Commons Sitting of 1 May 1907

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

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, owing to indisposition.
Whereupon Mr. EMMOTT, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Southend Waterworks Company; to extend their limits for the supply of water; to authorise the transfer to them of the water undertakings of the Urban District Council of Leigh-on-Sea and the Rural District Council of Billericay; to
  842
  raise additional capital; and for other purposes." [Southend Water Bill [Lords].]
  Southend Water Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (SPECIAL RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION) BILL.
  Petition from Chudleigh, against; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT (1901) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Wandsworth, against to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Petitions in favour: From Kames; Partick; and, Stirling; to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON. MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (HOURS OF POLL) BILL.
  Petition from Wandsworth, against; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL,.
  Petition against: From Little Gransden; and, Nuneaton; to lie upon the Table.
  MUNICIPAL MILK DEPOTS BILL
  Petition from Battersea, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PAUPER LUNATICS (COST OF MAINTENANCE).
  Petitions for legislation: From Bedwellty; Pembroke; and, Stepney; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICERS BILL.
  Petition from Wandsworth, against; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (REGULATIONS AS TO FOOD) BILL.
  Petition from Wands worth, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE (FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND BRITISH POSSESSIONS).
  Copy presented, of Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions for 1906. Volume I. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOBBINITE.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Departmental Committee on Bobbinite; Minutes of Evidence [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 22nd November, 1906; Mr. Claude Hay]; to lie upon the Table.

  SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) [SALARIES].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of the Consolidated

  Court.

  Population of area (Census 1001.)

  M.

  Total number of Children and Young Persons under 16 years proceeded against in Court.

  F.

  Total.

  M.

  Number of whom previously convicted.

  F.

  Total.

  10 days and under.

  Imprisoned.

  Dealt with as under.

  Over 10 days.

  Paid before imporisonments.

  Fined.

  Partically paid during imprisonment.

  Imprisonment in default.

  Sent to Reformatory School.

  Sent to Industrial School.

  Whipped.

  Admonished.

  Caution with or without sureties (under Section 488, Burgh police (Scotland) Act, 1892, or at Common Law).

  Placed Under Probation of first offenders Act, 1887.

  Convicted and continued to a definite date for sentence or disposal (Common Law).

  Charge dismissed although proved (Section 12 of Youthful Offenders Act, 1901).

  Pledge, &c., forfeited.

  Charge withdrawn.

  Acquitted ("Not proven" or "Not guilty").

  Whether Children or young persons under 16 years are dealt with in Court separately from adult prisoners; and by which method this is carried out.

  —(Mr. Gulland.)

  WEST INDIAN SUGAR TRADE.
  Return ordered, "showing (a) Production of Cane Sugar in the West India

  Colony.

  1900.

  1901.

  1902.

  1903.

  1904.

  1905.

  Trinidad

  Jamaica

  &c.

  &c

  Total

  Fund, and out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any salaries, compensation, and other expenses, that may be incurred in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to encourage the formation of Small Agricultural Holdings in Scotland, and of authorising the payment of an annual grant for the purposes of such Act (King's Recommendation signified), to-morrow— (Mr. Whiteley.)

  TREATMENT OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS (SCOTLAND).
  Return ordered, "showing, for each Summary Criminal Court in Scotland, the number of Children and Young Persons under sixteen who were proceeded against for Crimes and Offences during 1906, and showing what steps were taken to deal with Children and Young Persons in Court separately from adult prisoners, in the following form, viz.—
  Islands and British Guiana in each of the years 1900–5, so far as this can be stated—
  (b) Total exports of Cane Sugar of domestic production from the above mentioned Colonies in each year, distinguishing

  Total exports to.

  1900.

  1901.

  1902.

  1903.

  1904.

  1905.

  United Kingdom

  United States of America

  Canada

  Other Destinations

  Total

  (c)Changes in the Custom rates of duty imposed on Sugar in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and Canada, in the same period." —(Sir Edward Sassoon.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES

  Salary of Chief Medical Officer of the Post Office.
  MR. HUNT: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will explain why the salary of the chief medical officer of the Post Office has been raised from a maximum of £1,000 per annum, with an allowance of £100 per annum, to a salary of £1,200 per annum, seeing that before the Select Committee on Post Office wages the chief medical officer admitted that he received salaries from two other institutions for medical attendance.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The salary of the chief medical officer has been raised because it was considered that as it formerly stood it did not afford adequate remuneration for the duties of the post. A proposal for this increase was first made to the Treasury in 1903. It was renewed and agreed to in February, 1906. I understand that when the chief medical officer was appointed to his present post he received permission to continue to hold the two appointments
  exports to the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and Canada—
  referred to, which do not interfere with the performance of his official duties.

  Central Telegraph Office Administration.
  MR. BOWERMAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has decided that the duties of examining telegraph messages, now performed by overseers and senior telegraphists in the Central Telegraph Office, are to be performed by women; whether he is aware that, before the Select Committee, official witnesses claimed that these duties were of so superior a character as to differentiate the work of the general body of operators from the senior telegraphists; whether he will explain the reason for making alterations affecting the position of the male staff, after the evidence given before a Select Committee of this House, and before the presentation of its Report; and, whether he is aware that such actions cause a feeling of distrust of the administration throughout the service.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) No such proposal would be considered pending the issue of the Report of the Select Committee. I do not see, therefore, how any "feeling of distrust of the administration throughout the service can have been caused by actions which have not been taken.

  Appointments to Home Office Messengerships
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: To ask the Secretary of State for

  847
  the Home Department how many appointments to permanent messengerships have been made since January, 1906; and what was the occupation of the individual men prior to appointment.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) Since January, 1906, two such appointments have been made. One of the men appointed had just left the Royal Horse Artillery, after twelve years service, and the other the Royal Engineers, in which he had served between five and six years.

  Sinking Fund for Redemption of Irish Land Stock.
  MR. O'MARA: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any other sinking fund is applicable for the redemption of Irish land stock, except the amounts arising from payment, of annuities due for purchase of Irish land; and, if not, whether he will make provision for the application of such additional sums as will raise the quotation of land stock to a parity, with, say, Consols, 2¾(1905 issue), now quoted 91½, so that the next issue of stock will be at such a price as will not exhaust the small remaining surplus of the development grant.

  Year.

  Number of Schools that obtained grants.

  Number of students who presented themselves for examination

  Number of students who passed.

  1900

  363

  7,608

  5,314

  1901

  362

  8,117

  5,332

  1902

  268

  8,379

  4,938

  J903

  262

  7,909

  4,910

  1904

  275

  8,530

  5,398

  1905

  288

  9,677

  6,665

  1906

  306

  10,967

  6,906

  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The sinking fund for redemption of guaranteed 2¾ per cent. Stock is derived partly from the purchase annuities (Section 36 (2) of the Irish Land Act, 1903), partly from the Guarantee Fund (Section 36 (6)), and partly from the Vote for the Irish Land Commission (Section 47 (2)). If the object proposed by the hon. Member be to apply to this purpose a portion of the sinking fund moneys which are by law made applicable to the redemption of the National Debt, I fear that such a course would not be practicable.

  Irish Intermediate Education
  MR. KETTLE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of schools that obtained grants under the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Acts in each year from 1900 to 1906; also the number of students who presented themselves for the examinations of the Intermediate Education Board and the number who passed in each of these years.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The particulars are as follows: —
  MR. KETTLE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what was the total amount of the school grant paid by the Intermediate Education Board (Ireland) to managers of Irish secondary schools in the years 1903, 1904, 1905, and 1906 respectively; and what was the rate of payment for each successful pupil in each of these years.

  1903.

  1904.

  1905.

  1906.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Pass pupils:

  Preparatory grade.

  5

  16

  0

  5

  9

  0

  3

  16

  0

  3

  3

  0

  Junior grade.

  8

  14

  0

  8

  3

  6

  5

  14

  0

  6

  6

  0

  Middle grade.

  17

  8

  0

  16

  7

  0

  11

  8

  0

  9

  9

  0

  Senior grade.

  26

  2

  0

  24

  10

  6

  17

  2

  0

  14

  3

  6

  Honour pupils:

  Junior grade.

  13

  1

  0

  12

  5

  3

  8

  11

  0

  9

  9

  0

  Middle grade.

  26

  2

  0

  24

  10

  6

  17

  2

  0

  14

  3

  6

  Senior grade.

  39

  3

  0

  36

  15

  9

  25

  13

  0

  21

  5

  3

  MR. KETTLE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the income derived by the Intermediate Education Board (Ireland) under Section 3 of The Local Taxation (Customs and

  Year.

  Income derived under Section 3 of The Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890.

  Total Income of Board.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1900

  71,400

  2

  5

  104,444

  7

  7

  1901

  64,730

  16

  2

  98,173

  7

  11

  1902

  56,583

  14

  10

  90,393

  7

  2

  1903

  59,430

  14

  0

  93,511

  16

  2

  1904

  56,156

  3

  4

  90,003

  13

  0

  1905

  50385

  6

  10

  84362

  8

  10

  1906

  48,255

  19

  6

  83,079

  19

  6

  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Total amount of School Grant paid:£

  £

  s.

  d.

  1903

  57,482

  12

  5

  1901

  59,293

  4

  8

  1905

  53,463

  7

  6

  1906

  53,310

  15

  3

  Rate of payment of School Grant for each successful pupil:—
  Excise) Act, 1890, in each year from 1900 to 1906; and also the total income of the Board in each of those years.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.):—

  Irish Land Commission Staff.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, when the number of first-class clerks employed in the Land Commission was reduced by the transfer of two to staff posts of a different designation from that of first-class clerk, the offices of these two clerks were abolished; and whether he can state what is the rank of the officers now occupying the positions formerly held by those first-class clerks.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The two first-class clerks referred to in the Question as appointed to staff posts were and are still attached to the Church Property Department, and they discharge, along with other duties, the duties upon which they were previously engaged. The change in their official designation did not involve the transfer of their duties to other clerks.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state, in view of the fact that there are third-class clerks in the Land Commission Offices at present in receipt of a larger salary than the initial salary of a second-class clerk, while rising to the same maximum salary as the second-class and by the same annual increment, under what circumstances are promotions made from third-class to second-class clerkships in this Department; and whether one of the second-class clerks in the Land Commission is in receipt of a salary which is greater than the maximum salary of a first-class clerk in that Department.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The line of demarcation between the second and third-class clerks has been removed in the interests of the third-class, and, subject to certain limitations prescribed by the Treasury, the members of the third-class may by increment reach the maximum salary of the second-class. Promotions from the third-class are made by the Land Commissioners, who pay regard to efficiency and seniority. Special pay has been assigned from time to time to second-class clerks by reason of the character and importance of the duties discharged by them. The amount of the
  852
  duty pay so assigned varies. In one instance a second-class clerk, who was called to the Bar in 1898, and had long and special training in the Examiners' Department, was placed in charge of the Vesting Department under the Estates Commissioners and was awarded duty pay which, with his salary, brought his annual emoluments above the maximum salary of a first-class clerk. This officer, though classified as a second-class clerk, does not discharge duties properly assignable to such a clerk.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the number of 121 clerks assigned by the Treasury to the Land Commission in January, 1892, when this Department was organised on a permanent basis, has since that time been increased to 372, principally by the addition of junior Second Division clerks and abstractors; whether he will consider the advisability, in the interests of the public service, of the Treasury instituting an inquiry into the working of this Department with the object of amalgamating, as far as possible, the various classes of clerks in these offices, and arranging the clerical staff on a properly graduated scale such as is adopted in the other Government Departments.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to his former Question of 19th March, in which full details are given. †The duties discharged by the staff of the Land Commission are extremely varied. Many of the posts require professional qualifications and training for their proper discharge, while others are purely clerical; and many of the latter posts can be well filled by junior clerks, boy clerks, and abstractors. It would not be possible to amalgamate the various classes of clerks in the manner suggested. I am not aware of any reason for suggesting to the Treasury that an inquiry in the matter should be held.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what was the
  † See (4) Debates, clxxi, 639.

  853
  necessity for the appointment of eight legal clerks to the Land Commission at salaries of £350 and £200 per annum; what is the legal nature of their duties; by whom were these duties performed before the creation of these appointments; and are similar duties being satisfactorily performed at present by other officials not enjoying the salary or the title of legal clerks.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The employment of the eight clerks referred to, five of whom are designated conveyancing clerks and three legal clerks, was rendered necessary by the great increase of the business in the Examiners' and Vesting Departments of the Land Commission arising under the Act of 1903. The duties include the vouching of titles, the vesting and conveyancing of holdings, and other work requiring legal training. A considerable portion of the work assigned to these officers was formerly discharged by assistant examiners, who are not now employed, and the duties are not similar in character to those assigned to ordinary clerks at a lower salary. These appointments are temporary, and seven of the holders are barristers or solicitors.

  Prohibition of Meeting of the United Irish League, Clooney Branch.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state why the meeting of the Clooney branch of the United Irish League, county Clare, was prohibited on 21st April.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It was proposed to hold the meeting on a grazing farm, the occupier of which has been subjected to intimidation. The police warned the promoters that the meeting would not be permitted on the farm or in its vicinity, and it was then decided to hold the meeting at Spancil Hill, about two miles away. The meeting at the latter place was not interfered with.

  Payment of Kerry Union Medical Officers.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the salaries paid to medical doctors in each of the six unions in Kerry
  854
  in 1897, the amount credited to each union in the Agricultural Grant in respect of those salaries, the salaries paid in each union in the year 1906, the amount contributed from the Local Taxation Account towards those salaries, the total amount contributed in each union from the Agricultural Grant and the Local Taxation Account towards medical doctors' salaries in each union, and the balance in each union which has to be borne by the rates.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The salaries paid to medical officers in the unions of the county Kerry for the years ended March, 1897, and March, 1906, are as follows—

  Year 1897

  Year 1906.

  £

  £

  Caherciveen

  440

  514

  Dingle

  540

  552

  Kenmare

  440

  440

  Killarney

  703

  730

  Listowel

  600

  722

  Tralee

  755

  785

  One-half of the amounts in the first column was recouped from the Parliamentary Grant. Of the sums of £730 and £785 given in the second column, one-half was in each case recouped from the Local Taxation Account, and in the remaining cases the amount recouped was a little less than one-half, owing to the limitation imposed by Section 6 (1) of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1902. In the year ended March, 1906, the following additional payments were made for remuneration of substitutes for medical officers who were absent on vacation, and recoupment of one-half of these amounts was allowed under Section 5 (1) of the Act of 1902—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Caherciveen

  42

  0

  0

  Dingle

  8

  8

  0

  Kenmare

  50

  8

  0

  Killarney

  29

  0

  0

  Listowel

  134

  8

  0

  Tralee

  100

  16

  0

  The balance remaining in all the cases referred to above was defrayed out of the rates. It may be added that no portion of the Agricultural Grant is directly payable to relieve any specific union charge, but is applied in aid of the rates on agricultural land generally.

  Suggested Appointment of an Irish Travelling Veterinary Inspector
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended to appoint a travelling veterinary inspector for Ireland; and, if so, whether the Department of Agriculture intends that the appointment shall be made by examination or by nomination.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I beg to refer to the Answer which I gave to the similar Question of the hon. Member for Waterford on 17th April.† The ordinary transit inspection staff is to be increased by one inspector. The appointment is to be made by nomination from among the existing- staff of veterinary inspectors, and is subject to a qualifying examination by the Civil Service Commissioners.

  Disturbance at Residence of Mr. William Tomb, County Kerry.
  MR. GORDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 25th of March last the dwelling house of Mr. William Tomb, of Upperlands, county Derry, was wrecked by men returning from a meeting of the Ancient Order of Hibernians; whether any persons have been made amenable to justice for this act; and, if not, will he direct that steps be taken to have the perpetrators proceeded against for this offence.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) A prosecution has been instituted against seven persons in connection with this matter. The case is sub judice.

  Salaries of Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that principal teachers in Irish national schools appointed for the first time since 1st April, 1900, and to schools with an average attendance of less than seventy, are paid a lower annual salary, by £9 in the case of men and by £7 10s. in the case of lady teachers, than they would receive after having given the
  † See (4) Debates, clxxii, 1000.
  856
  same length of service as first assistants; and what steps he proposes to take in this matter.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, under the present rules, a newly appointed principal teacher must give fifteen years efficient service as principal before his salary becomes equal to that which he would have received as a first assistant of only nine years service; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that in the case of an assistant teacher of five years service on becoming a principal the salary is fixed at £9 per annum more than if he had given the same term of service as a principal teacher; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that, as a rule, principal teachers appointed for the first time since 1900, who had not served before that year as assistant teachers, rank in the third grade on appointment, and are paid at the rate of that grade. Assistant teachers are as a rule paid at the rate laid down for third grade teachers, but under the-provisions of the fourth Schedule to The Irish Education Act, 1892, certain assistant teachers of five years standing are eligible for a bonus from the school grant of £9 per annum in the case of men, and £7 10 s. per annum in the case of women. No similar bonus is provided for principals under the Schedule to the Act. Third grade principal teachers in schools with an average of thirty pupils are, however, eligible for promotion to the second grade with the corresponding emolument, and in schools with an average of fifty but under seventy to the second division of first grade, with the emoluments of that grade. On the other hand assistant teachers, no matter what the size of the school may be, or the length of their service, are generally not eligible for promotion beyond the third grade. Principal teachers appointed since 1900, who had previously served as assistant teachers, receive as a

  857
  rule initial incomes as principals equal to their former incomes as assistants and in some cases higher incomes. A principal teacher appointed since 1900, with no previous service as assistant, would, in ordinary course of advancement, have a salary of £97 per annum after fifteen years service in addition to the residual capitation grant of about £7 10s. if serving in a small school of thirty pupils. An assistant master after nine years service would have only £86 per annum, including bonus under the Irish Education Act of 1892, with or without residual grant, as the average attendance might warrant. As I have already stated in the House, I should be glad to see some improvement in the position of the teachers generally, and I will continue to give the matter every consideration.

  Imports of Cattle and Fresh Meat from Argentina and United States.
  SIR WILLIAM BULL: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will state the number of cattle intended for slaughter from the United States of America and the respective amounts of fresh beef from the United States and Argentina imported into England in 1906; and what proportion of the total amount of the beef consumed in England does this amount represent.
  (Sir Edward Strachey.) The number of cattle imported from the United States into the United Kingdom in 1906 was 398,887, representing approximately 2,650,000 cwts, of beef. The total imports of fresh beef in 1906 from the United States were 2,426,644 cwts, and from Argentina 2,795,913. It is not possible to calculate the consumption of meat in England separately, but, adopting the estimates made by a Committee of the Royal Statistical Society and accepted by the Royal Commission on the Supply of Food and Raw Material in Time of War, the total consumption of beef in the United Kingdom in 1906 was approximately 1,100,000 tons. Of this total the supply from the United States and Argentina would amount to 36 per cent.

  Assistant Clerks (New Class) in the Statistical Department of His Majesty's Customs.
  MR. SEAVERNS: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury how many men of the new class of assistant clerks are now employed in the Statistical Department of His Majesty's Customs; how many are eligible by service for promotion to Second Division clerkships; how many promotions have been made in the Statistical Office during the past two years and the past twelve months respectively; and will he state if promotions in this office are less frequent than in other departments.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) 127 of the assistant clerks (new class) are employed in the Statistical Office, of whom sixty-three have sufficient service to render them eligible for promotion. There have not been any promotions of assistant clerks (new class) in the Statistical Office to Second Division or port clerkships. The promotions in different departments depend upon the circumstances of the respective departments.

  Value of Foreign Manufactured Articles for Government Departments
  MR. T. R. BETHELL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what was the value of manufactured articles obtained from abroad for the several Government Departments for each year from 1893 to 1906, inclusive.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I have no information to enable me to answer this Question other than that contained in the Return annually moved for by the hon. Member for Central Sheffield.

  Naval Pensions—Case of Joseph Mullen.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the case of Joseph Mullen, No. 197,680, lately serving as an able seaman on H.M.S. "Diamond," who was invalided from the Royal Navy on 19th October, 1905, and given a pension for eighteen months at the rate of £9 18s. a year; whether he is aware that this man is now dying of consumption in Longford; and will he direct that such additional

  859
  pension will be granted to him as will maintain him for the short period of life yet before him.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Mullen was not invalided for consumption, but for another disease not attributable to the service. He was awarded a temporary pension for eighteen months, which is the full amount allowable from naval funds in his case. His service has been too short to render him eligible for anything but a small temporary pension from the funds of Greenwich Hospital, and he is only eligible for that if he is suffering from the same disability as that for which he was invalided. Mullen will be medically examined and his case will be then considered.

  Richmond Park—Repair of Road from Richmond Hill to Kingston Gates.
  MR. CAVE: To ask the First Commissioner of Works when the improvement of the road through Richmond Park from Richmond Hill Gate to Kingston Gate was commenced; and when the work will be completed and the road be again opened for public use.
  (Answered by Mr. Harcourt.) The work was commenced on 21st February, and the road will be opened at the end of next week, probably the 11th May.

  Ecclesiastical Incomes and Income Tax.
  CAPTAIN BALFOUR: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether incumbents of the Church of England, whose income is under £2,000 per annum, and is paid by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from dividends arising out of stock held in trust for the benefice, can claim the abatement of 3d. in the pound on earned incomes; and whether they can claim the same abatement under Schedule A.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith) The Answer to the hon. and gallant Member's Question, if my proposals are accepted by Parliament, is in the affirmative.

  Government Officials as Representing the Zemindars of Sind on the Bombay Council.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for India
  860
  whether, when the zemindars of Sind were allowed to send one elected member to the Bombay Council, it was provided that no Government official should be allowed to stand as their candidate; whether he is aware that some officials are candidates this year; and whether he will call the attention of the Bombay Government to this breach of the regulations.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The Answer to the first part is, so far as I am aware, in the negative. No such provision is contained in the regulations framed under the Indian Councils Act of 1892. This being so, I have no reason to think that any breach of the regulations has been committed in this respect.

  Report of the Benares and Behar Opium Agents.
  SIR H. COTTON: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will place in the Library of the House a copy of the Reports of the Benares and Behar opium agents for the last year available, and of the orders of the Board of Revenue and of the Government thereon.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The Reports of the opium agents are incorporated in the Board of Revenue's Report and are not separately published. The Board's Report is no longer reviewed by the Bengal Government. I will see that a copy of the Board's Report for 1905–6 is placed in the Library of the House.

  Soldiers and Enforcement of Support of their Families.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Thomas Sonden, at present serving in Aldershot, who was stationed at Templemore in December. 1887, deserted his child, now living with her grandmother, in a destitute condition in Longford; whether there exist any Army regulations to compel men like Sonden to contribute to the support of their children; and, if so, will steps be taken in this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) A General Officer Commanding-in-Chief has power, under the Army Act, to enforce stoppages from the pay of a serving

  861
  soldier for his child's support. The hon. Member should refer the case to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Aldershot, giving full particulars, including the man's regiment and regimental number.

  Salaries of Surveyors for Engineer Services.
  MR. CAVE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the question of the salaries of the surveyors and assistant-surveyors of the staff for engineer services has now been fully considered, and with what result, or when a decision on the subject may be expected.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The question is still under consideration, and it is not practicable at present to say when a decision may be expected.

  Unrest in Egypt.
  CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the Prime Minister, whether, in the opinion of his advisers, there is any connection between the unrest in Egypt and that in Lahore, in the latter place the unrest having been caused by travelling political agitators.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) The Answer is in the negative.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE

  H.M.S. "Antrim."
  MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the high-tensile steel bottom plates of H.M.S. "Antrim" and any other, ships which have been affected with extensive pittings and oxidation were of British manufacture; and whether the plates were subjected to the usual Admiralty test.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON Dundee): All the high-tensile steel bottom plates of the "Antrim," and of all other ships in the Navy, have been of British manufacture, and were subjected to the usual Admiralty tests.
  MR. HUNT: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the
  862
  fact that on 1st January, 1906, the Government contractors for Keyham Harbour wrote that under the present changed conditions, Government contractors could buy anchors, machinery, and a hundred and one other things made of foreign material from foreign firms?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that Question.
  MR. HUNT: May I ask if anything except stone can now be provided by Government contractors for anything to do with the British Navy?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. JOYCE: Under what Government was the contract for this ship made?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Under the late Government I believe.

  H.M.S. "Argyll."
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty with reference to the extensive pitting and oxidation of the bottom plates of the new armoured cruiser, H.M.S. "Antrim," whether any reports as to signs of oxidation and pitting were received at or prior to the time the ship was taken over from the contractors in 1905; and whether he can state if H.M.S. "Argyll" and any other ships are similarly affected.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The "Antrim" was dry docked immediately prior to acceptance from contractors, and at that time no oxidation or pitting existed in the bottom plating for the vessel. A certain amount of pitting and oxidation has been found in the bottom plating of the "Argyll" and other vessels, but to a much less extent than in the case of the "Antrim."

  The Coastguard.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many coastguard men are affected by the closing during the last twelve months of twenty-four stations and seventeen detachments.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Ono hundred and sixty men.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Are these men still in the coastguard service?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Yes, they are employed to fill vacancies.

  Coastguard Inquiry.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty who are the gentlemen forming the interdepartmental Committee which is considering the present position of the coastguard stations; what is the reference to the Committee; and when their Report may be expected.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Conference was composed of officials representating the Admiralty, the Irish and Scottish Offices, the Board of Customs and the Board of Trade. There was no formal reference, but the subjects for discussion were outlined in an Admiralty letter laid before the Conference. The Report has been received, but has not yet been considered. When it has been considered, further information will be given.

  Dockyard Staff.
  CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state the number of men now employed at each of the following places: Pembroke Dock, Portsmouth, Devonport, and Chatham, compared with the same date in 1905; and whether the staff at Devonport is sufficiently large to deal with the present naval requirements.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The numbers are as follows:—

  1905 (22nd April).

  1907 (20th April).

  Portsmouth

  10,132

  8,698

  Devonport

  8,926

  7,901

  Chatham

  8,838

  6,829

  Pembroke Dock

  2,735

  1,972

  The reductions since 1905 were practically completed before the present Board came into office. If the hon. Member's Question was suggested by an article which appeared in the Press on Monday, I desire to take this opportunity of stating emphatically that there is absolutely
  864
  no foundation for the report that Devonport Dockyard cannot cope with the work required of it; and I may add that the Admiral Superintendent wholly repudiates the statements attributed to him.

  Sandhurst College Cadets.
  SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fact that about 100 gentlemen cadets were passed out from the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, last December for commissions in the infantry, none of whom have as yet been gazetted, that their military education is meanwhile at a standstill, and their unemployment for upwards of four months is causing inconvenience to their parents and guardians, he is prepared to make a statement as to when they are likely to be appointed to their regiments.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): It is hoped that the whole of the batch of cadets mentioned will, with the exception of those who prefer to wait for vacancies in special regiments, be gazetted on Friday or Tuesday next.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this delay in gazetting young officers from Sandhurst has occurred very frequently of the last few years, and in view of the shortage of junior officers which it is generally agreed exists, will he take steps to get them gazetted earlier?
  MR. HALDANE: There is no intentional delay, but there are not always vacancies.

  Bulford Camp— The Scots Greys.
  CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether sufficient accommodation exists at Bulford camp for the married establishment of the Scots Greys regiment; and, if not, where the married establishment will be quartered.
  MR. HALDANE: Sufficient hut accommodation at Bulford for the whole of the married establishment of the Scots Greys exists, but is not at present all available for them. Part of the families will be temporarily accommodated in the

  865
  new married quarters at Tidworth and will be gradually moved into Bulford according as the work, now in hand, of altering the huts is completed. While at Tidworth the families will receive separation allowance.

  Woolwich Arsenal.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many more men will be dismissed from Woolwich during the present financial year.
  MR. HALDANE: This Question was put to me only two days ago, and I then explained very fully why it is not possible for me at present to give a definite Answer. †
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: When may the House expect an Answer?
  MR. HALDANE: As soon as we can settle the very complicated questions involved.

  Labour Recruiting in British Central Africa.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any proposal has been made by the Transvaal Government for the removal of the embargo on recruiting in British Central Africa: and whether, in fact, any such embargo at present exists.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): As I informed my hon. friend, in reply to the Question which he asked on the 10th of April, the recruiting season in the British Central Africa Protectorate for the Transvaal mines commences on the 1st of July; recruitment, however, cannot begin without the consent of the Secretary of State, and that consent has not as yet been given; in that sense an embargo exists; no proposal for its removal has been made by the Transvaal Government.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Is it the intention to put an embargo on?
  MR. CHURCHILL: One at present exists.
  † See Cols. 525–7

  Asiatics in British Columbia.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether the Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia reserved the Royal Assent last week to an Immigration Bill designed to keep Asiatics out of that Colony; and, if so, whether the Colonial Office has confirmed the Lieutenant-Governor's action in this behalf, or whether the Royal Assent has been accorded.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have no information on the subject of the Bill referred to, but I may remind the hon. Member that the decision in the case of Acts of the Provincial Legislatures rests not with the Secretary of State but with the Governor-General acting on the advice of his Ministers.

  Newfoundland.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is probable that Papers dealing with Newfoundland will be laid.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 18th February to the hon. Member for Mid Armagh ‡ and to add that the appeal mentioned in that reply is still undecided.

  Nairobi Incident.
  LORD BALCARRES: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Kingston Division of Surrey, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now prepared to lay upon the Table the Papers relating to the Nairobi incident; and, if not, when Papers will be laid upon the Table.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I regret that I cannot fix a date at present. The report of the trial only reached the Colonial Office yesterday.

  Emigration to Canada.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in a circular issued by the Emigrants' Information Office, intending emigrants to Canada are informed that if they travel
  ‡ See (4) Debates, clxix., 540.

  867
  to Canada as steerage passengers they will be required, on arrival, either to produce a vaccination certificate or to submit to vaccination or to compulsory detention for observation in a quarantine station, while if they travel otherwise than by steerage no such requirements will be made; and whether this is a correct statement of the Canadian regulations on the subject.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The statement in question is substantially correct, though the words "Passengers other than steerage are not examined" might be qualified by adding the words" as a rule."

  Turkish Customs.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Ambassador to the Porte has signed the protocol by which the Powers agree to the increase of the Turkish customs duties from 8 to 11 per cent. for a period of seven years; whether he proposes to lay such Papers, if any, as may properly be made public; and, if so, when such Papers will be forthcoming.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,for Sir EDWARD GREY): The Answer to the first two parts of the Question is in the affirmative. Papers are in course of preparation, and will be laid at the earliest possible date.

  Great Britain and Russia, and Persia.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any agreement has been arrived at between His Majesty's Government and that of Russia in relation to Persia.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Nothing can be added at present to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Mid Armagh on the 25th of April last, to the effect that my right hon. friend is not in a position to make any statement as to the nature of any negotiations respecting Persia.

  Russo Japanese War—British Shipowners' Claims.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make any statement as to the present state of negotiations with the Russian Government in reference to the matter
  868
  of compensation to the owners of British, ships sunk by Russian ships of war during the Russo-Japanese War.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. friend regrets that he is not in a position to make any further statement at present. The case of the "Knight Commander" is still the subject of negotiations between the two Governments. The other cases are expected shortly to come before the Prize Court at Libau.

  Sugar Duties and the Fruit-Growing Industry.
  MR. SCOTT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in declining to remit the sugar duties or any portion thereof, he has considered the effect of the tax on the fruit-growing industry, which the Departmental Committee that reported two years ago stated to be the only form of agriculture that has exhibited any sign of progress in recent years; and whether he is aware that the welfare of fruit growers is entirely bound up with the jam trade, for which sugar at the lowest possible price is an article of first necessity.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): Yes, and I am afraid that the industry to which my hon. friend refers is by no means the only one which is seriously handicapped by these duties, to the objectionable characteristics of which I have always been alive. I regret the fact that the state of the public finances makes it impossible at the present time to dispense with them.

  Vivisection Commission Report.
  SIR PHILIP MAGNUS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state when the Royal Commission on Experiments on Living Animals for the purposes of Research is likely to report.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): The inquiry is not sufficiently advanced to enable an Answer to be given to this Question.

  Female Factory Workers in Belfast.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware

  869
  that the number of females employed as textile workers in Belfast in 189l was 26,617, of whom 8,222 were under twenty years of age; that these numbers have been augmented since 1891; that the total number of females engaged in mills, factories, and warehouses is 50,000 at the present time; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a resident lady inspector, in order that the health and comfort of these workers should receive constant and adequate attention.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have not been able to verify the figures for 1891 which are given in the Question, but the number of females employed in textile factories in Belfast in 1904 (which is the latest year for which figures are available) is roughly computed at a little over 23,000, and the number employed in all factories at between thirty and forty thousand. As I have already stated, an additional lady inspector was recently appointed for residence during two-thirds of the year in Ireland. This inspector resides in Belfast and gives special attention to the work of that district. Under this arrangement Belfast receives a full share of the services of the Lady Inspectors' Branch.

  Registered Packet Regulations.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will take into consideration the expediency of abolishing the requirement that ordinary packets presented for postal registration shall be sealed with wax, seeing that the official envelopes for registration are exempted from the requirement.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in thinking that only packets sealed with wax are accepted for registration. The rule is that before a packet can be accepted for registration it must be fastened with wax, gum or other adhesive matter. It cannot be accepted if merely tied with string.

  Illegal Trawling in Dunnet Bay,Caithness.
  MR. R. L. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary
  870
  for Scotland if he can state when a Fishery Board cruiser last patrolled Dunnet Bay, Caithness; and if he can see his way to give instructions that one of these cruisers patrols these seas with greater constancy than at present to prevent the illegal trawling.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): No complaints of illegal trawling have been received from Dunnet Bay for some time, and consequently no special visit has been ordered. The fishery cruisers periodically visit the north coast, and care will be taken that the part of the coast referred to by my hon. friend will not be neglected.

  Irish Land Purchase—Fair Rents.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, seeing that rents are now being fixed generally with a view to subsequent sale and purchase by the same parties, will he ask the Irish Land Commission to require in all future fair-rent cases the capital value of the respective interests of landlords and of tenants and the gross capital value to be stated on the pink schedule, Form No. 39; and, if there is any objection to this, will he ascertain and state what it is.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): The Land Commission hold that they have no power to do that which is suggested in the Question. The first section of the Land Law Act of 1896 and the form of schedule prescribed in accordance therewith show what the law requires to be recorded. There is no provision that the capital value of the respective interests of landlords and tenants should be recorded.

  Killna Castle Estate, Westmeath.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have asked Sir Montague Chapman, Bart., of Killna Castle, Westmeath, to sell his evicted and untenanted lands to them; if so, with what result; and, now that the property belongs to a new owner, will they communicate on this subject with the present agent, Mr. Mason, solicitor, Mullingar.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners communicated with Sir Montague Chapman in July, 1906, upon the subject of his untenanted land, but received no reply. The Commissioners are not aware that the property has since changed hands, but acting on the suggestion in the Question, they have now communicated with the solicitor referred to.

  Estates Commissioners' Annual Reports.
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state when the next Annual Report of the Estates Commissioners will be issued; will a dissentient Commissioner be allowed to insert in it, as in the last Report, paragraphs impugning the opinion of his colleagues; and what law or precedent is there for this practice.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the statistics for their Report for the year ending 31st March are in course of preparation, but they cannot yet state when the Report will be ready. I have no reason for assuming that there will be any difference of opinion among the Commissioners as to the terms of their Report, but in such a case it is obviously the right of any Commissioner to express his views on any subject in which he may not be in agreement with his colleagues.

  Sligo Lunatic Asylum—Evicted Tenants as Pauper Lunatics.
  MR. P. A. MCHUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a communication from the joint committee of management of the Sligo District Asylum for the Insane informing him that two evicted tenants, Catherine Mullen, of Knockadoo, and Catherine McDonagh, of Carhownagh, are now detained and supported in that institution as pauper lunatics; whether the farms from which these women were evicted are derelict; and whether the Estates Commissioners would be entitled and prepared to intervene, with the object of having the evicted farms handed over in trust to the representatives of the evicted tenants, so that these women may no longer be a charge upon the rates and may not lose their rights under the pro-
  872
  visions of the Land Act of 1903 in regard to evicted tenants.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have received the resolution referred to, and a copy has also been sent to me. The Commissioners are of opinion that the suggestion contained in the Question is impracticable.

  Mr. G. B Low's Grenagh Estate.
  MR. CREAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid. Cork, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that about three years ago the estate of George Bond Low, in the Encumbered Estates Court, and situate in the parish of Grenagh, county Cork, was offered for sale to the tenants; did they agree to purchase, and, if so, on what terms; is he aware that an inspector of the Land Commission was sent to value their holdings at the request of Mr. Justice Ross and recommended sales at prices varying from twelve and a half to nineteen and four-fifth years' purchase; is he aware that this valuation was not accepted by Mr. Justice Ross, and the Land Commission Inspector's report was referred to three Commissioners for their opinions; will he state the names of these Commissioners; whether they visited the tenants' holdings, and, if not, on what basis they made the calculations they subsequently submitted; will he state what the recommendations of these Commissioners were and whether they were accepted by the court; did the majority of the tenants accept the court terms, and are there four, viz., Patrick Murphy, Denis Callaghan, Denis Donovan, and Thomas Donovan, who refused them on the ground that they were in excess of the value of the land; is he aware that the demand made upon Denis Donovan by the court is seven years purchase in excess of the valuation put upon him by the Land Commission Inspector; that these men, who refused to purchase, have since been writted and harassed and intimidatory methods employed to compel them to purchase on terms which they declare would mean ruin to them; and will the Estates Commissioners, in the exercise of their discretion under the Land Act of 1903, declare that this is an estate on which intimidatory methods and undue pressure have been used

  873
  against the tenants mentioned, and refuse to sanction the advance of the purchase money until a satisfactory arrangement of this difference between the court and the tenants who have not yet purchased is come to.
  MR. BIRRELL: I do not think it is possible within the limits of an Answer to enter into the numerous details of the hon. Member's Question. I have received reports from the Land Judge and the Land Commission from which it appears that the action taken in the case by these authorites was taken in the exercise of the discretion judicially vested in them. I may, however, state that twelve of the tenants concerned have purchased their holdings and that the remaining six, including those named in the Question, have declined to accept the terms offered to them. The Land Judge informs me that it is not the fact that the tenants who refused to purchase have been harassed and intimidated with the object of compelling them to purchase. These tenants not only declined to purchase, but have refused to pay any rent since 1905 when the terms of purchase were offered to them. In this state of things the Land Judge found it necessary to direct that they should be sued for rent, but ordered on 1st March that the proceedings should be stayed if the tenants should pay half a year's rent at present. As regards the concluding part of the Question I am informed that the matter is not one in which the Estates Commissioners could interfere, having regard to the fact that proceedings are pending under the 40th Section of the Land Act of 1896.

  Elphin Demonstration.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Sunday, 14th April, a mob of about 2,500 persons, many of them armed, assembled at Elphin, with five bands and demonstrated round the grazing farms; whether he is aware that the object of this demonstration was to intimidate the occupiers of the farms; whether he will state how many police were present on this occasion; and whether they took or intend to take any action in the matter.
  MR. BIRRELL: On the occasion in question about 2,500 people with five
  874
  bands assembled at Elphin and proceeded to Shankill, about one and a-half miles distant, where a meeting was held and speeches delivered against the eleven months grazing system. There was nothing to show that any members of the crowd were armed. There are many grazing farms in the district, but the crowd did not demonstrate round them. Twelve policemen were present at the meeting, and an extra force of nearly sixty men were held in reserve in case their services might be required. The police reported that the speeches were not violent, and that no particular persons were denounced. No necessity arose for the interference of the police, and it is not intended to take any action in the matter.
  MR. LONSDALE: Was not the object of this demonstration to intimidate certain people?
  MR. BIRRELL: I can say nothing more than that the police have reported that no intimidatory language was used. The speeches delivered were against the eleven months grazing system.
  MR. LONSDALE: Does the right hon. Gentleman assert that the sole object of the Question is to misrepresent and malign Ireland in the eyes of the English people?
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the Question.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will you not suggest to the hon. Member he should express his regret for making unfounded charges?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Intimidatory Processions in Roscommon
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that intimidatory processions are being regularly organised in the county of Roscommon against the farmers who decline to surrender their lands at the bidding of the United Irish League; and whether he will state what orders the police have received as to dealing with these assemblies.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am aware that processions and demonstrations in connection with the grazing system have

  875
  taken place in county Roscommon. As I have already stated, the police will afford full protection to all persons in the exercise of their legal rights, and will take all necessary steps to bring offenders to justice. It would, however, obviously be undesirable to publish details of any instructions issued to the police for the prevention or detection of any particular class of offence.

  Ballintubber Demonstration.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that hostile demonstrations have recently been held at the farm of a Protestant named Payne at Ballintubber; whether the police identified a number of the persons taking part in these proceedings; and whether it is intended to take action against the disturbers of the peace.
  MR. BIRRELL: On 8th April about 100 persons assembled on Mr. Payne's farm and held a meeting there. On 21st April a meeting was held on the public road over a quarter of a mile from the farm, but no attempt was made to go upon the farm. On this occasion an extra force of forty police was present with the object of preventing any incursion upon the farm. The Government have been advised that the evidence of unlawful acts in connection with the first-named occurrence is not sufficient to warrant proceedings. The police have been instructed to afford full protection to the person and property of Mr. Payne.
  MR. MOORE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether on this occasion intimidatory language was used against Mr. Payne?
  MR. BIRRELL: I have no knowledge.
  MR. MOORE: Is it not the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to have knowledge?
  MR. HAYDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Payne lives several miles from the place where this meeting was held; that nobody resides on the farm, and that there was not a single head of cattle on it at the time?
  MR. BIRRELL: I did not know even that.
  MR. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if any carrion crows were present on the occasion?
  MR. LONSDALE: I desire to ask a serious question. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the traders of the district have refused to supply this man with the necessaries of life?
  MR. FLYNN: Why not?
  MR. BIRRELL: No, Sir. I hear that also for the first time.

  Irish Land Finance
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, of the £31,633,776 estates in the hands of the Estates Commissioners on 16th February last, there are a sufficient number so far advanced as regards title to absorb the whole of the £371,628 now lying to the credit of the Estates Commissioners and bearing no interest; and, if so, whether he will explain the non-payment out immediately of this ready money.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that in all cases advances are made as soon as the necessary preliminary steps have been completed. There are, at all times, some cases which, though ripe for advances so far as title is concerned, are not ready in other respects; but as soon as a case is completed in every respect the advance is made.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGasked the right hon. Gentleman if he would, in the interests of both tenants and landlord, press on the payment for estates out of the £371,628 now in hand and bearing no interest?
  MR. BIRRELL: Nothing distresses me more than the delay that occurs in the completion of these matters, and I am using even now more than my powers to endeavour to accelerate things in every possible respect.

  Evicted Tenants—Delays in Settling Claims.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in reference to the removal of inspectors from one district to another

  877
  whether the Commissioners are aware that in many cases the files relating to evicted tenants' claims are handed over by the outgoing inspector to new men who have to begin de novo the investigation of estates previously examined and in some instances reported on; is he aware that in the union districts of Kanturk and Millstreet, County Cork, three inspectors have been successively engaged in inquiring into the question of evicted tenants and untenanted lands within the past twelve months; and whether the Commissioners will consider the advisability of making more permanent the stay of the inspectors in the different districts to which they have been appointed.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners are aware that in three instances in County Cork it was necessary, owing to the promotion or retirement of an inspector, to transfer the files of papers relating to evicted tenants to another inspector. It was unavoidable that some inconvenience and delay should be caused in these cases, but such a state of things is quite exceptional.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it not the fact that the constant changing of inspectors materially retards the work of restoring these tenants to their holdings?
  MR. BIRRELL: It is most undesirable, I admit, that there should be so much delay, but I am afraid that these changes are unavoidable.

  Mr. Blennerhasset's Killorglin Estate.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that decrees have been issued against a number of tenants on the Arthur Blennerhasset estate, near Killorglin; and, in view of the suggestion already made that the Estates Commissioners should use their influence to promote a settlement of the purchase negotiations, can he say whether any, and, if so, what action has been taken in the matter.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have communicated with the solicitors for the owner offering their services as conciliators under the Lord-Lieutenant's regulations of the 13th February, 1906, and have been informed in reply that the owner is
  878
  not prepared to give any better terms to the tenants on the Killorglin portion of his property than those given to the other tenants. The solicitors also state that no proceedings have been taken against the tenants save those that would be taken in the ordinary course owing to their not having paid the September 1906 rent at the usual time, viz, February and March 1907. In the circumstances the Commissioners do not consider that they can further intervene in the matter.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that processes and executions were issued against twenty-five of these tenants for rents—a very unusual proceeding?
  MR. BIRRELL: I am told that attempts were made to recover rent in the ordinary course.

  Irish National School Buildings.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when the new standard plans and specifications for national school buildings in Ireland will be ready; and whether he will, in the meantime, make public the principles which have been agreed upon, and the correspondence which has taken place on the subject between the National Board, the Irish Government, and the Treasury, so that the Irish people may have some opportunity of considering the matter and letting their views be known.
  MR. BIRRELL: A conference will be held as soon as possible between representatives of the Commissioners of National Education and of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland for the purpose of preparing sketch plans is carrying out the principles which have been agreed upon. To work out detailed plans similar to those now in use, to lithograph them, and to prepare and print the corresponding specification will occupy some months, but urgent cases, I am informed, could be dealt with by means of specially adapted copies of the sketch plans to be prepared. The main principles that have been agreed upon are that the floor space to be provided shall be ten square feet upon the mean between the number in average attendance and the number on the rolls, and that there is to be a separate room for each adult

  879
  teacher provided, according to circumstances, by means of movable partitions or by the building of actually separate rooms. Apart from the general objections to publishing inter-departmental correspondence, I do not think that the publication of the letters would give the Irish people an opportunity of considering the matter, inasmuch as the most important of the discussions which preceded the settlement arrived at took place at personal interviews.

  Drimoleague Dispensary Doctor.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that, in connection with the election of a dispensary doctor for the Drimoleague district by the Skibbereen Board of Guardians, Mr. R. O'Driscoll said that the Skibbereen union was a disgrace to humanity, and that he was ashamed of being a guardian of the union, and that Messrs. O'Sullivan and Walsh said they hoped the matter would come before the Judge at the next assizes; and whether the Local Government Board will direct an inquiry to be made as to whether these references had relation to allegations of bribery made against some members of the board.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am informed that according to a local newspaper report of the proceedings in this matter the three guardians referred to made the observations attributed to them in the Question. The Local Government Board have since been requested by two other guardians to order a sworn inquiry into the election of medical officer in view of the allegations of bribery and corruption, and have intimated their willingness to order an inquiry on being furnished with definite particulars.

  Sacred Society of Clooney
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a threatening letter was recently received by Mr. H. de L. Willis, J.P., agent to Sir Bindon Blood, demanding, under pain of an untimely death, that he should deal with Cranagha farm in the manner dictated by the Sacred Society of Clooney; and whether he proposes to prosecute the Sacred Society of Clooney for threats to murder.
  MR. BIRRELL: It was reported to the police that Mr. Willis received an anonymous letter to the effect stated in the Question. The farm referred to is a large grazing farm, and it appears that certain persons in the locality are anxious to have it distributed. The police have no knowledge of any sacred or secret society at Clooney, and have no reason to believe that any such society exists.

  Alleged Moonlighting in Galway.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received police information to the effect that Mr. Smith, of Colmanstown, county Galway, was recently ordered by some neighbouring tenants to surrender his farm for distribution amongst them; that, on his refusing to do so, they proceeded to intimidate his steward, but without effect; that on 15th March a moonlighting gang visited the steward's residence and fired six gunshots into his apartments; will he say whether any arrests followed this attack; and, if so, with what result.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am informed by the police authorities that Mr. Smith was visited by a deputation, who asked him whether he would sell his farm for distribution among the neighbouring tenants, and he replied in the negative. Subsequently, on the night of 15th March, several shots were fired through the windows of his steward's house. The police have made every effort to discover the offenders, but so far without success. No arrests have consequently been made.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: As regards this Question, Sir, may I ask you whether hon. Members are entitled to utilise the Order Book of the House of Commons for the purpose of maligning and defaming the character of the Irish people?
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Any hon. Member who puts down a Question makes himself responsible for his belief in the facts in the Question. I cannot say that this Question is not in order.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I would appeal to you, Sir, to ask the hon. and gallant Member to withdraw the expression that a Question of this kind is

  881
  put down by an hon. Member for the purpose of maligning and defaming his fellow-countrymen.
  MR. MOORE: I wish to know, Sir, whether it is in order for the hon. and gallant. Member to attribute motives to other Members of the House?
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is not in order for an hon. Member to attribute motives to other Members of the House.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I should like to ask you, Sir, whether any hon. Member of this House honestly believes that these Questions are put down for the purpose of eliciting information.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion. It is a fundamental rule of the House that an hon. Member must not attribute bad motives to other hon. Members.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I would ask you, Sir, to request the hon. and gallant Member to withdraw the expression that these Questions are put down for the purpose of maligning and defaming the character of the Irish people. It is most offensive.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have ruled that the expression is out of order, and I have no doubt the hon. and gallant Member will withdraw it.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Out of respect for you, Sir, I will withdraw the expression. I am sorry I have hit hon. Members above the gangway so very hard.

  Lisevine Evicted Tenant.
  MR. CREAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid Cork, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from John Barry, of 1, Ballinlough Road, Cork, who claims to have been evicted from a farm at Lisevine, in the parish of Grenagh, county Cork; was the claim of Mr. Barry referred to Mr. Macoun, estates inspector, for inquiry and report; did Mr. Macoun wait upon the planter, a man named Connell, and did the latter offer to give up the holding if he were properly compensated or provided with another farm elsewhere; and,
  882
  having regard to all the circumstances of this case, will he state what action the Estates Commissioners propose to take in the matter.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that the application in question was investigated by their inspector, who interviewed both the applicant and the present occupier of the holding. The latter intimated that he had no intention of giving up the farm. The Commissioners have therefore been unable to effect Barry's reinstatement, but will reconsider the question of providing him with another holding if opportunity should offer.

  Mr. M. F. Barry's Cooldorihy Tenantry.
  MR. CREAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Mid Cork, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he, is aware that two bodies of tenants on the estate of M. F. Barry in lunacy have signed agreements to purchase their holdings on certain terms; that there are, however, a number of tenants holding farms at Cooldorihy, near Macroom, who claim to be a separate estate, inasmuch as they live in a different part of the country from the other purchasing tenants, and that therefore they are entitled to negotiate independently for their own interests; that they have submitted proposals for purchase to the Registrar in Lunacy through the Receiver, Mr. R. M. J. Townsend, and in the alternative of the non-acceptance of these proposals they have asked for a special inspection by the Estates Commissioners; will he say why these proposals have been rejected; will he state what action the Estates Commissioners propose to take in the matter; and whether they will order an early inspection of the holdings of these men, who have been threatened with legal proceedings unless they pay up their old rents.
  MR. BIRRELL: The matter of this estate is in lunacy under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor. The Registrar in Lunacy informs me that the tenants referred to in the Question have been offered terms of purchase identical with those recently accepted by the tenants on the other portions of the property. The Lord Chancellor has been unable to distinguish between the two sets of tenants,

  883
  or to discover any ground upon which one set should receive more favourable terms than the other. The terms offered are the lowest upon which the Lord Chancellor would feel justified in sanctioning a sale. The Estates Commissioners do not propose to intervene in the matter at the present stage, but they will, when inspecting the remainder of the estate, also inspect the holdings of these particular tenants with the view of considering how they should be dealt with. The inspection, however, cannot take place for some time, seeing that the purchase agreements have only recently been lodged.

  Gargrie Labourer's Cottage.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the application of James Reilly, of Gargrie, Ballinamuck, who made application for a labourer's cottage in that division, was rejected at the preliminary hearing by the rural district council; and whether he will direct that this man's case be dealt with by the inspector, and inquired into when the public inquiry is held.
  MR. BIRRELL: It is the fact that this man's application was rejected by the district council. It is open to him to attend at the local inquiry and lay his case before the inspector.

  Dring Evicted Tenant.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any application for reinstatement as an evicted tenant has been received from Mrs. Anne Smyth, of Derrycassan, Dring, near Granard, who, with her husband and three children, was evicted from the lands of Springtown nearly twenty-seven years ago; and whether, as the estate from which she was evicted is now being sold through the Estates Commissioners, care will be taken that this woman's case will receive consideration, with a view to her reinstatement.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have received the application in question, and have referred it to an inspector for inquiry and report.

  Granard Council and the Irish Pig Trade.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the last quarterly meeting of the Granard Urban Council a resolution was passed strongly protesting against the present restrictions upon the importation of Irish store pigs into Great Britain; and whether he can announce when it is proposed to modify or withdraw these restrictions.
  MR. BIRRELL: The regulations to which the Question refers were issued by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. I am not aware of any present intention on the part of that Board to modify the regulations, but upon that point the hon. Member should address my hon. friend the Member for South Somerset.

  Maconchy Estate Turbary Trustee.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Michael Kiernan, D.C., of Lettergonnell, Ballinamuck, has been removed from the position of a turbary trustee on the Maconchy estate, and, if so, the grounds upon which this step has been taken.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that Mr. Kiernan was one of five turbary trustees originally nominated in connection with this estate. Mr. Kiernan, however, declined to act except on conditions which were impracticable, and he failed to attend a meeting to which he was summoned for the consideration of the matter in dispute. In these circumstances the Commissioners have agreed to his exclusion from the position.

  Longford Estate Duty Grant.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on 26th March last, the Local Government Board wrote to the Longford County Council, intimating to them for the first time that their estate duty grant of £1,428 14s. 11d., and a further sum of £36 7s. 1d., out of the agricultural grant had been deducted to make good to the Commissioners of National Debt the loss which had accrued in respect of land purchase in county Longford; will

  885
  he say why this announcement was kept back for two years, and why it was only then made when the county council had made out its financial budget for the current year, and could not without great loss of time and money recast their rates; and will he see that in future transactions of this kind the council will get due notice so as to have time to examine into the alleged deficits.
  MR. BIRRELL: The fact is as stated in the first part of the Question. The amount which should have been deducted last year is £659 8s. 4d. I have already explained that by a clerical oversight, which is regretted, the certificates were not forwarded to the Local Government Board in time for the deduction to be made for last year's payment. I have also stated that I am in communication with the Treasury with the object of devising some means whereby county councils may receive, before striking their rates, notice of the amount coming to them from the Local Taxation Account.

  Irish Language in Irish Schools.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a new scheme for the teaching of Irish in national schools has yet been sanctioned by the Treasury; and, if so, will he give the details of it.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am in active communication with the Treasury on this subject. The matter has not yet been settled.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of not issuing any new scheme for the teaching of Irish, costing so much money, in view of the deplorable condition of so many Irish school buildings?
  MR. BIRRELL: That very important question has not escaped my attention.

  Killarney Affray.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any particulars of the affray which took place on Saturday near Killarney; whether a body of men attacked four bailiffs who were attempting to distrain some cattle for rent, and two of the bailiffs were
  886
  seriously injured; and what action he proposes to take in reference to this matter.
  SIR BERKELEY SHEFFIELD: May I at the same time ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a police report concerning an attack made on Saturday night, the 27th inst., near Killarney, by a body of men armed with pikes and pitchforks, upon Lord Kenmare's bailiffs, who were engaged in attempting to distrain some cattle for rent; and whether any arrests have been made on account of this assault.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have received police reports as to this occurrence. It is alleged that one man —not a body of men — attacked the bailiffs with a pitchfork. This man has been arrested, and the proceedings against him are pending. In the circumstances it would be undesirable to enter into details. This Answer applies also to the similar Question of the hon. Member for the Brigg Division.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it not the fact that an execution was being made for a half year's rent, when the bailiffs fired shots on the people, who simply defended themselves?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Irish Intermediary Schools
  MR. GWYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on what grounds the system of inspection of modern language teaching by oral examination has been discontinued in Irish intermediary schools; whether his attention has been called to a letter from Archbishop Walsh, who is a member of the Board of Intermediate Education, declaring that the responsibility for stopping this system rests neither with the Board nor with the Treasury, but with some controlling authorities at Dublin Castle; and, if so, will he indicate the authorities referred to.
  MR. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my predecessor to Questions on this subject put by the hon. Member for South Kerry on 21st and 29th March, 1906.† Those
  † See (4) Debates, cl.v., 386, 1545.

  887
  Answers are still applicable. The only inspection of schools which the Board of Intermediate Education have carried out was that performed by temporary inspectors in the years 1901, 1902, and 1903. The Board desired that a permanent inspectorate should be appointed, but, for reasons which have already been stated, the Government were unable to agree. The Government, however, were prepared to approve of the re-appointment of temporary inspectors, but the Board declined to accept the proposal.
  MR. KETTLE: I hope a better system of secondary education in Ireland will be inaugurated by the Bill shortly to be brought in by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. BIRRELL: I hope so too.

  Irish Department of Agriculture.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will cause the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee of Inquiry into the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland to be printed and circulated without delay.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have communicated with the Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry, who informs me that the evidence is substantially ready for publication, and as there seems to be a desire that it should be published at once, I will arrange for its presentation to Parliament as soon as possible.

  Carrick-on-Shannon Disturbance.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Thursday last a member of the local district council, named Martin Cooney, of Hill Street, Carrick - on - Shannon, complained to District Inpector Steadman that one of a body of police under the orders of the latter had, on a bridge leading to the town, assaulted him with his baton, and seeing that Cooney asked for the name of his assailant, which the district inspector refused to give, he will give instructions that the name shall be furnished; and whether in future policemen in Ireland will be supplied with
  888
  distinguishing badges as in England and Scotland.
  MR BIRRELL: I am informed by the police authorities that Mr. Cooney was a member of a crowd which attempted to force a police cordon in the circumstances mentioned in my reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Mid Armagh on 25th April. The police were ordered to draw batons, and Mr. Cooney, who repeatedly threw himself on the police, was during the scuffle struck with a baton by a constable. The district inspector refused at the moment to give the name of the constable, saying that he himself was responsible. He has, however, since been instructed to give the constable's name to Mr. Cooney. I understand that the question of supplying the force with distinguishing badges has frequently been considered, but that it has been thought inexpedient to adopt such a course.

  King Harman Estate.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man named M'Drury, a householder and owner of property in the town of Boyle, county Roscommon, had a house and plot of land on the King-Harman estate transferred to him by the Estates Commissioners, and that the house in question was at the time occupied by another tenant; whether there was any special reason why the latter should be passed over and the property bestowed upon M'Drury; whether M'Drury afterwards sold by auction his interest in the house and land for £211; whether he is aware that M'Drury had never expended anything upon improving the concern; and whether the Estates Commissioners will cancel sales of this character, as being contrary to the spirit of the Land Act.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that in 1905 advances were made to John M'Drury for the purchase of two small holdings on the King-Harman estate, one at Boyle and the other at Termon. The Commissioners have not been notified of any change of ownership, and M'Drury is therefore still liable for the payment of the annuities. The Commissioners have

  889
  no information that another person was at the time of the sale in occupation of either of the holdings or any part of them, nor are they aware that the tenant-purchaser has since parted with his interest.

  Intermediate Education in Ireland.
  MR. KETTLE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of schools that obtained grants under the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Acts in each year from 1900 to 1906; also the number of students who presented themselves for the examinations of the Intermediate Education Board and the number who passed in each of these years.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Answer to this Question consists of a tabular statement of figures which I will have circulated with to-night's Votes. † I will also, with the hon. Member's permission, adopt a similar course in regard to his Questions No. 43 and 44 addressed to the Secretary to the Treasury which my hon. friend has asked me to answer.
  The two Questions referred to in the Answer were as follows:—
  MR. KETTLE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what was the total amount of the school grant paid by the Intermediate Education Board (Ireland) to managers of Irish secondary schools in the years 1903, 1904, 1905, and 1906 respectively; and what was the rate of payment for each successful pupil in each of these years.
  MR. KETTLE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the income derived by the Intermediate Education Board (Ireland) under Section 3 of the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890, in each year from 1900 to 1906; and also the total income of the Board in each of those years.

  Irish Evicted Tenants.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the investigations into the claims of the evicted tenants of Ireland for reinstate-
  † See cols. 847–850
  890
  ment under the Act of 1903 have been completed; if not, whether he can give any idea as to the number of cases in which the investigations have been made, and when the entire work will be completed; and whether he can give the results of the investigations made up to the present.
  MR. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners inform me that of the 6,680 applications received up to 5th February last, 5,321 have been investigated, and they expect that the remaining 1,359 will be investigated by the end of May, the date mentioned by me on the 14th February last as the date on which it was hoped that the inquiries into these applications would be completed. I do not propose to make any detailed statement as to the result of investigations until the end of this month.

  Sligo Grant Deduction.
  MR. P. A. MCHUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when did the Local Government Board for Ireland become aware that a sum of £1,500 was to be stopped from the grants due to the county council of Sligo in March, 1907; when was the fact communicated to the secretary of the county council of Sligo; can he state approximately the amount which will be stopped from grants payable to Sligo County Council in March, 1908; what portion of the £1,500 was stopped on account of unpaid annuities; and what is the amount of annuities now due and unpaid in Sligo county.
  MR. BIRRELL: My hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. The Local Government Board were notified of the liabilities of all the counties on 26th February last. The calculations as to the deductions to be made from each of the local bodies in all the counties were completed as soon as possible, and on 26th March the Sligo County Council were informed of their share in the grant. The amounts which may have to be deducted from grants to county councils in respect of the current financial year will not be known till towards the end of the year. The deduction on account of unpaid annuities in Sligo was £235. I am inquiring as to the amount of the annuities at present unpaid, and will inform the hon. Member of the result.
  MR. JOYCE: Is a deduction also made in the case of Irish borough councils?
  MR. BIRRELL: I will inquire.

  North Belfast Election.
  MR. J. DEVLIN: I beg to ask Mr. Attoney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the public protest from a number of voters who were debarred from exercising the franchise at the recent election in North Belfast; whether he is aware that, at the preparation of the register on which the election took place, men who were fully qualified to vote, and who had voted at the two previous elections, were removed from the voters' list without notice; that in some instances the names of voters qualified in North Belfast were removed from the list of that division and placed on the lists of other divisions of the city where they had no qualification whatever; that the voters so disfranchised in North Belfast were well known to be supporters of the democratic cause; whether he is aware that the preparation of the registers is in the hands of local officials who make no secret of their antagonism to everything progressive; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the whole matter, with a view to inquiring into this tampering with the register, and to prevent the repetition of such an occurrence.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,): I have made inquiries as to the irregularities referred to in the Question. The Deputy Clerk of the Crown and Peace informs me that he is only aware of two specific cases at the recent election for North Belfast where persons claiming to be Parliamentary voters for the division were found not to be on the register. In both cases the names of these gentlemen appeared on the register for other divisions of Belfast, in one case for West Belfast, and in the other for South Belfast, and their names were placed on the Local Government supplement only for North Belfast. In one case, at all events, this course appears to have been wrongly taken, as the voter states that he has no qualification at all for South Belfast, but I do not think that one error in a large register is sufficient evidence
  892
  of partiality to base a charge against the officials who prepare the register. Should any evidence be placed before me of anything like a systematic attempt by any official to exclude persons of one particular Party from the register, I shall cause full inquiries to be made into the matter so as to prevent any such illegal and improper action.

  Irish Uneconomic Holdings
  MR. GINNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury has the Treasury made any attempt to ascertain or estimate the proportion of rents of uneconomic holdings in Ireland usually paid with money received from relatives in exile, or the probable consequences of failure of that supply on the occupants becoming nominal purchasers within the zones at prices based upon those uneconomic rents; and will the Treasury consider the advisability of requiring the rule in the Blake-Foster case to be applied in all such cases.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The application of the principles established by the decision in the Blake-Foster case rests with the Estates Commissioners and not with the Treasury, but I am informed that the Commissioners act on those principles in all cases in which in their opinion they apply.

  The Earl of Portsmouth and his Tenants.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the recent expulsion of one of his tenants by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for War for having exercised his legal rights under the Ground Game Act, whether he has yet obtained a confirmation of the facts alleged; if so, what action does he intend taking to protect the tenants of this noble landowner; and whether, in view of his recent speech on land reform, he proposes to permit this Member of the Government to continue to hold office.
  MR. REES: Is the hon. Gentleman in order in bringing before the House the relations of an individual landlord with an individual tenant who has his remedy in the law courts?
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Question is in order.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): It is no part of my duty, nor is it in my power, to protect any body of tenants from the landowner from whom they hold their tenancy, nor the landowner from his tenants. They have certain rights with regard to each other which are defined by the law, and the Prime Minister is not the Court to decide any dispute between them. I have received a letter from Lord Portsmouth, which I propose to read to the House. He says, "In reply to the allegations made against me, I would briefly state that the tenant in question, a Mr. Parsons, had truly been a tenant on my estate for many years; but he had only been enabled to occupy the farm so long because my father and I had from time to time given him very substantial assistance in abatements and remissions of rent. He was not given notice to quit for any bona fide, fair, and reasonable exercise of any rights under the Ground Game Act, but because, owing to his impecuniosity and absence of stock, the farm was rapidly deteriorating. As to the supposed grievance of loss from excessive ground game, the absurdity of such a statement is proved by the fact that, as soon as ever he quitted the farm, it was taken by the actually adjoining tenant at an increased rent." Lord Portsmouth adds that he has not an acre untenanted or a shilling of arrear upon his estate in Hampshire.
  LORD R. CECIL: Did not the letter of Lord Portsmouth contain these words, "If you or any other tenant insist upon your powers under the Game Act and constantly disturb the land in pursuit of ground game, I must at once and frankly say I must take the only remedy I possess of changing tenants or farming the land myself?" May I also ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the landlord thought it right not only to take into his own hands the improvements this tenant had made, but actually insisted on a claim for dilapidation for some of the improvements which the tenant himself had made?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware of these facts. The letter
  894
  to which reference was made was written two or three years ago, and I am not acquainted with the circumstances in any respect; but I have read the letter Lord Portsmouth has written to me with reference to the actual position at this time.
  MR. LEA: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the tenant in question is in possession of a letter from the late Lord Portsmouth in which these words occur: "If every landlord had as good and straightforward and honourable a tenant as you are, a lot of landlords would be in a very different position." Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that in the county of Hampshire this noble landowner —
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think that is a supplementary Question which ought to be asked. The Prime Minister cannot be expected to have a knowledge of the correspondence between the late Lord Portsmouth and his tenants.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is not any part of my duty to adjust rights and wrongs between a tenant and his landlord.
  MR. WALTER LONG: May I remind the Prime Minister—[Cries of "Order"] then may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if in answer to a general Question the other day in this House he did not state that the Government were closely watching the operation of the Act to which reference had been made, and would be prepared to take action if any attempt were made to evade it?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware that this comes under that category. I hardly think it does; but if it does, then when the case is settled one way or the other it will be a fact that we shall take into account in considering the effect of legislation.
  LORD R. CECIL: When the Prime Minister said the letter was written two or three years ago was he aware that the tenant went out last Michaelmas?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The tenant's going out last Michaelmas does not prevent its being true that the letter was written two or three years ago.
  MR. LEA: Is it not a matter of common notoriety in the county of Hampshire that this landowner —
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is not a proper supplementary Question.
  CAPTAIN FABER: Is that undesirable tenant now within a stone's throw on another landowner's property?
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That Question does not properly arise.
  MR. FLAVIN: As this is likely to become an historical subject, may I ask if the Prime Minister will inform the House how many tenants have been removed from the Scottish estates of Balfour and Co.?
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the Prime Minister's Answer.

  The Imperial Conference.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked the Prime Minister whether a verbatim report of the discussion now proceeding at the Imperial Conference on preferential trade within the Empire will be published, or whether it was intended to confine the debate given to the public to such meagre summaries as were published in this morning's papers.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have explained again and again that we have no control in the matter. Whatever action is taken as to publication or non-publication or delayed publication is under the instruction of the Conference itself. I am sure of this—there will be no different treatment, no preferential treatment given to one subject over another. I understand— I speak with no authority—but I have been told that it is probable, and perhaps a little more than probable, that a full report will be published after the Conference is closed. That I believe is in accordance with the desire of the members of the Conference themselves.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,after explaining that he put the Question, not as matter of complaint against the Government, but to the Prime Minister as president of the Conference [Sir H.
  896
  CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: "No, no," and HON. MEMBERS: "Not yet"], in order to obtain information, asked whether, if any question arose as to full publication, the influence of the Government would be exercised on the side of publicity.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have no information in the matter. It is in the hands of the Conference. I do not believe for a moment that any different treatment will be applied to one subject as compared with another.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOONasked whether the matter of the fullnes or meagreness of the reports was decided by vote.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware. I do not know. It has never come to a vote there, I am told, certainly not upon this occasion. But I may at once dispel the darkness that appears to pervade some quarters by saying that, as far as I am concerned and my colleagues in the Government, so far from objecting to publication, we hope-every syllable will be published.

  VISCOUNT TURNOUR AND MR. BIRRELL'S SPEECH AT HALIFAX.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: I rise, Sir, for the purpose of asking you to permit me to make a personal explanation. Last Monday I addressed a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant in these words —
  "To ask the right hon. Gentleman to what hon. Members he referred when he stated that there were men in the House of Commons who made it their business at Question time day after day to ask Questions, not for the purpose of gaining information, but to malign and misrepresent the people of Ireland."
  The right hon. Gentleman in his reply said that—
  "The words were a condensation of what he actually said, which was that, as Questions were constantly put to him which evidently added nothing to the information of the persons asking them or of the police, who were responsible for the peace of Ireland, or to his information, it would seem that the only object in putting them was to create a false impression in England of the real state of things in Ireland."
  The Question which I put was based upon the following report in The Times newspaper—
  "There are found, I am sorry to say, in the-ranks of Irishmen themselves, men in the

  897
  House of Commons who make it their business day after day during the time of Questions to fix like carrion crows upon the one or two places in Ireland where there is this ground for disturbance and to ask questions relative thereto, not for the purpose of gaining information, for they have all the information already, not for the purpose of calling the attention of the police to these places, for the policeknow ten times more than they do, not for the purpose of calling my attention to these places, because I know them perfectly well and think of them day and night. No, their sole object is to malign and misrepresent their native country in the eyes of the English people, who have not the opportunities which I enjoy of knowing the true facts of the case, and who cannot of their own knowledge know how confined and limited are these areas of disorder."
  This verbatim report in The Times is borne out by the following newspapers: — the Yorkshire Observer—
  MR. BELLOC: I rise to order, Sir. Is the hon. Member in order in making his proposed apology.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is a personal explanation.
  MR. BELLOC: I only rose to call attention to this point because the hon. Member says that this statement is borne out by another vebatim report.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The noble Lord will be in order if he confines himself to the accusation and his personal explanation.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: If the hon. Gentleman had allowed me to finish my sentence it is possible that he might have understood my object. The right hon. Gentleman stated at the time, in reply to my Questions, that this report was a condensed report. As the version given of his speech by the right hon. Gentleman differed entirely from The Times report, I, in accordance with the custom of the House, tendered an apology to the right hon. Gentleman because The Times report must be false. Since then I have read the other verbatim reports of the same speech, and I can no longer describe The Times report as false. I apologise to The Times newspaper. I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's version of his speech was incorrect; I offer no explanation; but apparently some one has blundered.
  MR. BIRRELL: I am sorry that any speech of mine should have occasioned the waste of time and the attention that has been given to it. I should like, however, to remind the noble Lord that when I spoke of a condensed report I was not referring to The Times, because I had not then, nor have I now, seen the report of the speech in The Times. My speech was delivered at a meeting on Friday, and next day I was in the north of England, and, being more pleasantly engaged, I did not see The Times on that day, and I do not propose to see it now. The condensation I referred to was that which appeared in the question of the noble Lord, and that obviously was a very condensed report. Speaking from memory, and having no means of correcting my recollection, for I spoke entirely without notes, I gave the House what I believe I did say—at all events, what I hope I said. To the best of my recollection what I said was that I racked my brains to discover some motive which was prompting these hon. Members in continuing to put to me these Questions; and then I added that it seemed to me as if they could have no other motive except what I proceeded to say. I will not quarrel with the reporter. One reporter —the reporter of the Bradford Observer—seemed to me to have given a very accurate and verbatim report, though I agree that he did not give the phrase the turn I intended to give it myself; and therefore, it is very likely, not being a master of speech like the noble Lord—
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: A cheap jest.
  MR. BIRRELL: It is not a jest at all. I can only say, therefore, and I am willing to say, that I am very sorry if I used language that seemed to impute improper motives to hon. Members sitting in that part of the House.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: It was insulting.
  MR. BIRRELL: Well, I can only express my regret for having used it.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  SIR WILLIAM GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member

  899
  from Standing Committee A: Mr. Beauchamp (added in respect of the Advertisements Regulation Bill); and had appointed, in substitution, Mr. Gooch (in respect of the Advertisements Regulation Bill).
  SIR WILLIAM GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C (in respect of the Patents and Designs Bill): Mr. Ainsworth and Mr. Whitehead; and had appointed, in substitution, Mr. Radford and Sir Frederick Cawley. Reports to lie upon the Table.
  The House divided: —Ayes, 305; Noes, 88. (Division List No. 151.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Ferens, T. R.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Ferguson, R, C. Munro

  Agnew, George William

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Alden, Percy

  Chance, Frederick William

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Ambrose, Robert

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R, R.

  Gill, A. H.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Ginnell, L.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Clough, William

  Glendinning. R, G.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Glover, Thomas

  Barker, John

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Barlow, John Emmott(S'merset

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Grant, Corri

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Greenwood. G. (Peterborough)

  Barnard, K. B.

  Cooper, G. J.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

  Gulland, John W.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Halpin, J.

  Beale, W. P.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cox, Harold

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Bell, Richard

  Crean, Eugene

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Crombie, John William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Crooks, William

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Bennett, E. N.

  Crossley, William J.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Bethell. Sir J. H.(Essex, R'mf'rd)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Davies, Timothy(Fulham)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Billson, Alfred

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Henderson. Arthur (Durham)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Delany, William

  Henry, Charles S.

  Black, Arthur W.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Blake, Edward

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Boland, John

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir.John P.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Brace, William

  Dillon. John

  Hogan, Michael

  Brigg, John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Duckworth. James

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Duffy, William J.

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N)

  Brunner, Rt. Hn Sir J. T(Cheshire

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Elibank, Master of

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Burt, Rt, Hon. Thomas

  Erskine, David C.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Essex, R. W.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Cairns, Thomas

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Cameron. Robert

  Fenwick, Charles

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Morrell, Philip

  Sinclair, Ht. Hon. John

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)

  Morse, L. L.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Jowett, F. W.

  Myer, Horatio

  Snowden, P.

  Joyce, Michael

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Kelley, George D.

  Napier, T. B.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Nicholls, George

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Steadman, W. C.

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Nuttall, Harry

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Lambert, George

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

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Lamont, Norman

  O'Dowd, John

  Taylor. John W. (Durham)

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Malley, William

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras, E.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Partington, Oswald

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Levy, Maurice

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

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

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Tomkinson, James

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Lough, Thomas

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

  Ure, Alexander

  Lundon, W.

  Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Verney, F. W.

  Lupton, Arnold

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Vivian, Henry

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rea, Walter Rusell (Scarboro')

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Reddy, M.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)

  Rees, J. D.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Maclean, Donald

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th)

  Ward, W. Dudley(South'mpt'n)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

  Richard, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n)

  Wardle, George J.

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Waring, Walter

  M'Callum, John M.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  M'Crae, George

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  M'Killop, W.

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott(Bradf'd)

  Watt, Henry A.

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

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Robinson, S.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Rowlands, J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Runciman, Walter

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Massie, J.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Meagher, Michael

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Menzies, Walter

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

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

  Micklem, W. Nathaniel

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne

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

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Sears, J. E.

  Wood, T. M. Kinnon

  Mond, A.

  Seddon, J.

  Young, Samuel

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Shackleton. David, James

  Montagu, E. S.

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Mooney, J. J.

  Sheehy, David

  Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Pease.

  NOES.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Cross, Alexander

  Ashley, W. W.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Cave, George

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Balfour. Rt Hn. A. J. (City Lond)

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  Fell, Arthur

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Clark, George Smith (Belfast, N)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm)

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Forster, Henry William

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

  Haddock, George R.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  902

  903

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent. Ashf'rd)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesh'm)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Lonsdale. John Brownlee

  Thomson. W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Turnour, Viscount

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm's

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Walrond, Hen Lionel

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

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

  Hills, J. W.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Moore, William

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

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Nield, Herbert

  Wilson. W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)

  Wolff, (Gustav Wilhelm

  Jenkins, J.

  Percy, Earl

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Younger, (George.

  Lane-Fox. G. R.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm)

  Sheffield. Sir Berkeley George D.

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Liddell, Henry

  Starkey, John R.

  and Viscount Valcatia.

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

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  First Resolution read a second time.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).
  First Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 135.]
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (WAYS AND MEANS')
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the proceedings on Report of the Committee of Ways and Means, if under discussion when the Business is postponed this day, be resumed and proceeded with, though opposed, after the interruption of Business." —(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  WAYS AND MEANS [18TH APRIL] REPORT.
  Resolutions reported.
  TEA.
  1. "That the Customs duty now charged on tea shall continue to be charged until the first day of July, nineteen hundred and eight (that is to say) —Tea, the pound, five pence."
  CONTINUANCE OF ADDITIONAL CUSTOMS DUTIES ON TOBACCO, BEER, AND SPIRITS.
  2. "That the additional Customs duties on tobacco, beer, and spirits imposed by Sections two, three, four, and five of the Finance Act, 1900 (including any increased duties imposed by Section five of that Act), shall continue to be charged until Parliament otherwise determine."
  CONTINUANCE OF ADDITIONAL EXCISE DUTIES ON BEER AND SPIRITS.
  3. "That the additional Excise duties on beer and spirits imposed by Sections six and seven of the Finance Act, 1900, shall continue to be charged until Parliament otherwise determine."
  HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENT.
  4. "That a hire-purchase agreement shall be charged with stamp duty as an agreement, or, if under seal, or in Scotland, with a clause of registration as a deed, as the case requires, and shall not in any case be exempt from stamp duty as an agreement, letter, or memorandum made for or relating to the sale of any goods, wares, or merchandise."

  ESTATE DUTY (FINANCE ACT, 1896, s. 21).
  5.—"That the deduction allowed under section twenty-one of the Finance Act,
  904
  1896, on account of the previous payment of duty on property shall (instead of being calculated as provided by that section) be taken to be the amount which would be payable on account of the duty on the property if the duty were calculated on the value of the property upon which estate duty is payable."

  PERMANENT ANNUAL CHARGE.
  6.—"That the permanent annual charge for the National Debt for the current financial year be twenty-nine and a-half million pounds."

  AMENDMENT OF LAW.
  7. —"That it is expedient to amend the law relating to the National Debt, Customs, and Inland Revenue."
  MR FLETCHERmoved to substitute 4d. for 5d. as the amount of the tea duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech that he was satisfied that a reduction of 1d. on the tea duty would not benefit the consumer. If that were so why did the right hon. Gentleman take off 1d. last year? The grocer with whom he dealt complained to him last year that to take off only 1d. was not enough, and that it would not affect the retail price; but that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had reduced the duty from (6d. to 4d., the retail grocers would have been able to grant some advantage to the poor consumer. A great deal was heard at the last general election about the iniquity of taxes on the food of the poor. The hon. Gentleman who represented him in the House of Commons sent him then a very ornamental card with his portrait upon it, and underneath the legend "No taxes

  905
  on food." He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would rectify his error in not taking off another 1d. from the tea duty, so that the consumer might get some benefit. He begged to move.
  MR. COURTHOPEin seconding, said that last year in introducing his Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer used those words, according to the Official Report—
  "I have had the percentages taken out of the taxation on the average value of articles of food charged with customs duty, and that on tea is 90 per cent. And if you take the cheaper qualities of tea, the percentage, of course, would be much higher. A reduction, however small, on the tea duty has, as compared with other remissions of taxation, several distinct advantages of its own. In the first place, tea being an article which does not undergo, after importation, more or leas elaborate process of manufacture or manipulation, the lowering of the tax is not intercepted or delayed, but goes almost directly to the consumer. "
  He thought that that statement was very inconsistent with the words used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day. When the Finance Bill was before the House last year, he personally urged a further reduction on, the tea duty, on the ground that a penny reduction would not benefit the poorest consumer; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer used the words he had quoted, in answer to his argument. But, assuming that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a great authority on the subject, the yon the Opposition side of the House urged him even now to endeavour to take off another 1d. from the tea duty, or to make some readjustment of the tax by which it would fall on the value of the tea and not on the weight, The great bulk of the tea used in this country was consumed by the very poor, and it was in some cases taxed to the extent of 200 per cent. of its value. It was hardly consistent for a Liberal Government to allow that state of things to remain. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer held out the hope that this year he would be able to deal with the tea duty in a more satisfactory manner. The right hon. Gentleman shook his head; but although he had not the Budget speech with him: he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman had held out the hope that he would give some relief to the tea consumer this year. It was on that ground that he and
  906
  his friends felt justified in pressing this Amendment to a division.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'Five,' and insert the word 'Four.'"'—(Mr. Fletcher)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'Five," stand part of the said Resolution."
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that he would be very glad to see the tea duty reduced to 4d., though he must confess that, as between the tea duty and the sugar duty, if he had the chance of dealing with indirect taxation at all, he would rather deal with the sugar duty, because tea, if in a sense a necessary of life, was rather on the luxury side of the line, while sugar was a real necessity as well as a raw material for a large number of industries. But he could not ask the House to accept this proposal—in the first place, because he could not afford to sacrifice the revenue; and, in the next place, because a reduction of 1d. in existing circumstances would not appreciably benefit the customer. Last year he gave reasons for the view he then held, and still held with modifications, that a reduction of 1d. on the 6d. duty would go to the consumer, either in diminished price or in improved quality. The reduction had gone to the consumer to a considerable extent in improved quality, though not much in diminished price. But the conditions of the tea trade had altered very much in the course of the year. There had been, for reasons not easy to determine, a large, and, perhaps, an abnormal, increase in the demand for Indian tea from foreign countries, and particularly from Russia, with the result that the wholesale price of tea had gone up, in spite of the reduction of duty, by something like a penny a lb., compared with this time last year. He had taken the trouble to ascertain the opinions of those most conversant with the matter, and he was advised that in the existing state of the trade, with this abnormal demand, a further reduction of a penny would certainly go to the producer or middleman, and very little to the consumer in this country. Weighing all these cumulative considerations, it appeared to him that, although he would like to see the tea duty brought back to the level at which it stood before the

  907
  war—and it had already been reduced from the war rate of 8d. to 5d. —the proposal would not, in existing conditions, have any satisfactory economic or social result.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBEELAINsaid that the right hon. Gentleman's speech illustrated the exceeding fineness of the line which divided necessaries from luxuries when the general articles of consumption by the people were in question. Looked at from the point of view of a medical man suggesting a dietary, sugar was more important than tea. Could any one looking at the ordinary expenditure in a poor household draw a distinction between tea and sugar?If anything could be found in the cupboard at all there would be a little bread, tea, and sugar. It was impossible to make a fiscal distinction by the theoretical line the Chancellor of the Exchequer attempted to; draw. What was the difference in the circumstances which made it likely that a reduction of a penny would reach the consumer last year and not this year? To that question the right hon. Gentleman had given no answer.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid he gave an explicit answer when he referred to the conditions of the trade and an abnormal increase in foreign demands.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that answer appeared to befatal to the whole body of the free-trade doctrine. The constant burden of the song of the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters was that the burden of a duty must fall on the consumer, never less, and sometimes more. But if a reduction would go to the middleman and grower, was it not equally likely that under certain conditions an increase would be borne by the middleman and producer?
  MR. ASQUITH: In certain circumstances.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINthought the admissions elicited day by day would afford valuable material for argument.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid there was no new admission; he had said over and over again, when referring to the ultimate burden falling on the consumer, that the
  908
  tendency might be restrained or delayed by other temporary causes.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid, then when hon. Gentlemen opposite said in general terms that any tax raising the price of an article would be borne by the consumer they did not mean that, but that under certain conditions, and in certain temporary circumstances, a great proportion of it would fall on the trade. He was glad to have that admission. He was inclined to say that though in particular cases a reduction of a penny might inure to the benefit of the consumer, a reduction of 2d. would be more likely to do so, and therefore he regretted that the Amendment was not in favour of 2d. The right hon. Gentleman now thought that to some extent the reduction of last year did go to the consumer, a modest phrase compared to that used last year, when, owing to the circumstances of the case, the consumer was to have the whole. What were the particular circumstances? There happened to be in bond at the time a great quantity of inferior tea which the owners had a difficulty in disposing of, but a penny off the duty enabled them to put it on the market with that reduction in price. He did not think that was of much advantage to the consumer, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's expectations were realised to the letter. There was an illustration this year of a fact known to every one who considered the question, that the incidence of a duty was one of many factors governing the price of the article affected, often the smallest of factors. If the duty was a material factor in fixing the price, then the price must be higher or lower in accordance with the duty. The refusal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to abate the duty on the ground he had given cut away the whole case upon which he and his friends had been accustomed to argue the question of duties, and introduced a little inconsistency into the arguments. For his own part he believed that a small duty on an article of general consumption supplied in very large quantities in a large market had but a very small effect on price in circumstances generally prevalent, and that the tax in a large measure fell on the producer. He regretted that the proposal was not for a reduction of 2d.; but he would vote for the Amendment

  909
  as a protest against the narrow limits within which the Chancellor of the Exchequer confined his attempts to raise revenue, and as an expression of his belief that the time had come when they ought to seek for resources in a wider field, where, be believed, they could raise the necessary taxation with less hardship to individuals and to the general welfare of the country.
  MR. REESsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire had made this discussion about tea the occasion for a general discussion about fiscal reform and the tariff question. He was reminded of the candidate who learnt up the binomial theorem, and, when it was not asked in the examination paper, began his answers by saying, "Before answering other questions it will be necessary to prove the binomial theorem" The right hon. Gentleman had deplored the fact that the poor people of this country had not got another penny off the tea duty, but he could not help remembering that it was the right hon. Gentleman and his friends who put this tax on, half of which had been remitted by the present Government. He sincerely hoped that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way to it, the other half would be taken off. There was one question he wished to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to this duty. It had been stated that the right hon. Gentleman looked forward to the shilling income-tax and the duty on tea and sugar at their present rates as being permanent. That he knew was not the case, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would take the opportunity to say so?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have said so already.
  MR. REESsaid he was glad to hear that, because there was undoubtedly an impression in the country that those taxes had been stereotyped at the present rates. He was glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressly and explicitly disavowed any such idea. It had been said that the poor received no benefit from the remission of a penny on the tea duty, but he submitted that they had received some benefit in the way of getting a better quality of tea. With the causes for present very high
  910
  prices he had already dealt when the Budget was introduced, and the facts were admitted. There was another class of person who was seldom mentioned in the House who would get a benefit, and that was the tea-planter in India, who worked hard and deserved well of his country. No one indeed deserved better, and by no one had he as much as heard his name mentioned in the House since he himself spoke last year on this subject. In theory he agreed with the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Amendment, but it seemed to him that they were so exceedingly kind that they wanted to give away what they had not got. For this reason, although he was in whole-hearted sympathy with what had been said as to the desirability of a lower duty on tea, feeling that it was not practicable at the present moment, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer's present plans held the field, he should vote against the Amendment before the House. He hoped, however, that the time would come when a further reduction in the tea duty would be possible. He quite sympathised with the view that tea must be regarded almost as a necessity for the poor, just as much as sugar was, and he looked forward to a reduction of the duty on the latter, almost as anxiously as he did for a reduction of the duty on tea. For the Opposition who doubled the duty to censure the Government which was reducing it seemed to him absurd. They said "why take a penny; we would give two pence." And they did twice, but it was each time twopence on, not twopence off, and it was the cost of the war, in part, which now kept the duty up to the present high figure.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs had advanced certain arguments in defence of the Amendment, and then said he was going to vote against it. He did not think that was a consistent course to take. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, as a matter of fact, only a few months ago, had denounced the tea duty throughout the length and breadth of the land but now when a reduction of it was moved they got up in their places and said that they were going to vote against the proposal. For himself he was going to maintain a consistent attitude. The

  911
  speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to him to be so sound that he intended to vote with the right hon. Gentleman and against the Amendment. He had always been in favour of indirect taxation as against direct taxation, whereas hon. Members opposite had always taken the contrary view. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said he could not assent to a reduction of the tea duty by one penny a pound, because if he did so no benefit would accrue to the purchasing classes who consumed the article. The hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs had said that if there was no reduction in price in consequence of the remission of the penny last year, there had been an improvement in quality; but how did the hon. Gentleman know that? Had he bought two years ago a sample of tea and compared it with a sample of tea which he had purchased at the present moment? In his opinion the quality of the tea which was being sold now was exactly the same as the quality of that which was sold two years ago, and in his view the retailer was selling the same tea and reaping the additional profit caused by the reduction. He quite agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that small reductions made no difference to the consumer, and he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on having at last got some glimmering of financial reasoning, and on having shown sufficient courage to oppose the statements made by about 99 per cent. of his followers, to the effect that they would do away with the tea duty if they were returned.
  MR. J. F. MASONobserved that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the tea and sugar duties were not permanent and were only maintained now because the expenses of the war were not yet paid off. He would point out that the war debt stood now at £138,000,000, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not suggest that the whole of the £20,000,000 of war taxes which were still kept on was for the service of that debt. The right hon Gentleman was really maintaining war taxes to meet the ordinary expenses of the country. As regarded the question of the remission of a penny duty on tea, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said it
  912
  was unnecessary to take it off because it would not be reflected in the price which the consumer paid. He thought, however, that the reduction of the duty would have a considerable effect upon the price paid by the consumer. The only conclusion at which he could arrive was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had considerably modified his view of 1ast year.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he differed from the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London in the view he took on this matter, as, so far, he had himself consistently supported such a reduction of the tea duty as would be consistent with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's surplus. He wished to put in a plea for poor people who lived in country places rather than those who lived in large towns. He thought the evidence as to the reduction of 1d. on the tea duty last year tended to show that the poorer classes living in far country places had not benefited from it to any large extent. As was pointed out at the time the reduction was made, the inhabitants of country villages, small farmers and labourers, did not experience any appreciable difference, either in the quality of their tea or its price, as a result of the reduction of the tax by 1d.; whereas, it was held by those best qualified to give an opinion on such a subject, that the reduction of 2d. which meant a third of the tax of 6d. in the £, would certainly be of great benefit to the poorer classes, especially in Ireland. If there was any difficulty in meeting the deficit which might be caused by a further reduction of 1d., it might be some argument against the proposal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer last year, speaking on the subject, said that personally he would be glad if he could reduce the duty by 2d. The intentions of the right hon. Gentleman had not been carried out, either last year or this. The time had come when, in all justice and fairness to those who did not benefit by the reduction of a 1d. last year, the right hon. Gentleman should, carrying out his own wish, and the pledges of a number of his supporters, consider the case of the poorer classes who lived in remote country places, who were not represented

  913
  to the same extent as those who lived in crowded cities. In certain country districts tea was purchased from porters who went round once or twice a week. There was no competition in those districts such as was to be found between grocers in large towns, and the result was that the trifle taken off the tea duty, although it might benefit to some extent, those who lived in large towns, was not felt in distant rural areas. The deficit which would be caused by a further reduction of the duty by 1d. could be met without disturbing the Budget in any way if some other tax were substituted. There were something like £150,000,000 worth of other taxable commodities, chiefly imported from foreign countries, which were not like tea, the latter being grown to a large extent within our own Empire, notably in Ceylon. These other commodities consisted of frozen meat, salt beef, tinned and preserved meats, bacon, ham, frozen pork, salt pork, and so forth, which came into this country without a penny of taxation. Where the unfortunate inequality arose was that in large cities and commercial and manufacturing centres those very commodities which he had mentioned were consumed in large quantities and were not used at all in country districts, so that they brought to one class of the community free food, while in country districts the people produced and lived upon their own beef and mutton and bacon and enjoyed none of the advantages of dwellers in towns, nor did they receive any benefit from the reduction which had been made on the tea duty last year. If the Chancellor the the Exchequer confined his Budget to the narrow basis on which he was working this year he thought poor people in country districts would receive little relief. Personally he had much pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSSwas understood to say that he supported the Amendment, though there were two reasons of a somewhat deterrent nature against his doing so. The first was that it was a matter of history that the only certified lunatic who ever voted in that House voted in favour of a reduction of the tea duty—a circumstance which should make it
  914
  difficult for him to support the Amendment. The next reason was to be found in the speeches delivered from the Front Bench below him and by those around him. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he could not make any further reduction of the tea duty, and that it would have very slight effect if made. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that there were two or three particular circumstances which went to make up the retail price of an article. There was first the tax. If the reduction of the tax was not sufficient to bring about a fall in the retail price of the article on which the tax was placed, then, of course, the middleman made the profit. If the reduction of the tax was not large enough to effect a reduction of the price charged to the retailer, then there could not be at once a reduction to the consumer. The retail price would probably remain the same, and some other person benefited. But if they dealt with a charge on an article in the form of extra cost, or considered the cost of the article in the form of an extra tax, it was an addition which ultimately the consumer must pay. It had been contended that when a tax was put on an article a rise of price did not take place. That was true in regard to the corn tax, because corn became very plentiful at the time, but there was a rise at first. He was a member of a firm which landed 1,000 quarters of wheat on the quay at Liverpool, and when a 1s. duty was imposed, that corn immediately became 1s. dearer. He might tell the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, who represented a great city composed mainly of commercial men, that had the price of corn in America been the same and 1s. was put on the price would have become 1s. dearer. Anything which added to the cost of an article, whether it was duty, freight, or scarcity, in the end must make that article dearer. As to the price of corn not falling when the duty was taken off they all knew that it was only a temporary and local interception, and to found an argument upon that fact was an absurdity. It had been said that the reduction of the tea duty by 1d. last year had not improved the quality to the consumer. The hon. Member who made that statement forgot that there was such a thing as competition.

  915
  Let a man in any trade endeavour to reduce the quality of an article in order to augment his profit, and although he might succeed for a week or a year—as the tariff reformers succeeded in deceiving certain Members of the Unionist Party for a period—competition would compel him to give the same value in the end as other grocers or otherwise he would be driven out of the trade.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was not afraid of being turned out because he was a tariff reformer.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid he proposed to support the Amendment on the plea that there were a great many persons upon whom this tax told most severely. He thought it was the duty of any hon. Member who represented the toilers and moilers whose present burdens were greater than their wages could bear to urge the necessity of the reduction of a tax which pressed so severely upon them. He felt it his duty to use every available opportunity to press upon those in charge of the finances of the country the importance of never losing sight of the fact that this was a tax which pressed very severely upon the poor and that any alleviation would be welcome.
  MR. ASHLEYthought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been rather inconsistent on this question. The right hon. Gentleman had said he objected to taking 1d. off the tea duty because it would make no difference to the consumer. He would like to know in that case why 1d. was taken off tea last year, it being then argued that it would make a very considerable difference That was not a very consistent attitude for the Government to adopt. He desired to support the appeal in favour of taking 1d. per pound off Colonial tea.
  MR. ASQUITHpointed out that 97 per cent. of the tea consumed in this country came from the Colonies.
  MR. ASHLEYsaid that was all the more reason for encouraging it by giving the Colonies a preference. He thought the present time was an opportune
  916
  moment for the Government to endeavour to do something for the Colonies, for they would greatly appreciate even the smallest amount of preference. He hoped the Colonial Conference would not be allowed to break up without the Government giving some small concession to the Colonies in regard to the tea duty.
  MR. DILLONsaid he had been for twenty years a Member of the House of Commons and had taken part in a great many discussions of this character, but until last year and on the present occasion he had never heard of an Amendment to reduce the tea duty coming from the Conservative Party. Irish Members had frequently moved to reduce the tea duty, and so had Radicals below the gangway. He felt it his duty to point out that this Bidget was rather hard upon Ireland. The difficulty they always had to encounter in discussing these proposals was that the Budget was always drawn up—and it was inevitable that it should be so—with a view to the condition of this country. It was almost impossible, for the Irish Members to get a hearing for their view as to the effect upon the Irish people of Budgets drawn up from an English point of view. It had now become almost an accepted axiom that the aim of the Chancellor of Exchequer should be to maintain the balance between direct and indirect taxation. It had become the custom of Chancellors of the Exchequer to boast that they had kept direct taxation a little above indirect, and it had been stated that the proportion was 52 per cent. of direct taxation and 48 per cent. of indirect taxation. He wished to point out that in Ireland the proportion was 75 per cent.of indirect and 25 per cent. of direct taxation. While the proportion in Great Britain of direct taxation to indirect taxation was increasing, in Ireland it was decreasing. That was a melancholy state of things and showed the great evil which might arise from the application of one principle to countries whose social and economic conditions were radically different. That was one of the evils which had led to the over taxation of Ireland, and it was one of the causes of the great poverty existing in that country. He had never alleged that English

  917
  Members had willingly and knowingly inflicted this great injustice upon Ireland. His opinion was that in many cases they did it unknowingly, because naturally their minds were fixed upon the social and economic condition of their own country. It was impossible to deny that the Budgets of this country were so constructed as to inflict a monstrously heavy burden upon the poor classes in Ireland. That was the reason why Irish Members had for the last twenty years, in season and out of season, resisted indirect taxes upon articles of food. Many years ago a Chancellor of the Exchequer twitted the Irish Party with having allowed two or three sessions to go by without questioning the injustice of the English system of taxation. It was for that reason that he could not allow this discussion to pass without some Irish Member taking part in it. He did not intend to raise the question of the over-taxation of Ireland in detail at the present moment. And why? Because they knew that on Tuesday next a great scheme would be proposed which would probably inflict a totally new system of taxation upon Ireland. At all events, they would reserve their comments until they saw what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to do. He wished to say a word on an aspect of the case which appeared to him to have been lost sight of by hon. Members above the gangway who were supporting the Amendment and still more by the Members of the Labour Party with whom the Nationalist Party generally acted. While he felt bound in the interest of the Irish people to support this Amendment as he had always supported Amendments of a similar character, he, on the other hand, in justice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, must say that if they in this country were going in for a system of universal old age pensions all classes would have to contribute to it. That was a consideration which appeared to have dropped out of sight. Putting aside for a moment the peculiar position of Ireland, and speaking as if he were an English Member, he was bound to say that the question of old age pensions was a very large one, and that it would involve an enormous expenditure. He thought there was a good deal to be said for the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  918
  who in introducing the Budget had pointed out that his main motive—he took it that it was his only motive— for not proposing larger reductions of taxation was that he was laying by the resources necessary to commence a system of old age pensions. Looking at the proposal from the general point of view, his own attitude towards the whole question of taxation would be considerably modified if they accepted the principle of old age pensions and laid upon themselves the duty of providing the enormous annual income required there for. Old age pensions would be so enormous a boon to the working classes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be justified in asking for some larger contribution from indirect taxation, balanced, of course, by contributions from direct contributions, if any such scheme should be introduced. While he felt bound to support the Amendment he recognised that it was open to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet the Irish difficulty at another time, and he and his friends awaited with interest the proposals which he would make. There were two ways of meeting the Irish difficulty.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think I must remind the hon. Member that I have allowed him a good deal of latitude on the Irish question. After all, this is the question of the tea duty and not of the general system of taxation and I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to that question as it affects Ireland.
  MR. DILLONsaid he was just concluding. It had always been the custom to go into the Irish question on the tea duty. He was sorry to say that the tea duty was a very important Irish question, because it hit Ireland exceedingly unjustly. He was stating why the Nationalist Members were supporting the Amendment, and sparing the House a discussion which on former occasions had occupied the greater part of a night.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOONsaid the hon. Member for East Mayo had spoken year after year of the iniquities of the duty on tea. He himself was rather inclined to agree with the hon. Member for the City of London in his disposition

  919
  to vote with the Government against the proposed reduction, believing that the immemorial proportions as between direct and indirect taxation should be maintained. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remember that 97½ per cent. of our tea came from India and Ceylon. Upwards of 2,000,000 of Indian natives in eking out a precarious existence were dependent on the cultivation of the plant. He could not but think that it was a most iniquitous proceeding to tax an article which came directly and almost exclusively from India and Ceylon, while we allowed foreign manufactures to come in free. After all, tea was partially a raw material. It had to go through a series of processes before it was fit for use. Personally, he was not going to take part in the division on the Amendment, although he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had hardly made out a case for not taking 2d. off the tea duty. The right hon. Gentleman placed himself on the horns of a dilemma when he said that a 1d. off the duty would not reach the ordinary consumer. That was the contention which tariff reformers had been making all over the country. They said that any import duty on an article in which there was a good deal of competition was bound to be borne by the middleman and the exporter. But if 1d. was insufficient, why did not the right hon. Gentleman take 2d. off? The right hon. Gentleman said he and his Party had the mandate of the country not to turn their faces to other sources of revenue. When the Opposition suggested that there were certain manufactured articles coming into this country on which a small duty might be levied, the right hon. Gentleman said the Government had the mandate of the country not to depart from the existing system of taxation. Whence did the Party opposite get their inspiration? What was the basis of their contentions as to this mandate? The House might know that there was an interesting animal called the ornithorhynchus, which had feet like a deer, claws like an owl, fur like a badger, a tail like a rat, and could swim like a fish. The mandates and attributes of the Government reminded him of, that animal. They possessed many and various characteristics.
  920
  The Government said they had mandates to uphold free trade, to reform the system of education, to deal with licences, and to introduce some form of devolution leading up to Home Rule for Ireland. If they had all those mandates, on what did they base their contention? At any rate he protested against the proposal to reduce the tea duty, and therefore he would refrain from opposing the Government.
  SIR C. SCHWANNagreed with the proposal to maintain the 1s. income-tax, but he thought in regard to the sugar and tea duties the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have done more. He had for many years voted in favour of the reduction of the tea tax. He was in favour of a free breakfast table as far as possible. The present seemed to him an occasion when, with a large surplus, it would have been quite possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have relieved the poorer classes of the community in connection with the tea or sugar duty. In the last few months the price of the lower qualities of tea had risen 2d. or 3d. per pound, or 40 per cent. The fact that the price had so risen meant that a reduction in the duty would have been of advantage to the poorer classes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that 1d. in the pound off the tea duty would not be felt. Members of the House were aware that in the poorer districts of large cities tea was not always sold in one pound packets. It was also sold in quarter-pound packets, and even in smaller quantities, and, therefore, a difference of 1d. per pound was immediately felt by the poorer classes. He sympathised very much with what had fallen from the hon. Member for East Mayo. There was no doubt that the Irish people consumed largely the high classes of tea, and it seemed rather hard that the one article they consumed in enormous quantities should be so heavily taxed. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before he brought in the Bill based on these Resolutions, would consider whether he could not make some reduction on the tea duty. He would follow the example of the hon. Baronet opposite and abstain from supporting in the division Lobby the Party

  921
  with which he had generally the pleasure of voting.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that the hon. Member for East Mayo had said that the Members on the Opposition side of the House had suddenly developed an objection to indirect taxation. He did not think that that conclusion was exactly in accordance with fact. They had no objection to indirect taxation; quite the contrary. What they objected to was that as the national expenditure was steadily increasing, the system of taxation was running in a vicious circle, and that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to give relief anywhere, he must do so within a very narrow radius or resort to the income-tax. No reduction of the taxation on tea or sugar could accomplish what the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired to meet, the increased national expenditure caused by an increase of population. The right hon. Gentleman, if he did not get his necessary income from sugar and tea, must obtain it from spirits, or a readjustment of the income-tax. The hon. Member for East Mayo opposed a tax on the very poor from a local standpoint. He said that 72 per cent. of the taxation imposed on Ireland was indirect, especially on tea and sugar. It was admitted that the tax on tea was very heavy, and that it pressed on the poor man to the extent of 100 per cent. of the value of the tea. No doubt that was unfair. An hon. Member had suggested that they on the Opposition side of the House had developed a concern for the poor man, the suggestion being that hitherto they had had no sympathy with the poorer classes. What they proposed was the introduction of a different system of taxation, by which there would be a reduction of the tea tax, which would give relief to the poor, and give an opportunity of raising revenue on certain imports. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was a very hard-headed and somewhat hard-fisted business man—he meant as Chancellor of the Exchequer—and he had suggested that the reduction of the tea duty by a penny, if it did not lead to a reduction in the price of the article, would lead to a betterment in in quality. Did anybody believe that if
  922
  a poor man or woman went into a grocer's shop and insisted on getting a better quality of tea, he or she would be listened to? He did not think that any grocer would be so altruistic as to do that. The advantage would go to the middleman. An hon. Member had suggested that the element of competition ought to be taken into consideration; but did any one believe that the poorer class of people would go from shop to shop and carefully test the quality of the tea offered them. [Cries of "Yes" from the LABOUR Benches.] Then they had more time on their hands than was generally suggested by those who demanded an eight-hours day. His contention was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given an entirely wrong interpretation of the situation. The fact was that the right hon. Gentleman was faced with a dilemma. The right hon. Gentleman said that if he took a halfpenny offthe sugar duty it would be of no benefit to the consumer. (MINISTERIAL cries of "A farthing."] Well, let it be a farthing or half-a-farthing. What he, and those who agreed with him, maintained was that if a duty of 1s. per cwt. were put on corn imported into this country, it would not fall on the consumer in the same proportion as a tarthing per pound on tea. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was faced with the protests of his friends that a duty of 1s. per cwt. on corn would ruin the working man; but, in effect, the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that it would really make no difference. He had said that the reduction of 1d. per pound on the duty on tea had not been enjoyed by the consumer, because of temporary causes. He (Sir Gilbert Parker) did not believe that that explanation was satisfactory. He would support the Amendment, first, because he believed that the tax was too high; and secondly, because it was unequal in its incidence, and fell more heavily on the poor who paid 1s. or so per pound for their tea, than on the rich who paid from 2s. 6d. to 4s. 6d. and upwards per pound for their special tea. He also supported the Amendment because he wanted to broaden the basis of taxation so that it would not press heavily on the poor. At any rate, if a duty were put on foreign corn, a preference of some sort would be given to our great and

  923
  important colonies, to whom it would be of incalculable assistance in the development of their resources. It would, moreover, ultimately cheapen the price of corn in this country. [An HON. MEMBER: Rubbish.] He protested against the discourtesy of the interruption when a great deal of latitude had been allowed to previous speakers. He wished to express the belief that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be compelled to reduce the taxes on tea and sugar by the pressure of his own Party.
  LORD R. CECILsaid that the hon. Member for Gravesend had, in course of his interesting speech, spoken about the great advantage of broadening the basis of taxation. With all humility he wished to say that he would be very glad if any one could tell him what was meant by "broadening the basis of taxation." His impression was that, whoever paid a tax in the first instance, ultimately the tax would be spread over the whole body of the population. He was in the fortunate position of being able to take the course of following the lead of the hon. Member for the City of London and would support the Government. He objected to pay taxes himself, but after all the money had to be raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer somewhere and somehow, and if it was not to be raised from the tea duty, it must be raised in some other direction—say, from the income-tax. They constantly heard comparisons made between direct and indirect taxation. The great merit attributed to direct taxation was that it brought home to the taxpayer any extravagance on the part of the Government of the day. But the direct taxpayers were a very small number compared with the indirect taxpayers, and they did not in fact exercise any very considerable political power. The great mass of power in this country lay in the hands of the working classes, who paid no income-tax. The result was they did not feel the effect of a rise in the income-tax.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid the noble Lord was going far too widely in this matter. He could not go into all these matters which he was now dis-
  924
  cussing without embarking on a discussion which was out of order.
  LORD R. CECILsaid it was a little difficult to explain why he objected to any remission of the tea duty without going into these matters. He would not, however, enlarge further. It was enough for him to say that inasmuch as the working classes paid tea duty as much a: any other section of the community it followed that, as the mass of the power in this country lay in the hands of the people of the country, if the tea duty was raised they would feel it at once, and would at once use their power to stop the extravagance that necessitated it. He should, therefore, vote for the Government and against the Amendment.
  MR. C.E. PRICEsaid that had the Amendment been to remit 2d. instead of 1d. he would still have been inclined to support it. The reason for that was that the hon. Member for Nottingham last year, when a reduction of 1d. was being made, read a number of interesting documents showing that while the 1d. taken off would be transferred from one branch of the trade to another, there was no evidence that it would be transferred to the consumer, who would, therefore, obtain no benefit from the remission. If they derived no benefit from the remission last year how could it be said that they would derive a benefit from the remission now proposed. If 2d. had been remitted last year the consumer would have benefited, but to take off 2d. in two bites, as it were, destroyed the benefit they otherwise would receive. There had been some evidence of what the result would be of a remission of 2d. In a great many cases it was the practice of the tea dealers who sold quarter-pound packets of tea to put on those packets when the duty was raised that the price of those packets was increased by ½d. on account of a rise in the tea duty. If 2d. was taken off the same rivalry and competition would have necessitated the tea dealers putting on those packets, "The price of this packet is reduced by ½d.," and the consumer would immediately have got the benefit. As he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a great mistake in not

  925
  reducing the tax on tea by 2d. he should support the Amendment. Another reason for his taking that course was that, after he spoke on this subject last year when he strongly advocated a reduction of 2d.,he received no end of letters from members of the trade alleging that no advantage would be derived by the consumer from the reduction of a penny. He desired the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bear in mind in dealing with taxes on food that the reduction of a tax should always be done in such a way that the consumer could force the trade to give them the benefit. Whenever a small reduction was made it was never transferred to the consumer. It should always be sufficiently large to make it worth the while of the middleman to reduce the price of the goods sold over the counter. While they were promised old age pensions next year nothing had been said to show that there would be no change in the duties upon tea and sugar, and he for his part hoped that a substantial reduction would be made in either one or the other or both next year.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: said he quite agreed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a great mistake in not reducing the tax upon tea by more than 1d. last year. He was inclined to vote for this Amendment because he thought as a result of the double reduction the consumer would benefit. He could not follow the hon. Member who had just sat down. According to the hon. Gentleman if the tax was reduced by 1d. even until it was taken off altogether the consumer would get no benefit. He quite agreed that when the right hon. Gentleman reduced the tax on tea or sugar he should reduce it by such an amount and in such a way that the whole of the benefit should go to the consumer. The right hon. Gentleman had lost a valuable source of revenue in the coal duty which he could have easily devoted to the reduction of the tea duty. The result of remitting that duty had been of advantage to foreign buyers, whilst it had been of the greatest disadvantage to the consumers in this country. The general taxpayers of the country
  926
  had lost £2,500,000 a year, an amount which might not only have been devoted to the reduction of the tea duty, but also to forming a valuable nucleus for old age pensions. Because he agreed with his hon. friend in reducing this tax, and because he thought the proposed reduction of 1d. would benefit the consumer, he supported the Amendment.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid it was seldom he disagreed with his noble friend the Member for East Marylebone, but on this occasion he could not accept or adopt the argument he had put forward that there was a great deal to be said in favour of retaining the tax in its present form because it was likely to bring home to the working classes a sense of their national responsibility. That was an argument that might equally be addressed either to an increase or a decrease in all indirect taxation. In his opinion indirect taxation upon tea and sugar pressed with undue and disproportionate harshness upon the poorest classes. He desired to make one or two observations on that, and to call attention to the guidance that had been given to us in this matter by the practice in other countries. We were the only English speaking race who imposed any taxation on tea, and if we had regard to foreign countries, in Germany the duty amounted to 1½d., in Sweden 3d. and in Denmark 4d. In this country, where we were inflexibly determined that there should be no taxes on food, we raised a revenue of £6,000,000 upon tea. He did not imagine that any change had taken place in the circumstances of the country during the last twelve months which would entitle anyone to say that the reduction of 1d. this year would not go to the consumer, but that last year it did. The question which he had asked of the right hon. Gentleman last year, and which the right hon. Gentleman necessarily considered before making this proposal, was whether the reduction of 1d. would really reach the consumer. The answer given by the right hon Gentleman was that it would. He asserted that all the arguments used in the House a year ago were applicable to-day. He believed that all hon. Gentlemen opposite eighteen months

  927
  ago said they were against food taxes. There was not one who contested an election who would not remember the words on the posters, "No food taxes." He therefore trusted he would have the support of all hon. Members who announced eighteen months ago that they were in favour of no food taxes. There were very few who, having announced that they were opposed to all taxes on food, did not also announce themselves as being in favour of oldage pensions, and therefore admitted that the two propositions
  were not mutually destructive. If their contention was an honest one, and if they had given attention to the financial circumstances of the country as a whole and were satisfied that it was a practical possibility to give old-age pensions and take off these food taxes they should have no hesitation in joining with him in supporting the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 250; Noes, 146. (Division List No. 152.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Agnew, George William

  Clynes, J. R.

  Hejme, Norval Watson

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Alden, Percy

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

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

  Asquith. Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Astbury, John Meir

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

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Atherley, Jones, L.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hodge, John

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Cox, Harold

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Crombie, John William

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Barker, John

  Crooks, William

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset

  Crossley, William J.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Jenkins, J.

  Beale, W. P.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Beauchamp, E.

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

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Beck, A, Cecil

  Dickson-Poynder Sir John P.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor(Swansea)

  Bell, Richard

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Elibank, Master of

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Bertram, Julius

  Essex, R. W.

  King, Alfred John(Knutsford)

  Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf''rd

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Billson, Alfred

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lambert, George

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lamont, Norman

  Brace, William

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Brigg, John

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Brooke, Stopford

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich

  Brunner. Rt. Hn Sir J. T. (Chesh.

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert J.

  Levy, Maurice

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Glendinning R. G.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Burns, Rt, Hon. John

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Burt, Rt, Hon. Thomas

  Grant, Corrie

  Lough, Thomas

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Byles, William Pollard

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs

  Cairns, Thomas

  Grev, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Cameron, Robert

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Crae, George

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Chance, Frederick William

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Harwood, George

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Vivian, Henry

  Menzies, Walter

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Mond, A.

  Sears, J. E.

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

  Montagu, E. S.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Ward, John(Stoke upon Trent)

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Seddon, J.

  Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton

  Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Waring, Walter

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Shackleton, David James

  Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

  Morrell, Phillip

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

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

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Napier, T. B.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Watt, Henry A.

  Nicholls, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. "John

  Whitbread, Howard

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Smcaton, Donald Mackenzie

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Partington, Oswald

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

  Whitley, John Henry(Halifax)

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

  Steadman, W. C.

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Radford, G. H.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Williams Llewellyn(Carmarth'n

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

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

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

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

  Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Winfrey, R.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen, E.)

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

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Younger, George

  Robinson, S.

  Tomkinson, James

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES —Mr.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Toulmin, George

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Rowlands, J.

  Ure, Alexander

  Pease.

  Runciman, Walter

  Verney, F. W.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.)

  Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Acland-Hood, Rt, Hn. Sir Alex. F

  Crean, Eugene

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Ambrose, Robert

  Cross, Alexander

  Hudson, Walter

  Ashley, W. W.

  Delany, William

  Hunt, Rowland

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Jowett, F. W.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dillon, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Kelly, George D.

  Balfour Rt Hn. A. J(City Lond.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kennaway, Rt Hon. Sir John H.

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G(Winchester

  Duffy, William J.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry N.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in(Furness

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Barry, E. (Cork S.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lea, Hugh Cecil(St. Pancras E.)

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Faber, George Denison(York)

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

  Becket, Hon. Gervase

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

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Fell, Arthur

  Lundon, W.

  Blake, Edward

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Boland, John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Forster, Henry William

  MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Gardner, Ernest(Berks, East)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Kean, John

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Ginnell, L.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Cave, George

  Glover, Thomas

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

  Haddock, George R.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Cecil, Evelyn(Aston Manor)

  Halpin, J.

  Mooney, J. J.

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

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Moore, William

  Clark, George Smith(Belfast, N.

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd

  Nolan, Joseph

  Clough, William

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hazelton, Richard

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hervey, F. W. F(Bury S Edm'ds

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

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  O'Dowd, John

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.)

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Hare, Patrick

  930

  931

  O'Malley, William

  Roche, John (Galway,-East)

  Thorne, William

  0'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Thornton, Percy M.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Parker, Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Sheehy, David

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

  Percy, Earl

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Wardle, George J.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Snowden, P.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Starkey, John R.

  Wyntham, Rt. Hon. George

  Reddy, M.

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.

  Young, Samuel

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampt'n

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Fletcher and Sir William

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Bull.

  Second Resolution read a second time.

  MR. HARMOOD-BANNERmoved to strike out the words "until Parliament otherwise determines," and to insert the words, "Until the first day of July, 1908." In previous years he had found that the Resolution invariably ran, "Until the first day of July in the year" succeeding that in which the Resolution was passed. This year, for some reason or another—and they had a right to an explanation—they found that the charge was made a permanent one, and this had been done without any notice, so far as he had been able to gather, having been given to the House or to the trades interested in either tobacco, beer, or spirits. He had no doubt they would hear why it was to be made a permanent tax. It was not mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman in his Budget speech, and as regarded tobacco he was certainly astonished to learn that it was now to become a permanent tax instead of being dealt with from year to year. The manufacture of tobacco was rather a prosperous business, and there was a feeling that these duties ought to be altered so that manufactured tobacco and raw tobacco were put on the same level. At present the duty on manufactured tobacco was comparatively so much higher than the duty on raw tobacco that no manufactured tobacco of any sort or kind came into this country. They who believed in no duty on raw material and a duty on manufactured articles were not able to understand how the Government could consistently levy these taxes as they were now doing. It had no doubt added enormously to the prosperity of manufacturers in Bristol and other places, and it was a distinct
  932
  preference against the importation of manufactured articles from other places. No doubt, when they advocated their principle of tariff reform they would bring up the fact of the prosperity of this industry, which showed dividends of twenty or thirty per cent. They would be able to illustrate their case by reference to the manufactured tobacco industry, and if the House did not accept the views of tariff reformers, at all events they should accept their own views and put raw tobacco and manufactured tobacco on an equality, so that there should be no preference or difference between them. He wanted to know why the duty was to be made permanent instead of temporary, and why the excise duties on beer and spirits, raised for war purposes, were to be for all time, instead of for the year, when they could be brought up for discussion again another year. He certainly felt called upon to express his surprise that the Resolution was in this form, instead of being annual—a plan which would enable those interested in the trades affected to have questions properly analysed and discussed, so that they might know where they were. He begged to move.
  SIR F. BANBURY,in seconding the Amendment, said the object of his hon. friend was to preserve the opportunity which had existed for the last thirty or forty years, probably longer, in that House, of discussing Resolutions with reference to these particular taxes. These taxes had been raised to the height at which they stood at the present moment because it was necessary to provide funds to carry on the war. They were war taxes, yet not a single farthing had been reduced since the war. It had always been hoped that when the finances of the country permitted, the taxes which were raised during the war would be

  933
  reduced, if not to their former level, at any rate to a lower limit than that at which they now stood. The only reason that he could see why the Chancellor of the Exchequer sought to make these taxes permanent was either that he saw no hope that the revenue would increase —which did not bear out the statements which he had made in introducing the Budget—or else that he was determined that under no circumstances should these taxes ever be reduced, and therefore made them permanent in the hope that they would be lost sight of by the people who were paying them, and by Members of the House. He could see no reason why this course should be taken. If the taxes in their present form were just, if they were necessary to meet the requirements of the country, why should not the House of Commons have an opportunity of considering them on the Resolutions as it had done from time immemorial? He had little doubt that a great number of Chancellors of the Exchequer would like to have done this had they dared, but he did not believe his right hon. friend below him would have dared, because he would at once have been met by such a protest from the other side of the House. He had great pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the words 'Parliament otherwise determine,' and insert the words 'the first day of July, nineteen hundred and eight.' "—(Mr. Harmood-Banner.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said Resolution."
  MR. ASQUITHsaid the hon. Member opposite was perfectly entitled to raise this question, and he regretted that in compressing his speech, in consideration for the House, as much as he could, he omitted this particular point. No doubt he ought to have referred to it. But it was completely covered by the statement he made, that for the time being these war-taxes ought to be regarded as taxes of a permanent character. But the objection taken by the hon. baronet was a most extraordinary one. He seemed to think that there was something unconstitutional in having a tax for all time until Parliament otherwise inter-
  934
  fered, and that the proper and normal course was to get taxation renewed annually by the Finance Act of the year. They could not have had a more remarkable illustration than the case now before them. These duties on tobacco, beer and spirits were small extra taxes which were imposed in the year 1900, and not from time immemorial. They were small additional duties put on for the purposes of the war, but the actual duties on beer, spirits and tobacco were permanent duties which never came under the review of Parliament. The right hon. Baronet seemed to think that they were committing a gross infraction of the Constitution in passing these heavy duties once for all, and because he made a change in assimilating these additions with the particular taxes to which they belonged and treating them as part of the general taxation.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that was one of the great reasons why he objected, because these were duties which were imposed for the purposes of the war, and it was presumed that when the war was over they might be taken off. It was now proposed to make them permanent.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that these small additional duties on beer, spirits, and tobacco, and on luxuries, were put on at the time of the war, and he did not think that they ought to be exposed to the necessity of every year renewing them for another year, which they did not do in the case of normal taxation, with two exceptions—the tea duty, on which there was a Resolution to enable the House to review the whole of the indirect taxation, and the income-tax Resolution, to enable the House to review the whole of our direct taxation. His proposition was that these small additions to the taxes should take their place as part of the permanent taxation. By taking that course they saved two clauses in the Finance Bill every year. He felt sure that his right hon. predecessor had been subjected to the same temptation as he had been, but that was the advantage, provided that no question of principle was involved. He was sure the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been very glad to have saved these two clauses, but he would certainly have been exposed to a good deal of opposition and a good deal of criticism from some of

  935
  his supporters if he had selected these two taxes.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had correctly stated the constitutional position. It was necessary that the House should keep a sufficient control, and an annual control, over the taxation of the country, but all that had been required was that enough should be retained under the annual purview to make that annual purview effective. He had expressed his opinion upon this point when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and his view was that that object was sufficiently secured by retaining the tea duty and income-tax as subjects for annual review. It was quite true that the change which the right hon. Gentleman now proposed indicated a confession, or a decision, on his part which had not been avowed by his predecessors. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that he intended these duties and the sugar duty to be permanent, and they were to be enacted once for all without being brought under annual review by the House. The right hon. Gentleman had now stated that he saw no chance of giving any relief from these taxes. It did not necessarily follow that hon. Members need take the same view. As one who had been Chancellor of the Exchequer, and who had experienced the temptation to which the right hon. Gentleman had succumbed, he did not think his present attitude was unreasonable. He had himself expressed a desire for the simplification of their financial procedure, and he did not oppose the alteration which was now being made. He had been Chancellor of the Exchequer for two years when the Budget was treated in a most contentious spirit by the then Opposition, and every opportunity was taken to raise discussions in order to delay progress and extend the length of time occupied by his proposals. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had carried out certain small alterations which he would have been glad to have adopted, but he was prevented from doing so on account of the character of the opposition offered to his proposals. He was glad the Party opposite were now having greater regard for common sense, and were apparently willing to unsay what they said with so much vehemence only a couple of years ago.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to appreciate the importance of the Amendment. In the year 1900 a special and extra tax was put on particular branches of industry, including the tobacco trade, and the spirit duties were also increased. Those engaged in the tobacco trade were prepared to put up with that extra burden as an emergency tax, simply because it was a temporary tax which would come before Parliament year by year. In that way those who objected to it were afforded an opportunity to oppose. He did not, however, intend to raise any objection to this form of taxation being continued, as he quite appreciated the argument which had been used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That, however, was not the point of the Amendment. The objection now taken was that they were making this tax into a permanent one instead of its remaining to be considered from year to year. Next year they might have no opportunity of discussing this proposal, or at any rate they would not have the same opportunity. He was aware that it could be raised upon a new clause, but that would be a hopeless way of discussing it. He thought this was a very important point, and the back benches on both sides of the House particularly ought carefully to consider the Amendment as being one which should commend itself to the common sense of the House generally.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODprotested against the assumption that this tax should be made permanent. It should not be overlooked that a particular trade was being severely and heavily penalised by the extra duty placed upon it for war purposes and for war purposes only. At the present time the tax was operating to the detriment of that trade, and it was proposed to continue the tax without further reference to the House each year. The question had been argued by the trade concerned, and their views had been several times placed before the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. The trade affected thought the present sugar tax pressed very unfairly upon them and upon those who held shares in the companies engaged in the trade. It had been shown that this trade already bore more than its fair share of the burden of taxation. He did not think the

  937
  Amendment had been fully understood. The words now suggested were "until Parliament shall otherwise determine," and the reason the Amendment was brought forward was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to make this tax a permanent charge. He thought there was good reason for the proposition which had been made, and he would certainly support the Amendment.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid he agreed with the view that this Resolution would undoubtedly have the effect of removing certain duties from the purview of the House. It was for the House to determine whether that was a wise proceeding or not. It might be most desirable from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's point of view that discussion should be limited, but that was not the opinion of the constituencies which sent Members to the House. They were sent there to control the financial business of the country, and if they passed this Resolution, they would put away from their yearly control certain important matters in connection with taxation. When hon. Members opposite were in Opposition they maintained that such questions should be argued as frequently as required. The position remained the same to-day.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not addressing himself to the question before the House.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid he was endeavouring to show that indirect taxation such as the tea duty should not be removed from the purview of the House. In view of the extreme importance of the matter he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider its bearings. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman had a hard heart and a face of flint in this matter, but he would some day be in Opposition, when he would desire to review the Budget proposals of other Governments. Was it wise by passing this Resolution to shut the door and prevent the opportunity of criticising on all occasions the financial proposals which might come from Governments in the future? They had been threatened with the possibility of tariff duties enacted in the shape of Budget proposals. Were they to be told that those duties were to be relegated into an
  938
  Act and so removed from the purview and discussion of the House? He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to yield to those considerations which were urged in a public interest.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid the hon. Member had largely exaggerated the dimensions of the question. There was no question and no possibility of removing the discussion of these things from the purview of the House by making the change now proposed. Next year the hon. Member would be able to discuss these matters first on the general discussion on the Budget Resolutions when everything was in order. He would not be able, it was true, to discuss them on Report, but he would be able to discuss them on the Second Reading, a third time when moving a clause in Committee, a fourth time on Report, and a fifth time on the Third Reading. He would have five distinct opportunities for discussing such matters, even after this revolutionary change had taken place. [An HON. MEMBER: Procedure] He was assuming that things remained as they were. He was more conservative than his hon. friend who interrupted. His hon. friend would have full opportunity of discussing the tariff duties which bulked so largely in his imagination.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he fully accepted the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that they would be able to discuss all these matters four or five times, supposing that the Government did not bring in a now set of Rules. But it still remained true that even under that assumption they would be discussing these particular taxes as part of the permanent taxes of the country, or what the Chancellor of the Exchequer called the taxes existing for the time being. Under the existing state of affairs they could say, and in his opinion they ought to say, that these were additional taxes put on because of the war and were of an exceptional character because they were war taxes. But if the Amendment was not carried they might next year discuss these taxes four or five times, not as exceptional but as part of the permanent taxation. The case of himself and his friends was that taxes which might be quite appropriate in order to defray the charges of a war

  939
  were not obviously the best taxes to be continued in time of peace. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day said that they must not only consider the taxes imposed in the duration of war, but also in the years that elapsed afterwards, during which they were paying off war debt. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to have the courage of that opinion. According to his argument they ought to pay a 2s. income-tax. The war taxes had always been chosen in order to bring home to the people of the country the huge responsibility which they incurred when they went to war. They had been exceptional in their character and they ought not to be made permanent. They ought not to be told that they were as proper in time of peace as, he admitted, they were proper in time of war.
  MR. LEIF JONESsaid he differed from the view expressed by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. He could not imagine more appropriate taxes than those on spirits and tobacco, and he congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer on having made these war taxes a permanent part of the system of taxation. Ho looked to the right hon. Gentleman to say that the duties on drink, even at the present time, had not reached their normal proportion as compared with the period before the war. The amount raised from taxation of drink before the war was 28 per cent of the expenditure of the country.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question before the House is whether this tax should be made a permanent part of our taxation or be renewed every year.
  MR. LEIF JONESsaid he would leave that point. The point he specially wished to make was that there was still £150,000,000 of war debt unpaid, and so long as that remained it seemed to him that these taxes were properly part of taxation. If they were rightly put on at the time of the war, the position now required that they should be continued until the debt was paid off. Seeing that the taxes brought in £2,000,000 a year, about seventy-five years hence would be the time for their successors to consider the question of taking them off.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer began his explanation with a bull. He said the tax was put on permanently for the time being. If he might reply with an Irish bull, he would say that he entirely agreed with the mover of the Amendment, that instead of the tax being permanent for the time being, it ought to be temporary for all time. He agreed with the hon. Member for the Camlachie division that the reason for this change on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that it was part of the larger policy of muzzling the House of Commons, stifling discussion in the House, absolutely ignoring, wherever possible, the will of the House, except when dictated by Nationalists or Labour Members. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remember that Irish Members had now a special interest in the question of tobacco. Only two days ago the Member for East Clare had introduced an Irish Tobacco Bill. He had the pleasure the other day of smoking an Irish cigarette given to him by the hon. Member, from which he suffered no evil effect. And indeed it had so soothing an influence on him that he could not help feeling that Irish grown tobacco might have far reaching political results. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remember that this tobacco question might be—
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not a proper matter for discussion now. This is a customs duty, not an excise duty.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTsaid he was going to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to make permanent a tax which might affect Irish tobacco in future.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid that they all knew, unfortunately, what had happened to the income-tax. It had been increased from 8d. to 1s. 2d., and was now at 1s., although many of them had been hoping that it would have been still further reduced this year. What had happened in regard to the income-tax would happen to the particular tax the House was now discussing if the Amendment of his hon. friend was not carried. They all knew that if an

  941
  appearance of permanency was given to a tax it was difficult to reduce it afterwards. He joined most heartily in the appeal of his hon. friend that this tax should not be made permanent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the House had five distinct opportunities of discussing these taxes; but he did not see that it would make much difference if the House was allowed to discuss them a sixth time.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would be good enough, when framing his next year's Budget, to bear in mind the promise which the Secretary to the Treasury gave to the Standing Committee on the Irish Tobacco Bill, that arrangements would be made for dealing with the future growth of tobacco
  in Ireland, so as to make that measure operative.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERhaving stated that the question of Irish tobacco was a matter of excise and not germane to this resolution,
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that the hon. Gentleman might be quite sure that he would not forget the assurances given by his hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that that met his point, and he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Question put.
  The House divided: —Ayes, 257; Noes, 122. (Division List No. 153.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Glover, Thomas

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Agnew, George William

  Cleland J. W.

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Clough, William

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Clynes, J. R.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Astbury, John Meir

  Coats, Sir D. Glen(Renfrew, W.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Cory, Clifford John

  Harwood, George

  Barnes, G. N.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Barry, Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

  Cox, Harold

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Beale, W. P.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Crombie, John William

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

  Bell, Richard

  Crooks. William

  Henry, Charles S.

  Benn. Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt

  Crossley, William J.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Bertram, Julius

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Bethell, Sir J.H.(Essex, Romf'rd

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hodge, John

  Billson, Alfred

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

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Duckworth, James

  Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.

  Brace, William

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Brigg, John

  Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Edwards. Frank (Radnor)

  Hudson Walter

  Brooke. Stopford

  Elibank, Master of

  Hyde, Clarendon

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

  Erskine, David C.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Brunner Rt. Hn. Sir. J. T.(Chesh.

  Essex, R. W.

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Jenkins, J.

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Fenwick, Charles

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Ferens, T. R.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Findlay, Alexander

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Causton, Rt. Hn Richard Knight

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Kelley, George D.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Gill, A. H.

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Lambert, George

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Lamont, Norman

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

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

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras E.)

  Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Levy, Maurice

  Radford, G. H.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen. E.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rendall, Athelstan

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

  Lough, Thomas

  Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th

  Tomkinson, James

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Ure, Alexander

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Verney, F. W.

  Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Vivian, Henry

  Mackamess, Frederic C.

  Robinson, S.

  Walker. H. De R. (Leicester)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Walsh, Stephen

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah(Down, S.)

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Walters, John Tudor

  M'Crae, George

  Rowlands, J.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Runciman, Walter

  Ward, John(Stoke-upon-Trent)

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

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Wardle, George J.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Waring, Walter

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall(Lincoln)

  Schwann. Sir C.E.(Manchester)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Scott, A.H.(Ashton-under-Lyne

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Sears, J. E.

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Watt, Henry A.

  Menzies, Walter

  Seddon, J.

  Whitbread, Howard

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Seely, Major J. B.

  White, J. D.(Dumbartonshire)

  Montagu, E. S.

  Shackleton, David James

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

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

  Whitley, John Henry(Halifax)

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Whittaker. Sir Thomas Palmer

  Morse, L. L.

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Wiles. Thomas

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Myer, Horatio

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Williams Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

  Napier, T. B.

  Snowden, P.

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Nicholls, George

  Soarnes, Arthur Wellesley

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

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Stanger, H. Y.

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

  Nuttall, Harry

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  O'Grady, J.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Partington, Oswald

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Pease.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William(Cork N. E.)

  Clark, George Smith(Belfast, N.

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Acland-Hood Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F.

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Ambrose, Robert

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds

  Ashley, W. W.

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Aubrey-Fletcher. Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Craig. Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Hogan, Michael

  Balcarres, Lord

  Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Crean, Eugene

  Hunt, Rowland

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Cross, Alexander

  Joyce, Michael

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Delany, William

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

  Devlin, Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Barnard, E. B.

  Dillon, John

  Kettle. Thomas Michael

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Doughty, Sir George

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Douglas Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Blake, Edward

  Duffy, William J.

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Boland, John

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lundon, W.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Fell, Arthur

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Bull, Sir William James

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Kean, John

  Cave, George

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Killop, W.

  Cavendish. Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Ginnell, L.

  Meagher, Michael

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Haddock, George R.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Halpin, J.

  Mooney, J. J.

  944

  945

  Murphy, John

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  0'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Reddy, M.

  Thorne, William

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Valentia, Viscount

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

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

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  O'Dowd, John

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  O'Malley, William

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Young, Samuel

  O'Mara, James

  Sheehy, David

  Younger, George

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert. Torrens

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Starkey, John R.

  TELLERS FOR THENOES—Mr.

  Parker. Sir Gilbert(Gravesend)

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.)

  Harmood-Banner and Colonel Lockwood.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Sixth Resolution read a second time.

  MR. ALEXANDER CROSSmoved that the words "until Parliament otherwise determine" be omitted in order to insert "until the 4th of July. "He said his object was to draw the attention of the House to the peculiarity of the duty on spirit. The same charge was levied per gallon upon new spirit as upon old, and the amount of the duty depended upon the amount of alcohol present in the spirit per gallon. There was a considerable difference, which was acknowledged, in the spirit, some being fiery and some not. He was quite aware of the medical point of view about mild and matured spirit, but of course the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to get all the funds he could from this tax upon whiskey, although, inconsistently enough, the House of Commons was in favour of the reduction of the evils of intoxication.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERruled the hon. Member out of order on the ground that his remarks did not come within the purview of the Resolution.
  SIR F. BANBURYcalled attention to the question of the stamp duty upon hire purchase agreements. No doubt the system was capable of many abuses. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself had said that these agreements led to a great many abuses.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid the point was a technical one. The truth was
  946
  that these hire purchase agreements in regard to chattels took various forms, and the question of what stamp they should bear had given rise to great diversity of opinion on that practice. There were three possible categories into which they might fall. The first was that of an agreement relating to the sale of goods, which was exempt from the stamp duty altogether. In the second place, the duty might be treated and had been treated as that upon a deed or covenant, under which it was liable to a high rate of duty; and then it might be treated as an ordinary agreement, which was liable to a sixpenny stamp. What the Government proposed was to establish uniformity of practice, and to have one uniform sixpenny stamp.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid that he understood that under this amendment of the law a hire purchase agreement up to £500 was to be treated as an ordinary agreement.
  MR. ASQUITH: That is so.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid that in that case he had no objection, as he understood that there was to be no attempt to overrule the law, and no ad valorem duty.
  MR. STANLEY WILSONinquired if the change would have any effect upon the revenue.
  MR. ASQUITH: I cannot say whether it will or will not. It may have, but at any rate it will be very slight.
  MR. COURTHOPEasked for some explanation.
  MR. ASQUITHthought it would perhaps save time if he volunteered an explanation as far as he was able to give it. The Question arose under Section 21 of the Finance Act of 1896, and in order to understand the situation created by that section, he would remind the House that before Sir William Harcourt's Finance Act of 1894, Mr. Goschen, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, by the Finance Act of 1888 increased the succession duties by certain percentages. In 1889, the right hon. Gentleman went a step farther and proposed a further estate duty, the object of which was subsequently carried out by the Act of 1894.These proposals were carried out effectively by the Act of 1894, but the Act of 1896 made them permanent, and prevented overlapping of the two sets of duties. It provided that Goschen's enhancement should not be levied in addition to the Harcourt enhancement. The whole object was that the value should be taken at the present value of the estate.
  MR. COURTHOPEthanked the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, which, however, did not cover the point that he wished to raise. So far as he could gather from reading the Act of 1896, the result was that where a man had died setting up a trust by his will, the duty which was paid or payable on his death on the amount of his property which was the subject of that trust was to be deducted from the amount which was paid on the death of the cestui que trust.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that must be so, because that applied to deaths which took place prior to 1904.
  MR. COURTHOPEsaid he took it that under the Finance Act of 1896 the amount deducted was the actual sum paid or payable on the death of the testator. The proposal now before the House would, however, do away with that, and would enact that the amount deducted should be the amount that would have been paid or payable if the assessment had taken place at the
  948
  time of the second death and not at the time of the first.
  MR. ASQUITH: At the time when the estate duty becomes payable — yes.
  MR. COURTHOPEasked whether that might not lead to great hardships.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid it might in some cases, but on the balance of cases he did not think it would. Where one man would lose another man would gain, and it was an advantage to have a fixed date. In this case there would be the very great advantage of knowing exactly what was the date.
  MR. COURTHOPEsaid the right hon. Gentleman would admit that there was no doubt as to the amount which was paid or payable on the death of the testator, but now quite a different sum might be deducted on the death of the cestui que trust. In some cases that would lead to great injustice, and he hardly thought it was possible to justify one person receiving less than he ought, or, to put it the other way, paying more than he ought because another man paid less than he ought.
  MR. ASQUITHpointed out that the capital value in respect to which they had to make a deduction was a capital value which need not have been valued at the death of the testator, and was therefore speculative. The duty was therefore speculative. They would now know definitely what duty was payable.
  MR. COURTHOPEsaid that the amount was not hypothetical, because it was the amount either paid or payable. It must therefore have been assessed at the time of the first death. He still failed to appreciate the right hon. Gentlemen's contention, but the matter was really so technical that he would not discuss it further with him today.
  MR. ASQUITH: We will discuss it again in Committee.
  SIR F. BANBURYmoved to omit the words "for the current financial year." It was this permanent annual charge that constituted the new sinking fund, and it was fixed with the object of using the balance that remained after paying the interest on the permanent charge for the reduction of the National Debt. It was fixed at a permanent sum in order that any Chancellor of the Exchequer should not be tempted to take away from that amount in times of prosperity anything which might properly go to the reduction of debt. It was true that the amount was changed at the South African War and that a portion of that which ought to have been devoted to the reduction of debt was used for the purposes of the war. But as soon as the war was over the amount was again altered, and the permanent debt charge of £28,000,000 was reinstated. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to increase the charge by £1,500,000. But the advantage of this increase would be lost unless the words to which he had drawn attention- were left out, because unless those words were omitted the Resolution did not make the permanent charge for the service of the Debt £29,500,000; it only made the amount £29,500,000 for this year, and next year they might go back to £28,000,000. That was not the desire of the bulk of the Party opposite. Their object had always been that the permanent burden of debt should be reduced. The right hon. Gentleman himself had said that the war had added £138,000,000 to the Debt, and that that ought to be reduced as soon as possible; and one hon. Gentleman opposite had said that even if taxes had to be imposed for seventy-five years they ought to be imposed until the Debt was reduced. To a certain extent he agreed. He did not contend that they should lay down a hard and fast rule that till that £138,000,000 was paid they should not reduce the sum put aside for the reduction of permanent Debt, but he did say that in times of prosperity the sum put aside might reasonably be increased. The right hon. Gentleman had increased it by £1,500,000, and when that was first known in the city there was a natural feeling that it was going to do something towards the reduction of Debt.
  950
  But when it was found it was only for a year it became apparent that it was not really an increase that would have any effect on the reduction of debt during the next five or six years. He claimed the support of all hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House who had pledged themselves to take steps to rehabilitate the credit of the country. He begged to move.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he seconded the Amendment for the reason that on the face of the Resolution it appeared to be a permanent annual charge, and to have a "permanent annual charge" for only one year appeared to him to be an anomaly. He objected as strongly as his hon. friend below him to turning this permanent charge into an annual one, because there was no meaning in having a sinking fund of such gigantic magnitude to reduce the indebtedness of the nation if they were called upon to consider whether it should be added to by half a million or a quarter of a million, as the case might be, thus leaving them perpetually in doubt what the permanent annual charge for the Debt was to be. The country should know what the financial ideas of the Treasury really were at all times while the Government was in power; and he thought the House would appreciate very much the right hon. Gentleman's giving an explanation of what was intended on this particular occasion, because this £l,500,000 might be added this year only, and next year be taken away for some other purpose. The right hon. Gentleman should enlighten them as to his reason for putting in the words "for the current financial year." Did it mean that he had ear-marked this £1,500,000 for some definite purpose next year? The House would-be very grateful if he would make some statement as to whether the sum was to be the foundation of a scheme of old-age pensions. It would be a very small foundation. Instead of having to open and reopen this question annually, the Government should make a definite statement of what their intentions were, and in that way relieve any anxiety the House and the country might feel concerning the chopping and changing

  951
  which he was sorry this suggestion was going to introduce into the permanent annual charges of the country. There was no sounder basis for finance than a settled policy. If this was to be a settled policy, he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would have no objection to accepting his hon. friend's Amendment; if it was not to be a settled policy, at all events the right hon. Gentleman would be able to throw some light on what appeared to be a not very satisfactory innovation.
  Amendment proposed —
  "To leave out the words 'for the current financial year'" —(Sir F, Banbury.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said Resolution."
  MR. ASQUITHsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had not done him the honour to listen to or read his Budget speech, which gave explicitly the whole of the information for which he now asked.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he had read every word of the speech, but he did not think this point had been made as clear as it might have been.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that at any rate what he stated then and what he stated now was that this £1,500,000 was to be used for the purpose of the new sinking fund, and he explained the ground on which he asked the House to assent to that course, and he also explained what his intentions were with regard to it. The phraseology of this particular clause was, he confessed, open to a certain amount of criticism on the ground of grammar, or at any rate of style. "Permanent annual charge for the current year," seemed rather an incongruous juxtaposition of phrases. The words "permanent annual charge" were taken from the Act of 1875, and the phrase had been used ever since the Customs Acts and Revenue Acts to describe in a compendious way the sum that in any year was set aside for the purposes of interest, management, and new sinking fund. It meant that the sum referred to in the Act of 1875 should, from this year, be the sum of £1,500,000. He hoped that, with this explanation, it would be seen that, having regard to the Act, he could not put it in a different form.
  Question put.
  The House divided: —Ayes, 291; Noes, 57. (Division List No. 154.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.)

  Bell, Richard

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R.

  Buxton. Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles)

  Agnew, George William

  Benn, Sir J. Williams(Devonp'rt

  Byles, William Pollard

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cairns, Thomas

  Ambrose, Robert

  Bertram, Julius

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Bethell, Sir J H(Essex. Romf'rd

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Astbury, John Meir

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex. Maldon)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Billson, Alfred

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Blake, Edward

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Barlow, John Emmott(Somerset

  Boland, John

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Brace, William

  Cleland, J. W.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Brigg, John

  Clough, William

  Burnes, G. N.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Brooke, Stopford

  Coats, Sir T. Glen(Renfrew, W.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

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

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Barry. Redmond J.(Tyrone, N.)

  Brunner, Rt Hn Sir J. T(Cheshire

  Collins, Sir Wm. J(S. Pancras, W.

  Beale, W. P.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Beauchamp, E.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

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

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

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

  Crean, Eugene

  Joyce, Michael

  Pullar, Sir Robert

  Cremer, William Randal

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Radford, G. H.

  Crombie, John William

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Crooks, William

  Kelley, George D.

  Reddy, M.

  Crossley, William J.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Davies, David (MontgomeryCo.

  Kettle, Thomas Michael

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rees, J. D.

  Delany, William

  Lamb, Edmund G.(Leominster

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Dillon, John

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lambert, George

  Richards, T. F. (WoIverh'mpt'n

  Duckworth, James

  Lamont, Norman

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Duffy, William J.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness

  Lea, HughCecil (St. Pancras, E.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E.(Dundee)

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Robinson, S.

  Elibank, Master of

  Lever, W. H (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Erskine, David C

  Levy, Maurice

  Roche, John (Galway, East)

  Essex, R. W.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Rowlands, J.

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lough, Thomas

  Runciman, Walter

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lundon, W.

  Rutherford, V. H.(Brentford)

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Macdonald, J. M (Falkirk Bg'hs

  Scott, A. H.(Ashton underLyne

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Sears, J. E.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.

  Seddon, J.

  Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.

  M'Crae, George

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Gill, A. H.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Shackleton, David James

  Ginnell, L.

  M'Kean, John

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  M'Killop, W.

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

  Glendinning, R. G.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Sheehy, David

  Glover, Thomas

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Mansfield, H. Rendall(Lincoln)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Greenwood, Hamar(York)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Gulland, John W.

  Meagher, Michael

  Snowden, P.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Menzies, Walter

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Micklem. Nathaniel

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Halpin, J.

  Montagu, E. S.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Harwood, George

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morse, L. L.

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Murphy, John

  Taylor John W. (Durham)

  Hazleton, Richard

  Myer, Horatio

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Napier, T. B.

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Thomas, AbeI (Carmarthen, E.)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Nicholls, George

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nolan. Joseph

  Thompson J. W. H (Somerset, E

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

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Thorne, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nuttall, Harry

  Tillett, Louis John

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  0'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Hodge, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ure, Alexander

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Vivian, Henry

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Walsh, Stephen

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Hooper, A. G.

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

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Hope, W. Bateman (Somers't N.

  O'Dowd, John

  Ward, John(Stoke upon Trent)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  O'Grady, J.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  O'Hare, Patrick

  Wardle, George J.

  Hudson, Walter

  O'Malley, William

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Partington, Oswald

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Perks, Robert William

  Watt, Henry A.

  Jenkins, J.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Weir, James Galloway

  954

  955

  Whitbread, Howard

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Young, Samuel

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Pease.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Rt Hn. Sir Alex. F.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Anstruther-Gray, Major

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim S.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Craig, Sir Henry

  Moore, William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cross, Alexander

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Barrie, H.T.(Londonderry, N.)

  Fell, Arthur

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Beach, Hn Michael Hugh Hicks

  Forster, Henry William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Beckett. Hon. Gervase

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Haddock, George R.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Walker, Col. W. H (Lancashire)

  Bull, Sir William James

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Carsob, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hervey, F.W.F.(Bury S Edm'ds

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Cave, George

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Younger, George

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C W.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich

  Sir Frederick Banbury and

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

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

  Captain Craig.

  Clark, George Smith(Belfast, N.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Collings, Rt. Hn. J.(Birmingh'm

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

  Motion made, and Question, "That further Consideration of the said Resolution be now adjourned." — (Mr. Whitely)— put, and agreed to.

  Mr. ASQUITHsuggested that at 8.15 they should suspend further proceedings on the Budget Resolutions as far as tonight was concerned, on the understanding that they should take them as the first Order next Wednesday, when he hoped that an hour—he meant a reasonably elastic hour—would be sufficient to dispose of them. The Government proposed to adopt that course. He included, of course, the local taxation Resolution.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the Opposition would be glad to accept his proposal. He wished to point out, however, that the local taxation Resolution was not put down for to-night, and it was not, therefore, part of the business that could have been proceeded with after eleven o'clock. Although he did not think that proposal would require any prolonged discussion, he knew that one or two hon. Members desired to elicit some further information. He hoped, therefore, that local taxation would not be included within the elastic hour.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid the local taxation Resolution was so generally accepted that there would be no disposition to discuss it at length at this stage. They would, of course, be able to discuss it in the Bill. He would, however, put it down for Wednesday and allow another half hour.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the right hon. Gentleman had met them in a friendly spirit and he would do his best to co-operate with him in that respect.

  WAYS AND MEANS [24TH APRIL] REPORT.
  Resolutions reported:
  INCOME TAX.
  1. "That income-tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and seven, at the rate of one shilling in the pound."

  ESTATE DUTY.
  2. "That in the case of persons dying on or after the nineteenth day of April, nineteen hundred and seven, the rates of

  Where the Principal Value of the Estate

  Estate Duty shall be payable at the rate per cent. of

  Instead of

  Exceeds —

  £

  £

  150,000

  and does not exceed

  250,000

  Seven pounds

  Six pounds ten shillings

  250,000

  and does not exceed

  500,000

  Eight pounds

  Seven pounds

  500,000

  and does not exceed

  750,000

  Nine pounds

  Seven pounds ten shillings

  750,000

  and does not exceed

  1,000,000

  Ten pounds

  Seven pounds ten shillings.

  1,000,000

  and does not exceed

  1,500,000

  Ten pounds on one million and eleven pounds on the remainder

  Eight pounds

  1,500,000

  and does not exceed

  2,000,000

  Ten pounds on one million and twelve pounds on the remainder

  Eight pounds

  2,000,000

  and does not exceed

  2,500,000

  Ten pounds on one million and thirteen pounds on the remainder

  Eight pounds

  2,500,000

  and does not exceed

  3,000,000

  Ten pounds on one million and fourteen pounds on the remainder

  Eight pounds

  3,000,000

  Ten pounds on one million and fifteen pounds on the remainder

  Eight pounds

  INCOME TAX (INCLUSION OF ALL OFFICES AND EMPLOYMENTS IN SCHEDULE E).
  3. "That the income tax charged on offices or employments of profit, whether public or not, be charged under Schedule E. in the The Income Tax Act, 1853."

  INCOME TAX (LIMITATION ON THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTIONS OR REPAYMENTS FOR WEAR AND TEAR).
  4. "That no deduction or repayment be allowed in any year in respect of the diminished value, by reason of wear and tear, of any machinery or plant which, when added to the deductions or repayments allowed on that account in previous years, will make the aggregate amount
  estate duty under section seventeen of The Finance Act, 1894, be amended so that —
  of the deductions or repayments exceed the actual cost of the machinery or plant."

  INCOME TAX (ABOLITION OF REPAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT ON AVERAGE INCOME).
  5. "That any abatement, relief, or repayment of income tax under section one hundred and thirty-three of The Income Tax Act, 1842, as amended by section six of The Revenue Act, 1865, shall cease."

  INCOME-TAX (ASSESSMENT ON TRADES, ETC., RECENTLY COMMENCED).
  6. "That income-tax charged under Schedule D in the Income-Tax Act, 1853,

  959
  on professions, trades, or vocations shall, in the case of professions, trades, or vocations which have been set up or commenced within the three years on which the average income is to be computed under the Income-Tax Acts or within the year of assessment, be charged with reference to the actual profits or gains arising in the year of assessment."
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSmoved to omit the words "one shilling" and insert "elevenpence." In support of this Amendment he relied upon the statement of former Chancellors of the Exchequer who had promised that the income-tax payer ought to be the first to be relieved. What had happened? To meet the expenditure upon the war the income-tax was raised to a very large amount. When the war commenced it stood at 8d. It was then raised to 1s., then to 1s. 2d., and afterwards to 1s. 3d. In 1903 it was lowered to-11d., but when the corn duty was taken off in 1904 the income-tax was again raised to 1s., at which figure it now remained. The war taxes had been taken off tea, corn, coal, and partly off tobacco, but the income-taxpayer had received no relief at all. In introducing the Budget last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that an income tax at the uniform rate of 1s. in the pound at a time of peace was impossible to justify. Surely when the right hon. Gentleman made that speech he meant a general reduction of the tax, and he had not the subject of differentiation or graduation in his mind. Clearly his meaning was that the tax was too high all round. His proposal was that relief to the extent of one 1d. in the pound should be given to the income-tax payer. He did not quarrel with differentiation, but the tax ought to be reduced all round this year, and then the right hon. Gentleman might bring in a scheme for differentiation next year. Those who sat in Opposition desired to impress strongly upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the time had arrived when he must find new sources of revenue, and they were anxious to bring grist to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's mill by taxing foreign manufactured articles. [Cheers from the LABOUR BENCHES.] He welcomed those cheers, and he ventured to say that when the
  960
  question of tariff reform was again raised the demand for it would come from the working classes. What they required was a small tax of 5 per cent, on manufactured goods—
  THE DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in order in discussing that subject.
  MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSsaid that all the great authorities on taxation were against a high income-tax. They all knew that Mr. Gladstone favoured doing away with the income-tax altogether, and he brought it down to 3d. in 1873, and when the Conservative Government came into power they reduced it to 2d.
  And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, Further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

  FAILURE OF SHOP HOURS ACT.
  MR. SHACKLETONrose to call attention to the failure of the Shop Hours Act, and to move—"That, in the opinion of this House, more drastic legislation with regard to the closing of shops and the hours of shop assistants is required." He said that this was not a new question for the House. It had been discussed time after time. Many Committees had sat on the subject, and many reports had been made, but they were in a more favourable position that night, because there had been an opportunity of testing some of the suggestions which had been made in years gone by. It was really to that phase of the subject he wished to direct-attention, namely, the failure of the endeavour which had been made by the late Government to deal with this subject. Many Members opposed the proposals of the late Government at the time they were made, preferring the altogether different plan embodied in the Bill introduced by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean for many years back. The opposition to the right hon. Baronet's Bill had taken the form of a Bill in the name of Lord Avebury. Lord Avebury's ideas on this question had been put into operation by the late Government, but the Act had failed. His hon. friend the Member for the Newton Division of Lancashire, who had

  961
  been a shop assistant, would tell the House more authoritatively than he could do how the Act had worked. The present Act was drawn in the optional form, its provisions being governed all through by the word "may." He and his friends thought the word "shall" should govern everything in regard to shop hours. It did not deal with the hours of the shop assistants; it dealt with the hours of closing, which was a far different thing. The Act provided that the local authority "may" do certain things when satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out by people desiring a closing order. First of all, a two-thirds majority had to be got in favour of a closing order. There was no distinction made between one who held fifty shops and one who held one small shop. They were all reckoned on a level. There was no compulsion on the local authority to apply for a closing order, even when there was a two-thirds majority in favour of it. Anyone who had knowledge of the working of the Factory Acts knew that such a provision would make them absolutely nugatory and of no benefit to the operatives. In regard to the hours of shop assistants, unless they had compulsory powers there was very little use in Parliament spending its time legislating on the subject. Lord Avebury prided himself on the fact that the Act did not apply to the hours of labour, for he found that his Lordship had stated that—
  "there was nothing in the Bill to prevent employees being kept at work after the door of the shop had been closed."
  That was said for the purpose of prevailing on certain people to accept even the present Act. The fact that the Act had been in operation two years, and that the number of orders issued under it was very small, proved that something different from Lord Avebury's suggestions was wanted in regard to this matter. In asking for this, he thought they could claim the support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In a speech delivered in the House when the present Act was under discussion the right hon. Gentleman expressed regret that the then Government had not framed its title and scope so as to make it possible to introduce Amendments in Committee to meet cases of common occurrence where shop assistants were employed either before the opening or after the closing of shops. The right
  962
  hon. Gentleman further said that no measure would be really effective which did not give the power of compulsorily closing shops. The Bill was so framed that Amendments in that direction could not be moved. Such Amendments as were competent were moved, but with very little success, and the Bill passed practically in the form in which it was introduced, so far as its main provisions were concerned. The Bill of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean set out that they desired a sixty hours week. Some people might say that was an impossibility. He had inquired as to the hours of assistants in the cooperative shops of Darwen whose business was chiefly with the working classes. All the arguments as to workmen or their wives not being able to make their purchases within certain hours applied quite as much to these shops as to others. He was informed that the hours were 56¼ per week. There were fourteen days allowed each year for holidays, in respect of which no deduction from wages was made. He thought that was an ideal condition which the private trader might try to aim at. If the co-operative shops could be carried on successfully and increasingly so with these hours, it was not too much to ask the House to sanction a Resolution which called for more drastic legislation on the subject. There had been many cases where the people concerned had asked the local authorities for closing orders under this Act and had not succeeded in obtaining them, although they had the two-thirds majority in favour of the applications. At Dover recently twenty-four out of twenty-eight hairdressers applied for an order, and the town council, which was the deciding authority, said that a prima facie case had not been made out. So far as he was aware a closing order had not been applied in that case up to the present time. To get a two-thirds majority to start with was a tremendous thing, but, having got that, it was too much that the applicants should have to face a recalcitrant town council. That was a power which should be done away with at once. He was glad that the Home Secretary had asserted himself with regard to applications for the revoking of orders. The borough of Southwark had asked the revocation of an order on the ground that there was a sufficient number of people against it.

  963
  The right hon. Gentleman said that was not sufficient for him; he wanted proof of the opinion of the people. The result was that the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman was sufficient to check the movement for revocation. The question of areas also required consideration. There were twenty-nine local authorities in London, and as the administrative area of each closely adjoined the boundaries of one or more of the others, it was difficult to apply the closing orders in such a manner as to avoid unequal treatment. A shopkeeper on one side of a street might come within the closing order applicable to the area in which his premises were situated, while another shopkeeper on the other side of the street was not required to close his shop because no order had been issued in regard to the area in which he carried on business. The area should be sufficiently wide to cover all the shops in that area. Attention was called to this matter when the Bill was passing through the House, but no steps were taken to avoid the difficulties which were predicted. That was a point which ought to be dealt with in any measure which the Home Secretary might bring forward on the question of shop hours. He would take another case, that of hairdressers, about whom more orders had been issued under the Act by local authorities than in regard to all the other trades put together. One order fixed the closing time for hairdressers at 9 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, on Thursday at 10 p.m., Friday at 11 p.m. and on Saturday at five minutes to 12 o'clock. He supposed that was done on religious grounds. It was feared that if the assistants were permitted to work up to midnight they might have to labour for a minute or two on the Sabbath! He was told that the only town that had successful and satisfactory orders was Glasgow, where the hours of the shop assistants had been really reduced. In the case of forty-eight trades the closing hour on Saturday was ten o'clock, and on other nights in the week eight o'clock. It must also be remembered that the Act dealt only with closing time. Nothing was said about opening time, with the result that in many cases assistants who worked late had to begin early. He thought the Shop Assistants' Association had taken a sensible view of the situation, and had
  964
  done what they could to make the working of the Act successful by sending circulars to and approaching town councils and tradesmen. But, on the whole, the result had been very disappointing. In view of the universal failure of the Act, the Shop Assistants' Association had approached the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, who had taken such a keen interest in this matter, and the Labour Party to bring pressure on the Government to deal with the question next session. It was not only the shop assistants who were dissatisfied, but traders interested in the early closing movement also demanded better legislation. The Shopkeepers' Association, which represented thousands of tradesmen, was strongly in favour of more drastic legislation. That demand was supported by the Drapers' Journal, which published a list of the towns where the Act had been an absolute failure, and another article pointing out the districts where the hours of the shop assistants were seventy hours per week, or more. The purpose of his Resolution was to draw the attention of the Home Secretary to this matter, with the view of receiving from him a satisfactory assurance that his Department had really realised that the present Act was inoperative. As he had said, the Act on the whole had proved disappointing. It must no longer be permissive. Less power must be given to the local authorities, and more power vested in the central authority. He begged to move.
  MR. SEDDONsaid that in seconding the Resolution he had no wish to make an attack on any persons who were responsible for the original Act. Had it been blessed with a less exalted origin he might have been tempted to describe it as conceived without knowledge and shapen with impossible intention. This question had been before the House for forty years, and had been discussed by six Commissions and seven Committees of Inquiry. The Labour Party were deeply indebted to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean for his persistent attempts to improve the position of shop assistants. It was said by the late Lord Salisbury that—
  "This is one of the cases in which the two Houses of Parliament occupy a somewhat difficult position. They are asked to legislate

  965
  as to matters affecting the personal happiness and well-being of a very large number of persons—a very large class—to which, with scarcely any exception, the Members of the two Houses do not themselves belong. It is, therefore, very difficult for them to know how such a measure would affect the comfort of the classes concerned."
  Happily for their cause that was not strictly accurate to-day. He himself had stood for many years behind the counter as a grocer's assistant; therefore he spoke with some personal knowledge, although he would not say that his personal knowledge would carry the House very far. In his youth he used to start work at seven in the morning, finish at nine in the evening, and had to be in bed at ten o'clock. On Saturdays the shop was kept open till eleven o'clock, and it only closed then because there was a licence attached to the business. The Act had entirely failed because it attempted to destroy selfishness by permissive agencies. They might as well try to prop up an avalanche with a lady's sunshade. This was a case, in the words of Professor Sedgewick,
  "Where the coercion, either of law or of the social sanction, wielded by a deliberate and vigorous combination, is prima facie indispensable, except in a perfectly ideal community of economic men."
  From what had been said by his hon. friend the Member for Clitheroe, it would be acknowledged that they were not yet living in that ideal state. They did not rely altogether on the ease set up by the shop assistants themselves, which stated that the present Act entirely failed because of the avarice of a few. The Draper, which was an influential journal, said—
  "There is no longer any disguising the fact that the Shop Hours Act has proved a dismal failure."
  They made exhaustive inquiries in 175 towns, and found exactly the contrary of what they expected. Long hours prevailed, and no application had been made to the local authority for Orders. In some cases, where the hours were very long and application had been made for Orders, they had not been granted. In other cases where application had been made for an Order, it was where reduced hours had been in vogue for years. The Grocer newspaper in 1904 described the Act as a legislative steeplechase, and, after quoting its various clauses, said that even this legislative steeplechase was not run in accordance with the fair rules of
  966
  sport, and that the people who were the non-starters could take away the prize. They found that the local authorities could refuse, and had refused, to make Orders, and that town clerks could dictate the conditions of the Orders. The town clerk of Burnley had laid it down, in reference to this matter, that a shopkeeper could vote according to the number of trades carried on under one roof. Many shopkeepers carried on trades which were not allied to their ordinary business. For instance, many grocers sold floorcloth, and while the seller would have the right to vote as a grocer, he would also have the right to vote as a dealer in floorcloth. A grocer might also sell pills and other things, and in that way he might get eight or ten votes. Then, as the deputation pointed out, it was impossible to get over the objections of the town clerk of Burnley, because every person might vote by proxy. There was no doubt about it that London was a great difficulty in regard to all social reform, owing to the different regulations which were imposed in different parts. To bring the Act into operation would cost each borough £50, and they did not apply for a closing order because it could be so easily upset. In Camberwell, taking the hours of the shops and striking an average, the shop assistants were liable to work seventy-five hours a week. It was useless to occupy the time of the House by talking of voluntary effort. Voluntary effort had been preached for forty or fifty years by well intentioned people, but it had broken down, and assistants engaged in grocers', fishmongers' and poulterers' businesses worked from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. and from 7 a.m. to 12 midnight. Surely that statement was eloquent testimony to the fact that, while we as a nation objected to slavery, it was still permitted in the British Islands. The question was, in his view, eminently one for speedy and effective legislation. Many employers of labour were discouraged, and had become disgusted with the working of the Act, and steps should be taken to remedy the present state of things. Nothing less than drastic compulsory powers would enable them to bring the selfish members of a trade to reason. They had most valuable evidence in support of their case, because the medical profession had borne their testimony to the great evil which was done

  967
  to the health and life of shop assistants under the present system. One medical gentleman had stated that such hours as were worked by shop assistants were not only detrimental to the shop assistants themselves but were a danger to the community in which they lived. Thirty-eight per cent. of shop assistants fell victims to chest complaints, and in regard to one well known sanatorium it was declared that nearly fifty per cent. of the girls admitted had been shop assistants. In saying that this was a case for immediate legislation he believed the Labour Members had the sympathy of the Treasury Bench. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Home Department, and other Members who sat upon the Treasury Bench, would see the justice of the demand of shop assistants for a uniform hour of closing on weekdays, complete closing on Sundays, except in certain scheduled cases, and the limitation of the hours of labour of the assistants, the maximum to be sixty hours a week including meal times. They claimed that the present condition of things was a national danger, and must lead, and had done so already, to the physical deterioration of the race. The occupation of shop assistants created more consumption than any other occupation throughout the length and breadth of the land, and all they asked was that the employer should be compelled to give reasonable hours of labour to those in their employ. The present state of things was to a great extent due to the system of multiple shops and stores and to the formation of large companies who forbade to any man the opportunity of rising, and made the majority of shop assistants simply wage earners throughout their lives. Therefore they were entitled to ask for the protection of the State, which, if afforded to them, would not only be an advantage to them, but might be a benefit to the public by preventing meretricious and shoddy articles being sold to them. Long hours broke down the constitution, and shop assistants were entitled to have compulsory legislation applied to them. He was sorry that the Minister for War was not in his place, because it might well be that in the reduction of shop hours the right hon. Gentleman might find some assistance in his policy for the creation of a new reserve and in regard to recruiting. It might be, if the policy he was advocating was
  968
  adopted, that shop assistants would, for reasons of health and pleasure, join the-Territorial Army which the Secretary of State for War proposed to set up, and thus render his task less onerous. The-shop assistants of the country had begun to realise that there was something higher than bed, food, and work. They had begun to realise that they were human beings, and they wanted leisure time for study, pleasure, and recreation. He therefore appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to give them an explicit promise that he would introduce a measure limiting the hours during which shop assistants could be employed. He was one of those who believed that the best asset of the State was a physically robust man or woman, and it was the duty of the House to do all it possibly could to secure protection for those who were the victims of selfish cupidity on the part of their employers. The great majority of the employers were in favour of the Resolution, but were unable to conform to it because of the selfishness of a small minority who would not come into line. They asked, therefore, in the interests of the health of the assistants, and in the interests of justice, that the right hon. Gentleman would give some assurance that it was the intention of the Government to see justice done to a large number of the people of the country.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, more drastic legislation with regard to the closing of shops and the hours of shop assistants is required." £(Mr. Shackleton.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): A case for legislation was made out in 1904, and the evils with which the Act tried to cope were so fully admitted on that occasion, and have been so accurately described by the hon. Member who has just sat down, that I need not detain the House by again referring to them. The Resolution which we are now considering has been moved and seconded in speeches of much moderation and great force, and, in the judgment of the Government, the case for the Resolution has been made out. Now I pass for a moment to the working of the Act of 1904. I rather regret that the authors of that Act are

  969
  not here to-night to look after the interests of their child, whose career has certainly not been satisfactory. That Act has been working for two years, and a good deal can be done in two years, and, if one does not do so much as one could hope, what is actually done in that time may be taken as proof of what can be done under the Act. Now what has been done? The total number of closing Orders under that Act for England and, Wales is only 112. They affect 9,000 shops, and, perhaps, 15,000 persons out of a possible total of some 800,000 assistants besides shopkeepers. Of the 112 Orders, ninety-two affect one trade only, and there are only twenty which concerned more than one trade. In districts where the Act is most seriously needed it has been practically inoperative. It has been practically inoperative in London and in many large towns. For instance, a Salford Order had to be revoked, because Manchester would not fall into line. Under the Act of 1904 only 112 local authorities have made Orders. Nothing has been done by 364 local authorities. That figure 364 includes county councils. The question is how are we to proceed upon this excessively meagre result of the Act of 1904. I have no doubt whatever that the framers of that Act honestly believed that the majority of shopkeepers would peacefully persuade the minority to adopt it, and come in under the Act, and that the Act would be a success. But permissive Bills based only upon hopes, wishes, and aspirations do not, as a rule, prove to be strong Acts in working. It is perfectly clear that the Act of 1904 could only be a success by the good will of those concerned, and by their being anxious to make it a success. On the other hand, to its opponents it provides a practically impenetrable zareba to which they can retire, and in which they are unassailable. What are the reasons why the Act is not a success? We know the general reason in London is that the framers of the Act, against the advice of Members of this House, made the central authorities the borough councils. The suggestion that it should be the County Council was not listened to. The result of that is that in these various areas there are competing and conflicting interests, and, in consequence, the Act has been in London a disastrous failure. As far as its general failure in
  970
  the country is concerned, 1 may point out that there are five main stages which an Order has to go through before it can pass into law. First, the local authority has to be satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out. They then take certain steps and, if they are satisfied it is necessary to make the Order, they must have a satisfactory result from their own local inquiries. If two thirds of the occupiers of the shops affected by the Order are in favour of it, the Order passes to the Home Office, which is the central authority; and, lastly, it is laid on the Table of this House for the prescribed number of days. It is quite obvious that if there is no determination or wish to make the Act operative there is every opportunity of making it practically nugatory. I say emphatically that the Home Office have given this Act every encouragement in their power, and they have been the means of making operative a considerable number of the Orders which have been issued. One hon. Gentleman spoke of revocation of Orders by the Home Office. I hope I have shown that we look very carefully into these matters. But as regards revocations the Act oddly enough becomes mandatory. It says that where the local authority has been satisfied that a majority of the occupiers of shops to which a closing Order applied are opposed to the continuance of the Order, it shall apply to the Home Office for revocation of the Order. I need only say we have done so most reluctantly. Our difficulties are created by the Act we have to administer. I cannot exonerate the local authorities from blame. I am not able to show in how many cases, although satisfied that two-thirds of the occupiers were in favour of an Order, they have refused to make the Order. But they have not taken the initiative in order to rouse people to a sense of their duty in the matter. The difficulties which the Act has produced are enough to make weak-hearted people avoid it. It is difficult to obtain a two-thirds majority for this or any other purpose. An undue protection of interests has been given by law to the exclusion of the rights which the Act was designed to protect. And it is most extraordinary that the 800,000 people in England and Wales whose claims were admitted in 1904 have no power to set the law in motion. I agree that in

  971
  England and Wales the Act has proved woefully unsound. I should like for a moment just to remind the House of what was said by my hon. friend with regard to Scotland. In Scotland it has been a success, because, although there are only twenty Scottish Orders, twelve of them are of a large and composite character. Included in these Orders are different trades, but milkmen, bicycle makers, and motor shops are not included. In Glasgow, for example, the Order includes no less than forty-eight trades, and the figure given to me is so large that I cannot be responsible for it, namely, that the forty-eight trades include no less than 14,700 shops. If that be so, it is an extraordinary fact. But I guard myself, as I cannot vouch for the accuracy of it; but the success with which the Act has met in Scotland undoubtedly suggests that a good deal might be done if proper machinery were provided, and there was an honest intention to work it. There are a variety of methods of dealing with this question. There is the suggested Bill of my right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean, but I think that he will admit that it would undoubtedly take a great deal of time to pass. There are the alternative methods of a compulsory clause or a limitation of hours. There is a further alternative, that of a combination of the principle of the compulsory clauses with the principles of this Bill to amend the present Act. I am not asked to state our intention with regard to a Government Bill at the present time, and I do not commit myself on that point; but I frankly admit that the case for an amending Bill has been made out. This brings me to the question of when a Bill could be brought in. I confess that I speak on this point with some embarrassment. I made out a list of measures this morning for which the Home Office is being constantly pressed —Bills on the stocks and in posse. There are no less than twenty adumbrated measures on very important subjects. What we say, so far as the Home Office are concerned, is that to get through that list of measures it would take at least two whole sessions of the legislative attention of the House. I am afraid that we should not get that. Therefore, I confess that it is with some hesitation that I get up and say that we accept the Resolution, and that we admit that there is a case for legislation, even with all
  972
  these legitimate demands which are made upon us, and for which it is difficult to find time in the House. I do not want to be misunderstood. I do not wish it to be thought that in saying what I do, I am not in earnest on this particular subject. I admit the case, but I can only deal with a subject such as this, and with similar important subjects regarding the social and industrial position of the country, as well as I can when the subjects arise. I accept the Motion. I agree that the Act of 1904 has to a large extent failed in England and Wales, and at any rate it is the duty of Parliament to make good that Act, to remove what is admitted to be a great evil, an evil which still exists, and which, therefore, ought to be dealt with and removed by an amending Bill as soon as possible.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid his hon. friend in moving the Resolution, and his right hon. friend in replying, had so completely covered the ground that there was little left to be said on the subject. He thought the answer of the Home Secretary was all they could demand. He was himself an old friend of this cause, and he had been a promoter of the Bill named—The Shops Bill—for a good many years. As far as this limited subject went, nothing could be more perfect, he thought, than the speech of the Home Secretary. His right hon. friend had covered every point which his hon. friends desired to have answered. All that could have been said usefully, as to the delay of the Labour legislation of which this formed part, would be out of order in the present debate. There had never been an occasion when prophesies had been so conspicuously fulfilled as on this occasion. When this question was under discussion in the last Parliament there were debates in both Houses, and he had himself ventured to move the rejection of the Bill of 1904 on the Second Reading on the very grounds which had been put forward that night. Everything which was prophesied in that discussion by opponents of the Bill had come true, but eventually the Bill was passed, and, honestly, those who had opposed it did all they could to make the best of it when it came into force. As regarded London, Manchester, and Salford, all the difficulties prophesied had come about

  973
  exactly as had been prophesied, and the House of Lords and the House of Commons must be said to have gone wrong deliberately on that occasion. They recognised the desire of the right hon. Gentleman to set right what had gone wrong and to put matters on the right lines. He hoped that an opportunity would be found to press this legislation forward, together with a good deal of other Labour legislation which was waiting to be dealt with.
  MR. A. C. CORBETTsaid that Lord Avebury was not responsible for the faults in the Act to which attention had been chiefly called that night. Lord Avebury was strongly opposed to having the authority for London vested in the municipalities instead of in the County Council. He was also opposed to the number of restrictions which multiplied the difficulties in the way of carrying out the Act. He desired to do the very utmost he could in behalf of overworked shop assistants. It seemed to him (Mr. Corbett) that it was a mistake to make allusion in the Resolution to the failure of the Act, because he believed that the strength of the case for further legislation depended mainly upon two reasons, namely, partly upon the failure of the Act itself—upon the fact that the shopkeepers themselves had not been prepared to carry out the restrictions as far as some of them had hoped, and on the success of the measure where it had been tried. In Glasgow this legislation had been acted upon without any difficulty and without any considerable friction. That was a great point in favour of carrying such legislation forward on more drastic lines. He would be glad to go with his hon. friends as far as he could in restricting the hours of shop assistants, but he could not regard this measure as being altogether a failure, seeing that it had brought something like comfort into so many miserable lives; for it was evident that some40,000 or 50,000 persons had been benefited by the Act. If the words declaring the Act to have been a failure had been omitted he would have had much pleasure in voting for a Resolution in favour of more drastic legislation. He wished the Home Secretary could have given them a stronger assurance that something would be done
  974
  by the Government. It was a pressing matter, and he trusted that, before this Parliament came to an end, some further practical steps would be taken to lighten the labours of those for whom so much sympathy had been expressed.
  MR. T. DAVIESassured the House that in many areas and in many boroughs in London they had done their best to get the Act put into operation. In the borough he represented, Fulham, at the very earliest opportunity they called a towns meeting, in January, 1905, and did their best to put the Act into operation, and so far as they were concerned it was a complete failure, because they could not get the majority required. At Camberwell the result was that practically no advantage accrued to the shop assistants as the hours agreed upon were no shorter than they were previous to the Order coming into force. All his life he had done what he could to reduce the hours of shop assistants in London, and his view was that the Act had been a complete failure in London, and that no Act could be successful unless the whole of London was treated, for this purpose, as one area. The same thing happened in other districts immediately outside London. The Act should be amended if it was to be of any benefit to shop assistants in London, and in order to be effective it should be on the lines of the Bill of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. Speaking from the shop assistants' point of view he said that the Bill should be general in character, compulsory as regarded its scope, and must contain a limitation of hours. He thought that sixty hours a week should be the limit for shop assistants exclusive of meal time. He was very glad that the Home Secretary had promised as soon as he had time to see that the Act was amended in the directions he had indicated.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that as one who had taken a considerable interest in this question for the last fifteen years he would like to say a few words. He agreed that the Act had been a failure, but not for the reasons given by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. He did not believe that any Act was required or that any Act would

  975
  be successful. When he contested Peckham at the last general election he found that a considerable number of the small shopkeepers were going to vote against him because he had supported the Act of 1904, and because they resented any interference with the liberty of the subject. He took considerable trouble to convince those shopkeepers that they were labouring under a misapprehension, but they would not believe him. Of course they had not read the reports in Hansard, and they voted for the hon. Member for Peckham, who was now supporting the very measure for supporting which they voted against him. The Act of 1904 was unjust and unsuited to the habits of a free people. He strongly held to the view that the adult male should be free to use his labour as he saw fit. If he chose to work twenty hours a day he should be allowed to do so, and was to be respected for his physical capacity. This country had been made by men prepared to work to the best of their ability. He saw no reason why a small shopkeeper should keep his shop open at such hours as met the wants of his customers; in fact, that was the only chance he had of carrying on a business in competition with large establishments. No reason had been advanced for preventing the small shopkeeper from using his own labour in the manner which he thought was best suited to his own interests. As regarded the large establishments there was no necessity to have any Act at all, because they already closed at an early hour. The Bill of 1904 was brought in owing to an unfortunate agitation led by a noble Lord for whom he had great respect, but he was afraid that upon that occasion the noble Lord allowed his kindness of heart to run away with his judgment. He did not question the sincerity of hon. Members who had supported the Bill. The gentlemen who were agitating in favour of the measure were supporters of the then Government. They prevailed on the late Lord Salisbury to hold a Commission, and evidence of a very unfortunate character was heard. That was to say, the Commission listened to people who took one view of the matter, but the small shopkeepers, who did not even know of the existence of the Commission, were not heard. The result was that the Commission came to an erroneous
  976
  conclusion. The Bill, as far as he could remember, was not passed unanimously. He could not conceive of such a thing being possible. One of the reasons why he objected to the Bill of 1904 was that he believed the whole agitation was got up on sentimental grounds. He then ventured to point out that there was a large number of people in different parts of London whose interest lay in having shops open at different hours, and that to lay down a hard-and-fast rule which would be enacted by the central authority would only result in failure or injustice. That was one of the reasons why the borough council was substituted for the London County Council. Another reason why the vast majority of shopkeeper did not want it was that the vast majority of consumers did not want it. He denied the accuracy of the statement that there was a general desire among the shop keeping and purchasing classes that shops should be arbitrarily closed at a certain hour.
  MR. SHACKLETON: Why did you vote for the Bill? In Hansard, on the Division on the Second Reading, among the "Ayes" is the name of Sir Frederick George Banbury.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid that, the hon. Member having drawn his attention to Hansard, he of course accepted his statement. He did not know what the circumstances were at the moment. There might have been something worse, and he took the lesser of two evils. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean was perfectly well aware of the action he had taken in this direction. He remembered that the right hon. Baronet made a speech in his constituency in which he said that it would be impossible to pass a Bill of this description as long as he himself was in the House. Therefore if for once his Party loyalty—
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: What I said was that it would be impossible for a private Member to pass such a Bill.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid it came to the same thing. He had never ventured to arrogate to himself the power to stop a Bill of the Government. He would endeavour on all occasions to do what

  977
  according to his lights he considered to be his duty. If he believed he could stop a Government Bill of which he disapproved he would be proud to do it. The proof that there had been no general demand for the Act was to be found in the fact that it had been a failure. He knew it was perfectly useless to appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to remember the old maxims of the Liberal Party. [Cries of "No."] Then he would appeal to them. The late Sir William Harcourt said that there should be no interference with individuals by the State, and that every man should have freedom to conduct himself according to his own lights. Those were the old doctrines of the Liberal Party. He was sorry his hon. friend the Member for Preston was not in his place; they were his views now, and he was the only true remnant of the old Liberal Party in the House If the hon. Member were here now, he was sure he would support him. He would ask the Home Secretary on what ground a man who had a shop of his own should be obliged to close it at a certain hour. What was the argument from the Liberal point of view?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid he would make exactly the same answer as was given by the hon. Gentleman who brought in the Bill of 1904.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he had always been against a Bill of this sort, and he did not know why he supported it. They all made mistakes sometimes. He was consoled by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had expressed sympathy. It was easy to profess sympathy. Every Member on the Treasury Bench always professed sympathy. He was glad to see that they did not always go much beyond sympathy. If hon. Gentlemen below the gangway brought in a Bill to extend this Act he would vote against it.
  MR. J. D WHITEhoped that the speech of the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow would not give the House the impression that Glasgow and other Scottish cities were industrial elysiums. As one fairly familiar with the conditions there, he would like to point out that in Glasgow and other Scottish cities the hours of shop
  978
  assistants were in many cases too long. Some time ago he met in a shop in London an assistant who was formerly in similar occupation in Scotland. He told him that, though the conditions in London were far from desirable, they were better than the conditions from which he had come. He could assure the House that the conditions of work among shop assistants in Scotland required amending quite as much as in England. He spoke not only for the young men, but also for the young women assistants. Standing for long hours in an unwholesome atmosphere had even a worse effect on young women than young men. He would be sorry if anything that had fallen from the hon. Member opposite led the House to suppose that the conditions in Scotland should be left as they were. Scotland was, of course, outside the jurisdiction of the Home Secretary, but he ventured to hope that the right hon. Gentleman would use his influence to bring Scotland within the scope of any projected benefits. A reform of the conditions was needed in the interests of the shop assistants in Scotland fully more than in those of the same class in England.
  MR. HUNTsaid he quite agreed with the Resolution, because he believed that men and women were kept too long serving in the shops.
  SIR F. BANBURYsaid he desired to make a personal explanation. He found on referring to Hansard that he had stated at the time that he did not approve of the Bill of 1904, and that the principle was one which, in his opinion, should never have been brought forward by a Conservative Government. To that opinion he adhered. He thought he had shown that he believed the borough councils would be better than the London County Council to administer the Act
  Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, more drastic legislation with regard to the Closing of Shops and the Hours of Shop Assistants is required. —(Mr. Shackleton.)

  TOWN DEVELOPMENT.
  MR. P. W. WILSONsaid he desired to call the attention of

  979
  the House to the question of town development, and to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, local authorities should be granted by legislation the power of laying out suburbs for building on a rational plan, which shall include adequate air space, convenient grounds for recreation, and facilities for locomotion, so preventing the grave evils which result from over-crowding in and around great cities." On 19th April the Prime Minister, in a speech delivered at the Holborn Restaurant, laid it down as the immediate aim of the Government's policy in regard to land and housing that—
  "Happy shall we be if before our day is over we see brightness and colour and pleasant homes for the people, in our cities, and vigorous, well-nourished children playing in the gardens of our cities instead of in the dismal and sunless streets, which are too often the only playground open to them."
  It was in the spirit of those sincere words that he ventured to submit this Motion to the House. He supposed that there were hundreds of thousands in this country earning their living in the building industry. Lord Rosebery once used the expression—
  "Are you a builder? If so, what, and where, have you built?"
  Every one who had thought over this matter—not merely poets and idealists— agreed that the influence exercised by mere bricks and mortar was not only physical, but moral and intellectual, and assisted to an incalculable extent in the development of human life. Years ago the Borough of Finsbury, once a suburb, was built without a plan and had a population of 101,000 people. It had only two and a half acres of open spaces, Spa Fields one and three-quarter acres, and Spa Green three-quarters of an acre; and in South St. Pancras, which had a population of 60,000, the only open spaces consisted of three disused cemeteries of one and three-quarter acres in extent. The death rate for Hampstead was only half that of Finsbury—a fact which showed the value of open spaces. During the three or four years he had been living in Finsbury they had in the first place been building bigger schools, in the second place they had been building bigger public-houses, and in the third place they had been building a very much larger police station. His constituency of South St. Pancras was divided between
  980
  the comfortably rich and the extremely poor, and, as he had said, they had 60,000 inhabitants and their open spaces consisted of three disused burial grounds, of which only two had been consecrated, the third being Nonconformist. What was the effect upon the race of the present state of things? Let them take Mafeking night, when there were millions in the streets cut off from the steadying influences of nature, breathing an artificial atmosphere and displaying a temperament that was hysterical, restless, and undisciplined. It was made the occasion of civic rejoicing, but what about the hunger and discontent which existed? The manning of cities and distribution of population involved not humanity merely, but national security. He did not want, however, to dwell upon the errors of the past, errors of ignorance, errors of apathy and errors of avarice; what he wished to point out was that the evil was continuing and spreading all over the country. They would find in the suburbs and in provincial cities like Middlesbrough large masses of houses built back to back in a, uniform line, without any allowance in regard to air space, and embodying everything that was low and bad in its influence upon human life. What was the remedy for this impudent denial of aesthetic instinct? His hon. friend the Member for Cheshire had built one of the most wonderful garden cities in the country, and his hon. friend regarded this not as a question of philanthropic effort but as a matter of business, since human life was the raw material upon which all national prosperity must rest. What he wanted to bring to the attention of the House was the indispensable minimum which they ought to secure. He did not talk of luxuries, libraries, public halls, clubs, and swimming baths, but he contended that there should be gardens in the suburbs three or four times the size of the site of the house. Each road should have a width of not less than 100 feet; his right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board know how difficult it was to widen streets after the houses had been erected. These things were possible, not merely in villages, but in towns. There should also be a given number of houses to the acre, accessible playgrounds, and the preservation of those rural features which went so far to humanise life. He supported the

  981
  principle of garden cities as having a most beneficial effect upon human life. At Port Sunlight the inhabitants had a prospect of 110 years of life, and in another garden city there was the prospect of an average life of 140 years as against twenty-five in Finsbury. In these places the birth rate was 40 as against 27·9 in London. He brought these figures to the attention of the Government because he thought they had important bearing upon the question of old ago pensions. There was a most interesting experiment going forward in London at the present moment. He referred to the Hampstead Garden Suburb, in which he understood the lion. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, was interested. That was an experiment conducted upon 240 acres of land, taken over from the Eton College trustees, and the scheme had the powerful support of Sir John Gorst, Earl Grey, the Earl of Crewe, the Bishop of London, Sir Robert Hunter, Mr. Lyttelton, and others, who were endeavouring to bring poor and rich together on the outskirts of London, and the point ho had in his mind in this regard was not that they had so much inequality between rich and poor, but that they lived apart. They thought that the time had come when the matter should no longer be left to private enterprise; they wanted municipal action, and he hoped they were to have a discussion later on on the question of land valuation. What was wanted was the principle of co-operation between the city and surrounding authorities. A most remarkable report had been issued by the Housing Committee of Birmingham, drawn up by Mr. Nettlefold, the chairman. That committee investigated the state of affairs in Germany and found that so long ago as 1875 there was legislation upon the lines suggested by the Motion. Nothing could be done towards settling the question until Parliament assented to legislation on general lines to prevent the building of unsuitable suburbs. In listening to hon. Members opposite he had been amazed by the description of the demands made by the working classes. What was it that the working classes asked for? They did not ask for luxuries, motor-ears, traps, or unlimited space, but merely for the bare amenities of life; some security for employment and for food, shelter,
  982
  fresh air, and a bit of garden. These were the questions they were discussing on May-day. Ono hundred years ago May-day was day of holiday and general rejoicing; to-day it was an occasion for labour agitation throughout Europe. That was his first observation. His second was that if they road history they would find that every empire had been judged by reference to its cities; that in the case of every empire there came a time of material abundance, when the activity of the race ran greatly ahead. That moment had come to us. We were building at an enormous pace all over the country, but we must remember that in doing so we were not merely building houses and streets out of which to get rents and rates; we were actually building the future of our race, and the supreme destiny of our Colonies and dominions beyond the seas. He begged to move.
  MR. JOWETTsaid he seconded the Resolution because he thought it was a Motion which the House ought to discuss considering the immense population that lived in towns. He understood that 77 per cent, of the population of this country inhabited towns, and that being so, it followed that the condition of the towns was bound to have a great influence on ho future of our race. The towns of to-day had boon built without any pre conceived plan and were the result of the more monetary interest of various individuals. As a result there were no playgrounds to speak of in which the children could play; they had to play over the gutters, or in the backyards near the foul privies and middens with flies constantly passing between them and the pile of refuse so near at hand. There were thousands of places in towns where direct sunlight came for only a very short time each day. This was chaos, and the Resolution asked for an expression of opinion from the House that that chaos should come to an end, and that so far at any rate as future extensions were concerned, matters should be thought out before hand, and should be planned in such a way as would lead to healthy, vigorous life for the population which was now living, and was young enough to be influenced by the new conditions. The towns now were under serious disabilities

  983
  in dealing with outside areas owing to the fact that other authorities were frequently responsible, and had to he consulted before an arrangement could be made. If the Resolution were passed, he would take it to include an expression of opinion that the outskirts of the towns, even though they were not under the authority of the town chiefly concerned, should also be subject to the plans of the same order, even if the central authority had to compel the subsidary authorities to conform to what was best. At the present time, the land of outside areas was owned by many different owners, and where there was separate ownership there was bound to be large and small plots, and it was impossible for these plots to be dealt with in such a way as to allow the most suitable class of building to be erected. All that was determined by the size and position of the plot. It often happened that one man found it impossible to build in a sensible and intelligent manner because his neighbour had built in such a way as to preclude any possibility of his doing so. Then, again, in some cases the owner of a piece of land found it impossible to utilise it to the best advantage because of the erection in close proximity of some premises for an offensive trade. Houses in the neighbourhood of the factory carrying on the offensive trade were deteriorated, and they had districts in which such factories were surrounded by houses to the great detriment of all concerned. The Resolution sought to put an end to that—if legislation followed, as they hoped it would—by imposing on the local authority the duty of making a plan which would bind these separate owners to follow some systematic method in dealing with their lands. In his own experience he had seen cases where owners of very small pieces of land had actually blocked the development of larger pieces by securing the outlet for drainage purposes. He had seen instances where speculators had bought land at a particular point, not for the purpose of using it, but for
  984
  the purpose of preventing somebody else from having the opportunity of making use of their land, in the expectation that they would be bought out at a. price which would leave them a large profit on the transaction. The Resolution was aimed at the destruction of action of that kind. To act upon the Resolution properly, it appeared to him that it would be necessary to expropriate the landlords or owners of the property which conflicted with the general interest. He did not use the word expropriate in the sense of confiscate; the owners ought to be dealt with on fair terms. He could quite understand how cases might arise where the owners might be perfectly innocent of any intention to injure the public welfare, and naturally, if such cases were dealt with, it should be on fair terms, and nobody on these Benches would wish otherwise, for they were not so unreasonable as might be sometimes supposed. They were not in the habit of going in for confiscation; they desired to do justice to all. But where property was in such a position that other property could not be properly dealt with if it were allowed to remain, or where it was in a dilapidated condition, then Parliamentary powers ought to be given to the local authority to allow them to remove the property which was of an obstructive character, or which injured other adjacent property, and to charge the adjacent owners for any benefit which they derived from its removal. As a patriotic Britisher he was sorry to have to admit that we were behindhand in these matters in comparison with other countries. In Germany this subject had already received the most careful attention from the very best men in the country, and for years they had been working on the lines indicated in the Resolution. He found from a publication issued by the Manchester and Salford Citizens' Association, that the town authorities in Germany, when large extensions were contemplated, went about their work in a most careful fashion. They took skilled advice in every direction, including not only engineers

  985
  and surveyors and others, but even artists, in order that the work which they were about to execute might be beautiful as well as useful and beneficial. The reports prepared by the experts referred to were afterwards published and the public were asked to give their opinion. Ho mentioned that to show the immense pains taken in order that the work might be done properly. It was recognised in Germany that plans made for the development of land, and for the provision of sites for houses and buildings, should be so drawn as to cover if possible the needs of the next twenty or thirty years. Streets were arranged, open spaces were thoughtof, the general lie of the situation was properly discussed, and everything that they could think of for the public health was attended to, before any construction took place, He felt sure that the President of the Local Government Board, who was an old municipal administrator, would agree with him when he said that in Germany the State had encouraged; localities to progress in this direction The State had gone to the length of issuing general instructions calling upon local authorities to miss no opportunity of getting suitable land into their possession wherever they could. In this country, in times past, the efforts of local authorities in this direction had been throttled by the State. The Local Government Board, instead of saying "Buy where you can if the price is reasonable," had encouraged local authorities to sell land, and scores of public bodies had sacrificed thousands of pounds through being compelled to sell sites fronting public thoroughfares before they had developed, with the result that private speculators had reaped the benefit. He asked the House to give a sympathetic consideration to the Resolution. He thought hon. Members were agreed that legislation should follow, and he appealed to the President of the Local Government Board to grant the powers to local authorities which were indicated in the Resolution, which he begged leave to second.
  Motion made and Question proposed—"That, in the opinion of this House, local authorities should be granted by j legislation the power of laying out suburbs for building upon a rational plan, which shall include adequate air space, convenient grounds for recreation, and facilities for locomotion, so preventing the grave evils which result from overcrowding in and around great cities."—(Mr. P. W. Wilson.)
  VISCOUNT TURNOURsaid there could be no more useful work for that House to do than to endeavour to prevent the evils of overcrowding, and to that extent he was in favour of the Resolution. No one would deny that there was in London a great absence of open air spaces and opportunities for recreation. It was also true that in the past due regard had not been paid to the way in which the rural population of the country had been decreasing. He did not agree that the conditions of things in this respect were much worse—especially in London—than in other countries. Ho had travelled a good deal, and he did not admit that the conditions in this country were worse. He very much deprecated the way in which the mover of the Resolution had blackened the character of London in this respect. The hon. Member had drawn a most dismal picture of Finsbury, for he had stated that they began in Finsbury with education, proceeded with intemperance, and ended with crime. He ventured to say that that was a somewhat dark picture, and it was hardly likely to be a correct one. The problem to be faced was that of overcrowding, and proper facilities ought to be provided in large towns for recreation. If the Motion had proposed more stringent legislation to prevent new suburbs being constructed on the old fashioned plan without sufficient open air spaces he would have been able to support it, but ho could not support any Resolution which proposed to allow local authorities

  987
  to lay out suburbs in the way the hon. Member proposed.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): The subject-matter of this Resolution has evoked universal discussion during the last few years, and has aroused considerable interest amongst housing, social, and civic reformers. I venture to say that it would have been a great advantage to the House of Commons if time had permitted us to discuss at greater length the vital and interesting subject which is embodied in this Resolution. In the short space of time of ten minutes I have to reply to this Motion, and in so doing, may I say, that as a Londoner, as a cockney born and bred, I cannot accept the grey, dismal, melancholy impression of London given by the hon. Member for South St. Pancras. If the hon. Member's description is accepted London might be described as a place for work housing the old, warehousing the women and children, and public-housing the men. May I say that that is an ox-aggerated view of what London is? I know of no city in the world which, for its size, is as sober, and for its condition s loss criminal; and speaking with almost a unique experience as a Main Drainage Commissioner for eighteen years, I can say that I know no city so healthy, so clean, so much possessed of the crude essentials of good sanitation and physical decency as the great city in which this Parliament sits.
  MR. P. W. WILSONwas understood to say that what he intended to state was in the immediate neighbourhood of which he had personal knowledge the number, of public-houses and convictions for t drunkenness had greatly increased, and ' it had less open spaces than other metropolitan boroughs.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: All I can say is that in that respect the hon Member's constituency differs from mine, which has nearly the smallest number of public houses
  988
  of any parish, has 18 per cent, of open space in its total area, and on Easter Monday last, when 200,000 persons went in and out, there were only four cases at the local police station and throe of them were strangers to the neighbourhood. But although I cannot accept the view of the hon. Member who moved this Motion as to the condition of London, I admit that the conditions under which large numbers of our people live are not as good as they ought to be, and not so good as they must be. It is as well that we should rocognise the fact that in the last ten years there has been an extraordinary improvement in desire, in taste, and in appetite on the part of the people themselves for better conditions in the matter of housing. I venture to say that there is no other country in the world where there are so many comfortable homes. There is no country in which domestic architecture has developed further than in this city. I decline to accept oven the pessimism of the hon. Member for North West Ham. But these amenities are possessed too exclusively by a small class. Their ideals are rapidly extending down to the poorest people whom we have in all our cities, and in so far as this Motion will enable us to assist the desire for better accommodation, then the Government will support it in the strongest possible May. May I say that there is hardly anything in the Resolution that local authorities are not now; able to do, except one particular. Let me prove it. Let us go to Bourneville, the greatest triumph of housing and social experiment there is in the world. What has been done there, both as regards the amenities of the houses and the environments, is the best thing that has yet been done: but it must be remembered that what has there been done is in excess and advance of local by-laws. The same can be said of Port Sunlight, Garden City and Hampstead. I would take you to another type of illustration, namely, Chelsea. There you can see what one man cooperating with the local authority has

  989
  been able to do in road and architectural improvement, and that mainly because he is one man acting in co-operation with the local authority, and, if I may say so, peacefully persuading the local authority to conform to his views. There you have seen a portion of London revolutionised in the direction this Resolution seeks to have developed everywhere throughout the country under the existing laws. But the difficulty comes in where you have a large area of land cut up by conflicting and divided interests, each exploiting his own portion and manipulating the property irrespective of the locality. There you see the very opposite of what has been revealed at Bourneville, Garden City, Millbank, Holborn, Chelsea and elsewhere. It is the business of these responsible for town government to see that local authorities who are willing shall have the means by which they can co-operate with private owners who are willing to bring about by their co-operation that which can be done by the individual where ho is all powerful, or whore he acts in conjunction with the local authority. We have got to devise some means of dealing with the recalcitrant and outstanding individual who believes in the mean street, the moaner house, the cheap and nasty tenement, and dear rents, who is for universal advertisement, and for the sordid and squalid conditions which we too often see our suburbs literally cursed with, because there is lack of community of action for the improvement of the district. I believe that the legacy of ugly buildings, mean streets, and brick boxes with slate lids, cannot be altered or removed until Parliament enable the local authorities to bring these interests together, and, failing agreement, to submit the issue to arbitration, and failing agreement and arbitration, to apply compulsion. I may tell the mover of this Resolution what has been done in order to carry out what is practical, sensible, and immediately pressing in the Resolution. We have, in accordance with a promise given to a town planning deputation which waited
  990
  on the Prime Minister and myself six months ago, anticipated the Resolution moved by the hon. Member. I have before me two alternative Bills which are in process of drafting, by means of which we hope to achieve the important object referred to in the Resolution. The lines on which we would prefer to move would be that we should make provision in any scheme with respect to the manner in which streets and roads are to be laid down on the land; the parts of the land to be appropriated for open spaces or public purposes; the position in which houses may be built upon the land; the general character of the houses to be built; the conditions to be observed with the view to drainage or supply of water or light; and any other conditions which it may be considered desirable to impose with the view of making the best use of the area for building land, having regard to the circumstances of the case, and securing these and many other objects. Time does not permit me further to define or explain on behalf of the Government the plan which I have outlined. We freely and cheerfully accept this Resolution, and so soon as is practicable for us we shall plate our proposals more fully before the House. It may be possible to bring in a separate town planning Bill which would meet with universal acceptance from all sections of the House for this desirable object. We intend to go forward with that town planning Bill, and when its objects are realised we hope we will be able to say —
  "We builded better than we knew,
  The conscious stone to beauty grew."
  Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, local authorities should be granted; by legislation the power of laying out suburbs for building upon a rational plan, which shall include adequate air-space, convenient grounds for recreation, and facilities for locomotion, so preventing the grave evils which result from overcrowding in and around great cities. —(Mr. P. W. Wilson.)

NEW BILLS.
  INCEST.
  Bill to provide for the punishment of Incest, ordered to be brought in by Colonel Lockwood, Sir John Kennaway, Mr. Crossley, Mr. Henry Joseph Wilson, Mr. Goddard Clarke, Mr. Maclean, Mr. John Wilson, and Mr. George Hardy.
  INCEST BILL.
  "To provide for the punishment of Incest," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 173.]

  WAYS AND MEANS [24TH APRIL] REPORT.
  Postponed Proceeding on Consideration of First Resolution, reported from the Committee of Ways and Means, "That Income-tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and seven, at the rate of one shilling in the pound," resumed.
  Resolution to be further considered upon Monday next.
  Subsequent Resolutions to be considered upon Monday next.
  Bill ordered, upon thy Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means of the 18th April and agreed to this day, to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Sydney Buxton, Mr. McKenna, and Mr. Runciman.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS.
  On the Motion for the Adjournment of the House—
  SIR F. BANBURY,referring to the debate on the Motion with respect to the failure of the Shop Hours Act, stated that on reference to Hansard he found that he voted, not in favour of the Second Reading of the Shop Hours Bill, but against the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, and that there was no division at all on the Second Reading. That, he submitted, conclusively proved that the hon. Member for Clitheroe was in error in saying that he voted for the Second Reading of the Bill. He asked the hon. Member to withdraw the statement which he had made.
  MR. SHACKLETONsaid that on looking into the matter he found there was no Second Reading division; therefore the Member for the City of London could not have voted for the Second Reading. From the divisions and debate, however, it appeared that the right hon. Gentleman did support the Government.
  VISCOUNT TURNOURreferred to the form in which the hon. Member for the Clitheroe Division had met the hon. Baronet's explanation. It affected the relations between hon. Members of the House. When the hon. Baronet was condemning the Shop Hours Bill the hon. Member asked why he voted for it, his sole object being to ridicule his hon. friend. The hon. Member ought to have withdrawn unreservedly the statement he had made instead of following it up in the manner he had done.
  Adjourned at a quarter after Eleven o'clock.