' the first day of July, nineteen hundred and eight"—(Colonel Lockwood)—instead thereof."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
MR. ASQUITHsaid it was from no want of courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman that he had not been present to hear the whole of his speech; still, he was sufficiently familiar with the point which it raised. As regarded the general question, the great bulk of our taxation was now permanently on the Statute-book and did not come within the review of the House year by year. There was no real constitutional question involved in the matter at all. The Amendment only dealt with the small surtaxes imposed at the time of the war. As regarded the particular surtaxes referred to, they were, if he remembered aright, 4d. on tobacco, and Is. on beer. Those surtaxes were imposed by Sir M. Hicks Beach, no doubt in his view for a temporary purpose, but conditions changed and intentions altered. He could not help remembering that the same Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed the corn tax as a permanent tax, yet it disappeared within a year. It was intended to be a permanent tax, and yet it

467
had been the most transient of all our public taxes. He believed the same language was used with regard to the coal tax, which also had gone. The only one of the permanent taxes which Sir M. Hicks Beach imposed in respect of the war which still remained on the Statute-book without any necessity for annual review was the sugar-tax. He saw no reason why they should any longer go through the farce of annually re-enacting these particular taxes, when everybody knew that they had come to stay, and that there was not the slightest disposition at any rate on the part of the present majority to let them go. He could hold out no hope that the present Government would reduce the taxes on tobacco, beer, or spirits, and that being their fixed intention, they reduced the size of the Finance Bill, and got rid of unnecessary clauses by making these taxes part of the fixed taxation of the country.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he sympathised with the natural feeling of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to shorten the proceedings wherever he could, and to take advantage of the opportunity afforded him to get rid of two clauses of the Finance Bill. He confessed that he had come to doubt whether he was right in the views which he had expressed on this subject, but the speech which the right hon. Gentleman had just made instead of winning him over had had the effect of driving him away from him. As he had understood, the right hon. Gentleman's view had been that there was no immediate prospect of giving relief from these duties, but that the mere fact that they did not re-enact them did not prevent the House in future years from inserting new clauses for the special purpose of doing away with them, and, of course, to that extent limiting discussion, because a discussion on a Motion to insert a new clause would necessarily be more limited and narrow than a discussion in Committee on the clause itself. But that was not the view, or the whole view which the right hon. Gentleman had enunciated that night. For now the right hon. Gentleman said distinctly, and for the first time, as far as he knew, that in his opinion these taxes were not merely not to be repealed this year or next year, but that in regard to beer, spirits and tobacco all these taxes were to remain perman-
468
ently at the figure now charged, and no reduction was to be made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in the House when his right hon. friend quoted from a speech which the right hon. Gentleman had made in reply to a deputation last year, in regard to the beer and spirit interests. He knew the difficulties of the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having had some experience of them, and, therefore, he did not want to lay too much stress on the right hon. Gentleman's words. Still let him remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer of what he had said, and ask him whether he thought it was quite a candid answer to give to the deputation, if he had made up his mind, not merely that in the circumstances of the year he could not give relief to these particular taxpayers, but that it was not in principle a desirable thing to afford them any relief. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would not like the Deputation to go away with the impression that there was any probability of any immediate change in the taxation being made, but he would in the future, if it were possible, give effect to the views which had been put forward. That was the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, contemplating the possibility of at some time making a revision of these taxes, expressed himself. Surely, it was not quite fair to the trade to make a statement of that kind, when he had already made up his mind that in no circumstances whatever in future would he give them any remission of the duties. He had heard what his right hon. friend had said with regard to the remission of this war taxation. He thought that it was a strong case—to impartial people at any rate—a case, in regard to which, no one could blame those who brought it forward for putting it as strongly as they could. What were the facts? The Chancellor who imposed this taxation had to finance a great war, and he had to extend his outlook to expenditure that would continue when war ceased. Lord St. Aldwyn in carrying out his task distinguished between the duties he recommended for permanent existence in our revenue system and those he put on to meet a temporary emergency, and in asking the House and the representatives of the trades concerned to assent to being

469
surcharged he expressed the hope that such taxes would only last for a year, and he clearly expressed his intention of not making them permanent. There were other taxes which he proposed should be made permanent. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer went out of his way to rejoice at the abolition of some of the new sources of revenue, but before many years the country would probably acknowledge that Lord St. Aldwyn was right, and they would regret the abolition. They had now very nearly gone back to the old narrow basis, not strong enough to bear the superstructure to be reared. The taxes concerned in the clause could not be removed under the present conditions of revenue, but he was not at all sure that the taxes on alcohol should permanently remain as high as at present. If they were retained at that rate it was for reasons wholly removed from revenue. The state of the trade, regarded as a revenue-producing machine, was not satisfactory. and needed to be carefully watched. However it might be with regard to maintaining the taxes on alcohol in the future, he was not prepared to vote for maintaining the tobacco taxes permanently at their present rate. He had no objection to the high duty on foreign cigars, or to its being raised if thought desirables, but the cheaper kinds of tobacco, such as the smoking mixtures, were too heavily taxed. Other taxes might have a prior claim; but he was not prepared to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the policy he had enunciated that night, that under no circumstances ought any of these taxes to be repealed.
MR. LEIF JONESregretted that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had somewhat changed his position in reference to the war taxes. When this subject was last before the House he believed that the right hon. Gentleman commended the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the course he had taken, or at any rate he did not dissociate himself from that action. The right hon. Member who moved this Amendment had not given them any good reason why hon. Members should support him in the lobby. It was said, in the first place, by those who supported the Amendment, that by the
470
action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the surtaxes upon beer, spirits, and tobacco were being withdrawn from the purview of the House. That would be a serious matter if it were true—that the House would have no further opportunity of discussing these taxes. The right hon. Gentleman would see that he had rather destroyed his own case upon that head. The truth was that many other opportunities would be open to hon. Members to discuss these taxes. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that these taxes were intended to be temporary, that they were only put on for the purposes of the war, and that they ought to be taken off now that the war was over. He gave as an instance the case of the malt tax during the Crimean War, which only remained in operation until peace was proclaimed. If the whole of the war expenditure had been paid off, then there might be good reason for asking that the war taxation should be taken off. So long as there was £100,000,000 or more of the National Debt, which had been incurred by the war, it seemed to him that there was not much of a case for arguing that the war taxes should be taken off. The third reason given by the right hon. Gentleman was that the pressure on the liquor trade was unfair, and he had argued that instead of making the temporary taxes permanent they should be taken off soon. He did not know where the right hon. Gentleman got the figures which he quoted, but they did not agree with those given by the Financial Secretary earlier in the year in Answer to a Question of the hon. Member for Lincoln. The Financial Secretary stated that whereas in 1899, before the war taxes were put on, the taxation of the liquor trade amounted to 32 per cent. of the aggregate taxes raised for local and Imperial purposes, in the year 1906 it was only 25 per cent. That being so, the right hon. Gentleman's own argument was rather in favour of increasing than diminishing the taxation of the liquor trade at the present time. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted very fairly towards the trade. He was heartily glad that the right hon. Gentleman had announced that there was no prospect in the near future of that proportion being reduced.
*MR. CAVEsaid it seemed to him that the hon. Gentleman opposite had failed to understand the point raised by the Amendment. It was not a question whether it was more convenient that this surtax should be annual or permanent. The question raised by the Amendment was whether Parliament should not for once in a way keep faith with this trade. This particular surtax was put on as a temporary war tax, and the point was whether, the war being over, the tax ought to be continued. When in Opposition the present Foreign Minister said—
"These taxes (the war taxes) were imposed for the war and ought to be taken off now the war is over."
The President of the Board of Trade when in Opposition said—
"The House of Commons had got to take the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the throat, in a Parliamentary sense, and tell him that they could not continue these war taxes year after year."
He did not see how, in face of those statements, hon. Members opposite could now maintain that the war taxes ought to be continued until the whole of the debt incurred for the purposes of the war had been paid off.
MR. STANLEY WILSON: supported the Amendment on the ground that it referred to a temporary tax put on for the purpose of the war, and that relief should now be given. It was absolutely wrong that the Government should act as they were doing at the present time in endeavouring to make this a permanent charge on brewers. He could not help thinking that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would read his own reply to the deputation that came to him from the licensed trade he would reconsider his decision and accept the Amendment.
*MR. BOWLESsaid he could not help thinking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had treated this Amendment rather cursorily. The right hon. Gentleman sought to brush it away as a matter of extremely small importance. He took an entirely different view. According to the Budget the right hon. Gentleman proposed to raise £31,740,000 by Customs duties in the current year If the clause had not been
472
proposed, £24,000,000 of that amount would be raised by permanent enactment and £7,250,000 only would have been subject to the annual and inevitable review of the House. That was, surely, not too much. But the right hon. Gentleman here proposed to reduce that £7,250,000 by no less than £2,250,000; so that out of the whole range of our Customs duties amounting to £31,740,000 to be raised this year, the right hon. Gentleman now proposed to leave to the direct annual review of Parliament one head only, namely, the tea duty, amounting to was a very considerable and serious proposal, and deserved and required a great deal more justification than had been given. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that the largest proportion of our revenue was raised by permanent enactment, and did not come within the purview of Parliament every year. That was true, and he wondered if that was fully realised by the people outside the House. In Answer to a Question he had put the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that out of a total revenue of £130,000,000 raised by taxation during 1906–7 no less than 68 per cent. was raised by permanent enactment, never came before the House in any direct way, and would continue to be taken from the people exactly as at present if no House of Commons ever met again. The proportion of revenue raised by permanent enactment was very great, but it had been steadily decreasing for some years. In 1873–74 the total taxation revenue thus withdrawn from discussion in the House of Commons was 88 per cent.; in 1883–4 it was 83 per cent.; in 1893–94 it was 81 per cent.; in 1902–3 it was 69½per cent.; and last year it was 68 per cent. Now for the first time for thirty years the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the great advocate of economy, came to the House and proposed to set back this wholesome tendency and withdraw no less than 72 per cent. of the revenue from the control of Parliament. No sufficient reason had been given for so great a change: and he held that, irrespective of Party considerations altogether, Parliament should resist any attempt to increase the amount of revenue withdrawn from its review, and so should support his hon. friend's Amendment.
SIR GILBERT PARKERthought that the Committee had every right to complain. In his first Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not lay it down that these war taxes would be permanent, and on his second Budget after much interrogation they had not been able to extract from the right hon. Gentleman any explanation as to why that course should be taken.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that he had stated that an explanation would be given on Report.
Sir GILBERT PARKERsaid that he did not dearly understand that, although he had been present when the right hon. Gentleman spoke, nor did he think that it was understood in the country. The right hon. Gentleman said, with an air of triumph and satisfaction which was intended to gain the cheers of his supporters, that these taxes were to be made permanent because they were imposed on the liquor trade; but he had slid them from a temporary into a permanent position without giving an opportunity for adequate discussion. If these taxes were made permanent they would press most unjustly on the licensing trade. That trade had been taxed out of all proportion when the imposts laid upon it were com pared with those put upon other industries. He was not entering into the merits of the licensing trade, but if the House put it in a position of legitimacy by their legislative action they ought to deal with the trade with a sense of justice. Hon. Members on the other side of the House had a clear intention of pressing on the licensing trade and of getting out of it all they could. If they were going to check the liquor traffic one could understand that.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid that the question before the House was not one of the; quantum of the taxation of the trade, but whether or not this taxation should be continued and made permanent.
SIR GILBERT PARKERapologised for being carried away further than he had intended, and said he was led to advance the argument by the temptation of the moment. On the question before
474
the Committee he thought the right hon. Gentleman had made a mistake, and that this taxation which he had made permanent would not commend itself to the House or to the country when it came to be analysed at the proper time and in the proper place.
SIR F. BANBURYsaid the hon. Member for Westmoreland had at tempted to defend these taxes by saying that so long as £120,000,000 of war tax remained they should not be taken off. That contention could not be sound if it was considered that some £70,000,000 was taken off the present generation and put upon posterity, as it was thought that if that was not done the present generation would bear more than a fair share of the burden of the war. Therefore he did not think it was fair to keep these taxes on until all the war taxes were taken off. There was no instance in history of such a thing having been done, and if the hon. Gentleman really held these views he would ask him why he was in favour of the coal duty and the tea duty being taken off. They also were in the nature of war taxes, and if the hon. Member was consistent he should be in favour of the taxes they were now discussing being taken off. Then the hon. Gentleman said that it amounted to only £2,500,000, but unless the Amendment was accepted that £2,500,000 would become merged in the £70,000,000 of debt, and would be indistinguishable as coming from taxes which had been subscribed for a temporary purpose. He would make one last appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter. What was it that his right hon. friend asked? He did not ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give up a single shilling. All he said was that he should allow these taxes to be earmarked. Moreover, the provisions of the Bill would not assist the right hon. Gentleman in preventing a discussion on the Budget next year. If the Government did not remove these taxes from the permanent taxes and make them temporary by ear-marking them, although no doubt many people would forget that they were put on as temporary taxes, yet it would not prevent many of them who knew what was going on from

475
moving a new clause and raising a discussion on every Budget over and over again.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he knew that those who w ere engaged in the liquor trade were not popular in that House, but they were nevertheless entitled to have their case considered. What was the case of the trade now? They were asked by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer to bear a certain heavy portion of the war expenses. He did not think that the trade in question showed any unwillingness to bear their share of the burden. On the contrary, he thought it could fairly be said on behalf of them that they faced the burden put upon them in a very patriotic spirit. What was their position now? After having been called upon to undertake a very heavy burden they thought they could rely upon the promises put forward by those who were then responsible, that those extra taxes should be considered as war taxes, and that they should be relieved as soon as other taxpayers who had received similar promises were relieved from their burdens. The promises they received were quite definite, not only from the then Chancellor of the Exchequer but from his then colleagues, that this relief should be given as soon as possible. They had therefore every right to think that they would be considered equally with other taxpayers who contributed towards the war. That had been their position up to this session of Parliament, but now they found the Chancellor of the Exchequer roundly asserting that these taxes were not to be temporary but permanent, and he seemed rather to rejoice in the fact. He thought that was very hard upon the trade, and a very poor return for the way in which they had faced the burden which had been put upon them. What was the excuse of the right hon. Gentleman? He said that until the whole of the cost of the war was paid they could not be released from this taxation. He would invite the right hon. Gentleman to look at the question in this way. Supposing the total war tax was regarded as a certain amount of capital, and this particular trade was asked to and had under-
476
written a certain amount of the capital and were to be responsible for the payment if it was allocated to them. If that had been the course of events it would have been possible for them to borrow the money, to pay interest upon it, and to arrange a sinking fund which would provide for its repayment without any hardship upon them. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were a member of this trade, how would he like to pay these extra demands? It had been said that this trade would have to pay something extra next year. If that was so, they might fairly ask the right hon. Gentleman not to make the surtax permanent, because if they were to come under a further extra burden there was every reason why this tax should not be made permanent now. He hoped he had put before the right hon. Gentleman a point worthy of his consideration.
VISCOUNT TURNOURmoved to report progress. It was now past Eleven o'clock, and having regard to the fact that the Government had made good progress, he thought the Committee might well adjourn.
*THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not wish this to be discussed until the question now before the Committee was disposed of. He could not take the Motion to report progress just now.
MR. RUTHERFORDsaid that these taxes were avowedly put on for a temporary purpose and the. action of the Government in making them permanent was a distinct breach of faith. If the right hon. Gentleman desired to have a permanent tax he should invent one for himself. When he took a tax imposed by a predecessor, accepted by the House of Commons of the day, and passed into law on the distinct understanding that it should be of a temporary character, it was obvious that in proposing or attempting to make that tax permanent the right hon. Gentleman was guilty of a distinct breach of faith.
MR. MOOREcongratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the way the proposal to make this tax permanent had been accepted by hon.

477
Gentlemen representing Ireland below the gangway. He was in the House when the tax was originally imposed. Every tax proposed as a war tax and then thought to be of a temporary character was bitterly opposed by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway on the ground that the war was an unjust war and one which they did not support or agree with. Now, when it was proposed that those taxes, which year after year had been characterised by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway as being unjust to Ireland, should be made permanent, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he congratulated him upon it, was able to bring in his proposal amid a complete conspiracy of silence on the part of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: That is not true.
MR. MOOREsaid that when these taxes were temporary taxes they were objected to by hon. Members below the gangway year after year as a matter of principle. Now that it was proposed to make this yoke round the neck of Ireland interminable there had not been one word of opposition save by way of interjection.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Yes, there has; you are wrong.
VISCOUNT TURNOUR: May I call attention to the grossly disorderly remark referring to the observation of my hon. friend as untrue.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The remark did not reach my ear.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid the noble Lord had referred to him very pointedly, and perhaps he would be allowed to say this, by way of explanation. The hon. Gentleman had repeatedly stated that no protest had been made from the benches below the gangway against the permanence of these taxes, except by way of interruption. The hon. Gentleman was not present that afternoon, or he would have heard him protesting very strongly on this point. [Cries of "No; tea."] If the hon. Gentleman looked at the Bill, he would find that tea did not come under the provision at
478
all. He thought that the hon. Gentleman under the circumstances should withdraw.
MR. MOORE: I await your ruling, Sir, on the point of order.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: No; it is not a point of order; it is a point of manners.
MR. MOOREsaid that he was about to say that there was a curious silence on the part of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, except by way of interruption. That led him to wonder what case could be made out, why principles should be in abeyance, and why there should be such extraordinary silence except on the part of the hon. Member for Clare.
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member had better apply himself to the Amendment.
MR. MOOREsaid that, as he understood the proposal, it was that a temporary tax should be made permanent. Surely when they had not heard a protest against a proposal to make a temporary tax permanent—
*THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman has been addressing himself almost entirely to hon. Members below the gangway instead of to the merits of the Amendment. I consider that he is out of order.
MR. CLAUDE HAYemphasised the fact that hon. Gentlemen below the gangway had persistently resisted the taxes when they were temporary and they were now content that they should be made permanent sub silentio. That was a very remarkable thing, and the only objection they had heard, as his hon. friend had said, was by way of interruption. But be that as it might, the public would be able to judge of the proceedings, which he believed would be far better reported in the public Press than the earlier proceedings in Committee of the House.
*THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman has risen to speak to the Amendment I he must address himself to it..
MR. CLAUDE HAY: Am I not in order in referring to the proceedings on this Amendment as likely to be better reported than the other proceedings of the Committee?
*THE CHAIRMAN: No: the hon. Member is not in order in continuing this.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he would respectfully bow to the ruling of the Chair. He presumed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to make these taxes permanent in order that he might in the shortest possible time extinguish the war taxes. But had it occurred to him that in the efforts that he was making he had been borrowing money at a far higher rate during the last twelve months than the rate which was paid for the service of the war? The facts as soon as they were explained showed that the maintaining of common sense and sound finance was the very last thing that entered the heads of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I must warn the hon. Gentleman that he is out of order.
MR. CLAUDE HAYsaid he desired to follow the ruling of the Chair, but it was rendered difficult by reason of the interruptions of hon. Members. The point he wished to make was this. Was it good finance to borrow money at a high rate of interest to extinguish the debt when the right hon. Gentleman could, by leaving things as they were, pay a far less rate of interest?
*THE CHAIRMANcalled the attention of the Committee to the continued irrelevance on the part of Mr. Claude Hay the Member for the Hoxton Division, and
directed the hon. Member to discontinue his speech.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid the hon. Gentleman for North Armagh, in the course of his speech, said no protest had been made by hon. Members below the gang-way in reference to the permanency of these taxes. If the hon. Gentleman had been present earlier in the evening he would have heard the speech delivered by himself in which the strongest possible protest was made, and he thought that being so the hon. Gentleman ought to withdraw his observation. No matter how Members might differ on various questions, they generally recognised that if they made a mis-statement, the moment attention was called to it the mis-statement was withdrawn. He did not know whether the hon. Member would be willing to withdraw his statement.
*THE CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Member will not make a speech of a similar kind to that which I have just ruled out of order. If he does I shall have to deal with him in the same way if I am to be fair to all parties alike.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he refused to submit to having a mis-statement with reference to himself made without protest. He protested most strongly against the mis-statement made by the hon. Member for Armagh, and if under the circumstances he did not see his way to withdraw it, he would leave his action to the opinion of hon. Members.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 197; Noes, 99. (Division List No. 259).

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Beauchamp, E.

Brunner, J. F.L. (Lancs.,Leigh)

Adkins, W. Ryland D.

Beck, A. Cecil

Bryce, J. Annan

Agnew, George William

Bellairs, Carlyon

Buckmaster, Stanley 0.

Alden, Percy

Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Allen,A.Acland(Christchurch)

Bennett, E. N.

Button, Rt.Hn.SydneyCharles

Asquith,Rt. HonHerbertHenry

Berridge, T. H. D.

Byles, William Pollard

Astbury, John Meir

Bertram, Julius

Carr-Gomm. H. W.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Brace, William

Chance, Frederick William

Barker, John

Bramsdon, T. A.

Cheetham, John Frederick

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Brigg, John

Clough, William

Barnes, G. N.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Coats,SirT.Glen-Renfrew,W.)

Barry,Redmond J.(Tyrone,N.)

Brodie, H. C.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Beale, W. P.

Brooke, Stopford

Collins.SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W.

Cooper, G. J.

Lambert, George

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd)

Lamont, Norman

Rose, Charles Day

Cory, Clifford John

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Rowlands, J.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Lehmann, R. C.

Runciman, Walter

Cremer, Sir William Randal

Lever,A.Levy (Essex.Harwich)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Levy, Sir Maurice

Sanmuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

Lowe, Thomas

Schwann,SirC. E.(Manchester)

Dickinson,W.H.(St.Pancras,N.

Lupton, Arnold

Seaverns, J. H

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Seely, Major J. B.

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Shackleton, David James

Dunne,MajorE.Martin (Walsall

Lynch, H. B.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

M'Callum, John M.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

M'Crae, George

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Edwards, Sir Frank (Radnor)

M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Elibank, Master of

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Esslemont, George Birnie

Mallet, Charles E.

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Everett, R. Lacey

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Spicer, Sir Albert

Fenwick, Charles

Markham, Arthur Basil

Stanger, H. Y.

Ferens, T. R.

Marks,G.Croydon (Launceston)

Stanley,Hn.A.Lyulph(Chesh.)

Findlay, Alexander

Marnham, F. J.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Fuller, John Michael F.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Fullerton, Hugh

Massie, J.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Gill, A. H.

Menzies, Walter

Sutherland, J. E.

Gladstone.Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

Micklem, Nathaniel

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Glendinning, R. G.

Montagu, E. S.

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Glover, Thomas

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Thomas.SirA. (Glamorgan, E.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

Thomasson, Franklin

Gooch, George Peabody

Morrell, Philip

Thompson,J.W.H.(Somerset,E.

Glant, Corrie

Morse, L. L.

Toulmin, George

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Verney, F. W.

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Murray, James

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Griffith, Ellis J.

Napier, T. B.

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Gurdon.RtHn.SirW. Brampton

Nicholls, George

Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

Harmsworth,Cecil B.(Worc'r)

Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doneast'r

Waring, Walter

Harmsworth,R.L.(Caithn'ss-sh

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wason,Rt.Hn.E.(Clackmannan

Harvey, W.E.(Derbyshire,N.E.

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Waterlow, D. S.

Haworth, Arthur A.

O'Grady, J,

Watt, Henry A.

Hedges, A. Paget

Partington, Oswald

White, George (Norfolk)

Henderson,J.M, (Aberdeen,W.)

Paulton, James Mellor

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Henry, Charles S.

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Herbert,Col.SirIvor(Mon.,S.)

Pollard, Dr.

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Hobart, Sir Robert

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh.Central)

Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

Hodge, John

Radford, G. H.

Wiles. Thomas

Holland, Sir William Henry

Rainy, A. Rolland

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Horniman, Emslie John

Raphael, Herbert H.

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Horridge, Thomas Gardner

Rea, Walter Russell(Scarboro')

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Renton, Major Leslie

Wodehouse, Lord

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wood, T. M'Kinnon.

Jones, Willium(Carnarvonshire)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Kekewich, Sir George

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Lamb,Edmund G. (Leominster)

Roe, Sir Thomas

NOES.

Abraham.William (Cork.N.E.)

Carlile, E. Hildred

Forster, Henry William

Acland-Hood,RtHn. SirAlex.F.

Cave, George

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East]

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cavendish,Rt. Hon.VictorC.W.

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Aubrey-Fletcher.Rt.Hon.SirH.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gordon, J.

Balcarres, Lord

Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

Gretton, John

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc.

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Baring,Capt.Hn.G(Winchester)

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

Haddock, George R.

Beach, Hn,Michael Hugh Hicks

Craig.CharlesCurtis (Antrim,S.)

Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Craik, Sir Henry

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Dalrymple, Viscount

Hazleton, Richard

Boland, John

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Helmsley, Viscount

Bowles, G. Stewart

Faber, George Denison (York)

Hervey,F.W.F.(BuryS.Edm'ds

Boyle, Sir Edward

Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

Bridgeman, W. Give

Fell, Arthur

Hogan, Michael

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Ffrench, Peter

Hunt, Rowland

Burke, E. Haviland-

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Kennaway.Rt. Hon.SirJohnH.

Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.

Fletcher, J. S.

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

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm

O'Doherty, Philip

Starkey, John R.

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

O'Malley, William

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Thornton, Percy M.

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Parker,SirGilbert(Gravesend)

Turnour, Viscount

Lundon, W.

Pease,HerbertPike(Darlington)

Walker,CoLW.H.(Lancashire)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Rawlinson, JohnFrederickPeel

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

MacVeigh.Charles (Donegal,E.)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid>

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Redmond, William (Clare)

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

M'Killop, W.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Marks, H. H. (Kent)

Roberts, S. (Sheffield.Ecclesall)

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

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Ronaldshay, Earl of

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Meagher, Michael

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Mooney, J. J.

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Moore, William

Scott,Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Colonel Lockwood and

Murnaghan, George

Sheffield, Sir BerkeleyGeorge D.

Sir Frederick Banbury.

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Smith,F.E.(Liverpool, Walton)

Nolan, Joseph

Smyth,Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On Clause 4:—
MR. RUNCIMANmoved to leave out the words, "for any purpose."
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked an explanation as to what the clause was about.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid that it provided for an alteration in the method of ascertaining the strength of spirits. At present the statute provided that it should be ascertained by means of a hydrometer, and if the right hon. Gentleman wished to know more about that instrument he could only recommend him to look up an encyclopædia. There were two objections to the use of the hydrometer. One was that a certain amount of spirit must be used to float it, and in that way a tenth of a gallon was wasted when it was used. The second objection was that there were some kinds of spirits for which it could not be used. The method now proposed was desired not only by the Revenue authorities, but by the owners of alcohol.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 19, to leave out the words ' for any purpose.' "—(Mr. Runciman.)
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause," put, and negatived.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 20, after the word 'ascertaining,' to insert the words ' for any purpose.' " —(Mr. Runciman.)
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to. |
Question proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORDsaid the manufacturers of spirits should have some assurance that they would not be put to inconvenience by the change. If manufacturers of spirits had already ascertained the strength by using Sykes's hydrometer, they might find that the new method would operate very unfairly in the event of its being suddenly sprung upon them. He wished to know when the new regulations would come into force, and whether they would be of general application.
MR. ASQUITHsaid the clause was conceived, in the interest not only of the Revenue, but of merchants. The present system was found to involve a certain amount of loss and inconvenience to merchants, and the change was proposed in order that the work of finding the strength of spirits might be more conveniently accomplished. The regulations would be advertised in the Gazette, they would be uniform, and they would add to the general convenience of the trade.
Question put, and a greed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
And, it being after half-past Eleven o the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Five minutes before Twelve o'clock