Commons Sitting of 13 May 1907

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Tees Valley Water (Consolidation) Bill [Lords]; Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill [Lords]; Metropolitan Railway (Pension Fund) Bill [Lords]; Sutton Coldfield Rectory Bill [Lords]; Kendal Corporation Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
  Staveley Coal and Iron Company Bill [Lords]; Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier Bill [Lords].—Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Birmingham Corporation Bill [Lords]; Collooney, Ballina, and Belmullet Railways and Piers Bill; Folkestone, Sand-gate, and Hythe Tramways Bill [Lords]; West Yorkshire Tramways Bill [Lords].—
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Birmingham Corporation Water Bill [Lords]; King Edward's Hospital Fund for London Bill [Lords]; Royal Bank of Scotland Bill [Lords]; Southend Water Bill [Lords].—Read a second time, and committed.
  London and North Western Railway Bill.—Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to:—
  Falmouth Gas Bill, without Amendment; Mitcham and Wimbledon District Gas Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the union of the Methodist New Connexion, the Bible Christians, and the United Methodists Free Churches under the name of 'The United Methodist Church,' to deal with real and personal property belonging to the said churches or denominations, to provide for the vesting of the said property in trust for the United Church so formed, land for the assimilation of the, trusts thereof; and for other purposes." [United Methodist Church Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board to purchase certain waterworks from the Skelmersdale Urban District Council; and for other purposes." [Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision with reference to claims by policy holders and other persons against other companies or persons for compensation or payment in respect of injuries." [Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation, Limited, Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the construction of further waterworks and the taking of water from the River Bure for the purpose of affording increased supplies of water by the
  568
  Great Yarmouth Waterworks Company and the Lowestoft Water and Gas Company, to confer further powers upon those companies with reference to their respective undertakings; and for other purposes. "[Great Yarmouth Waterworks and Lowestoft Water and Gas Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to incorporate the Selsey Water Company and to enable that Company to supply water in certain parishes in the county of Sussex." [Selsey Water Bill] [Lords.]
  United Methodist Church Bill [Lords]; Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board Bill [Lords]; Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation Bill [Lords]; Great Yarmouth Waterworks and Lowestoft Water and Gas Bill [Lords]; Selsey Water Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Petition from St. Marylebone, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SPECIAL RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION) BILL.
  Petition from St. Marylebone, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Argyll, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Tattingstone, against; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAYS (No. 2) BILL.
  Petition from St. Marylebone, in favour to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY.
  Petition from Rhuddlan, for prohibition; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EAST INDIA (ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATES, 1907–8).
  Copy presented, of Explanatory Memorandum by the Secretary of State for India [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (RAILWAYS AND IRRIGATION WORKS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 9th May; Mr. Robert Price]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 150.]
  EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 9th May; Mr. Herbert Samuel]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 151.]
  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Return of the number of Evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 31st March, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND) (MIGRATORY LABOURERS).
  Copy presented, of Report and Tables relating to Irish Migratory Agricultural and other Labourers for the year 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND.)
  Copy presented, of Code of Regulations for Continuation Classes providing further instruction for those who have left school, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL PARCEL POST).
  Copy presented, of the Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 5) Warrant, 1907, dated 25th April, 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3780 and 3781 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Copy presented, of Returns of Accidents and Casualties as reported to the
  570
  Board of Trade by the several Railway Companies in the United Kingdom during the three months ended 31st December, 1906, together with Reports of the Inspecting Officers of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain Accidents which were inquired into [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  DAIRIES, COWSHEDS, AND MILKSHOPS (REGULATIONS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 28th February; Dr. Rutherford]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 152.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Manufactured Goods Imported from the Colonies.
  MR. ASHLEY: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state what was the value of manufactures imported into this country from the self-governing Colonies in 1905.
  MR. ASHLEY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state what was the value of manufactures imported into this country from British possessions in 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The value of articles wholly or mainly manufactured (including a small quantity of unclassified articles and parcel post) imported into the United Kingdom from the self-governing Colonies in 1905 was £5,250,000, and from all British possessions £16,500,000.

  Custody of Thomas Slevin, now in Rainhill Asylum.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the county asylum authorities at Rainhill, near Liverpool, have refused to transfer to an Irish asylum Thomas Slevin, who arrived in Liverpool violently insane on the royal mail steamer "Teutonic," and who was a passenger to Longford; and, in case his friends go for him to the asylum, will he direct that

  571
  he be handed over to their custody with a view to his removal to Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) I have made inquiry in this case and I am informed by the asylum authorities that the patient is at present ill in bed and unfit to travel.

  Arrests on Suspicion at Fintown, County Donegal.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that three men, Peter Boyle, James M'Monagle, and Owen May, of Fintown, county Donegal, were arrested on the 25th, 28th, and 31st December, respectively, on a charge of sheep-stealing, and were remanded to Derry Gaol, the granting of bail being opposed by the police; that at the petty sessions, held on the 4th January at Glenties, no evidence whatever was produced against Boyle or M'Monagle, and that Moy was also discharged by the magistrates on the ground that there was no evidence to connect him with the theft; was any effort made by the police to confront the accused either, for the purpose of identification, with the man from whom the sheep were stolen or with the person to whom they were alleged to have been subsequently sold, previously to these men being remanded to gaol or at any time before the 3rd January; have any disciplinary measures been taken with respect to the sergeant of police who made the arrests; and will he direct that in future the police shall not oppose the granting of bail in cases where they make arrests upon suspicion and are not in possession of any evidence to support a charge.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The police authorities inform me that the three men referred to were arrested on 25th, 29th, and 31st December, respectively, and were remanded in custody to Glenties petty sesions on 4th January. The police did not oppose bail; it was not offered by any of the defendants. All three were discharged at petty sessions for want of evidence. The accused were not confronted with the persons mentioned in the Question. The owner of the
  572
  sheep could not have identified them, as he did not see the sheep stolen, and the person to whom they were sold lived eighteen miles away. It was not clear, also, that the thieves were the persons who actually sold the sheep to the person; in whose possession they were found. The absence of evidence was due to the fact that the persons who gave information to the police failed to support their statements. The Inspector-General is of opinion that no blame attaches to the police in the matter.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Reinstatement of Terence Reilly.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what progress has been made towards reinstating Terence Reilly, of Cooldoney, Patrick Brady, of Aghnaganon, and Alice Connor, of Kilbride, all evicted tenants in the parish of Abbeylara, in the farms from which they were respectively evicted.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from both Terence Reilly and Alice Connor, but not from Patrick Brady. Reilly's case has been carefully inquired into, and the Commissioners have decided to take no action in it. Alice Connor's application was only recently received, and her case has not yet been investigated.

  Honorary Rank on Retirement of Brigadier-Generals.
  CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that two years ago there were only some twelve brigadier-generals doing duty at home, and that there are now about fifty, he can, considering the fact that it means no increase of pay, reconsider his determination of not allowing these officers to retain their rank on retirement, and so save them from the stigma of the present reduction in rank.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The number of brigadier-generals does not in any way affect the general principle of not granting honorary rank on

  573
  retirement, There is no real stigma attaching to the reversion of a brigadier-general to his permanent rank.

  Married Quarters at Bulford Camp.
  CAPTAIN FABER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, with regard to the separation of married soldiers of the Scots Greys from their families, owing to there not being sufficient married accommodation at Bulford Camp, he will state the distance by high road, and also by rail, from Bulford to Tidworth; and whether the communication across the downs between those places is only by a track across the downs which is nearly impassable in winter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The distance by high road from Bulford to Tidworth is about seven miles and by rail about twenty-six miles. The communication across the downs is by track, a distance of four miles, but in inclement weather it is preferable for wheeled traffic to use the high road. I am, however, at present engaged in considering how the difficulty referred to in the Question can be got over. I am not as yet in a position to make a statement on the subject.

  Preparation of Reports of the Colonial Conference.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: To ask the Prime Minister whether the Colonial Office or the Imperial Conference are responsible for the issue of the Reports of the Imperial Conference.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: To ask the Prime Minister whether he can state the reason which has led those responsible for issuing the Reports of the Imperial Conference to give some speeches in much fuller detail than others.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: To ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that the authorities responsible for issuing Reports of the Imperial Conference have admitted that the summary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech at the Conference was incorrect, and having regard to the fact that the mistake was not noticed by those authori-
  574
  ties for the space of three days, he will take steps to ensure that in the future less slovenly methods of reporting the proceedings of the Conference are adopted.
  (Answered by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.) Perhaps I may answer the other Questions of the noble Lord at the same time. I am not prepared to answer in detail questions relative to the procedure adopted by the Imperial Conference. The daily précis was prepared for the public convenience as efficiently as the time and pressure of work would allow. The Conference have decided to publish, as soon as possible, a full and verbatim Report of their proceedings.

  Sittings of the Departmental Committee on the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Departmental Committee on the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill has recently been taking evidence from the chairman of the Metropolitan Gas Company on the question of profit sharing; whether he is aware that this gentleman has many times publicly given this evidence; whether he will therefore direct the Committee that they are not to take evidence where the same is available in Parliamentary Papers; will he say how long the Committee have been sitting, how many sittings have been held, and what are the instructions he has given to the Committee, if any, to expedite their Report; and whether any single member of this Committee has had any practical experience in the management of a colliery.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone) I am informed by the Committee that the evidence taken from Sir George Livesey referred, not to the subject of profit-sharing, but to that of the institution of an eight-hour shift at the South Metropolitan Gas Works. The Committee commenced taking evidence on 3rd January, and finished on the 8th of this month, having held twenty-seven meetings in all. The Committee expect to place their Report in my hands this week, and it should be available for Members

  575
  shortly after Whitsuntide. As regards the last part of the Question the Answer is in the affirmative.

  Speed of H.MS. "Scylla" and "Indefatigable."
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the sea speed of H.M.S. "Scylla" and H.M.S. "Indefatigable."
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) Sixteen knots under ordinary conditions.

  Naval Manœuvres.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is proposed to hold any naval manœuvres this summer; and, if so, whether he can state what fleets will take part.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The usual combined fleet exercises will take place, but the date is not yet definitely fixed.

  Members of Parliament and the Policy of the Charity Commissioners.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the hon. Member for the Elland Division of Yorkshire, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether, seeing that the Charity Commissioners have stated that their policy is settled by influential Members of Parliament, he will point out to these Members of Parliament that their opposition against the sale of charity lands causes loss of income to charities; and will he ask them to withdraw their opposition so that for the future the Commissioners can act judicially.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the hon. Member for the Elland Division of Yorkshire, as representing the Charity Commissioners, whether he is aware that Mr. W. B. N. Bird, of Eartham, Sussex, in November, 1906, agreed to purchase a piece of agricultural land from the trustees of St. Mary's Hospital for the sum of £1,400, the annual rental derived from such land being £30 6s. 8d., and that, though the said sale was provisionally approved by the Charity Commissioners in October, this confirmation was subsequently withdrawn in a letter dated November 8th, 1906, addressed by the
  576
  Charity Commissioners to the solicitors of St. Mary's Hospital, on the grounds that influential Members of Parliament had made strong representations to them against the sale of charity lands; will he say who are these Members of Parliament; and whether other Members of this House will be given an equal opportunity to settle the policy of the Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Trevelyan.) The policy of the Charity Commissioners is adverse to the selling of charity land except in special circumstances showing great advantage to the charity. That this has long been the policy of the Commissioners is shown by the evidence of Sir Henry Longley, the then Chief Commissioner before the Select Committee on the Charity Commission in 1894. It is not the case that the policy is settled by influential Members of Parliament. But evidence in support of it was given by Members before the Select Committee, and in the last two years further representations have been made by Members to the Commissioners against the sale of charity lands, especially in agricultural districts. In the case of St. Mary's Hospital, Chichester, the circumstances were that the proposed purchaser desired to acquire the land in question for sporting purposes and to consolidate his estate. The price offered seemed to the Commissioners insufficient, and they did not think that the object of rounding off a sporting property constituted such special circumstances as would make a sale desirable in the interests of the charity.

  Canadian and United States Tariffs on British Goods.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Excehquer, with reference to the official report of his address to the Imperial Conference, whether the burden of the Canadian tariff upon United Kingdom produce, as compared with United States produce, has been progressively altered since 1897, in favour of the United Kingdom.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The ad valorem equivalent of the duty actually imposed in Canada on all imports from the United States and United Kingdom, respectively, in each year since preferential treatment was first accorded to

  577
  United Kingdom produce, has been as follows—

  Year ended 30th June.

  Ad valorem Equivalent on Goods Imported from

  United States of America.

  United Kingdom.

  1897

  13

  21

  1898

  13

  20

  1899

  13

  20

  1900

  12

  18

  1901

  12

  18

  1902

  13

  17

  1903

  12

  17

  1904

  13

  18

  1905

  13

  19

  1906

  13

  19

  The Disturbances at Lahore.
  MR. C. J. O'DONNELL: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is a fact that the five Lahore barristers who have been arrested and kept in prison, bail being refused, and Lala Rajpat Rai, who has been deported and imprisoned, without trial, under an obsolete law of nearly a century ago, were engaged in necessary agitation against enhancements of an already excessive land tax; whether the great warlike Sikh community, at their sacred city of Amritsar, recently declared that the sons of the Sikh soldiers who saved the British Empire in India in the days of the Mutiny, are now being ruined by excessive taxation; and whether such taxation already amounts to 65 per cent, of the net profits of their farms.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I have no official information as to the arrest of five Lahore barristers, but it is the fact that three pleaders were arrested at Rawalpindi and that bail was refused. They will be tried by the ordinary courts,
  578
  and, pending the result of the proceedings I cannot make any statement regarding them. Lala Rajpat Rai has not been arrested for any legitimate agitation against any reasonable grievance, but for the active promotion of open sedition. I am not aware that the Sikhs have made any such declaration. But I am aware that it has been suggested to what the hon. Member truly calls this great warlike community, by those who are making it their business to foment disturbances, that they saved India in the Mutiny, that we are now ill-treating them, and that this is a judgment on them for betraying their country in her war of independence. The present assessment of land revenue and cesses together in the Punjab is, according to my information, less than 45 per cent, of the net assets, 50 per cent, being the ordinary standard of assessment of land revenue alone throughout India. I have asked the Government of India for information regarding the alleged recent enhancement.

  Renewal of Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1902.
  MR. HUGH BARRIE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Government to renew the Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1902, which expires this year.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Yes, sir.

  Irish Church Temporalities Fund Surplus.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if his attention has been directed to the statement on page 10 of the Report of the Irish Land Commission (31st March, 1905, to 31st March, 1906), that the surplus income of the Irish Temporalities Fund has, by arrangement with the National Debt Commissioners, been utilised in the payment of debt; will he say what debt the surplus has been utilised to pay; under what authority has the surplus of this Irish fund been so applied; and in what way is Ireland benefited by this application.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The surplus income of the Irish Church Temporalities Fund is applied from time to time,

  579
  as it accrues, in paying off capital charges on that fund. These liabilities, which are secured by bonds guaranteed by the Treasury, are in respect of loans raised for the purposes of the Irish Church Act, 1869, and for other purposes imposed on the fund by various statutory enactments, and repayment of the bonds is accepted by the National Debt Commissioners as the money in the Irish Church Temporalities Fund permits.

  Sale of Estate of Lady Grace at Monard.
  MR. LUNDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that negotiations for sale and purchase as between the landlady, Lady Grace, and her tenants on the town lands of Monard, and those adjoining in the electoral division of Ballykisteen, county Tipperary, have been entered into; can he say whether the agreements have as yet been lodged with the Estates Commissioners; is he aware that threats of raising rents on the non-judicial tenants, and of the exaction of old arrears with others of them by attorneys' letters and processes have been used in inducing some of the tenants to purchase at high prices; is he aware that tenants holding farms whose valuations jointly constitute more than one-fourth of that of the whole estate have refused to purchase; and, under all those considerations, will the Estates Commissioners declare the estate to be a separate estate for sale.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Agreements for the purchase of fifty-five holdings on this estate were lodged with the Estates Commissioners in the early part of this year. The Commissioners have no knowledge that any threats were used in order to induce tenants to purchase. It is the fact that purchase agreements in respect of some of the holdings on the estate have not been lodged. The Commissioners will, when dealing with the estate, fully consider all the facts of the case, including the circumstances alleged in the Question.

  The Mountshannon Estate, County Limerick.
  MR. LUNDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of
  580
  Ireland, if he can say how matters stand on the Mountshannon estate, in the county Limerick; has it yet been divided; if so, have portions of it been allotted to Mrs. Hanora Londregan, of Toolmaine, parish of Doon, James Conway, of Gurtavalla, Doon, Simon Ryan, of Cross, Pallasgrean, and Ellen Rafferty, of Knockroe, Kilteely, all in the county Limerick, and all evicted tenants on whose farms are planters, and who applied for portions of this Mount-shannon estate in lieu of their farms as far back as two years ago; and will he communicate with the Estates Commissioners so as to bring about this result.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have settled the scheme for the distribution of the land on this estate. The names of the two persons first mentioned in the Question have been included in the scheme, but not the names of the other two.

  Evicted Tenants in County Kilkenny.
  MR. MEAGHER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will grant a Return of the number of tenants evicted from their holdings in county Kilkenny, according to State Returns issued in 1903; how many applications for reinstatement have been lodged up to 1st of May, 1907; the names and addresses of those who have been rejected under regulations of 13th of February, 1906; is he aware that a number have been debarred from lodging applications by reason of want of particulars which can be obtained only by examination of police Returns of evictions within the statutory term; and will he grant such facilities as will enable those tenants or their friends to lodge applications in due course.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Return to which the hon. Member refers shows the number of tenants evicted in the past twenty-five years in county Kilkenny, as well as in every other county in Ireland. All persons who were evicted within the twenty-five years preceding the Act of 1903, or who claim to be the representatives of such evicted tenants, may, if they think fit, send in applications for reinstatement. A very large number

  581
  of applications has been received, and it would not seem that facilities for lodging applications are in any wise lacking. As I have already stated, I hope after the end of this month to make a detailed statement as to the result of the Estates Commissioners' investigation into evicted tenants' application.

  The Proposed Irish Council—Annual Grant.
  MR. FELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if the sum of £236,000, which it is proposed to grant to the Irish Council annually for expenses, will be in whole or in part saved on the expenses of the department which at present does the work proposed to be delegated to the Irish Council, or will such sum be an additional annual charge on the revenue.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) This sum will be an additional annual charge.

  Civil Rights of Irish School Teachers.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he has yet arranged the question of the civil rights of national school teachers in Ireland, and what is the result; and whether, having regard to the nature of the proposals in his Irish Council Bill dealing with education, teachers will be free to discuss them without interference.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) In pursuance of the intention which I expressed in this House some time since, I communicated with the Commissioners of National Education upon the subject of their rules relating to the civil rights of teachers. The Commissioners have since informed me that, having fully considered the matter, they cannot see their way to modify the rules. The rule to which I chiefly referred was that which prohibits teachers from attending at political meetings and from taking part in elections for Members of Parliament or Poor Law guardians except by voting. The Commissioners inform me that these restrictions are designed for the real advantage of the teachers and their schools. The general abstention of the teachers from local political
  582
  quarrels has, the Commissioners claim, added materially to their usefulness, and the Commissioners are strongly of opinion that if a teacher should act as a partisan in a contested election he would incur great personal odium and the result would be most injurious to his school. Under the present system the responsibility in this matter rests entirely with the Commissioners, and I do not, therefore, propose to take any further steps in it. I have referred the latter part of the Question to the Commissioners, and am informed that they will consider it at their meeting to-morrow.

  Moonlighting Disturbances in Ireland.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that on 23rd March, at Scariff, on the borders of Clare and Galway, the house of a farmer named John Carroll was fired into; that on 13th March shots were fired into the house of a man named Tierney, near Athenry; that on 17th March shots were fired into Colmanstown House; that on 21st March a farmer named Michael O'Connor was fired at from behind a wall and wounded; that on 24th April the house of a farmer named Forde, residing near Brosna, county Kerry, was attacked by moonlighters; that Frank M'Auliffe was wounded in the shoulder by a gunshot in the Kilbogin district; whether, in any of these cases, prosecutions have been undertaken; and, if so, with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Government have received police Reports upon the cases referred to, which show the facts to be substantially as stated in the Question. Three persons were arrested for the offence of firing into the house of John Carroll, but were discharged for want of evidence. One person has been returned for trial at assizes upon the charge of firing at and wounding Frank M'Auliffe. In the remaining cases the police did not succeed in bringing offenders to justice.

  Woolwich Inquiry Committee—German Procedure
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether the

  583
  present Committee of Inquiry into Woolwich will have evidence submitted to them concerning the manufacture of war material in Germany, where almost the entire orders go to private establishments.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The conference referred to is to consider whether any articles not now made in the Ordnance Factories can be appropriately made there with the existing machinery. The consideration of the manufacture of war material in Germany would not fall within that reference.

  Inspection of Irish Harbours.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if he will give the names of the harbours on the Irish coast which have been inspected by the Board of Works with a view to their improvement.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) It does not form part of the duties of the Board of Works to inspect harbours generally on the coast of Ireland with a view to their improvement. But the Board have occasionally, at the request of the Irish Government, made Reports on proposals for improvements. If the hon. Member desires any further information as to these cases, perhaps he will put a Question to the Chief Secretary.

  Preservation of Irish Ancient Monuments.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury to state the number of the ancient monuments in Ireland and their names vested in the Board of Works since the passing of the Purchase Act of 1903; whether any arrangements have been made between the Board of Works and the Estates Commissioners for dealing with the question of the preservation of ancient monuments in Ireland; whether the Hill of Tara or any part of it has been vested in the Board of Works; what ancient monuments have been repaired by the Board of Works within the past twelve months; and whether any steps have been taken by the Board for the
  584
  protection of those monuments vested in them from injury.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.)1. The monuments vested in the Board since the passing of the Purchase Act, 1903, are—

  Grianan of Aileach, county Donegal.

  Creevalea Abbey, county Leitrim.

  St. Mary's Church, county Wicklow.

  Kill o' the Grange Church, county Dublin.

  Inishkeen Round Tower, county Monaghan.

  Grey Abbey, county Down.

  The Board have agreed to accept the guardianship of the following, but they are not yet vested—

  Callan Abbey, county Kilkenny.

  Ballyboggan Abbey, county Meath.

  †St. Mary's Church, Gowran, county Kilkenny.

  †Roscommon Abbey.

  Of these ten monuments two, Callan Abbey, county Kilkenny, and Ballyboggan Abbey, were offered by the Estates Commissioners and the remainder by private owners.
  2. In accordance with the terms of the Act the Estates Cmmissioners communicate to the Board of Works the name and position of all ancient monuments situated on estates being sold under the Act, and the Board, after investigation, inform the Estates Commissioners in each case whether the character and condition of the monument justify the Board in assuming responsibility for its care and maintenance.
  3. The Answer is in the negative. The earthworks on the Hill of Tara were scheduled to the Ancient Monument Protection Act of 1882, giving the Board power to protect them from injury by any person except the owners. So far the owners have declined to constitute the Board guardians of these earthworks.
  †Subject to arrangements being made for control of burials.
  4. The following monuments have been repaired by the Board during the year ended 31st March, 1907:—

  Ancient Monuments.

  Askeaton Abbey.

  Bective Abbey.

  Dingle Promontory.

  Dowth Moat and New Grange.

  Duleek Church.

  Duleek Priory.

  French Church, Waterford.

  Kells Priory.

  Mellifont Abbey.

  Rathmichael Church.

  Slane Abbey.

  Sherkin Island.

  Staigue Fort.

  Termonfeckin Castle.

  National Monuments.

  Ardfert Cathedral.

  Glendalough.

  Loughinisland Churches.

  Timoleague Abbey.

  Killiney Church.

  Skreen Church.

  St. Mary's Church, Delgany.

  Clonmacnoise.

  Dysert Church.

  Roscrea Tower and Church.

  Donaghmore Church.

  Fossy or Timahoe Church and Tower.

  Arran Islands Ruins.

  Inishmurray.

  Fenagh Church.

  Ratlass Church.

  Holycross Monastery.

  Maghera Crosses.

  Kilclispeen Crosses.

  Kilree Church and Tower.

  Jerpoint Abbey.

  Killeshin Church.

  Killery Church.

  Clones Tower and Abbey.

  St. Audoen's Church.

  St. Francis Abbey, Kilkenny.

  Killamery Stone Cross.

  5. The amount expended by the Board on the protection and maintenance of ancient monuments during the year ended 31st March, 1907, has been:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  (a) From Voted Moneys

  510

  18

  6

  (b) National Monuments Fund

  593

  19

  5

  1,104

  17

  11

  The preservation of these monuments is one of the duties of the Board's technical staff and is under the particular direction of one of their principal surveyors who has special qualifications. Every monument in the Board's charge is inspected as far as possible at least once in each year, and a Report sent to the Board as to its condition. Further, at the more important monuments there are resident caretakers.

  Loss on Irish Land Purchase—Relief of Burden on Ratepayers.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can hold out any hope that the net sum of £184,595 lost in connection with land purchase in Ireland, and deducted from the usual grants to local bodies, will, on further consideration, be paid to those bodies in order to avoid the necessity for immediately placing this additional burden upon the ratepayers, many of whom are not parties to the transactions; and can be undertake that no deduction of this nature will be made in respect of the current financial year.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The sum in question was charged on the Guarantee Fund in accordance with the terms of The Irish Land Act, 1903. It is not the case, however, that the whole sum has been deducted from the grants to local authorities. The total sum of £184,595 includes £116,308 in respect of charges for excess stock, which has been defrayed from the Ireland Development Grant. I am not in a position to make any statement as to the future.

  West Ham Workhouse Infirmary, Average Weekly Cost and Cost of Alcoholic Liquors.
  MR. C. NICHOLSON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the average total weekly cost, and the average weekly cost per inmate, of the alcoholic liquors consumed in the workhouse and

  587
  infirmary of the West Ham Union respectively in each of the three years ending March, 1907.

  Workhouse.

  Year ended March

  Total cost for year.

  Total average weekly cost.

  Average weekly cost per inmate.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  d.

  1905

  259

  0

  1½

  5

  1

  4

  ·625

  1906

  76

  2

  4½

  1

  5

  1

  ·125

  1907

  9

  14

  5

  3

  9

  ·02

  Infirmary.

  Year ended March

  Total cost for year.

  Total average weekly cost.

  Average weekly cost per inmate.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  d.

  1905

  638

  7

  0¼

  12

  5

  6¼

  5·1

  1906

  223

  15

  5¼

  4

  5

  1¼

  1·6

  1907

  92

  4

  0½

  1

  15

  5½

  ·625

  Postal Facilities between Enniskillen and Tempo.
  MR. FETHEBSTONHAUGH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is yet in a position to state the result of his inquiries as to postal facilities between Enniskillen and Tempo, upon which he called for a report, and the result of inquiries as to affording modern facilities at Mulrany and Achill Sound.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I furnished the hon. Member with the information he requires a day or two ago.

  Postal Facilities at Brackey, County Tyrone.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a post office at Brackey, county Tyrone, has recently been closed; is he aware that inconvenience has been caused to those residing in the district; why was this
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I have made inquiry on this subject and find that the figures are asfollows:—
  post office closed; and, seeing that the present post office is located in a cotter's house, will he have the whole matter reconsidered in the interests of the public convenience.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The late sub-postmistress of Brackey resigned in November last, and a successor, whose premises are quite close to the old office, was immediately employed to carry on the work, and has since been appointed. I am informed that the position of the existing office is convenient for the locality which the office is intended to serve.

  Telegraph Office for Garrison, County Fermanagh.
  MR. DOLAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has favourably considered the request for the establishment of a telegraph office at Garrison, county Fermanagh.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am prepared to extend the telegraph system to Garrison under the usual guarantee, the terms of which I am communicating to the hon. Member by letter.

  Cavan Train Services.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has received a resolution from the Cavan County Council asking for a better train service by the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland from Cavan, in view of the desirability of some change, both of passenger and mail service, if the Cavan end of this line is not to be left behind the times entirely; and will he give the matter his consideration, and, if necessary, confer with the Postmaster-General as to the improvement of the mail service, particularly in the direction of supplying a later despatch for English letters.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The hon. Member has sent me a copy of this resolution. The railway company inform me that the traffic of the district does not, in their opinion, warrant more than the existing service of three trains daily in each direction. The question of improvements in connection with the mail service is a matter for my right hon. friend the Postmaster-General, to whom I have transmitted a copy of the resolution.

  Petitions received in the Home Office in 1905 in respect of the Conviction or Sentences of Persons tried on indictment.

  Number of Petitions.

  Number of Cases.

  From whom the Petitions were received

  Whether Petition related to Conviction or to Sentence.

  From Prisoners.

  From Solicitors, Friends etc.

  Conviction.

  Sentence.

  Petitions.

  Cases.

  Petitions.

  Cases.

  Petitions.

  Cases.

  Petitions.

  Cases.

  2,199

  1,499

  1,713

  1,242

  486

  283

  1,013

  674

  1,186

  850

  The term "petition" includes all applications on behalf of prisoners, however

  Court of Criminal Appeal—Cost and Amount of Business.
  MR. ALDEN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the probable cost of establishing the proposed Court of Criminal Appeal; and whether any estimate of the number of cases likely to come before that Court has been made.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) No trustworthy estimate can be made of the number of cases that is likely to come before the proposed Court of Criminal Appeal, and consequently it is impossible to calculate the probable cost of the new Court.

  The Prerogative of Mercy.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in respect of the exercise of the prerogative of mercy in indictable cases, how many petitions were sent in to the Home Office in 1905 from or on behalf of persons convicted on indictment and in respect to what number of cases; in how many cases were complaints made of wrong convictions; in how many cases were complaints made of undue severity of the sentence; and in how many cases was the first petition sent in within three months of the conviction.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The following table gives the information asked for by the right hon. Member:—
  informal. The total number of petitions in indictable cases was 3,145, but 946
  related to questions of prison treatment, conditions of release, etc., and are not included above. In 614 of the 1,499 cases the first petition was received within three months of the date when sentence was passed. Petitions which raised questions both as to the conviction and sentence are counted under the head "Conviction."

  New Budget Proposal—Postponement of Quinquennial Re-Valuation.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered that a great amount of extra assistance will be required in income tax districts, considering that the extra work arising from the new Budget will commence at the same time as the heavy work entailed by the quinquennial re-valuation year in 1908; and will he state what steps he proposes to take.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) Yes, sir. The point has not escaped my attention, and, in view of the strain to which the officials will be subjected in initiating the new arrangements, I have decided to propose the postponement of the revaluation due in 1908 for one year.

  The Post Office Savings Bank.
  MR. WALROND: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will so alter the method of calculating the interest allowed to depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank as to prevent the expenditure of that bank exceeding the income; whether he is aware that the expenditure of the bank exceeded the income for the year 1903 by £107,403, for the year 1904 by £112,090, and for the year 1905 by £88,094; whether he would consider the suggestion that this annual deficiency might be turned into a surplus of over £100,000 per annum if the rule as to interest was so altered as to allow 2½ per cent, only on sums left in the bank for a complete calendar year, but sums left in the bank for a period of one or more complete months less than a year to receive 2 per cent.; and, if he is not prepared to consider a preferential difference of a half per cent, in the rates of interest, according to the stability of deposit, will he consider a preferential
  592
  difference of a quarter per cent, with the view of making the Post Office Savings Bank pay its way.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith). The Select Committee of 1902 on the Savings Bank's Funds recommended a reduction in the rate of interest allowed to depositors with a view to balancing the income accounts of the funds. The question was discussed in this House on 15th March, 1904, and the general opinion was then clearly against such a reduction. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion expressed his hopes that, owing to the rise in the prevailing rate of interest which had taken place since the date of the Committee's inquiry, it might be possible in the course of a few years to reduce very considerably the deficiency of income without altering the rate paid to depositors. Monetary conditions have not in the meantime altered in such a way as to weaken that expectation, and I see no reason to depart from the decision then adopted.
  MR. WALROND: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will have a Return prepared for the Post Office Savings Bank showing the amount of money contained in excess of the £200 limit by those balances which have exceeded that limit by accumulations of interest, and on which excess no interest is paid to depositors, with the object of keeping such excess in actual gold as a small gold reserve for the Savings Bank.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith). The aggregate of the amounts in excess of £200 is considerably increased on 1st January in each year by the crediting of the interest which has accrued during the preceding year. It diminishes throughout the year owing to withdrawals from the accounts, and in December it is reduced to a comparatively small sum. It is estimated that the average sum of which the Savings Bank thus has the use, without paying interest upon it, is approximately £240,000, representing at 2½ per cent, a saving of about £6,000 per annum in interest paid. I do not think that the suggested application of this sum to the purposes of a gold reserve would be practicable.
  MR. WALROND: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of, without any expense, providing a reasonable gold reserve for the Savings Bank funds, and, at the same time, meeting the wishes of a large number of depositors by extending the present statutory maximum limit of deposit, namely £200, stipulating that the excess of money over £200 should bear no interest whatever and should be kept as a gold reserve.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) I am not prepared to recommend an extension of the maximum limit of deposit, nor am I aware of any general desire for the opportunity of depositing money in the Savings Banks without interest.

  Differentiated Income-Tax—Rearrangement of Surveyors Staff.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, considering the increase of work that will ensue in carrying out the provisions of a differentiated income-tax, and in the examination of confidential returns now made compulsory, he proposes to abolish the present system of clerk hire, and to substitute established clerks, called tax clerks, having a special entrance examination.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The question of the re-arrangements of staff required in connection with the new proposals will be considered in due course, but, as at present advised, I do not think any such far-reaching alteration in its character will be necessary.

  Retirement of Indian Police Officers.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: To ask the Secretary of State for India, whether it is intended to carry out the recommendation of the Indian Police Commission, and to allow officers to retire on a pension after twenty-five years service without the production of a medical certificate.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I understand that the matter is still under consideration of the Government of India, who have not addressed me in regard to it.

  Untenanted Lands in the Mullingar and Delvin Districts.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will give the names of the townlands in the Mullingar and Delvin rural districts, in which untenanted land is situated, for the inspection of which the Estates Commissioners have obtained the owner's consent, with the area of such land in each townland, as ascertained from the ordnance maps.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave on 12th March, to his former Question on the subject of untenanted land in Westmeath.† The Estates Commissioners are not in a position to add anything to that Answer at present.

  Vesting of Irish Court Houses in the County Councils.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government will consider the propriety of vesting the court houses in Ireland in the county councils, who are the representatives of the ratepayers, so as to prevent the refusal of the buildings for purposes common to all creeds and parties when not required for legal purposes.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The change which my hon. friend suggests could only be effected by legislation. The matter would require very careful consideration, and I do not think that the. Government could undertake to consider it at present.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Publication of Report of Estates Commissioners Prior to Introduction of Bill.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now fix the date upon which he will introduce his Bill relating to evicted tenants in Ireland; and will the annual Report of the Estates Commissioners, or a special Report relating to evicted tenants, be available to Members of this House before that date.
  †See (4) Debates, clxx., 1405.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have already stated that I hope after the end of this month to make a detailed statement as to the result of the Estates Commissioners' inquiries into the cases of evicted tenants. The Commissioners will make a special Report on the subject, and this will be ready by the middle of June. The decision as to further legislation in regard to evicted tenants will depend upon the facts as shown by the Commissioners' Report.

  Application of Glennamaddy Board of Guardians for Grant in Relief of Distress.
  MR. HAZLETON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board has reconsidered the application of the Glennamaddy Board of Guardians for a grant in relief of the distress in that union; and whether the Board intend to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Local Government Board have fully considered the application referred to, and are satisfied that no destitution exists in the Glennamaddy Union which cannot be provided for under the ordinary law.

  Purchase of the Estate of C. D. O'Rorke of Cloonberren.
  MR. HAZELTON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Land Judge has yet come to any decision with reference to the amended offer of the Estates Commissioners, transmitted to him on 27th April for the purchase of the estate of Charles D. O'Rorke, Cloonberren, Kilbannon, county Galway; and, if so, what decision.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I am informed by the Registrar of the Land Judge's Court that the Estates Commissioners' amended offer is still under consideration by the parties interested in the estate, and has therefore not yet been considered by the Land Judge.

  Surcharge on Members of Cavan County Council.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a
  596
  resolution, proposed by P. McManus, C.C., seconded by James Harman, C.C., and adopted by the Cavan County Council, asking that the Local Government Board remit a surcharge of £74 15s. 2d. made upon four members of the joint asylum committee of Monaghan and Cavan in connection with the maintenance, etc., of one Francis McDonald; and, in view of the circumstances connected with this transaction, will he look into the whole matter and advise that this surcharge be remitted.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I have received the resolution. The surcharge referred to was confirmed by the Local Government Board and the amount has since been lodged to the credit of the asylum committee. I find that my predecessor fully considered the case and decided, with all the facts before him, that it could not be re-opened. I do not, therefore, propose to take any further steps.

  Evicted Tenants on the Estate of Captain Singleton.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether negotiations have been in progress between Captain Singleton, owner of the townland of Belpatrick, county Louth, and the Estates Commissioners for the sale of two farms in order that two evicted tenants might be restored thereon; whether the delay which has taken place has prevented Captain Singleton from making grazing holdings of the lands; and if he will arrange that the sale of this small property shall be promptly carried out, in the interests alike of the evicted tenants and the landlord.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that this matter is under consideration. The owner has lodged an originating request in respect of the property, and the Commissioners will make a formal offer for purchase as soon as the necessary preliminaries have been completed.

  Royal Irish Constabulary—Men Invalided through Injuries Received on Duty.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant

  597
  of Ireland whether he can state the total number of men of the Royal Irish Constabulary who have been invalided during last year from injuries received in discharge of their duties.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It is assumed that the Question is intended to refer to men who were invalided from injuries received from assaults or violence while in the discharge of their duties. During the year 1906 there were two such cases in which men were permanently invalided and discharged on pension. In one other case a constable is under medical treatment, and it has not yet been ascertained whether the injury will be permanent. In seventy-eight cases men were temporarily invalided, many of them for short periods. I may add that the number of men invalided from injuries accidentally received was 165. In eight of these cases the injury was permanent, and the men were discharged on pension. The remaining 157 men were temporarily invalided.

  Destruction of Irish Timber—Suggested Forestry Department.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a communication from the Irish Forestry Society, calling attention to the great destruction of timber in Ireland and urging the creation of a forestry department similar to those of most Continental countries and of India; and whether he can see his way to take a inaction in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I understand that the proposal referred to in the Question has come before both the Royal Commission on Congestion in Ireland and the Committee of Inquiry into the Department of Agriculture. It would seem desirable to await the Reports of both of these bodies before further considering the matter.

  Irish Constabulary Force Fund.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the growing feeling of dissatisfaction which exists amongst the pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary in regard to the
  598
  condition of the Constabulary Force Fund; and whether he is prepared to receive a deputation from the Constabulary Pensioners' Association, in order that they might explain fully the justice of their claim to have the fund wound up.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I beg to refer to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member's Question on this subject on the 9th instant.† I have since written to the Constabulary Pensioners' Association explaining at length the reason why no more summary method of winding up this fund can be adopted than that of meeting its obligations to widows and orphans of subscribers as they arise, and expressing my inability to accede to their request that I should receive a deputation on the subject.

  Applications for Position of County Surveyor in Meath and East Galway.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether applications for the position of county surveyor in Meath and Galway East are to be sent in the first instance to the Local Government Board or to the county councils.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) In each of these cases the county council gave directions that applications for the position of county surveyor should be sent in the first instance to the county council.

  Chairmanship of Irish Petty Sessions Courts.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is any regulation dealing with the constitution of a court of petty sessions in Ireland as to who should take the chair during the sittings of the court; and is the resident, magistrate, if present, entitled as of right to preside.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Answer to both parts of the Question is in the negative. If the hon. Member will refer to the Answer which I gave on April 18th to the Question put by the hon. Member for Mid Cork he will find a full statement on the matter. ‡
  †See (4) Debates, clxxiv., 348.
  ‡ See (4) Debates, clxxli., 1112.

  Delay in Reinstatement of Mr. John O'Brien of Aughamuldoney.
  MR. DOLAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in reinstating Mr. John O'Brien, Aughamuldoney, county Fermanagh, to the holding from which he was evicted on the estate of Mr. James Johnston, D.L., Kinlough, county Leitrim, the farm having been inspected by the Estates Commissioners on 24th January, 1907, and the agent having informed Mr. O'Brien that the Estates Commissioners had bought the farm at £155.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Commissioners have considered their inspector's report on this case, and have now informed the owner of the price which they are prepared to give for the holding, with the object of reinstating O'Brien, provided that he should sign an agreement to purchase at that price.

  Purchase of Estate of Mrs. Acheson at Derwana.
  MR. DOLAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been brought to the notice of the Estates Commissioners that the agent on the estate of Mrs. Acheson, situate at Derwana, barony of Dromahair, county Leitrim, having offered twenty and a half years' purchase and half a year's rent as terms of sale, subsequently withdrew his offer and issued processes against the tenants; and will the Estates Commissioners consider the advisability of intervening.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have, in pursuance of the Lord-Lieutenant's regulations, offered their services as conciliators in this case, but have not yet heard whether the owner is willing that they should intervene in the matter.

  Purchase of Grazing Land at Mevoo, Ballycorry.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the grazing lands at Mevoo, Ballycorry, North Kerry, which are situate in a congested district, have been offered for sale by the landlord, E. M. Stock, Esq., to the Congested
  600
  Districts Board for division amongst the poor people of the district; and, if so, what action has the Congested Districts Board taken in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The lands in question have not been offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board. If the property should be offered to the Board, the question of purchasing it will be considered.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of J. Faley, of Listowel.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application from Jeremiah Faley, of Listowel, who was evicted from a farm of land on the G. R. Browne estate at Diriah, near Listowel, North Kerry; and what action have the Estates Commissioners taken in the matter for the reinstatement of Faley.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have inquired into this case and have decided that it is not one in which they can take action.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of William Hennessy, of Listowel.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an application has been made by William Hennessy, of Listowel, son of Michael Hennessy, who was evicted about twenty-six years ago by G. R. Browne, at Dromerin, Listowel; and whether any action has been taken for his reinstatement.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners received the application in question on 19th January last, and referred it to their inspector, whose report has not yet been received.

  Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Bill.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Prime Minister whether the Government will give facilities for the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Bill as a, non-contentious temperance measure, which, when introduced in a former session by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, passed through all stages in the House of Commons.
  (Answered by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.) I am afraid that at this period of the session no promise of facilities can be given.

  The Colonial Conference and Ireland.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Prime Minister whether any representations have been made to him or to Lord Elgin dealing with the propriety of having the views of the Colonial Conference, now sitting in London, collected on the question of Home Rule for Ireland; and will he bring before the Conference the objectionableness of payment of percentages to emigration agents in Ireland by the Colonies where this practice at present prevails.
  (Answered by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.) The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. With regard to the second part of the Question, I am informed that the time at the disposal of the Conference does not admit of a return to the question of emigration on which there has already been a full discussion.

  The Hague Conference and Mining Operations in Territorial Waters.
  MR. NIELD: To ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the casualties and danger to neutral shipping from mines floating on the high seas, both before and after the cessation of hostilities in the Russo-Japanese War, instructions will be given to the British representatives at the Hague Conference to raise the question, with a view to limiting mining operations to territorial waters.
  (Answered by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.) The British plenipotentiaries will be duly furnished with instructions on this point.

  The Royal College of Surgeons.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: To ask the Prime Minister whether he has now considered the memorial presented to him last session on behalf of the members of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, asking him to take such steps as might secure to members some voice in the management of the College and its property; whether any
  602
  representations have been made by the Privy Council to the College of Surgeons and with what result; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House copies of any communications which have passed.
  (Answered by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.) The memorial mentioned in the Question was transmitted to the council of the college by the Lord President, and, subsequently to the receipt of their observations thereon, Lord Crewe saw a deputation from the society of members. The society have since furnished a rejoinder to the observations of the council, which has been forwarded to that body with an intimation that the Lord President is willing to receive a deputation from them in due course.

  Religion of Irish Land Commission.
  MR. J. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the names of Land Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners now serving in Ireland; and whether there is any official record of the religious denominations to which they belong.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I would refer the hon. Member to Parliamentary Paper, No. 231, of last session, which contains a list of the Judicial and other Commissioners, and of the Legal and Lay assistant Commissioners and Assessors then in office. That list still holds good subject to the following alterations—
  Judicial Commissioners: Mr. Justice J. O. Wylie has replaced Mr. Justice R. E. Meredith.
  Legal Assistant Commissioners: Mr. J. H. Edge has retired.
  Lay Assistant Commissioners: Messrs. J. Clarke, L. Croasdaile, R. Donovan, T. L. Esmonde, and P. H. Grierson are no longer serving; Messrs. M. Flanagan, J. Gill, J. J. Howard, P. Lafferty, T. Linehan, J. D. Beckett, A. Bestall, R. Coll, P. F. Mullally, and W. Small have since been appointed.
  There is no official record of the religious opinions of the Commissioners.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Australasia and the Navy.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether an understanding has been arrived at with the Australian representatives to the Imperial Conference that the agreement under which Australia and New Zealand pay £240,000 a year towards the upkeep of an Imperial naval squadron in Australasian waters should be determined before 1910.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the question of general contribution to the Imperial Navy has been considered at the present Colonial Conference; and if the arrangement entered into in 1902 with the Governments of the Australian Commonwealth and New Zealand, by which the Australian Squadron is confined within specified waters, is considered satisfactory by the Admiralty.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIEALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,): The general question of Colonial contributions and the Australasian agreement were both discussed at the Conference, and Papers giving a report of the discussion will shortly be published. No action can be taken until the Colonial Prime Ministers have laid before their several Parliaments the proposals discussed between them and the Admiralty, and have obtained their consent to any proposed changes. Unless changes are agreed to, the Agreement of 1902 holds good till 1910.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Is it the case that the Australian Government desire to withdraw their contribution to the Admiralty and apply it to local defence?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I can make no statement on that subject at the present time.

  Lyddite Shell Tenders.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state the lowest and average private tenders for lyddite shell and also the Woolwich tender; whether
  604
  in response to War Office requests orders have been diverted to Woolwich; and, if so, for what reason.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: It has not been the custom of the Admiralty, or, so far as I know, of any public department, to make known the amounts of recent tenders. No orders for lyddite have been diverted from the private trade to Woolwich. But I ought to say that, having regard to the exceptional situation, the proportion of orders for ordnance stores to be allocated to-Woolwich will be somewhat in excess of the normal.

  Naval Contracts.
  MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, what are the articles ordered by the Admiralty for the British Navy in the case of contracts executed for the Works Department for which the contractors are not bound to use British materials; whether contractors for other things, other than those executed for the Works Department, are allowed to sub-let their contracts; and, if so, what conditions are made to prevent the sub-contractors from using anything except British material manufactured by British workmen.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: In the case of Works Department contracts, that is for building materials, it has long been the practice to specify the standard of quality only without reference to the place of origin or manufacture. Contracts may not be sublet without Admiralty sanction, which is only given in exceptional cases. In largo contracts for machinery, etc., specialities may be obtained from sub-contractors subject to the Admiralty approval in each case. All work is done under Admiralty inspection, and the same conditions apply to the subcontractor as to the main contractor. There is no restriction on the source of the material used, which must be the best obtainable.

  Lance-Corporals.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether lance-corporals will be appointed in the Territorial Army or not.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): No decision on this point has yet been reached.
  MR. ASHLEY: I will repeat the Question later.

  Soldiers' Walking-Out Uniform.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it has yet been decided whether a walking-out uniform for the territorial soldier is to be provided at the public cost or not.
  MR. HALDANE: It is contemplated to take money in the Estimates for the provision of a walking-out dress for the territorial soldier.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: What additional sum will it add to the Estimate?
  MR. HALDANE: I cannot say.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Has no calculation been made?
  MR. HALDANE: Yes.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Then surely the right hon. Gentleman can say how it will affect the Estimate.

  Soldiers' Kit.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the territorial soldier, on joining, will receive a free issue of underclothing and necessaries; and on whom the annual cost of maintenance of these articles will fall.
  MR. HALDANE: The whole question is under consideration.
  MR. ASHLEY: I will repeat the Question.

  Rifles for Rifle Clubs.
  MR. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will issue to affiliated rifle clubs free of charge those Lee-Metford and Lee-Enfield rifles recently withdrawn from the Regular troops, which may be found on examination to be unsuitable for conversion and re-issue to such troops, in order that they may be
  606
  used by these clubs with a Morris or other tube on miniature ranges.
  MR. HALDANE: No rifles withdrawn from troops are at present available for the purpose mentioned. Later on unserviceable long rifles may be available, and it may then be considered whether they should not be issued at the usual price of 1s. 6d. each.
  MR. CARLILE: Cannot they be issued free of charge so as to encourage rifle practice?
  MR. HALDANE: No decision has yet been come to.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman define "later on?"
  MR. HALDANE: Until the very complicated questions connected with this subject have all been carefully considered I can make no statement.

  Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers Militia Staff.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when it is proposed to issue the new pattern walking-out caps and putties to the permanent staff of the Militia; is he aware that they have been issued to the line battalions of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, while the Militia staff of the same regiment are wearing a composite uniform in part consisting of the old caps and leggings.
  MR. HALDANE: The permanent staff of Militia battalions will be supplied with the new pattern walking-out cap as soon as the line battalions of their regiment have received it. The officers commanding the Militia battalions of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers have been called upon to submit size rolls for their permanent stall, and caps are now in course of issue to two battalions. Putties are being issued to the Militia as the stock of leggings becomes exhausted.

  Woolwich Arsenal and Emigration.
  MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in every case where workmen have received notice of dismissal at Woolwich Arsenal, the notice has

  607
  been accompanied with official directions and advice to the discharged workman to emigrate either to foreign countries or the Colonies; will he say whether such advice has been given with the authority of his Department; and what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter.
  MR. HALDANE: Men discharged on reduction are notified that information in regard to the prospects of work, cost of living, etc., in the various British Colonies and foreign countries can be obtained from the Emigrants Information Office, 31, Broadway, Westminster, which is a sub-department of the Colonial Office, The sole object of this notification is to acquaint men desirous of emigration of a reliable source from which they could obtain information, and to prevent their being misled by irresponsible or bogus advertisements.
  MR. CROOKS: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the huge placard exhibited at Woolwich asking "Why stay here and starve when you can get work in Canada?"
  MR. HALDANE: My attention has not been called to that placard.

  Enlistment Regulations.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it will be possible to enlist in the Territorial Army for a particular battalion, regiment, or military body, or whether enlistment will only be permitted for general service under the county association.
  MR. HALDANE: The actual enlistment will be in the terms of Clause 8 of the Bill, and may be for a particular arm or unit. The Association will, of course, decide what vacancies there are, but as far as possible men will be enabled to choose their own units, in the same manner as at present prevails in the Militia.

  Transvaal Volunteer Force.
  MR. HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it is proposed that a large voluntary force should be organised in the Transvaal; whether this suggestion comprises the raising of a volunteer force of artillery;
  608
  whether the Transvaal Government have ordered, or propose to order, any reduction to be effected in the cost of the present volunteer forces of that Colony; and whether the Transvaal Government have given or propose to give instructions that any reduction should be made in the South African Constabulary in the Transvaal.
  MR. HALDANE: I have no knowledge of the matters referred to. Questions affecting the forces of a self-governing Colony are the immediate concern of the Colonial Office, and this Question should be addressed to my right hon. friend.

  Woolwich Lyddite Shells.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of a recent manufacture of lyddite shell by the Government establishment at Woolwich, the number of shell rejected amounted to as much as 90 per cent., and if not, whether he can state the exact percentage; whether he can state the price charged for the shell about to be or being manufactured by Woolwich; and what has been the corresponding price on the part of contractors.
  MR. HALDANE: The inspection of lyddite shells manufactured by the Ordnance Factories, Woolwich, is not yet completed and the exact percentage of rejections cannot be stated. The prices cannot at present be given—estimates only are available until manufacture is completed. It is contrary to practice to state the contractors' prices.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman indicate approximately the proportion of shells rejected? Was it anything like that stated in the Question?
  MR. HALDANE: I do not think it would be safe to attempt it at present.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the explanation offered by the Woolwich authorities, acting as manufacturers, for passing faulty materials which were utilised in the subsequent manufacture of lyddite shell; whether the authorities are in the habit of thoroughly testing their materials before using them; and

  609
  whether the Government are adhering to the policy of running the Arsenal on strictly commercial lines.
  MR. HALDANE: Some material used for manufacture of lyddite shells has developed flaws which could only be found during manufacture or by cutting up the material. All such material has to be replaced free of charge by the contractors supplying it. Materials used in the Ordnance factories are thoroughly tested and the material now under question passed the prescribed tests. The Woolwich Arsenal is so far as is possible for a Government establishment run on commercial lines.

  Artillery Militia.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, as it is arranged that all Artillery Militia are to become field Artillery, he will take immediate steps to secure to the officers facilities and incentives to train themselves for mounted service at the Government's expense.
  MR. HALDANE: It would in present circumstances be premature to take the steps suggested in the Question.

  Conditions of Service in the Territorial Army.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what steps he proposes to take under the Territorial Army Scheme to secure uniformity of conditions for individuals of corps of the Territorial Army who are recruited in different counties and whose members will come under the jurisdiction of different associations.
  MR. HALDANE: The conditions of service in the Territorial Force will be uniform so far as concerns the period of embodiment for field training, when the whole force is administered directly by the Military authorities. At other periods, while uniformity of system will be aimed at, it would not be, in the opinion of the Government, desirable to prescribe in advance absolute rigidity of conditions. Circumstances may differ in different counties.

  The Militia.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, similarly to the course pursued with regard to the Yeomanry, he will consider the advisability of postponing the metamorphosis of the Militia for another three years.
  MR. HALDANE: Assuming that the hon. and gallant Member is referring to future enlistments for the Yeomanry and Militia, men enlisting up to the time of the transfer of their units to the county associations will remain on conditions existing at the time of their enlistment.

  Gunner Crossan, Fife Volunteer Artillery.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what compensation has been or will be granted to Gunner Crossan, of the Fife Royal Garrison Volunteer Artillery, who met with an accident in the pursuance of his duty on His Majesty's service on 13th April last.
  MR. HALDANE: The case is being dealt with by the General Officer Commanding in Chief under the provisions of paragraph 618 Volunteer Regulations. Crossan will receive a gratuity of 3s. 6d. a day for the period, not exceeding 6 months, during which he is prevented from following his civil employment. In the event of his discharge from the corps as a result of the accident he would be eligible for pension under the Royal Warrant.

  Artillery Militia—Mounted Training.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether in consideration of the fact that in Artillery Militia the rank and file have had no opportunity for mounted training, he will take steps to afford it to them, or whether he intends the present personnel to be replenished by another class of recruit.
  MR. HALDANE: It will not be possible this year to afford facilities for mounted training to men of Garrison Artillery Militia units not allocated to Coast Defences. A circular will shortly be issued explaining the new terms of service which will be offered to men new

  611
  serving in the Royal Garrison Artillery Militia.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Am I to take it the Militia Artillery are to be made field artillery?
  MR. HALDANE: Yes, that is so.

  Work for Woolwich Arsenal.
  MR. BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will explain why Woolwich Arsenal is getting five-sixths of the orders for gun mountings as against two-sixths last year; and whether, in making this allocation, he has taken into consideration the loss of employment to private traders, and the fact that their foreign orders are in large measure dependent on the extent to which they receive orders from the Government.
  MR. HALDANE: If the Question refers to naval gun mountings it should be addressed to my right hon. friend. The only land service gun mountings to be made this year are a few siege carriages, and the balance of the field gun carriages allocated to the Ordnance factories in the proportion of one-third as compared with two-thirds to the trade.
  MR. CROOKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to arrange with the Admiralty to get the amount of work for Woolwich which is mentioned in the Question?
  MR. HALDANE: The Admiralty have given me as much as they can. They have their own arrangements with certain private establishments, which they have to keep up for the exigencies of war. The allocation of orders is in the nature of a retainer for that purpose.
  MR. BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the allocation of orders to Woolwich has been attributed by the hon. Member for Woolwich to "the way they were worrying the authorities"—that is, to the political pressure brought to bear on the Government?
  MR. CROOKS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will inform the hon. Member for Lynn Regis that there
  612
  is all the difference in the world between ordinary work and gun mountings?
  MR. HALDANE: I am not a postman.

  The Unrest in India.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether in view of the Indian Act allowing the Viceroy of India to seize a subject of the King, to transport him from one province to another, to put him in prison, and to detain him in prison for life without trial, he will say whether any person or persons have been so treated; and, if so, how many; whether any are now in prison, and for what periods; and whether he will have this Act repealed without delay.
  MR. O'GRADY: At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for India whether Mr. Lajpatrai, pleader of the Punjab Chief Court, arrested in Lahore and deported to another province, has been so arrested under an old Act which empowers the Viceroy to keep prisoners confined for an unlimited period without trial; whether there are at present in any prison in British India any natives confined and not yet brought to justice who were arrested many years ago under this same Act; and, if so, what are their numbers; and will steps be taken at once to annul the Act in question.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA-(Mr. MORLEY,): The Regulation of 1818 deals with the confinement of State prisoners. The preamble recites that "reasons of State, embracing the due maintenance of the alliances formed by the British with foreign Powers, the preservation of tranquility in the territories of native Princes entitled to its protection, and the security of the British dominions from foreign hostility and from internal commotion, occas onally render it necessary to place under personal restraint individuals against whom there may not be sufficient ground to institute any judicial proceeding, or when such proceeding may not be adapted to the nature of the case, or may for other reasons be inadvisable or improper." Each half-year the Government of India review the cases of persons so detained, and consider whether the

  613
  detention may be terminated. There are at present thirty-two persons under detention or restraint, most of whom are political détenus, such as the ex-Khan of Khelat, the ex-Maharaja, of Bharatpur, the persons concerned in the Manipur troubles of 1891, and the ex-Mehtar of Chitral. The number of British subjects detained is small; they are chiefly Moplahs from Malabar. Ten persons are in prison. The regulation is rarely resorted to for the last of the purposes mentioned in the preamble—"the security of the British dominions from internal commotion." The most recent important case of the kind was the detention, after the murders of Mr. Rand and Lieutenant Ayerst, at Poona in 1897, of the Natu brothers in Bombay. I may add that Lajpatrai is to be detained in a fort in the place to which he is being taken, and treated with consideration as a State prisoner pending further instructions. Suitable precautions will be taken to prevent him from communicating with others when such communication might lead to popular disturbance. I am sure that the House will forgive me if I very confidently remind hon. Members that there are no persons so interested in the prompt suppression of disorder, and in taking prompt measures to prevent the spread of disorder, as the Indian Party and the Indian causes with which my hon. friends are in such sympathy. There can be no secret that if disorder spreads there will be an end to all those prospects, whether we like it or not, of reform which the Viceroy and I—and I do not believe that any two servants of the Crown have understood one another better than the Viceroy and I—have hoped, and still hope, to produce. Executive measures of this kind—and I think my Parliamentary record will show anyone that no one dislikes them more than I do—must be judged and tested by the emergency and the risk. Now, suppose it to be possible that the Lieutenant-Governor of the Punjab, nearly the whole of whose active service in India has been spent in the Punjab, believes that he is right in thinking that these agitations lend themselves to promote mischiefs which he regards as being of the gravest and most formidable kind, what should we do? I hope my hon. friends will realise what these mischiefs may mean. They are not mischiefs such as we are familiar with here, or in
  614
  any other parts of the Empire. They are enormous, and therefore my colleagues and I, representing His Majesty's Government, are determined, when asked whether we are going to repeal or to annul the regulations of 1818, not to strip the Government of India of any weapon which the law places in our hands for the suppression of these dangerous disturbances and disorders.
  MR. O'GRADYasked whether, seeing that the agitation was purely a political one, the right hon. Gentleman would see that the gentlemen who had been arrested in the recent disturbance had the opportunity of a fair public trial.
  MR. MORLEY: Regarded from my hon. friend's point of view, such a promise would be to unsay all that I have just said. This is a case of emergency and grave risk, and it would be impossible for us, or for any Government, to give up any weapon we may possess.
  MR. O'GRADY: May I ask why these same measures were not applied to other sections of the community in certain former cases of disorder? Why not to the Nawab of Deccan, whose action led to rioting, looting, and common robbery?
  MR. MORLEY: I must ask for notice of that Question, but I hope my hon. friend will reconsider it.
  MR. O'GRADY: I have already put that Question, and the Answers up to the present have been unsatisfactory.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman very respectfully whether he will have prepared for the information of the House a full list of the gentlemen arrested in this way without trial, stating where they are detained, the nature of the treatment they are subjected to, and whether they are allowed to communicate with their friends outside? And can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of the length of time these gentlemen are likely to be imprisoned, and whether there is any intention now or in the future of bringing them to a trial such as they would get in any other portion of the Empire?
  MR. MORLEY: I cannot undertake to say that there is any intention of bringing them to trial, because the difficulties of trial are so great, and we should be practically stultifying ourselves if I made that promise. As for the other Question, my hon. friend knows very well from long experience that if a man is arrested as a political prisoner, I, at all events, will advise the Government of India to be as lenient as the public safety permits.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to give notice that, at the first possible opportunity, I will draw attention to the singular action of the Government in India, and move a Resolution that coercion is just as little likely to succeed in avoiding mischief and in bringing real and permanent peace to India as it has been in Ireland.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I wish to ask whether any of these political prisoners have had their sentences revised, and whether they are now enjoying the freedom which we expect in the British dominions?
  MR. MORLEY: If the hon. Member will put that Question on the Paper I will endeavour to give him an Answer.
  MR. LUPTON: Is the reason why these men are not to be brought to trial that they have not committed any offence against the law?
  Subsequently,
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know whether it would be in the public interest that the Secretary of State for India should make a statement with regard to recent events in India.
  MR. MORLEY: I do not think that anything I have to say would be against the public interest. The latest information from the Punjab shows that the measures taken by the Government of India with the full support of His Majesty's Government at home have sufficed for the maintenance of tranquillity. The city and cantonment of Lahore were on Saturday being patrolled by British and native troops and by the police, and no signs of unusual excite-
  616
  ment were observed. The Government of India have ordered the prosecution of a newspaper for publishing a pamphlet (a copy of which, found on a Sikh in London, I hold in my hand) inciting the native troops against the Government. That is not a thing which we should wish to condone. As to Eastern Bengal, the situation is strained owing to the great bitterness that prevails between the Hindus and Mahomedans, the cause of which is to be found in the attempts made by Hindu agitators to compel the Mahomedans by open violence to abstain from purchasing foreign goods in the markets and fairs, which are extremely numerous in the middle of April. The consequent disorders have assumed a very serious aspect, and have created a feeling of great unrest both in the province of Eastern Bengal and in Calcutta. Agitation by seditious speeches at public meetings—a form of disseminating sedition much more effective and more immediately dangerous among moderately literate people than agitation through the Press—is prevalent, and it is impossible to suppress it owing to the difficulty of obtaining evidence of speeches delivered in the vernacular. In these circumstances, the Governor-General in Council, with the approval of His Majesty's Government, has promulgated an Ordinance under the Act of 1861 to the following effect:—(1) Public meetings for the discussion of public or political matters shall not be held unless seven days' notice has been given to the superintendent of police. (2) Police officers and others may be deputed to attend meetings for the purpose of reporting speeches—a proviso with which my hon. friends opposite are familiar. (3) The district magistrate may by order in writing, prohibit a meeting if, in his opinion, it is likely to promote sedition or disturbance of public tranquillity. (4) The persons concerned in the promotion of a meeting held without notice shall be punishable with six months' imprisonment. (5) A prohibited meeting to be deemed an unlawful assembly under the penal code. Under the fourth provision of the Ordinance the police would be bound to bring the accused before a magistrate within twenty-four hours of the arrest. He would be tried in due course of law by a magistrate of the first class or the second class, presumably in such a case

  617
  by a magistrate of the first class. If convicted, he would have an appeal to The Sessions Judge. If his appeal were dismissed, he could, if his case were in the Punjab, present an application in revision to the Chief Court at Lahore. If his case were in Eastern Bengal his application in revision would be to the High Court at Calcutta. Under the fifth provision of the Ordinance any person who is a member of an unlawful assembly may, on conviction by a magistrate of the first or second class, be punished by imprisonment, which may extend to six months, or with fine or with both. He would have an appeal to the Sessions Judge, and from the Sessions Judge he could apply in revision to the Chief Court at Lahore or to the High Court at Calcutta as the case might be. This Ordinance will be applied to districts that may be proclaimed in the Punjab and in Eastern Bengal and Assam—this measure is considered to be absolutely necessary by the responsible Government in India in the interest of the public safety.
  SIR H. COTTON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question of which I have given private notice, namely, whether he can make any further statement regarding the causes of the disaffection in the Punjab, and will he also state the steps which it is proposed to take to remove it?
  MR. MORLEY: I think the House will agree that these are two Questions the width and breadth of which are so enormous that it is impossible for me to deal with them satisfactorily in Answer to a Question. When the occasion comes I shall certainly be perfectly prepared—
  AN HON. MEMBER: When will it come?
  MR. MORLEY: It may come earlier, but au opportunity will certainly come, when it will be my duty to introduce the Indian Budget, to discuss the whole situation.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the hon. Member for Montgomery Burghs, to induce him to withdraw his blocking Motion, so as to enable the House to dis-
  618
  cuss this question on the Motion for the adjournment on Wednesday?
  MR. MORLEY: It is impossible for me to prevent this Question from being discussed on Wednesday.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: But will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the hon. Member?
  MR. MORLEY: I am afraid I have never taken the measure of that influence.
  SIR H. COTTON: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say last Monday that the causes of dissatisfaction were the assessment of land, the water rates, and forced labour. May I ask if he will cause an inquiry to be made into these matters?
  MR. MORLEY: When the time comes for this discussion I shall endeavour to be as well furnished with information as I can on all the grounds.
  MR. W. REDMOND: In view of the drastic change which will be brought about in consequence of the ordinance just read to the House, may I ask whether the Government will give an early day to enable the House to discuss the situation, or whether extraordinary alterations of this kind, practically suspending the rights of British citizens in India, are to be carried out without this House having an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon them?
  MR MORLEY: I doubt very much—I speak quite frankly, and hon. Members will not suspect me of disrespect for Parliamentary discussion—whether at this moment it is particularly desirable that those in India, whom I am not criticising, but who are apparently pursuing courses of agitation which are very undesirable, should have it in their power to say that this House is divided.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: We are not.
  MR. W. REDMOND: We are.
  MR. MORLEY: There will be at least two occasions when, if the House thinks fit, this discussion can take place.
  MR. LUPTON: Is it the fact that the trouble arises out of excessive taxation, and the starvation resulting from it?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Member must give notice of that Question.

  Nairobi Incident.
  MR. CARLILE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies on what date a telegram was sent by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Acting-Commissioner at Nairobi, or to the Commissioner for British East Africa, in which the noble Lord said that he presumed that legal proceedings had been taken against the ringleaders in the Nairobi incident.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The telegram was sent on 18th March.

  Panama Canal Works.
  MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state whether a correct record is kept of all emigrants from Trinidad and other British possessions to, and for the purpose of working upon, the Panama Canal; whether any record is kept of the rate of sickness and mortality among such emigrants while working upon the canal; and whether, in view of the nature of the work, any action is being taken to protect the interests of such emigrants.
  MR. CHURCHILL: As regards the first part of the Question I would refer to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sunderland on Tuesday last.† The rest of the Question should be addressed to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It is not possible for the Colonial Governments to do more than supervise recruiting and see that the terms of contracts are satisfactory.

  British Indians in Natal.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the appeal of Ameer and others to the
  †See (4) Debates, clxxiv., 59–60.
  620
  Supreme Court of Natal from the adverse decision of the licensing officer, supported by that of the Municipal Board of Appeal of Ladysmith, whereby, under powers vested in them by the Natal Dealers' Licences Act, they had refused to renew shop licences of British-Indian applicants, who had in some cases been established as long as twenty-three years; whether he had read the evidence which showed that the adverse decision of the Municipal Board of Appeal had been arrived at without its having before it the records of the matter that was sub judice; whether he had noticed the criticism of the Chief Justice of Natal; and whether he would make further representations to the Government of that Colony on the subject of the manner in which the law in question was being administered.
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, but inquiry shall be made.
  *MR. REES: Is it not the case that intervention on behalf of the Indians is far more likely to prejudice than to help their case in the Colony?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I do not think that would be the result of any intervention.

  Brooketon Collieries.
  SIR E. SASSOON: I bog to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can inform the House as to whether any definite answer has been received and any decision arrived at concerning the insistence on, or the withdrawal of, the proposed tax on coal raised in the Brooketon collieries, which are being opened out and worked at a serious financial loss by the Rajah of Sarawak.
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; the Question is still under consideration.
  SIR E. SASSOON: May I ask my right hon. friend if he is aware that six whole months have elapsed since the reference of the matter to the Commissioner; that the harassment and uncertainty are hurtful to a struggling industry; and would he suggest to the Secretary of State the policy of the administration of ginger to the Department of the Colonial Office concerned?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I will endeavour to have the matter expedited. I admit it has taken a long time.

  Colonial Conference Reports.
  MR. HILLS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any précis of the proceedings of the Imperial Conference is being published in the Colonies; and, if so, whether it is being published officially.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The daily précis issued by the Colonial Office is communicated to the Colonial Press Agencies with others for transmission to the Colonies. I am not aware that any other précis is being published there.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Government has taken into consideration whether it would not be wise for the Conference to employ its own officials for making the précis rather than employ the officials of the Colonial Office, over whom they have no control?
  MR. CHURCHILL: If that question suggests that the officials of the Colonial Office who have been making the précis have not endeavoured to make a fair one, or that, having that intention, they have not been able to carry their intention out, I think the suggestion ought not to be made.
  MR. J. WARD: Has the right hon. Gentleman heard anything of complaints from the Colonial Premiers themselves?
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.
  MR. HAROLD COX: Who pays these officials?
  MR. CHURCHILL: The whole cost is borne by us.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Does not the Conference intend to make the official secretariat which is to be established responsible for the précis in future?
  MR. CHURCHILL: That is a Question which I cannot refer to conveniently by Question and Answer across the floor of the House. No doubt at a later date, when the organisation of the secretariat
  622
  is completed, the House will desire some further statement.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Imperial Conference has decided that its proceedings shall be published in in extenso.
  MR. CHURCHILL: As will be seen by reference to the précis of 10th May, the Conference has decided to "publish its proceedings, subject to any necessary revision or omissions." It is expected that publication will take place at an early date.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: When will the Paper be laid on the Table? The Government proceedings relating to preference might be hurried on.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I will do my best to expedite the publication of these Papers. I should not think the delay would be very long, but, of course, it is necessary for the statements of each member of the Conference to be corrected. The preference portions of the discussion will certainly be published.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Can it be arranged that in extenso reports shall be published and forwarded to the Colonial Premiers before they leave this country?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I do not think I can promise that. It depends on how long the Colonial Premiers stay.

  Colonial Policy on Preference.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, during the present Colonial Conference, any offer has been made by any of the Colonial Premiers to admit British goods to any Colonial market upon terms of equality or approximate equality with goods produced in that Colony; and whether His Majesty's Ministers, in their negotiations with the Premiers, have given any pledge or undertaking which departs from the declaration made by the Secretary of State who presided over the Conference of 1902, that we cannot pay for any preference unless it enables us to enter the Colonial market upon terms of greater equality with the Colonial producer.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Colonial Premiers have made it clear to His Majesty's Government that as their policy is to protect their home producers from British or foreign competition they cannot in any way reciprocate the free and unrestricted access accorded to them in the markets of Great Britain. His Majesty's Government, on the other hand, are not prepared to place new taxes upon foreign imports into the United Kingdom for the purpose of affording any further advantage to the self-governing Colonies. No question has arisen of balancing a change in the Colonial policy of protection against a change in the free trade policy of the United Kingdom.

  British East Africa—The Senoussi Movement.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government can lay any Papers regarding the alleged spread of the Senoussi movement from its centre in the Libyan Desert to the British East Africa Protectorate.
  MR. CHURCHILL: There is no information in the Colonial Office indicating that the Senoussi movement is spreading to the British East Africa Protectorate, and therefore I am unable to lay any Papers.

  Distress in Transvaal Colony.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the degree of poverty and distress now prevailing in the rural districts of the Transvaal Colony; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to take any action in the matter.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Any distress which may exist is a matter which must be dealt with by the responsible Government of the Colony, but my hon. and gallant friend has no doubt noted that His Majesty's Government propose to guarantee a loan of £5,000,000 to the Transvaal.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERinquired if any part of the £5,000,000 loan for the Transvaal was to be devoted to the relief of the settlers?
  MR. CHURCHILLwas understood to reply that a portion would be devoted to works which would be of advantage to the settlers.

  Unlicensed Chinese Coolies.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, at any time since the discovery by Lord Selborne that 259 Chinese coolies were being imported into the Transvaal who were not licensed as required by law, any licences have been issued to legalise their position; and, if not, under what law or authority they are detained in compounds.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am not precisely informed as to the formal steps which were taken to cure the vexatious error to which my hon. friend refers. No one at present has been in a position to decide which particular 259 coolies were those who were illegally imported. The matter now lies wholly within the authority of the responsible Government. If my hon. friends thinks it necessary I will make more detailed inquiries, but the incident must now be regarded mainly in its historic aspect.
  MR. HERBERT: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the impossibility of identifying which 259 of the entire cargo of 2,129 coolies arriving by the "Cranley" were not covered by the licence, he will say how any one of the 2,129 has been identified as being subject to the terms of the Ordinance; and by what authority any one of the 2,129 is detained in a compound, or otherwise subjected to the restrictions of the Ordinance.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Ordinance applies to all labourers introduced into the Colony and its application is not I understand dependent on the issue of the licence.

  Johannesburg Miners' Strike.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office is in possession of any information which can be given to the House as to the causes and extent of the strike of white labourers in the mines at Johannesburg; and whether any

  625
  coloured labourers have joined in the strike.
  MR CHURCHILL: I have no information other than that which appears in the newspapers. Lord Selborne will no doubt report to us in his regular duty upon the general course of affairs in the Transvaal; and transmit to the Secretary of State any Minutes which the responsible Ministers of that Colony may lay before him. I have every reason to believe that the Government of the Transvaal would be desirous of affording all possible information to the House of Commons upon the condition of affairs in the Colony; and the Secretary of State will not hesitate to apply to them whenever necessity arises. But I am sure my hon. friend will agree with me that special inquiries should be limited to extraordinary occasions, and I see no reason to suppose that anything had occurred which is of an extraordinary character, or with which the Transvaal Government is not fully competent to deal.

  Assouan Dam—British Labour.
  MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the number of Europeans who found employment upon the original works of the great barrage at Assouan, and the proportion of British workmen compared with other nationalities.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,; for Sir EDWARD GREY): By the end of December, 1898, 2,900 men were employed, of whom 271 were Europeans. During the summer months of 1899, the average number of men employed was 10,000, of whom some 900 were Europeans. In 1900, 381 Europeans were employed in the work, and an average of 12,500 natives. Of the total workmen employed, about 5 per cent, were British. They were employed as gangers, overlookers, fitters, crane-drivers, and carpenters; but they were not able to deal with the general work, partly for reasons of climate, and partly on account of the prior claims of the native workmen from the neighbouring villages.
  MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
  626
  whether any representations have been made to Messrs. John Aird and Son that in performing the work necessary for raising the barrage at Assouan a fair proportion of British workmen should be employed upon that part of the work which can only be performed by Europeans.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Messrs. Aird are themselves a British firm, but I am not aware that conditions have been made with them as to the nationality of workmen. They will no doubt take care that competent men are employed, as they have done before. But, as His Majesty's Government do not pay any part of the cost of the work, they clearly are not in a position to impose stipulations of the kind proposed.

  Shanghai Street Murder.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the circumstances under which Municipal Police-constable Morrow was murdered in the streets of Shanghai on 11th March whilst trying to prevent a burglary and arrest the burglars; and whether he will aproach the Chinese Government with a view to obtaining compensation for the dependent relatives of the constable.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The reply to the first Question is in the affirmative. His Majesty's Government see no grounds in this case for claiming compensation from the Chinese Government. The murder took place in a district where the police are those of the European Municipality, and not of the Chinese Government.
  MR. LONSDALE: Is it not the fact that the murder took place on the border line between British and Chinese territory?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Our information is that it was in the territory protected by the British police.
  MR. LONSDALE: Will the hon. Gentleman inquire if it did not actually take place on Chinese territory?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Inquiry has already been made and I have given the House the result.
  MR. LONSDALEasked as to compenation for the relatives of the murdered man.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that.

  The Congo.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information to the effect that real agreement exists as regards the annexation of the Congo to Belgium.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: His Majesty's Government have no other information on the subject beyond the announcement recently made by the new Belgian Prime Minister that his Government are about to introduce a measure for the annexation of the Congo Free State, and will ask Parliament to vote it simultaneously with a new law for the future Government of the Colony.

  Imperial Trade.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Prime Minister what practical steps it is proposed to take to carry out the view of His Majesty's Government as expressed to the Imperial Conference on 6th May, 1907, and reported in the official summary issued by the Colonial Office, that the Empire would be a great gainer if much that was now bought from foreign countries could be produced and purchased within the Empire.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question in the absence of the Prime Minister, who is meeting Lord Cromer. The promotion of inter-Imperial trade by any suitable means consistent with the special conditions and interests of the various parts of the Empire is a matter which continues to engage the earnest attention of His Majesty's Government. At the present moment I fear I cannot add to this statement.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I want to know how the Government is going to give effect to this declaration by a very important member of the Ministry.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am afraid my hon. and gallant friend must possess his soul in patience.

  Colonial Conference.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I bog to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the official report of his address to the Colonial Conference, if he can state what was the value of manufactures imported into this country from British Possessions and from the self-governing Colonies respectively, in 1905.
  MR ARKWRIGHT: At the same time may I ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the official report of his address to the Imperial Conference, if he can state what was the value of food, drink, and tobacco imported into this country from British Possessions and from the self-governing Colonies respectively, in 1905.
  The following Question on the same subject also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the official report of his address to the Imperial Conference, if he can state what was the value of raw materials imported into this country from British Possessions and from the self-governing Colonies in 1905, respectively.
  MR. ASQUITH: I dealt in my address to the Imperial Conference with the Colonial returns of exports from the self-governing Colonies to the United Kingdom, which show the values at the ports of embarkation. Our own import statistics show the values as imported, and therefore include the costs incidental to sea-transport. They also differ from the returns of exports published by self-governing Colonies in so far as they do not include the great bulk of the diamonds imported from Cape Colony, such diamonds being not in general declared to the Customs on importation. (See Annual Statement of Trade of United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions for 1905, Cd. 2928, Vol. 1, page V. and pages 70 and 71, Note.) The values in our returns are those declared upon importation, which are not the same as those given to the Colonial Customs Departments by the exporter, and there is also probably some difference in the description as between raw materials and manufactured articles, owing to the different arrangement of the

  629
  Colonial returns. The value of our imports of merchandise, calculated as I have explained, which were consigned from self-governing Colonies and all British Possessions respectively for 1905 are estimated by the Board of Trade to be approximately as follows:—

  Imports of

  From Self-Governing Colonies.

  From all British Possessions.

  Million £.

  Million £.

  Food, Drink, and Tobacco

  33

  58

  Raw Materials and Articles mainly unmanufactured

  32¾

  52

  Articles wholly or mainly manufactured (including a small quantity of unclassified articles and parcels post)

  5¼

  16½

  71

  126½

  MR. PIKE PEASEasked why the Colonial returns had now been taken, seeing that that had not been the case on previous occasions.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid that the reason why he adopted the Colonial method was because he thought it was right in considering the question whether preference should be given to take the value of the goods at the port of exportation. As the figures showed, however, he deliberately adopted those figures which were least favourable to his own argument.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the official report of his address to the Imperial Conference, whether the burden of the Canadian tariff upon United Kingdom produce, as compared with United States produce, has been progressively altered since 1897 in favour of the United Kingdom.
  MR. ASQUITH: The ad valorem equivalent of the duty actually levied in Canada on all imports (including both
  630
  free and dutiable goods) from the United States since preferential treatment was accorded to United Kingdom goods in 1897 has remained practically stationary at 12 or 13 per cent. The ad valorem equivalent in the case of goods from the United Kingdom declined from about 20 per cent. prior to 1898–99 to 17 per cent. in 1902–3. Since then it has increased to 19 per cent. I will have the figures for each year printed in the votes. I should add that we have not yet had sufficient experience of the new Canadian tariff' to determine what change (if any) it will produce.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Arising out of that, may I ask whether the difference of duty between the United States and Canada is not due to the different class of the imports—that is to say, to the raw material half manufactured, chiefly imported from the United States.
  MR. ASQUITH: I pointed out that to the Colonial Conference.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEYasked whether it was not the case that, wherever the preferential tariff of 33¾ per cent. had been shown to be of any decided advantage to British importers, it had been whittled away by subsequent amendments.
  MR. ASQUITH: I would not say that they have been whittled away, but the figures are those I have just stated.

  The Finance Bill.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer how far Section 133 of the Act of 1842 is referred to or incorporated in other enactments; and whether the repeal of that section in Clause 23 of the Finance Bill is modified in any way by the wording of Clause 28 and the Third Schedule.
  MR. ASQUITH: The machinery provided under Section 133 of the Income-Tax Act, 1842, for repayment of tax is expressly applied by Section 27 of the Finance Act, 1896, for the purpose of the relief from tax given by that section to persons chargeable under Schedule B. The words in the Third Schedule of the Bill modifying the repeal are inserted

  631
  only for the purpose of enabling that machinery still to be used for that particular purpose. The modification of the repeal does not in the least affect the substantial operation of Clause 23 in preventing any relief from tax being given in the future under the provisions of Section 133.

  Income-Tax Refunds.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if the increase in the amount of income-tax refunded, under the previsions of Section 133 of the Act of 1842, during the years 1904, 1905, and 1906, is owing to larger decreases during those years in the profits liable to income-tax, or to a larger number of income-tax payers becoming acquainted with, and taking advantage of, the provisions for repayment under this section.
  MR. ASQUITH: The increase is mainly due to a fall in profits of coal from the abnormally high returns obtained in the years 1899–1900. The increased activity of repayment agents has also contributed, in all probability, to some extent.

  Income-Tax on Divided Profits.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the case of an earned income of over £2,000 from a business belonging to a number of persons but which, when divided among the several partners, is to each partner an income under that sum, will the income-tax be charged at 9d. in the pound; and if in first place, a 1s. in the pound is charged, will the difference be returned.
  MR. ASQUITH: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, my hon. friend will see, if he refers to Clause 18 (4) of the Finance Bill, that the proposal is that the relief must be claimed when the partners make their return for assessment.

  Exchequer Bonds and Treasury Bills.
  MR. ANNAN BRYCE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what amounts of Exchequer Bonds and Treasury Bills respec-
  632
  pectively, were outstanding on 10th May 1907.
  MR. ASQUITH: The amounts outstanding on that date were:—Exchequer Bonds: £18,161,500. Treasury Bills: £10,713,000. Particulars of the Exchequer Bonds were furnished in my Answer to the hon. Member for Luton on the 9th instant.†

  Marine Biological Association.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Departmental Committee on the question of a grant to the Marine Biological Association has yet been set; and, if so, who has been selected as chairman; and if every care will be taken to secure evidence of knowledgeable witnesses.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The composition of the Committee has not yet been determined. The selection of witnesses will rest with the Committee when appointed.

  Transvaal Loan.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if it will be necessary to introduce a Bill into this House for the purpose of guaranteeing the proposed Transvaal loan of £5,000,000; and, if not, what opportunity this House will have of discussing the proposal.
  MR. ASQUITH: The Answer is in the affirmative.

  Vaccination and Education.
  MR. BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to assimilate the practice with regard to compulsory State education to that now existing in the case of compulsory State vaccination, under which a conscientious objection or one fine absolves the parent from the consequences of not complying with the statute.
  MR. ASQUITH: I do not see any connection in principle between the two matters referred to.
  †See (4) Debates, clxxiv., 344.

  Trawlers' Regulation Bill.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he will withdraw the Government opposition to the Trawlers' Regulation Bill.
  MR. ASQUITH: In the opinion of the Government this is not a Bill which should be read a second time without discussion.
  MR. MORTON: Is it any use trying to protect line fishermen if no effort is made to compel trawlers to obey the law?
  MR. ASQUITH: I should think not.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the hon. Member for Dumfries Burghs to induce him to withdraw his blocking Motion and allow the question to be discussed next Wednesday?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Juvenile Offenders.
  SIR E. SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the prevalence of crimes committed by boys between the ages of twelve and fifteen, he would consider the expediency of instituting an inquiry into the working and provisions of the Youthful Offenders Act.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): The statistics of committals to prisons and to reformatory schools suggest a decrease rather than an increase in crimes by boys under sixteen. It may be that magistrates have not made so much use as was hoped of some of the provisions of the Youthful Offenders Act; but I do not think that any formal inquiry into the working of the Act is necessary. Magistrates have various moans of dealing with youthful offenders, and further assistance will be put at their disposal by the Probation of Offenders Bill now before this House, but it must be left to the magistrates to decide which is the best method in any given case.

  Expulsion of Aliens.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the case under the Aliens Act, on the 8th instant, of the German who was expelled from this country under a magistrate's order, but who stated at the Thames police court that he had not been allowed to remain in Germany; and whether he will take an early oportunity of amending the Act in the direction of keeping objectionable characters and criminals out of the country.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am aware of the case referred to. If, as in this instance, an alien criminal who has been expelled from this country is imprisoned as soon as he is found here again, that seems to me to be the best protection that we can secure.

  Street Betting Act—Effect on Race Meetings.
  MR. BOTTOMLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the increase in the number of people attending race meetings since the passing of the Street Betting Act and to the increase in the receipts of the continental pari-mutuels since the suppression of open betting; and whether, in view of these indications of the effect of legislative interference with the sporting proclivities of the people, he will consider the desirableness of introducing legislation with the object of restoring to the working classes the opportunities they formerly possessed of gratifying such proclivities without having recourse to continental betting agencies or attending race meetings.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have read the newspaper cuttings which my hon. friend has sent me, but I do not think it desirable to introduce legislation of the kind suggested.

  Edalji Case.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a very considerable amount of additional evidence has been received

  635
  at the Home Office in reference to the Edalji case; and whether he can make any statement in regard to the Report of the Committee recently appointed.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I can make no statement at the moment, but I hope in the course of a day or two to lay on the Table the Report presented to me by Sir A. Wilson and his colleagues with an announcement of my decision.

  Dangerous Goods on Railways.
  MR. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that railway companies have recently removed goods to the dangerous class which have for years been carried at Class 2 rates; and whether he will introduce legislation to amend 8 and 9 Vic, c. 20, s. 105, to give a right of appeal from such a decision to the Board of Trade or the Railway Commissioners.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): I do not know what goods my hon. friend has in his mind, but the only recent complaint that has come to the notice of the Board of Trade referred to varnishes, which were transferred in 1905 to the dangerous goods class without, however, as I understand, raising the rates at which they were carried. The section of the Act of 1845 to which attention is drawn relieves railway companies from the obligation to carry goods which, in their opinion, are dangerous, but I do not gather from the Question that it is alleged that the companies have refused to carry the goods alluded to. Under the Railway Rates Provisional Order Confirmation Acts of 1891–2, the rates at which dangerous goods are carried must be reasonable, and I see no reason why these rates could not be challenged if desired before the Railway and Canal Commission.

  Workmen's Fares on the District Railway.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of
  636
  Trade if his attention has been directed to the fact that, in spite of Section 90 of the Metropolitan District Railway Company's Act of 1864, which requires the company to run one train daily in each direction between High Street, Kensington, and Aldgate, at a fare not exceeding 1d. for each journey, the company, since September, 1906, have charged workmen 3d. for the return journey; and whether he intends to take any action to compel the company to fulfil their statutory obligation in the matter.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I must refer my hon. friend to the reply given to a Question on this subject put by the hon. Member for Hoxton on Thursday last.

  Duties on Government Stores landed in South Africa.
  MR. HIGHAM: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the value of Government stores landed in South Africa during each of the years 1904, 1905, and 1906, and whether the South African Governments levied duties, and, if so, at what rates, upon these stores.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will have such particulars as are available with regard to the imports of Colonial Government stores imported into South Africa printed in the Votes. No information is available in the Colonial Trade Statistics as to the value of Imperial Government stores imported. No duties are levied on Imperial or Colonial Government stores on importation into South Africa.
  The particulars referred to are as follows:—
  The following statement shows the approximate value of Colonial Government stores imported into British South Africa (so far as the particulars are available) in each of the years 1904, 1905, and 1906:—

  Extracted from Colonial Trade Returns.

  Imports into South Africa via Ports in

  1904.

  1905.

  1906.

  £

  £

  £

  Cape of Good Hope

  1,829,000

  467,000

  610,000

  Natal

  (b) 1,193,000

  568,000

  646,000

  Transvaal (via Delagoa Bay and Beira)

  Particulars not available.

  499,000

  (b) Exclusive of £22,492 imported into Natal as merchandise, but delivered free of duty for military purposes.

  NOTE.—The above figures represent the value of the imports of Colonial Government stores. Figures for Imperial Government stores are not available.

  Supply of Electricity Bill.
  MR. HAY MORGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is his intention to re-introduce in any form the Supply of Electricity Bill, founded on the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee of 1898 on Electrical Energy.
  MR. LLOYD-GEOEGE: I hope to introduce the Bill as soon as I can see a reasonable prospect of its being proceeded with.

  Colonial Trade and Tariffs.
  MR. J. D. WHITE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state approximately what was the amount of the duties payable in the United Kingdom on goods coming from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and British South Africa, respectively, during 1906; and what was the amount of the duties payable in these Colonies, respectively, on goods going there from the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: With regard to the first part of the Question I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a somewhat similar question which he asked on the 30th ultimo.† The Customs duty collected on imports into Canada from the United Kingdom was
  †See (4) Debates, clxxiii., 674.
  638
  £2,661,000 in 1905–6. Corresponding figures for the other Colonies mentioned cannot be given.

  Industrial Insurance.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the way in which industrial insurance companies levying premiums by small weekly payments conduct their business, and the amount of dissatisfaction existing amongst the poorer classes in consequence; whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a Commission or Committee to ascertain how far the complaints are well founded; and whether legislation or any form of Government control is required under the circumstances.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Up to the present the Board of Trade have received no complaints or information that would justify them in appointing a Committee for the purposes indicated. If, however, the hon. Member will place me in the possession of any facts bearing on the question that may be within his knowledge I will see that they are carefully considered.

  Women on Local Bodies.
  MR. RADFORD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when he proposes to introduce the Bill mentioned in the King's Speech enabling women to serve on local bodies.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): I had proposed to

  639
  present the Bill to-day, but I have now I arranged that it shall be introduced forthwith in another place.

  Tuberculosis.
  SIR F. CHANNING: I bog to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has considered the resolutions passed at the meeting of the National Association for the Prevention of Consumption and other forms of Tuberculosis, urging immediate action in Parliament in pursuance of the recommendations on the recent Report of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis; and whether he is now able to state what steps will be taken to give effect to those recommendations.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I am aware that resolutions have been passed at the meeting referred to; but I have not at present received copies of them. The recommendations of the Royal Commission relate to matters of much moment, and I am not at present in a position to make any definite statement with regard to the action which should be taken in consequence of them. They are, however, receiving my consideration.

  Hammersmith Workhouse.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what was the total cost of the construction and equipment of the Hammersmith Workhouse and Infirmary at Wormwood Scrubbs.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: According to the information at present in my possession, the total cost, including the cost of the site, has amounted to £261,526.
  *MR. REES: What is the number of paupers to be accommodated and the cost per bed?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: The number of paupers to be accommodated is 780, and the cost per bed is £335.
  MR. CROOKS: Where's Poplar after that?
  *MR. REES: Who guards the guardians?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: At this moment I am doing my best in that direction.

  British Museum Contract.
  MR. J. WARD: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he has any information as to the sub-letting of the scaffolding by Messrs. Waring and Company in the contract for alterations at the British Museum; whether subletting and piece-work is prohibited by the terms of their contract; and, if so, what action, if any, it is proposed to take in the matter.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,): I have made careful inquiries in this matter and I find that the scaffolding has not been sublet nor does piece-work enter into the arrangements in regard to it.

  Canadian Live Cattle Trade.
  SIR F. CAWLEY: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the speech of the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, at the Colonial Conference, in which he is reported to have said that Canada resented the prohibition of the importation of Canadian live cattle as an injustice; and whether the Minister of Agriculture proposes to introduce legislation to restore to the Board the discretionary powers exercised by them prior to the Act of 1896, so that Canadian live cattle may be admitted, under proper inspection and regulations.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (SIR EDWARD STRACHEY,): My noble friend has road the speech to which my hon. friend refers, and he will of course give most respectful consideration to the representations made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier on behalf of the Canadian Government. The Act of 1896 is, as my hon. friend probably knows, applicable to all cattle brought from beyond the seas, and has no special reference to the Dominion of Canada.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: Is that speech properly attributed to Sir Wilfrid Laurier?
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I cannot add anytthing to my Answer.
  SIR F. CAWLEY: I took it from The Times.

  Wiltshire Swine Fever Order.
  MR. ROGERS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the effect of the Wiltshire Swine Fever Order of 1907, in so far as it limits the movements of swine for breeding purposes, is to cause the greatest inconvenience to all engaged in the industry of pig breeding; whether a resolution of the committee of the Wilts County Council concerned with the administration of the Diseases of Animals Acts has been received by the Board, pointing out the inconvenience caused by the Order and strongly urging the reduction in the period of time necessary before a removal order is granted for breeding purposes, from twenty-eight to twenty days; and whether, in view of the almost prohibitive effect which the present Order is causing on pig breeding, owing to the operation of natural causes which govern the industry, he will consider the possibility of making the reduction asked for.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: We have given very careful consideration to the resolution to which my hon. friend refers, but in view of the serious increase of swine fever both in Wiltshire and in the surrounding counties during the present year we should not at present be justified in giving increased facilities for the movement of swine for breeding purposes, a proceeding which is always attended with special danger so far as the spreading of disease is concerned. We fully recognise, however, the inconvenience and loss which the regulations entail, and we shall be very glad indeed to relax them at the earliest possible moment consistent with safety.

  Scottish Parochial Relief Census.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether a census of persons in receipt of parochial relief in Scotland has been taken; and, if so, will he state the total number and how many are between the ages of sixteen and sixty.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): Such a census was taken at 31st March, 1906, for the information of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws, and it is within their discretion to publish it in their Report.

  Close Time for Lobsters.
  MR. J. DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he has received a memorial from a body of fishermen on the West Coast of Scotland asking that a close time for lobster fishing may be established; and if he is prepared favourably to consider this request.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I have received the memorial which was sent me by my hon. friend. The question was very fully considered in 1905, and it was then decided to make no change in existing policy and practice; and in view of the short lapse of time since the matter was inquired into, there does not appear any justification for modifying the conclusions then arrived at.

  Scottish Education Financial Reports.
  MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, seeing that the delay in the publication of the accountant's Annual Reports to the Scottish Education Department renders those Reports practically valueless except as historical records, he will endeavour to arrange that they be published at least within eight or nine months after the expiry of the year to which they relate.
  MR. SINCLAIR: School Boards are allowed by statute to 1st January in each year for sending in their accounts for the financial year ending 15th May preceding. Notwithstanding that every effort is made by the Department to get these accounts submitted at an earlier date than the statutory one, many school boards delay sending in their accounts till after the prescribed date, even into the months February and March, In these circumstances, it will be seen that the delay in the publication of the accountant's Annual Report is not attributable to the accountant, but is due to the delay of school boards in forwarding their accounts to him.

  Irish Council Bill.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the far-reaching effect of the new Irish Council Bill, he will undertake to allow the fullest possible discussion of its details through all its stages in this House.
  MR. ASQUITH: There will be the fullest opportunity for the discussion of this Bill that may be consistent with the requirements of the business of the House.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Will the Government not take into consideration the far-reaching effect of this Bill and see that proper time is given for the fullest discussion.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is the same question put in other words.

  Tullamore Whisky Frauds.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is intended to prosecute any person under the criminal law in connection with the whisky frauds at Tullamore; can he say who was or were the person or persons who profited by said frauds, and the estimated amount of such profit; and has anything been recovered from him, her, or them as the result of civil proceedings.
  MR. ASQUITH: There is not at present sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution under the criminal law. The second part of the Question relates to matters in regard to which I have at present no definite information. Nothing as yet has been recovered as the result of the civil proceedings.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked as to the Supply to be taken next Thursday, and on the two days after the holidays?
MR. ASQUITHasked that the latter part of the Question should be deferred till the next day. With regard to the first part he said that on Thursday the Government proposed to take Votes 13, 14, 18, and 19 of Class I. of the Civil
644
Service Estimates, and the Vote for the non-effective and charitable services.

PUBLIC COMPANIES AND POLITICAL FUNDS.
COLONEL LOCKWOODasked leave of the House to make a statement on a personal matter. He recalled that on 19th March, speaking on the London and North-Western Railway Bill, he stated that in the past the board had not contributed 1s. to any political fund. The hon. Member for Denbigh District challenged that statement and declared that the directors had subscribed to the Free Labour Association for the purpose of agitating in favour of contracting-out of the Employers' Liability Bill. He repeated his statement, and the hon. Member for Denbigh again asserted that the company had given 25 guineas to the Free Labour Association. On 25th April, he told the House that, having made the most minute and careful inquiries, he could not find the least trace of the company ever having given, directly or indirectly, any money to this association, and he thereupon asked the hon. Member to withdraw his statement. The hon. Member replied that he bad made the most careful and exhaustive inquiries into the evidence on which his statement was based, and had come to the conclusion that the evidence as to the accuracy of the statement was overwhelming. He added that he had traced the whereabouts of John Sennett, the founder and secretary of the Free Labour Association, and that he had a sworn statement from that person, which he read to the House. It was left to the House to infer that he had made a statement which was, to put it mildly, inaccurate. The majority in that House had been invariably generous in accepting his statements, and he was anxious to prove to the House that the statement he made was not only true, but that it was not in any way misleading. He had never, up to that time heard anything of Mr. Sennett, or of Mr. Ellis, who was alleged to have paid this money to the Free Labour Association on behalf of the company. But he thought it was due to the House to know the character of the man whose sworn statement the hon. Member for Denbigh asked the House to accept in contradiction of his statement.

645
He had been convicted six times either in his own name or in another name.
[The right hon. Gentleman gave the particulars of the convictions.]
He ventured to ask the House whether the evidence of a man of that kind ought to be put forward in contradiction of the statement he had made. He had also an affidavit of William Ellis.
[The right hon. Gentleman read the terms of the affidavit, in the course of which Mr. Ellis said—"I repudiate the statement made by John Sennett to the effect that he received £25 or any sum whatever from the London and North-Western Railway Company or from the Mutual Insurance Society of the company, or from any section of their employees. It is a deliberate falsehood on the part of Mr. Sennett to make any such statement."] In the face of those facts, he asked the hon. Member whether he did not think the House ought to believe the statement he had made on two previous occasions?
MR. CLEMENT EDWARDSsaid he would like to repeat what he said on the last occasion, that he had no intention whatever of reflecting on the personal accuracy or the personal honour of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He thought he had made it perfectly plain on the previous occasion that the affidavit which was handed to him by a solicitor and his inquiries were two perfectly independent matters. He had a report of Mr. Ellis's speech which appeared in the official gazette of the National Free Labour Association and in which he stated that he represented the London and North-Western Insurance Society. He had a great mass of information, such information as he believed would convince the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that his (Colonel Lockwood's) information was not correct and that his own information was correct. It was not a question of the personal accuracy of either of them. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had been supplied with certain information; he (Mr. Edwards) had been supplied with certain information. He did not know whether he should trouble the House with it in detail, but he would like to know whether there was any machinery by means of which the whole
646
of the information could be laid before an independent Committee which might see on which side accuracy lay in this matter. Bit with regard to the statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he had said anything which seemed to convey, by the merest suggestion, any reflection on his personal accuracy, or his personal honour, he absolutely and unhesitatingly withdrew it.

LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment, from Standing Committee A.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 153.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 153.]
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 192.]

AUSTRALIAN STATES CONSTITUTION BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 27th May, and to be printed. [Bill 193.]
NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Frederick Leverton Harris, esquire, for the Parliamentary Borough of the Tower Hamlets (Stepney Division.)

LAND VALUES (SCOTLAND).
THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. THOMAS SHAW,),in asking leave to introduce a Bill for the ascertainment of land values in Scotland, said the provisions of the Bill were of the simplest character, so simple as to prompt the hope that it would be treated as non-controversial. He might explain at once that the Bill was not a rating measure. Its provisions were concerned with valuation alone, and indeed it was expressly laid down that until Parliament otherwise determined, no person should be liable to be taxed or rated in respect of the entry prescribed by this Act. The Bill derived much of its simplicity from being founded upon the

647
existing law and practice in Scotland. It might assist the House and help it to understand the measure if he endeavoured in brief to explain what the law and practice was. In Scotland there had been since 1854, in every county or borough, a uniform system of valuation founded upon the system of annual rental, or upon the estimate of what the subject matter of the agreement would let for, one year with another. The valuation was an annual one. Its cash was provided for by the races, collected in the poor rate, and it was conducted by a body of assessors who were men of experience, skill, and capacity, and who formed along with their staff, locally and nationally, an instrument of acknowledged efficiency. By these men and their staff the valuation rolls were made up. In the early stages, these rolls contained five columns, viz., for the subject, the proprietor, the tenant, the occupier, and the yearly rental valuation. Very soon, however, it was discovered that the valuation roll might be useful for national purposes, by the insertion of further columns. Thus, under the County Voters Registration Act, 1861, Chapter 83, there was inserted a further column of feu-duties and ground values affecting the subject. Then in 1884, under the Representation of the People Act, 45 Vic. c. 3, two further columns were also inserted of inhabitant occupiers, who might be claimants under the service franchise. The annual valuation rolls formed the statutory basis of all assessment, and in later years had formed the statutory basis of enrolment for the franchise, and it might be said, without hesitation, that the scheme of the system had worked throughout the whole of Scotland with complete smoothness, precision and efficiency. It had never been repealed, it had several times been added to by Act of Parliament to the public advantage, and so the early plan of amplifying the valuation roll by the formation of additional columns was the plan which had been adopted in this Bill. An additional column was to be made containing entries under the heading of "Capital Land Values." In this column, and opposite each entry therein, would appear a statement of the capital land value of the subject, while the mechanism was the familiar and simple one he had described. The Government were well
648
aware of the importance of the addition which the Bill prescribed. The fact was that the basis of the annual return had been found in many cases to be a misleading guide to actual valuation. In some cases land was unoccupied, in others it was occupied by a return totally out of proportion to the return which reasonable use of the subject would yield. There were also, as the House well knew, amazing discrepancies between the value for assessment and the value for transfer. There was the consciousness that the difference had been largely created by the enterprise of the community; and there was finally the need of dissevering from land, as a basis for assessment, the buildings and structural improvements thereon, and so far encouraging instead of discouraging the latter. When he added that there were disputed propositions with regard to almost every item of this catalogue, the House would recognise the importance of the first step being confined to valuation alone. Section 1 of the Bill accordingly provided for the column and the entries mentioned, and the second section modified the existing Valuation Acts, giving powers to call for particulars applicable to capital value in the same sense as the existing section applied to annual value. There was the same duty upon the proprietor of making a return. The definitions to which much importance might naturally be attached were contained in the third section and would appear fully in the text of the Bill. "Capital land value" was in the Bill simply what the land might be expected to realise in the open market if divested of improvements thereon. The feasibility of the valuation had been proved by witnesses of the highest standing, and as to the risk of under-valuing which would always be put forward in such cases, although the Bill was not an assessing or a rating Bill, still the entries which would be adjusted after returns were made by the proprietors, would be public facts, and no doubt proprietors would be fully alive to the consideration that Parliament would be entitled to note these facts as a basis not alone for possible assessment but for purposes of transfer. The Bill did not apply to the lands and heritages falling to be valued by the assessors of railways and canals; in this respect it followed the recommendations of two Parliamentary inquiries. Both Parties in the State,

649
as indeed that day's Order Paper showed, seemed not unnaturally to be engaged in the same search, viz., for the broadening of the basis of taxation, and both parties would admit that it should be sought for without recklessness and with caution and care. It was in that spirit that he asked the House to give the Bill a first reading.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the ascertainment of land values in Scotland."—(The Lord Advocate.)
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman had made it quite clear, with his usual candour, that this Bill, although it might be merely a valuation Bill, was a Bill the whole interest of which was derived from the subsequent legislation which he hoped to be able to found upon it; and it would be, of course, quite impossible for the House, when it discussed the Bill upon the Second Reading, to forget that it was part of a general policy. On that general policy he did not propose now to say anything, but he would remind the Lord Advocate that if it could be shown that any scheme based on the taxation of land values really involved taxing twice for local purposes the same subject that would be a form of public spoliation; and that if it involved anything in the nature of the breaking of contracts in regard to town property between the man who had feued land and the man from whom it was feued that would be in the nature of public spoliation. The cost of the operation would be very great, and he hoped the Lord Advocate would give some estimate before the Second Reading of what he thought that cost would be. The distinction between the house and the land upon which it was built, and the additional value given to the land and house together by the work of the community, was not a value which could by any possibility and by any common sense be divided between the land and house. It was true that the land being built on, the land might grow or fall in value through no effort on the part of the owner. But whether it rose or fell in value, they rose together as one
650
industrial subject or fell as one industrial subject. The Lord Advocate must expect to find that, notwithstanding any doctrine he might oppose to the contrary, the Bill would be subjected to very critical examination. How he was to get a fair system of valuation without dealing with the railways was a matter on which he did not dwell now. He was aware the right hon. Gentleman had behind him on this subject the authority of a Select Committee of this House, but he would find that this was a first step in a policy which was to make it impossible for the owner of land to make such an arrangement with the feuer or hirer of land in Scotland as should relieve the owner of all liability for rates, while depriving the owner of all possible increase in the valuation in the land. If the Lord Advocate's policy was to make that arrangement impossible he would inflict a perfectly unnecessary grievance upon a very large body of owners and investors. Any such inequitable interference with the ownership of land must have the effect of injuring the community at large, and of benefiting nobody. Whether the right hon. Gentleman thought he had found an El Dorado of taxation by which municipal rating might be materially lowered he did not now question, but he wholly disbelieved this was an El Dorado. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman would get, even by the most reputable method of using this new valuation, all he expected, and if he did not tax the same subject twice he did not think he would get anything out of it. But that would be a subject for future examination. He really rose to point out that the Government were again embarking on a question of extreme difficulty which touched very nearly great interests, and affected adversely large masses of property invested by insurance companies, on behalf of every class of the community, and he did not think they were more likely to be successful in this new venture, than, so far as he could judge, they were in the ventures on which they had already embarked.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate, Mr. Sinclair, and Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland.

LAND VALUES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
"To provide for the ascertainment of Land Values in Scotland," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 27th May, and to be printed. [Bill 194.]

FINANCE BILL.
Order for Second Reading read;
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINrose to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, the financial needs of the country, as disclosed in the Budget statement of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, require that the basis of taxation should be broadened, in order that the anomalies and hardships inseparable from the present high rate of particular taxes may be diminished, the revenue necessary for the public service and for social reform raised with fairness to all classes of the community, and our fiscal system adapted to the present condition of national and imperial trade.' He said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in making his Budget statement, took a somewhat unusual, but, if I may say so, a very commendable course when, instead of confining his survey to the results of the past year, or the needs and the prospects of the present year, he invited the House to take a wider horizon, to look further ahead and to see what our prospects were, as far forward as the Government or the House of Commons could be expected to foretell. We accepted that invitation. We have made that survey to the best of our ability and the Motion standing in my name on the Paper is the result of the consideration we have given to the matter. That Motion, like the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, is of a wider scope than these Motions usually are. It is not intended to embody a particular fact, or merely to indicate objections to individual proposals which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made. It is an appeal to the House and the country to consider whether the time has not come for a complete revision of our fiscal system in order to suit it to the needs of to-day. In our opinion the present system has ceased to be adequate to those
652
needs, and, in a large measure, to meet the very purposes it was created to serve. What is the position that is disclosed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? It is that, after two prosperous years he finds an inelasticity in the revenue which is certainly, to use his own words, "in some respects disappointing." I made, not when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Budget speech last year, but at a later period, when I had returned to the House of Commons, a criticism of his Budget statement, and said that he had under-estimated his revenue for the present year. I make this confession, that if I was right verbally I was wrong in spirit—the Estimates I thought were inaccurate have been painfully accurate. The surplus is due to circumstances on which the right hon. Gentleman has no right to count, and on the recurrence of which he cannot base future expectations. In spice of good trade our taxation on articles of consumption has shown no elasticity. And as to the expansion of the income-tax, I doubt very much whether the whole of that is to be attributed to increased wealth in the country. Some portion of it is; but even then it does not prove that that wealth is well or advantageously distributed from the point of view of the nation as a whole. I doubt whether the expansion of the income-tax in recent years is at all a fair measure of the growth of the wealth of the country. Owing to circumstances the collection of the tax has become much more exact and, I may say, exacting. A great portion of the revenue which formerly could not be collected at the source can now be and is collected at the source, and as commercial activity progresses the tendency of private concerns to be turned into public limited companies continues. A larger and larger portion of income is now earned under circumstances which enable the tax collector to ascertain the full extent of it and to secure its full contribution to the revenue. The expansion of the national income, such as it has been this year, has been mainly duo to accidental circumstances. It has been due to the number of very rich men who have died and the extraordinary demand for the coinage of silver. We cannot expect, that to continue or to be repeated year in and year out. We can expect, and I do expect, some expansion in our

653
present duties following on the continuance of good trade, but I do not believe that the resources on which we at present draw are sufficient for our great and growing needs. Our expenditure increases out of all proportion to the yield of our present taxation, and for almost the first time in our financial history we have a Chancellor of the Exchequer coming to this House and declaring, after two properous years, that not only is he unable to make any remission of taxation now, but that, having regard to the demands which he sees coming on him in the course of the next few years, he cannot consent to deal with his surplus, great as the apparent surplus is, in such a way as to involve any permanent diminution of revenue of a substantial character. Accordingly we have no remission of taxation, though we have some readjustments of taxation, upon which I will speak later; but putting them at their brightest and their best, they are not a relief to the taxpayer, but a transference of the burden from one set of shoulders to another. But that is not all. I remember a speech which, owing to circumstances, I have not been able to look up, and therefore I cannot give the Chancellor of the Exchequer's exact words, which the right hon. Gentleman made in Scotland in the course of the last electoral campaign, in which he dealt seriatim with all the principal taxes except those on alcohol, and declared that each of them was too high and ought to be reduced, and that it would be the duty of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends to reduce them. What progress had we made? We have taken a penny off tea, with, I am afraid, very little advantage to the consumer. That is the sum total of the reduction that has boon made. But that is not all that the Chancellor of the Exchequer put before the country at that time as his task. The right hon. Gentleman said, and has repeated many times since, and insisted upon it, that one of the primary duties of the Government was to restore the credit of the country. I have already admitted to the right hon. Gentleman, and I stand by the admission, that I think a great many of the criticisms on the credit of the country are grossly exaggerated, and unfair both to him and to his predecessors; but although our credit stands higher than that of any other Power, as measured by the price of Consols, I agree with him that there is
654
urgent reason for bettering our credit still further. Our credit is not merely the price which the obligations which we have already issued stand at in the market; our credit is also our power to borrow in the market again should the emergency arise. Although it can be shown that Consols at their present price are comparatively as high as they were in most previous years, when they paid 3 per cent., who will say what price they would fall to if for any reason it was necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer now to make great demands on the money market? We, therefore, cannot measure our credit by the price of Consols. You have something much more intangible, something which you cannot put into figures in the same way, something which must be matter of grave and anxious speculation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, his resources should an emergency come upon us. His resources for such an emergency are not adequate either in the state of our credit or taxation. There is not a sufficient margin in the taxes as long as they stand at their present level. There is not sufficient margin in our borrowing power as long as our credit does not stand higher than at present. That goes far to make good my case that our present resources are too narrow. But that is not all. It has become a commonplace of our political discussions, and is now admitted by both sides, that a multitude of prophecies, forecasts made at the time when our present system was instituted, have not been fulfilled. I am not here to say that the forecast that not an acre of wheat should go out of cultivation was an unreasonable forecast at the time it was made, or that enlightened men should not honestly believe it, but that forecast has proved false; the forecast that our agriculture would always enjoy a natural protection of 10s. per quarter, that our competitors would be forced within five years to follow our example or be ruined by not doing so, is now gone. But there is something else equally important which has not been recognised, namely, that the fiscal system then established was part of a considered whole, and that it is the only part of that considered whole which now remains extant in our political or national life. The fiscal system then established was intimately associated with the idea that we ought to have and

655
needed only small Budgets, that our national expenditure would be on a small scale. It was intimately connected with the hope and expectation that free trade, or free imports, as adopted by us, would subsequently be adopted by other nations, and that arising from the free flow of commerce a new millennium would shortly be on us, in which armaments would be reduced, war would cease, and the only rivalry between nations would be of a peaceful and friendly character. It was intimately associated with the idea that the self-governing dominions would manage their own affairs independency of us, and that if we could not rid ourselves of the obligations we had incurred in respect of many dependencies, we would at least be careful to take no fresh obligations of that kind upon us. Every one of these expectations has been falsified by the event, and not merely falsified by the event, but they are no longer the aspirations of any considerable body of citizens among us ["Oh."]
MR. MADDISON: Is it not an aspiration to desire peace?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I was not speaking of such aspirations; I was referring to the other part of my observations. I take the question of peace and armaments. The Prime Minister is sanguine, or was sanguine, that he might induce the Conference of the Powers to put some limit on the growth of armaments. I am afraid that he has not a very bright prospect before him. Be that as it may, does any Member believe that we shall ever again see the expenditure of the nations on armaments, I will not say less than when our fiscal system was adopted, but anything approaching that figure? No; they are, and they will remain, far in excess of anything that was contemplated at that time. And in other spheres all the tendency of public opinion, all the progress of legislation, makes it impossible that we should return to the narrow Budgets of the Forties, Fifties, and Sixties. The policy of Free Traders at that time was a consistent whole; it was a policy of laissez faire throughout; they wished to restrict Government interference and action within the narrowest limits. With the single exception of the hon. Member for Preston, possibly
656
supported by my hon. friend the junior Member for the City of London—who, after all, I think, is not wholly beyond suspicion—there is not an advocate of that policy in the House of Commons. We are constantly demanding increased action on the part of the State. I believe we rightly demand it. Yes; but it costs money; you cannot have the State interfering in the business, the lives, the safety, the health, the happiness, the food, every detail of daily life of millions of our people, unless you are prepared also for great expenditure on the part of the State on officials, who must be reasonably well paid, if you are to have men of the competence and independence necessary to the proper discharge of their duties. What is the result? Between 1846 and 1849 the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to budget for an annual expenditure of £50,000,000; between 1880 and 1886 the amount had risen from £68,000,000 to £75,000,000. In 1895 the annual expenditure had still further risen to £86,000,000. I have chosen the periods when a Liberal Government was going out of office, in order that I might not be open to the retort that these figures are the result of the Tory or Unionist extravagance. I well remember Mr. Gladstone's denouncing the swollen Budgets of £80,000,000 and, unless my memory serves me ill, he foretold to the House that such large budgets would break down the system of taxation which our fathers had established. Today, instead of a budget of £80,000,000 you have a budget of £140,000,000. Instead of a prospect of a reduction, we have had, as we all of us can see, an increase going on for years. It may be said that there is now not a prospect of reduction but a prospect of steady increase. You may cut off expenses here and there. You have done something to cut down expenditure on the Army. That means cutting down the number of men you have available in the active forces of the Crown; yet it was hon. Gentlemen opposite who, with such a light heart, cut down those forces today, were the first to condemn the late Government when they sent to South Africa more men than any Government had ever pretended to be able to send abroad and still had not enough to meet the crisis which bad arisen. You have cut down the Navy, though in so doing you say that our naval strength—a

657
hope, which I trust, is rightly entertained—will not be reduced. But that process cannot go on. If you want to make further reductions there will be a cutting down of the shipbuilding programme, and that will be undermining the future naval supremacy of the country. Then there is the question of education. There is no Party in the House who think it in the least possible to reduce expenditure on education; and I believe each Party, and almost every individual looks forward to a still larger expenditure upon it, Then comes the whole series of social reforms, to the importance of which both Parties are equally alive though we may differ as to the means and solutions which ought to be adopted. Temperance reform, land reform, housing reform, old age pensions, all cost money, and you cannot carry them out with other people's money. You may speculate on behalf of the State in land at the expense of the landlords, but that between private individuals would be called robbery. You might promote temperance reform at the expense of individuals who, under legal encouragement and sanction, have vested their earnings in the licensed trade. But that, too, is wrong; it is not only robbery, but it is killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. What is your object in temperance reform? The object of many, I think, is to hit the brewer or to injure the publican; but that is not the object, I would fain believe, of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Their object is to reduce drinking. But the drink taxes have been in the past one of the mainstays of our revenue, and even now they are one of the largest sources from which we draw money for our national expenditure. You are in the right to encourage temperance. You will be in the right if you encourage it on fair terms, and, as far as sacrifices are necessary, if you exact those sacrifices from the community and not from individuals. Be under no misapprehension as to what you are doing. Just in proportion as you are successful in reducing the consumption of drink, so you are destroying the equilibrium of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget. We find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pledged—perhaps he objects to the word "pledged"—has held out hopes of the establishment of a system
658
of old ago pensions upon a plan which is the most costly of any that can be devised. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean has referred to my having expressed a desire for a contributory scheme. I am not ashamed of that view. I hold it still. I think that a scheme which recognises the principle embodied in our Compensation Acts, and which, carrying it a stop further, recognises that a trade must not only contribute to those engaged in it during sickness or accident, but must also contribute to them in old age, is on a sounder basis than that proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If you recognise the obligation of the individual, if you reduce within manageable limits the contribution which you have to exact from the State, I believe that you would be within measurable distance of a practical scheme of old ago pensions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer takes the most costly scheme. He expects to make a great saving in Poor Law expenditure, but the President of the Local Government Board does not. He told us the other day that whatever scheme of old age pensions we had, our Poor Law expenditure would be very little reduced. I agree with what he said. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I gather, hopes also to limit the initial cost of the scheme by some age rule, or some other exclusion. I venture to say that the establishment of a system of old age pensions begining at the ago of seventy-five, or any age like that, would be a mockery. You have to contemplate, in laying the foundations, the whole problem; you have to contemplate so building up your scheme that you will include the whole. In passing, I desire to protest against one form of exclusion which appears to be contemplated by the Government. I was not here when the President of the Local Government Board spoke last Friday; I was not able to be here; but he repeated his references to the number of people who were getting old ago pensions from friendly societies and trade unions. I say that it would be not merely a mockery but a scandal to exclude from the benefits of a State scheme those people who have by their own thrift contributed something to provide for themselves in old age. If that was not the meaning—and I do not know at all

659
whether it was or not—of his reference to these societies, then I cannot understand why he introduced that at all, at that moment, into the discussion. Old age pensions, on a broad scheme, if it costs you anything, will cost you from £20,000,000 to £30,000,000. What has the Chancellor of the Exchequer got towards that sum? He has put by, or ear-marked, £2,250,000, which he means, or rather meant to keep as a nest egg for next year. Ah! but how our hopes may be disappointed. On the £2,250,000 his colleagues are already laying greedy hands. The Chief Secretary for Ireland has taken £650,000 as a beginning, in order that the Irish people may not lose the valuable opportunity of receiving education in habits of dignity, self-restraint, and self-government. I should be sorry to put any obstacle in the way of their education in those desirable directions. We have always been told that English government in Ireland was extravagant and costly. But here is the Government trying to establish an Irish Council to do the business which the British Government has hitherto done, and the Irish Council cannot even be launched on its path without being given £650,000 a year more than the British Government has ever spent. Under these circumstances the outlook for the taxpayer is not pleasant. His taxes have to remain where they are, and all we can look forward to is the placing of additional burdens upon the shoulders of the direct taxpayer through the taxing of land or an increase in the death duties or the income-tax, or additional burdens upon the indirect taxpayer by taxing alcohol still further, even if no other articles are included in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's net. To maintain these taxes at there present high level is dangerous—that has been admitted even by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and to raise them still further would be to increase that danger. I assert that for the new needs that have come into existence new sources of revenue must be found, that more taxes must be imposed, and the net cast more widely. So, and so only, can we diminish the hardships and anomalies which are inseparable from maintaining the existing taxes at excessive rates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not take away the hardships and anomalies; he only changes the venue, he only transfers the burden
660
from one place to another. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done is to apportion the burden, not according to ability to pay, but according to an entirely arbitrary distinction between earned and unearned income. If the right hon. Gentleman proceeds upon ability to pay he ought to look, not at the question of whether income is earned or not, but to the amount of income available for spending by a prudent possessor, whether the income is of a permanent character or whether it would terminate with the life of the man who draws it, and whether, therefore, he is bound year by year as a prudent man to put by part in order to make provision for his wife and family. I will give instances to show that instead of removing hardships the right hon. Gentleman is only creating them. I asked the other day what was going to be done in regard to the pensions of soldiers and sailors, but that question is evidently being held in suspense. Take, for example, a man part of whose remuneration is held back by the State till he reaches pensionable age. What is the distinction between the pension which the State accumulates for the individual who serves it and a pension which a man accumulates for himself by saving out of his annual income? I might put that into the form of an annuity, and it then becomes exactly analogous to a pension. You cannot persuade men who have worked and laboured, who have denied themselves not only pleasures but comforts in order to make provision for old age, that the pittance they receive year by year when they come to retire has not been earned by the sweat of their brow. I think it will surprise a great number of people to know that under the definition of earnings adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a man who writes a book or patents an invention is not to be deemed to have earned anything which he is happy enough to receive for his book or his patent. In replying to this point the other day the President of the Board of Education said it was a simple case, because the income he drew would come under the property tax at the rate of one shilling, and the other part would come under the tax at nine pence. The right hon. Gentleman said—
"If he were paid so much money down for his invention he would naturally have to pay 1s. in the pound, because his invention would

661
represent property, and it would come under the property tax. For work done and paid for within the year a man with an income of less than £2,000 a year would have to pay 9d. in the £. When income is derived from accumulated property, and not from something on which a man is working at the time, he pays on the property rate."
Mark the significance of that. No inventor will ever earn anything by his patent. It will not begin to return anything in the year in which he works at it, and the inventor will be told that he has not earned it. I gather from the correspondence I have seen in the papers that whether by the necessities of the case or in consequence of the practice of the publishers, no author ever earns anything in the year in which his book is published, although some authors are fortunate enough to earn something in subsequent years. I understand that no publisher renders an account until six months after publication. I think I am right when I say that the whole of the author's earnings would be treated as unearned for the purposes of the tax. I think it will surprise a great number of people when they find that, under the definition of earnings adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a man who writes a book or patents, an invention is not thought to have earned anything which entitles him to come under the lower rate. I maintain, then, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not remove the anomalies of the tax. I do not think the right lion. Gentleman is quite correct in assuming that Mr. Gladstone's objection to differentiation was based only on the case of the poor widow. Mr. Gladstone's objections were much deeper and broader; he said you could not make a reasonable or fair distinction. Mr. Gladstone said that by attempting to differentiate they would destroy the tax, and I venture humbly to repeat the statement. If that is true of direct taxes, it is true also of taxes on consumption. Is it not a hardship that the tax on the cheapest qualities of tea is something like 100 per cent, of its value, and that the poorest consumers pay out of all proportion to their richer fellow-citizens? These things are not novel; they have been foreseen by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors, and because they were foreseen, Lord St. Aldwyn, under whom I served my first apprenticeship at the Treasury, made a serious attempt, under the pressure of a great war, to broaden the basis of taxa-
662
tion. These taxes are sometimes spoken of as war taxes. They are in one sense war taxes, but they were not, in the contemplation of my noble friend, intended to finish with the war. There were certain taxes which he hoped to remit when the war was over. These were the additional duties on Customs and Excise which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer makes permanent; but the sugar, coal, and corn taxes he proposed as a permanent part of our revenue, because, as he impressed on the then House of Commons, the greatest difficulty we had to meet was not to finance the war during its progress, but the future needs of peace which he foresaw in the years which followed. It is therefore no new doctrine I am propounding in saying that we must broaden the basis of taxation, but in so doing we hope to serve other purposes as well. We hope to strengthen our financial system. A financial system which is ample for a Budget of forty or fifty millions is ludicrously inadequate for a Budget of £140,000,000. All of us have present in our minds the great Imperial Conference which has just been sitting in London. Few gatherings have aroused such hopes among the British race through all the King's dominions, or have so concentrated upon themselves the attention of all His Majesty's subjects. What has been the result of all their deliberations? They went smoothly enough in the early days when concessions were asked by one Colonial Minister or Colony of another, but when the time came for us to meet them with concession for concession, then, I am sorry to say, difficulties arose. [An HON. MEMBER: Were yon there?] I was not there, and I am obliged to rely on the inadequate published summaries of the proceedings. For some reason the précis writer has not been able to comprehend the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, or to represent his figures correctly before the public. The figures have been wrongly described on one side or the other in the published summaries, with the result that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been made to say a thing which was not instead of a thing which was. I am not going to dwell upon that, because we have been promised a full account of the Conference, and we must have a discussion on those Papers when they are presented. Therefore I propose to say very little on this subject indeed, but I cannot pass

663
it by. I should be taunted by hon. Members opposite if I did pass it by. This is a matter to which I cannot be indifferent, and, even if there was no such argument on the basis of taxation as I have hitherto maintained, I should desire to alter our fiscal system in order to reciprocate the commercial offers of our fellow-citizens beyond the seas. The Prime Minister is very angry at the attitude of the Opposition towards the Conference. He complains that we try to make Party capital out of it I am not sure that there was any particular delicacy on the other side in using Colonial opinion when they thought it concurred with their own and would serve their purpose. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's memory requires refreshing. Perhaps he would remember his use of Colonial opinion as to Chinese slavery. But, after all, coming to the solid fact, what have we done? The Prime Minister at Manchester the other day said that the attitude of the Government had been perfectly sympathetic. He told his audience the old story of the man who was moved at a charity meeting by the speeches delivered, and who banged his purse on the Table, declaring "I sympathise £5; how much do you sympathise? "That," added the Prime Minister, "is after all the true test." Well, judged by the Prime Minister's true test, how much have the Government sympathized? The Government have refused to meet them on the matter of preference even on the existing duties, and almost brutally. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tried to soften his refusal by holding out hopes that in the matter of shipping subsidies he and his colleagues might do something, and the President of the Board of Trade, whose manners are softer, on a later day met them on this point, and gave a gentler but an equally firm refusal to assist them. Again, I ask, judging by the Prime Minister's test, how much do the Government sympathise? We do sympathise, and we are anxious to meet the offers made and not to repel the first united advances towards closer unity which have come from all the King's dominions oversea. We believe that if you create the common affairs and common business which such a policy would establish you would find that the common machinery to guide our common interests and protect them
664
would not be slow to develop itself. No juggling with the income-tax will suffice to distribute wealth in this country. That can only be done by means of wages, and wages are obtained through employment. I lay to the charge of our fiscal system that instead of serving, as it was expected to do, the interests of employment and trade, it acts as a handicap on our industries and commerce. One reason is that it leaves us defenceless against the attacks made upon our commerce by foreign tariffs. We have nothing to bargain with except the wine duties. With the exception of these duties we have practically nothing with which we can negotiate. We are therefore defenceless as negotiators in all tariff concerns. I appeal to hon. Gentleman opposite as business men to give the question a dispassionate and non-Party consideration. What is the most important thing in business success to-day? Surely it is the scale on which you can produce, and the certainty that you can produce on a largo scale, as well as the certainty of being able to keep the workshops and the mills running full time. This condition of affairs enables our business men to sell cheap and to undersell competitors—[An HON. MEMBER: That is what we arc doing.]—encourages them to expand their trade, and enables them to introduce fresh capital into their business. Germany, with its 60,000,000 of population, has given to its own manufacturers a preferential market, and these manufacturers can reach 40,000,000 of consumers in this country on terms as easy and as light as our own manufacturers reach them. If we look to the manufacturers of America we see that they are encouraged whenever a spurt comes in business to extend their plant, because when a bad time comes and trade is restricted they have at least a preference in their own market, and the knowledge that they have access to ours. Our manufacturers are, on the other hand, hampered. In their home market they have no preference. They have no preference except in Colonial markets. On the ground of the handicap that our manufacturers will suffer from increasingly, I ask for a revision of our present system which, instead of confining our Customs duties to a few high taxes on a few articles of general consumption, should make a

665
general reform in our tariff, and should raise our revenue by duties on manufactured goods, by wider duties on foodstuffs, lower and more moderate than those we have at present, and which will thus enable us not merely to meet the advances of our friends, but to chock the inroads of our opponents. That there are difficulties in such a course I do not deny; but hon. Members are here to overcome these difficulties. The wider our fiscal system, the more broadly based it is, the more likely is it to rectify the injustices and the anomalies which now exist, to enlarge the resources of the State without inflicting the hardships which increasing the present taxes would involve, while at the same time providing us with a capacity for expansion in the time of danger or emergency such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not got at present, but such as it is necessary the country should possess. I beg to move.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out all the words after the word 'That,' and at the and of the Question to add the words 'in the opinion of this House, the financial needs of the country, as disclosed in the Budget statement of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, require that the basis of taxation should be broadened, in order that the anomalies and hardships inseparable from the present high rate of particular taxes may be diminished, the revenue necessary for the public service and for social reform raised with fairness to all classes of the community, and our fiscal system adapted to the the present condition of national and imperial trade."—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,): I confess that I have some little difficulty in replying to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. In the first place, the terms of the Amendment are not very explicit, and I do not think that any Chancellor of the Exchequer would get much help from it. looked to the right hon. Gentleman's speech for something in the nature of an outline of the scheme which he would recommend by which a sufficient revenue could be raised to meet current expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman is an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer; he is accustomed to framing Budgets,
666
and I assumed that he had in his mind some proposals mote or less definite in their character which would enable us to understand how he proposed to carry out the ideals which he has before him; but all that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested is wholly insufficient to raise even the present revenue. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to get rid of a large part of the income-tax; he is going to reduce the existing taxes on food stuffs, and is going to replace the loss of revenue by taxation on manufactured goods, in respect of which a preference is to be given to the Colonies. Now, the imports of last year for home consumption of wholly or mainly manufactured goods amounted to £130,000,000, and a tax of 10 per cont., if all the goods still came in, would only produce £13,000,000. The present revenue from income-tax is £32,000,000, and the taxes on food stuns such as sugar and tea, cannot be loss than £12,000,000. I ask him then how this poor paltry hypothetical £13,000,000 could provide for the loss of such a revenue, as well as provide the means for great social reforms and for Colonial preference? The right hon. Gentleman proposes to "broaden the basis of taxation." That is a plausible phrase, which presents to the mind an object obviously desirable in itself. But what is "the basis of taxation?" In this country, and in even-other country the only basis of taxation is the taxpayer, and broadening the basis of taxation must therefore mean to bring into the net of the Chancellor of the Exchequer some class of persons who at present escape taxation. But in the United Kingdom we already impose an income-tax on every person with an income of £160, and we tax everyone who consumes beer, wine, spirits, tea, sugar, tobacco. Is there, therefore, anyone with the barest means of livelihood who is not already a taxpayer? "Broadening the basis of taxation" cannot mean the bringing in now classes of taxpayers. The right hon. Gentleman must intend to readjust the burden of taxation as between existing taxpayers. Let us see how the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do that. He proposes to impose new taxes upon a great many people in order to reduce the taxes which now fall on a small number of people. But the larger number are the comparatively poor, and

667
the small number the right hon. Gentleman proposes to relieve are the comparatively rich. The right hon. Gentleman's "broadening the basis of taxation," therefore, can only mean the shifting of the existing burden from the shoulders of the rich on to the shoulders of the poor. On this side of the House we all desire to adjust the burden of taxation according to ability to pay. There may be some difference of opinion as to the proportionate degree of ability to pay of the comparatively poor and comparatively rich; but there is no difference of opinion as to whether the poor are not sufficiently taxed already. We are consequently opposed to any "broadening of the basis of taxation" which can only mean that the poor must pay more and the rich less. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head; but the poor pay on their tea, their sugar, their beer, spirits, and tobacco. Not content with that, the right hon. Gentleman wishes them to pay also on their furniture, on their clothes, on their boots, on their food, on the wife's bonnet, and on the children's shoes, on their bread, and on their milk and butter, and on everything that they eat, use, or wear. Yet the right hon. Gentleman would not add to the taxation of the poor, but would relieve it, while increasing the revenue, and granting a preference to the Colonies! The right hon. Gentleman says that he knows how to do it, but he has not explained his method of doing it. He began by saying that his intention was not so much to criticise the proposals in the existing Budget, as to point out the need for a complete alteration in our fiscal system. In his speech, it is true, the right hon. Gentleman dealt with one or two matters in regard to the income-tax which are more appropriate to the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, but I will not trouble the House with a discussion of those now. He also criticised the proposal with regard to old age pensions, but that will be dealt with in next year's Budget. The right hon. Gentleman declared that our whole fiscal system must be changed in order to obtain new sources of revenue, and he illustrated his case by referring to the conditions in which we found ourselves in a time of war a few years ago, when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer bad to propose "new permanent taxes," on coal, corn, and sugar. The tax on
668
corn was repealed by the late Government, and that on coal was repealed by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The tax on sugar still remains, but if our revenue proves more elastic no doubt the "permanent" tax on sugar will follow those on corn and coal. The right hon. Gentleman said that our revenue is inelastic. Yes, our revenue has not been as elastic as we would wish to see it. But down to the close of 1905 there was for some years an actual decrease in the weekly wages paid to the working classes. For the first time for four years the average weekly wage increased in 1906; and as that increase is continuing a corresponding elasticity in the revenue would be shown this year and next year from increased consumption. From 1896 to 1901 wages were continuously increasing. From 1901 to 1905 they were continuously decreasing, and only now have we begun a new period of increase. From 1896 to 1900 the revenue showed extraordinary elasticity, and the doubts which the right hon. Gentleman entertained as to the elasticity of the revenue in the future, and on account of which he would change our whole fiscal system are based on grounds not sufficiently examined. The right hon. Gentleman says that our existing means of revenue are not sufficiently continuous to meet our expenditure, and he compared the growth of expenditure with that of ten years ago. Our present expenditure is £140,000,000; but out of that no less than £29,500,000 goes to the fixed debt charge. That is £6,500,000 more than was paid under the late Government before the war. That cannot be regarded as a permanent charge, because as the debt is paid off so rapidly, the fixed debt charge will be gradually, almost automatically, reduced, and we shall have some means for decreasing expenditure and for the purpose of initiating social reforms. Again, out of this £140,000,000 a sum of £2,000,000 goes to pay the interest and annuities on the capital borrowings of the right hon. Gentleman's friends. Altogether, some £8,500,000 more than the late Government provided is devoted by the present Budget for the repayment of debt.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: We always met the annuities year by year;

669
if the right hon. Gentleman continues to borrow he will have to add to the annuities.
MR. McKENNA: The system of borrowing began in 1894–5 and the amount of annuities then came to only a few thousand pounds a year; but since then we have accumulated Debt to an enormous amount. Consequently while the late Government had to spend a few thousands a year on this service we have to spend millions a year and to go on paying off the debts incurred by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Therefore, in that respect, the right hon. Gentleman's anticipations of bankruptcy unless we adopt his fiscal system are not quite justified. The right hon. Gentleman went on to speak of our relations with the Colonies. I heard with some astonishment the descriptive account the right hon. Gentleman gave of the Colonial Conference, and I think the Colonial Prime Ministers themselves will be somewhat surprised. The Colonial Prime Ministers did not come here as beggars. They did not come here to ask that the good feeling which they have for us shall be paid for. Their affection towards the mother country is a fooling which we reciprocate, and we no more ask them to pay for our good feeling towards them than they ask us to pay for their good feeling towards us. They came to us—some of them, at least, not all—and made a proposition which they regarded, from their point of view, as a business proposal; but there was no brutal refusal on our part. The reply made to the Colonial Prime Ministers was of a nature, I think, that even the most susceptible of thorn must have considered could not have been dictated by anything but good feeling towards them and a proper regard for the welfare of this country. The right hon. Gentleman has failed, if I may say so, to appreciate the fundamental difference between the colonial position and ours. The Colonies tax for two purposes—for the purpose of revenue and for the regulation of trade. We tax only for the purpose of revenue. When the Colonies offer us fiscal advantages by way of preference, it would be wholly inconsistent with our principles of taxation to accept them, and they offer them in such a way as neither to interfere with their revenue nor with the protection of their own manufactories. But
670
if we, who did not tax for the regulation of trade, adopted their system of preference, we should have to introduce a new principle into our fiscal system, and we must depart from our present system of taxation. We represent the majority in this country and that majority believes that taxation for the regulation of trade will be bad for us. They believe that any advantages which individual manufacturers may obtain will be too dearly bought, and that our gigantic interests, built up as they are now upon a free-trade basis, will be far more injured than the interests of any other people in the world by any alteration of our existing fiscal system. The right hon. Gentleman seems to forget what is a fundamental fact in trade. We all know, by observation of foreign countries, that, under protection, they get great vested interests which have grown up under that fiscal system. It is quite true that we get great vested interests which have grown up under free trade; but those vested interests in this country are the most important and the most profitable in our industry, Take, for instance, the shipping trade. The shipping trade is dependent for its very existence in its present proportions upon the freedom of trade and the freedom from tariff. I go further, and say that not only our trade, but our very existence as an Empire depends on the strength of our mercantile power. If you attack free trade, if you ask us to alter our fiscal system in order that we may give a benefit in our markets to the Colonies, we shall injure great interests, like the shipping interest, which have grown up under free trade.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In what way? Surely our shipping trade was founded and established, primarily, under the old mercantile system.
MR. McKENNA: Under the old maritime laws of the nations of the world we had a shipping trade, it is true, but by no means a preponderating shipping trade. We have to-day a shipping trade which exceeds the shipping trade of all the rest of the world put together, and that shipping trade, I contend, has grown to its present size and importance under the influence of free trade. When some of the Colonial Premiers asked us to make a change in our fiscal system, the House will agree that

671
we were bound to consider what would be the effect of that change upon our trade as a whole. They told us that they believed that adopting a system of Colonial preference would draw the bonds of the Empire more strongly together. Yes, provided it is not at too dear a price. What can be more calculated to draw the bonds of Empire together than that we should have free trade within the Empire—free trade within the Empire and protection against the outside world? We said that, but did the Colonies say that? Not at all. Let the right hon. Gentleman opposite propose to Mr. Deakin to have free trade with this country and see what his reply would be. He would say, "Oh, no. The great advantages of commercial union or commercial preference would be too dearly bought," and he would add, "We will consider that proposition when our population is as big as yours." We say that the Imperial advantages of Colonial preference may be too dearly bought when our population is forty millions and theirs is four millions. The argument upon which they reject free trade is exactly the same argument upon which we reject Colonial preference. The good feeling between the Colonies and ourselves is not to be disturbed so easily as the right hon. Gentleman thinks. After all, the sentiment which has grown up has grown up under the present fiscal system. It is a very remarkable thing, but it is the fact, that the whole change of Colonial sentiment towards the mother country which took place during the latter half of last century exactly coincided with the time when we had free markets in this country, when we had enormously increased, as I say in consequence of those free markets, our shipping, and therefore our intercourse with the Colonies, and had been content to leave the Colonies absolutely alone to govern themselves, whether politically or fiscally, as they pleased. I am sure that the good sentiment which has grown up under these conditions is much more likely to survive if we leave them unchanged than if we begin to tie round our Colonies hampering and fettering bonds, and if we introduce the haggling of the market-place into the relations of good feeling which exist between us and the Colonies. I hope that the visit of the Colonial Premiers will not be treated
672
in the Colonies as it will be treated if the words of the right hon. Gentleman are listened to. I cannot help regretting that, whether it is on the grounds of prejudice, or from motives of making political capital, hon. Gentlemen opposite should in public and in this House endeavour to instil into the minds of the Colonies the notion that the majority of the people of this country—and, after all, the majority support the Liberal Government—are not friendly to them. That is an absolutely mistaken notion, and as it has been the consistent policy of the Liberal Party during the last century to favour the growth and development and independence within the Empire of the Colonies, so it will be the policy of the Liberal Party in the present century.
MR. EVELYN CECILsaid he could not pretend that he was in the least convinced by the speech of the President of the Board of Education. The right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to prove that this Budget was a perfect Budget. He, on the contrary, remained of the opinion that it was far from meeting the necessities of the case, and that the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and that of the Chancellor of Exchequer earlier, rather exposed the deadlock and the absolute nakedness of the land to which the present financial position of the Government had brought the country. This Budget did not broaden the basis of taxation. On the contrary, it showed, to his mind, an inelastic helplessness. When the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down spoke of the possibility of elasticity of revenue in the future he did not know on what ground he based his opinion. They were always hearing of the splendid Board of Trade Returns, but yet there was now to be it appeared a continuous income-tax of 1s. in the pound; and no prospect of altering that state of things was apparent, though any future scheme of old age pensions could not but enormously increase the demands upon the Exchequer. If a sudden strain was put on, the whole system would snap, and we should find ourselves in great difficulty. Colonial preference, on the other hand, would encourage Colonial food supply in time of war or emergency, but the Government scheme of taxation really handicapped our very existence.

673
The right hon. Gentleman had twitted them with the fact that they were not pretending to put forward a broadening of the basis of taxation by the Amendment, but what the Amendment asked was, as a general proposition, that the basis of taxation should be broadened in order that revenue necessary for the public service and for social reform might be raised with fairness to all classes of the community. And why could it not be broadened both with a view of extending taxation to more articles and by way of bringing foreigners within its area? He did not see why it could not be so broadened as to compel foreigners to contribute to a larger extent to the taxation of this country. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention that. He did not know why. The right hon. Gentleman had talked about the undue burden of taxation put upon the poor, but he might remind him that while the Chancellor of the Exchequer was laying more taxes on the few he had not lightened the burden on the many, that while he was relieving the middle classes he was putting a tax on the dividends, as unearned income, of the savings which had been effected for the widow and her children. Did hon. Gentlemen really consider that the proposals made for retaining trades in this country by alteration of the tariff were or were not a breach of free trade? He heard the other day a gentleman who was fully qualified to speak for free importers say that whether duties were or were not protection depended on whether or not the extra amount paid by the purchaser went into the national treasure. Was a whole trade a national treasure? If duties were put on to retain a trade in this country were they protection or not? He said they were not. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, he believed, said they were. Let them take a case which he had recently come across in a factory which he knew. A certain metal fitting was produced there, of which the cost of manufacture was 2¾d. and the market price 3¼d. or 3½d. It was always cheaper to produce on a big scale than on a small one; and Germany could produce on a big scale as she had access to our markets as well as her own since we had no tariff to prevent her; while we could only produce on a smaller and dearer scale because though we had our own market to sell
674
in, Germany kept us carefully out of hers by high tariff walls. Accordingly, she had been able to flood this country with this particular fitting at 2¼d. a piece, a price which just about represented the mere cost of the metal used. The British manufacturer in consequence had been obliged to cease manufacturing that fitting, and had discharged a number of men, and now bought the fitting from Germany to sell at a profit. The result was that the work was done by German workmen, the fitting was sold by the manufacturer at a profit, and the only people seriously injured were the British workmen the manufacturer was compelled to discharge. If we put on a duty to prevent a trade being throttled in this way in this country, was it protection or not? If hon. Members thought it was, he could only say he thought their views were entirely against the original doctrine of free trade. He thought it used to be admitted that it was perfectly desirable under the old free trade doctrine to put a duty on an article rather than to allow the industry to be killed by foreign competition. No wonder capitalists said that had they to start again in business they would not build a factory, but take an office, and buy articles from abroad to sell at a profit to themselves. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of Imperial trade and the question of preferential trade dealt with at the Colonial Conference. He would like to point out one or two difficulties that would arise if the attitude of the Government in slamming the door against Colonial preference was consistently maintained. It was perfectly well known that Canada proposed to introduce a general tariff to be employed against foreign nations who would give her no advantage, an intermediate tariff which was open to nations who would bargain with her, and a preferential tariff to British goods. But in so far as bargains were made between Canada and foreign countries, by so much would British preference be prejudiced. And local districts would be affected. For instance, Lancashire and Yorkshire which were accounted as main centres of free trade, had an enormous trade in cottons. If Canada were to bargain, for example, with Italy, which had lately built a number of mills for the manufacture of cheap cottons, and give her the benefit of the intermediate tariff for these cottons,

675
Lancashire and Yorkshire would suffer to the extent that the British preference was reduced. And the greater the time that elapsed before we came to an arrangement on this basis of business with our Colonies the less likely were we to get good terms for our own manufactures. The right hon. Gentleman talked of Colonial preferences as fettering bonds, and at the Colonial Conference the Government stated that preference would merely be the means of fomenting quarrels between the Colonies and the mother country. Had the Government considered whether if Canada asked for or obtained a bargain with a foreign country which was refused by this country, that would not raise feeling both here and in Canada, which might result in strained or even dangerous consequences? He did not think it would be wise to look on while such an arrangement was being come to between Canada and foreign countries under the delusion that no harm would happen to us. It was, he believed, supposed in some fiscal schools that no harm could arise because a negotiation of that kind by Canada was always subject to revision by the Crown. But did hon. Members suppose that such matter as that could be held back for revision by the Crown without great friction and disturbance? In theory revision might be quite possible, but hon. Gentlemen who supposed that kind of thing was; likely to occur, and still more, occur effectually, would seem to have forgotten the whole reasons of the United States "War of Independence. Largo States which knew what they wanted and knew their obligations and responsibilities were not likely to allow their bargains to be put on one side and gratuitously shelved by the mother country. Why should the mother country be left out in the cold if the Colonies were to establish preference among themselves? The Colonies were satisfied that it was of advantage to themselves and to the mother country. Why, then, should we throw cold water on it and remain outside the scheme? He did not think that showed the affection for the Colonies which all in this country felt and which all desired to show. If preference was against all the theory of free trade, why did the Government allow Bechuanaland and Basutoland under the dominion of the Colonial Office to give prefer-
676
ential treatment to British goods? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said recently that no advocate of preference had answered the question of how they proposed to give effective preference to South Africa when South Africa only produced wool and hides, which, being raw materials, they did not propose to touch. Had he interrupted the right hon. Gentleman at the time, which he did not because he thought that a perfunctory answer would have been misleading, he would have mentioned South African wines. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] Hon. Members laughed at South African wines, but it was only on wines that the South African Colonies asked for a preference, and a generation or two back South African wines were very much in fashion in this country. The whole of that trade was got by the preference then given. But the subject was a great deal more far-reaching, and he thought that the question which the Chancellor of the Exchequer put seemed to show clearly that he did not quite appreciate the very broad policy which they considered Colonial preference really was. They were not seeking for mathematical accuracy in the preferences between the Colonies. That was not what the Colonies themselves were seeking. They did not want a uniform scheme between one Colony and another, or between the mother country and the Colonies. They were content if gains were sufficiently in the ascendant. The question was one really not of statics but of dynamics. The object of preference was really to develop normal industries. In the case of South Africa he would suggest that the tobacco trade was a normal industry which might be developed. The object of Colonial preference was to develop, with great emphasis on the word, the normal industries of various Colonies, and to stimulate those activities most conducive to our position there. Each constituent State of the Empire, he submitted, would work out its own tariff in its own interest, and then offer it to other Colonies and other States. They were free to accept it or not. What appeared a very small preference at the present time might appear a very large one in the future. If they appealed, as he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer did, to the Board of Trade figures to show that the preferences

677
which would be granted were very small, his answer was that the Board of Trade figures, as they existed, however accurate, were not a true guide to the advantages of preference, because they could not measure by them the potential development of new industries which preference would encourage. That was the whole intention of their policy of Colonial preference; it was a creed, it opened out as part of a broad political philosophy. They advocated State action for combining the Empire, as Mr. Deakin had said, for Imperial co-operation in peace as well as in war. In the Conference the Colonial Premiers might have made little recorded advance on the resolutions of 1902; but in the country they had, he ventured to say, broken the back of unreasoning Cobdenism; and if hon. Gentlemen opposite could only realise the untold possibilities of developing trade that would come from Colonial preference, the great increase of friendship, and communication, and mutual understanding that would arise between ourselves and our Colonies, the importance that such a consummation would have in regard to Imperial unity and co-operation in peace as well as in war, he did not believe that they would any longer oppose this policy, but that they would support it, as the Opposition did, with the determined intention and confident belief that before long it would be realised.
*MR. BARNESsaid those for whom he spoke were entirely with the Government in the reply that had been made to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire. They wanted closer relationship with the Colonies as much as anyone, but they believed with the Government that anything which was done in the way of tightening the bands of the Empire, or of increasing the revenues of this country, must be done on the basis of free trade. They wanted to be friendly with the Colonies, because they had faith in their free political institutions; and they had so much pride in the fortunes of their countrymen abroad that they naturally wanted to see them prosper. Moreover, as workmen, and representatives of workmen, they wanted the fullest possible outlet for the labour and enterprise of
678
their own countrymen, and therefore they were all interested in seeing the Colonies prosper and in their having the closest relationship with us. But there was the old Scottish adage, which might be commended to the consideration of their Colonial brethren, and it was this, "If you want to make friends you must be friendly." It seemed to him a curious way of making friends that our Colonies should impose tariffs on our goods. There was nothing to prevent the fullest possible freedom of exchange of goods between ourselves and the Colonies, as far as he knew, on our side. He agreed with the President of the Board of Education that the best way to develope our commercial relations with the Colonies was that goods should tie taken freely as between them and the mother-country. It was quite true that we could set up preference for the Colonies if, in the first place, we imposed a tariff on food stuffs; but for his part he was not disposed to increase the price of food and to increase the difficulty of living among our people-here for the purpose of increasing our friendship with the Colonies. The interests of labour, social reform, the readjustment of the burdens of taxation, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire deplored as pressing so heavily on some members of the community—all these things were to be achieved, if at all, on the basis of free trade rather than upon the proposals put forward by the; mover of the Amendment. He must repeat the oft-told tale as to old age pensions, because they deplored that something had not been attempted as well as promised in regard to that matter. This theme had fired the imagination of the people, and had enabled politicians, especially Labour politicians, to got the ear of the electors and to be returned to Parliament. He had a Return ordered by the House of Commons at the instance of Mr. Burt, in 1903, entitled "Boards of Guardians. Persons in receipt of relief.'' It included a great many figures, and went to show that poverty in old age was a permanent feature of our social life—
"It appears that the proportion of paupers over sixty-five years of age has not varied much, though it has risen since the 1st of January, 1892, and that the proportion of paupers over sixty-five years of age to the estimated number of persons in England and

679
Wales over that age on the respective dates has remained almost the same. The total number of paupers over sixty-five years of age has on each date formed more than half the total number of paupers over sixteen years of age. The table shows that a larger proportion of the total number of aged paupers have boon relieved by admission to workhouses and infirmaries on each succeeding date."
He thought they were all agreed as to the problem and as to the remedy, which was a system of pension upon a non-contributory basis. The junior Member for the City of London had said there were 5,000 pensioners on the funds of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers' trade union organisation, and he put it to the House that what had been accomplished in that way could also be done by everybody else, and in that way the pension question could be solved. He differed from the hon. Baronet in that respect. It was true that the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, of which he was proud to be chief officer, had been able to provide for 5,000 pensions in that way, and the reason was that they had been able through trade unions to wrest from capital a little over and above the average requirements of the workpeople. But this could not apply to such people as agricultural labourers and the poor women workers in mills and factories, and other people engaged in the sweated industries. To talk of such people saving up for their old age through any system of mutual help or individual thrift was discreditable to the heart as well as to the head of those who made such a statement. Upon this question, where he differed with the Government was in regard to the urgency of the problem. In his opinion the provision of old age pensions was infinitely more important than giving relief to men with incomes up to £2,000 a year. They had had in the past a great many promises with regard to old age pensions. Such pensions formed the chief item in the programme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in 1895. He did net wish to go back so far, and he would content himself with reminding hon. Members of what took place only three months ago when it fell to his lot to propose an Amendment to the King's Speech, regretting that no provision had been made for old age pensions this year. On that occasion he made a forecast as to the amount of funds which would be
680
at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he urged the Government not to go in for retrenchment without reform, and not to relieve the income-tax payer in preference to a fair consideration of the old and needy. He reminded the Government on that occasion of the thousands of speeches made by hon. Gentlemen opposite before they were elected, and he told them that if they did not consider this subject they would belie all those speeches. The Chancellor of the Exchequer at once hastened to assure them, on behalf of the Government, of his entire sympathy with the objects he had described, and the Labour Members in their simplicity took the right lion. Gentleman to mean that he meant business. Consequently they withdrew the Amendment and refrained from voting in the subsequent division which was claimed by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. Now they found that the Budget was by no means different in its essentials from the Budgets which had been introduced for the last twenty years. Stripped of its embellishments what did the Budget moan? It simply gave to those who had, and took away the hope which was the all of many an old man and woman who had been looking forward to these pensions. He was opposed to relieving the income-tax payer until old ago pensions had been provided. If any relief had to be given it most certainly should have been given to those who were suffering from the sugar tax, and to the poor people who consumed sugar. the free breakfast table had again been relegated to the dim and distant future, and the poor old folk would have to go to their graves with the hope "deferred that maketh the heart sick," in order that the man with £2,000 a year might be relieved of a contribution which would in each case have provided two old age pensions upon the scale they were asking for them. He was aware it had been stated that a definite promise had been made that something would be done next year. Personally he would rather have the sparrow in the hand than the bird of Paradise in the land of promise. He would much rather have had the £2,000,000 which had been thrown away in relieving the income-tax payer, and as much more as they could get, this year, instead of waiting until the dim and distant future. This Budget was a mere pandering to the City dork and the

681
small gentry who thought themselves superior persons, and took their politics from the Daily Mail. He believed this scheme would fail, the Daily Mail would start another hare, and nothing would be gained by the Government, who might just as well devoted that £2,000,000 to a good democratic purpose. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was relying upon further economies next year through a better system of income-tax collection and other things, and in that way he hoped to have funds to be able to start with old age pensions. But what would happen if those things did not come off? He would remind the House that already £650,000 had been taken for another purpose. He was afraid that the poor old men and women who had been looking forward hopefully would next year again be disappointed and have to go short. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made his announcement by saying that that would be the policy of the Government "if they were allowed to have their way," and, he said, that was ft, very big "if." He would like to know who was going to stop them having their way. They had a majority which consisted for the most part of hon. Gentlemen who were willing and anxious to give them all the support necessary to carry out this long-promised reform, and if the Government did not have their own way in the matter there would be nobody to blame but themselves. The promise of a start next year really carried but little consolation to his mind. There had been in the past promises of a far more definite character which to this day remained unfulfilled. On the 19th February last year they were promised in the most definite manner possible in the King's Speech an Amendment to the Unemployed Workmen's Act. Five months after that the same promise was repeated through the mouth of the President of the Local Government Board, and they were now just as far off realising that promise as over they were. Consequently, these promises carried with them very little consolation. A good deal of revenue had been sacrificed to improve the national credit, but he thought the same results might have been achieved by the inauguration of some system of old age pensions, because it was well known that if they increased the purchasing power of the working classes they at the same time increased their economic
682
effectiveness, and greased the wheels of industry and benefited all round. Those for whom he spoke were profoundly discontented and dissatisfied because nothing had yet been done to carry out those promises, in regard to the question of old age pensions, which had been made by politicians on both sides of the House, as the result of which high hopes had been entertained. He hoped that the pressure would be kept up this year, and that the Government would at the earliest possible moment make a really good start in earnest to carry this reform into effect. How to raise the money was a matter which rested primarily with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was aware that it was a very big task, but he knew that it was not going to be solved by tinkering with such quack remedies as those which had been proposed from hon. Members sitting above the gangway. He honestly believed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the means at his disposal to accomplish this reform quite consistently with the great principles of free trade. He wished to dissociate himself from the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Wirral on Friday last in reference to the income-tax, when he said that he believed the money could be raised by an income-tax which should start right at the bottom and go on in an increasing ratio right up to the top. He was not in favour of imposing an income-tax upon a man with £1 a week, because the State had no right to tax any man until the means at his disposal were sufficient to allow him to live in health and comfort. A man with £1 a week could not live that life. Therefore he was not in favour of that way of collecting the tax. Nor was he in favour of imposing additional burdens on the local authority for this purpose. It seemed to him that there were many poor localities where the people were in need of old age pensions, which had sufficient burdens to bear at the present moment without increasing them to the extent of 10 per cent. It seemed to him that the most hopeful method of getting the money was by taxing the wealth of the country—taxing those people who received large sums of money which he believed were social in their origin and therefore ought to be taxed for social purposes. There were 275,000 people in this country who,

683
according to the hon. Member for North Paddington, took one-third of the national income. A tax of 5 per cent, might be taken from those incomes, or they might graduate the tax in such a way as to take most from those who were at the top. There were 750,000 people with over £700 a year, and a tax of 5 per cent, in their case would realise £29,000,000, a sum sufficient to provide for old age pensions, for a better system of education, and for carrying out a great many other reforms which were ardently desired by himself and his friends. They were told that 16,000 people in the country had incomes of over £5,000 a year. That amounted to £200,000,000 every year, and here again a tax of o per cent, could raise something like £20,000,000 a year, a sum more than sufficient, taking into consideration the economies that might be effected in Poor Law administration, to provide the old age pensions they were pleading for. These were one or two of the directions in which money could be obtained, and in which new sources of revenue of a more sensible and scientific character could be tapped, than those urged from the Benches above the gangway. He and his friends hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would open his heart and yet induce the Government to do something at an earlier date than he mentioned in introducing the Budget in order to give effect to the many promises made on this question and to inaugurate a system of old age pensions which would relieve those people who had been looking forward so hopefully to the Budget and also take away from this rich and powerful country the stigma of leaving its aged veterans to taper off their lives in the shadow of the workhouse.
MR. BOTTOMLEYsaid he was not astonished that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer should have moved this Amendment. He could not resist the opinion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had almost invited it. For, after nearly two years of office and in times of unprecedented prosperity, he came before the House and said, "Here am I, a great free trade Chancellor, representing a Government pledged to the dual policy of maintaining the national credit and of promoting social reform, obliged to admit at the outset that the
684
penny I took off tea last year has done no-good to anyone, and that it is impossible to-day to make any further concessions off any of the food taxes—tea, sugar, coffee, cocoa, and other articles of food must still bear their heavy burdens. All I can do it to make some slight modification of the income-tax in favour of people with incomes under £2,000 a year; whilst as regards old age pensions, to-which I am pledged up to the hilt, the utmost I can do is," and here he would draw the special attention of the Labour Party to the Chancellor's words when introducing his Budget—
"to begin to provide the nucleus of a fund—"
and
"to lay firm the foundations of this reform,"
language about as vague as any Minister could possibly use, and as subtle as that which the Chancellor adopted when he proclaimed himself an enemy, in times of peace, of a uniform income-tax at the rate of 1s. in the £. That little word "uniform" possessed virtue which few people suspected at the time. Looking at the Amendment, as it stood upon the Paper, he was not sure that he ought not to vote for it. It simply suggested that the basis of taxation should be broadened in order that certain burdens at present pressing upon the community might be more equitably adjusted and lightened. he remembered Lord Brampton, when Mr. Justice Hawkins, once telling him that he was frequently convinced of the innocence of a prisoner until he heard his defence And so, when they were asked to read into those words the particular meaning ascribed to them by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was with reluctance that he turned away from the Amendment, and asked himself whether, within the limits of our present fiscal system, it was possible to accomplish the objects to which the Chancellor and his Government were pledged. At any rate, he proposed to offer certain suggestions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the hope that when he made his next Budget speech, he would have found some better solution of the difficulty than the hazardous proposals of the Party opposite. He would not, however, be content if, in a year's time, the right hon. Gentleman was still unable to do more than 'begin to provide the nucleus of a fund.' That was far too remote an achievement. The right hon. Gentleman

685
might just as well speak about beginning to produce a protoplasm and then claim that he had brought into being a fully developed human creature in all the glory of robust manhood. What had the Chancellor of the Exchequer done in regard to this important reform of old age pensions? He had taken £1,500,000 off his estimated surplus, and ear-marked it, so he told them, as the nucleus of the fund. But where was it? As a matter of fact he had placed it to the credit of the New Sinking Fund, and he asked how was it to be got back without special legislation? Suppose in the meantime it had been spent? What about the £600,000 it was proposed to hand over to Ireland in connection with the Devolution Bill? And who knew what other special demands, unforseen by the Chancellor to-day, might arise during the financial year? Then there was to be £750,000 uncollected balance from the income-tax making with the £1,500,000, if they got it, a total sum of £2,250,000 as the 'firm foundation of this reform.' They had been told again and again on behalf of the Government that a system of old age pensions of 5s. per week to every person of sixty-five years and upwards would require a sum of at least £28,000,000. He did not agree with the figure, and he would endeavour in a moment to show that it was grossly exaggerated, but assuming it for the moment to be correct, it followed that all the Chancellor of the Exchequer could say was that under the present system of taxation the very best he could do towards an old-age pension system was that if he spent the whole capital and got the same sum every year the amount he gave, namely £2,250,000, would just give 4¾d. per week for every person over sixty-five years of age.
THE CHANCELLOK OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH,): I have not said so.
MR. BOTTOMLEYsaid the right hon. Gentleman very properly corrected him and said that he had not even promised that. He was only drawing the inference that with £2,250,000 in hand, and that being the only sum which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had earmarked for the purpose, it was only equivalent to 4¾d. a week. If they treated it as a capital
686
sum, it came only to a farthing per week for every person over sixty-five years of age. The point he wished to put before the House was that they had been very much misled in regard to the language used on this problem. It had been said again and again that £28,000,000 or £29,000,000 was necessary. According to the President of the Local Government Board he at present spent £10,000,000 a year on the maintenance of paupers and criminal lunatics. These people, who were at present maintained at the expense of the State, would have to be maintained whether there were old-age pensions or not, and therefore they were entitled to deduct £10,000,000 from the £28,000,000. [Cries of "No, no."]
*MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that the cost of maintaining paupers, and pauper lunatics in the United Kingdom was £16,500,000. The £10,000,000 to which the hon. Member referred were applied to a different condition of things—to granting pensions to 200,000 members of the Army, Navy and Civil Services.
MR. BOTTOMLEYsaid that even so, a sum of at least £8,000,000 might be reduced from the £28,000,000 or £29,000,000 which were required for an old age pension scheme at the age of sixty-five years. Then it had been assumed that everyone in the country at the age of sixty-five would claim the pension; but his belief was that an enormous number of people would not do so. He did not approve of the proposal that people should have to attend at their town hall and wait outside the door like a theatre queue for their pensions, but he did suggest that under any scheme they should at least have to make some application for the pension, and it was certain that a very large percentage would not do so. Taking all these considerations together, he had come to the conclusion that £12,000,000 is the outside sum which would be required for a scheme of 5s. per week at the age of sixty-five. He suggested that there were one or two sources open to the Chancellor of the Exchequer without adopting those suggested by the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. He had always been of opinion that a tax of a penny in the pound should be imposed on all employers on the

687
wages which they paid. That would be a tax easily collectable, and would produce a sum of nearly £5,000,000 a year. It was ridiculous co suggest that large employers of labour, say with 5,000 men or more in their workshops, would be crippled by such a tax. The income of this country divided itself automatically into sections. It amounted to £2,000,000,000—£1,000,000,000 was derived from profits in trade in the United Kingdom, and £1,000,000,000 from investments abroad; and 1d. in the £ on these latter would bring in £5,000,000 a year; and it would not press hardly on any section of the community. There never had been a more futile reason urged against a complete system of graduation or differentiation of the income-tax than that advanced—that they should not overwork a Government Department! The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that his object was to maintain the national credit and to provide means for carrying out social reforms. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the chief difficulty was that they could not get people to declare truly what their income was. He could not help thinking that that was a sorry confession to make after fifty years of simple Bible teaching; and that they could not trust Bishops. Judges or even Cabinet Ministers to set out in a return the truth as to the amount of their income. He suggested that every member of the community should be bound to disclose his income. At present we had nominally, although by no means actually, an income-tax of Is. in the £, or o per cent. If this tax were equitably adjusted so as to produce its full yield, taking the national income at £2,000,000,000 per year, the present income-tax should produce £100,000,000 instead of £30,000,000. His suggestion was that 5 per cent, should be reduced to 2½, or 6d. in the £, and that it should be so graduated as ultimately to yield the amount, which would mean a net revenue of £50,000,000 against the present £30,000,000, or again of £20,000,000 per year. There alone they would have a surplus much more than sufficient to provide the old age pension fund. He suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should sometimes take into his confidence and counsel business men who could indicate to him how large sums which at present eluded the vigilance of his officials could be
688
gathered in. It was indisputable among business circles in the City of London that from £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 per annum were lost to the revenue from investments abroad. He heard a gentleman in the City the other day declare that every farthing of his company's fund was invested abroad, although they looked to the English Government to protect their interests. There were, he thought, methods by which, without great ingenuity, the profits on those investments abroad could be taxed. He did not know whether it would violate copy-book text books, but his opinion was that the incomes derived from foreign investments should be taxed higher than those derived from home investments. Such a tax would bring in at least £2,000,000 a year under a proper revision of the income-tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had hinted at a tax on motor-cars; that the running of motorcars was not only a luxury but a luxury with a tendency to degenerate into a nuisance. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, and he thought that it would have been quite possible without waiting to readjust the Local Taxation Account to tax motor-cars. Again, an enormous revenue might be gathered from a tax on advertisements, as in Franco. That would be no tax on knowledge; and would not be grudged by advertisers, largo or small. Another source of income would be a tax on theatre tickets, as in France. It could be easily collected. Then, an enormous income was derived in France from racing. Some hon. Gentlemen were shocked at such a proposal, although they were quite complaisant about the still greater revenue derived in this country from the drink traffic. They held up their hands in holy horror at the idea of the State deriving a revenue from betting and horse-racing as a State recognition of a great vice. That reminded him of the Roman Emperor who was rebuked for having derived a tax from some tainted source and who took a handful of the money and smelt it, and said "non old—." If, having established the principle of reaping £30,000,000 a year from the drink traffic, was there not stupidity in refusing to reap a revenue from betting and racing? He had put a question to the Home Secretary that day, in which he had asked whether the attendances at racecourses

689
since the Street Betting Bill had been passed had not enormously increased, and the right hon. Gentleman admitted that it was so. As a matter of fact there was no standing out against the betting and gambling instincts of mankind, although the evils of gambling were fearfully exaggerated. Millions of money were, however, turned over every year in connection with betting in one form or another, and if the Government would only take its courage in both hands, and say, as they said with regard to the drink traffic, "We will tax the gambling habits of the people, and, by so doing, regulate them as we cannot do at present," they might derive from such a system a revenue of between two and three millions a year. He knew that the idea, like all great ideas, would take two or three years to develop; but after the next general election they might have a more level-headed man at the head of affairs, who would see that he could make two or three millions a year out of horse-racing, and who would be willing to garner it in to the credit of the State, it was a strange and amazing thing that this, the richest country in the world, with the largest credit in the world, was unable to provide its aged people with the decencies of humanity and the ordinary comforts of life. Whatever the hon. Member for Preston or the hon. Member for the City of London might say, he did not think that was a proper state of things. As to the hon. Member for the City of London, he had no constituents who were interested in this matter, except a few asthmatical housekeepers; so that he could afford to sneer at the workers of the country. He was unable to understand the position which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken up. They had waited patiently for nearly two years, and personally he was prepared to wait another year, to give him the fullest opportunity of considering whether, and without the violent disruption of our fiscal system which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed, it was possible to carry out the Government's policy of national credit and social reform. If when the time came he had made no further progress, he confessed he would listen with a more sympathetic ear than he did to-day to the voice of the charmer on the Front Opposition Bench. He did not appreciate the national credit which
690
said that the greatest and richest country on earth was unable to provide the funds for admittedly urgent social needs. We had long since acknowledged the principle that it was the duty of the State to protect its young, and despite all doctrinaire objections, we now recognised a similar obligation towards the old. A revolution in our fiscal policy was an enormous risk to take, but he would almost rather face it than be forced to admit such utter helplessness and despair as that which characterised this year's Budget. Whilst he would vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, he would do so with the fullest reservation of his freedom next year to reconsider the position if a brilliant and able Free Trade Chancellor, such as they had today, again came forward and told them, with all the responsibility of his knowledge and his position, that wealthy England was unable, without the indignities of the Poor Law and the gloom of workhouse, to provide its aged and helpless poor with the decencies of civilisation and the primary comforts of humanity.
*MR. LYTTELTON: I do not wish to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in the numerous and ingenious suggestions he has made, but I think we may fairly claim that after his remarks he should vote for the Amendment and against the Government of which he is supposed to be one of the supporters. I do not think anyone can doubt that, during the last three weeks, the principles that lie at the base of this Amendment have received very great and remarkable stimulus. We shall all agree that the revenue of the country should be equitably raised, and that it should interfere as little as possible with the processes of production. The Members on this side of the House also maintain that in raising that revenue the interests of the Empire as a whole, as well as those of the United Kingdom, should be considered. That principle has received during the last few months remarkable corroboration at the hands of the Government. The Minister who is responsible in this House for Colonial affairs has welcomed with the utmost cordiality the forging between the Colonies of those very bonds which have, in another connection, been described as "squalid."

691
The President of the Board of Trade is reported to have said at the Colonial Conference that the Empire would be a great gainer if much that was now-bought from foreign countries could be produced and purchased within the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged the advantage conferred on the British manufacturer by the existing Colonial preference, and expressed gratitude for the spirit of comradeship and affection which inspired that policy. These admissions show a great advance in opinion on the Ministerial side of the House. The basis of taxation needs widening, not in the sense referred to by the Minister for Education, but in the sense of bringing a greater number of commodities under taxation. I wish to appeal to orthodox free traders on this point. Is it or is it not contrary to the old free-trade doctrine to bring an additional number of commodities under taxation1? Fifty or sixty years ago Mr. Gladstone, when taking off a great number of duties, spoke of the enormous burden resting on the taxpayer, and expressed a doubt, in view of the magnitude of the national expenditure, whether the proposals he was making could long be maintained. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will recognise the authority in this matter of Sir George Cornewall Lewis, who said that if he were to define a good system of taxation it would be a system bearing lightly on a great number of points and heavily on none.
MR. ASQUITH: What was the date?
*MR. LYTTELTON: That was in 1857. To keep the taxes on existing commodities in their present state and impose; more would, I agree, be to tax the poor more heavily; but the case would be different if we lessen those taxes some-what, brought a greater number of commodities into the area of taxation, and diffused the burden. The advantage of this would be great, but we should, as an additional advantage, have the opportunity of introducing the principle of Colonial preference. I cannot help thinking that the attitude taken up
692
by the Government at the conference and in the House of Commons to-night is really based on the dogma which has existed for some sixty years in England, which lays down that if ever a tax on a commodity coming into this country though imposed for revenue only should benefit a producer of the commodity in this country, then you must have a countervailing excise, or the tax is unsound. You must tax for revenue only. Is that principle based on any consideration of human nature? If it was claimed that it was, I should deny it entirely. Suppose I have to pay a tax on an article, should I pay it the less because one of my neighbours was going to be benefited by the fact that I paid it? Surely not. Take the tax on tobacco, a commodity on which we pay the appalling tax of 500 per cent. Should I pay it with more reluctance because I knew that some of my hon. friends from Ireland were going to get some benefit out of it for the Irish tobacco growing industry? I do not believe in the truth of the consideration of human nature in the least. It seems to me to be on a par with an argument greatly used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing his Budget, namely, that every taxpayer expects the exact mathematical burden of a tax to rest on his shoulders equally with the rest of the community. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in objecting to Colonial preference, said it is impossible to tax all members of the Empire with exact mathematical accuracy.
MR. ASQUITH: I have never advocated exact mathematical accuracy. I said you cannot do it—you cannot come to anything like even remote approximation to accuracy.
*MR. LYTTELTON: Of course, I accept the correction; but I say that my right hon. friend's corrected statement is equally unsound. The Colonists are practical men. They know the conditions of their own Colonies, and of this country. They are not so utterly unreasonable as to suppose that all those conditions can be equated, and they would be perfectly ready to accept an advantage, even

693
though the advantage be less to some than to others. I say, therefore, that this dogma, which has hung round the neck of the fiscal system of this country for fifty years, is not based on human nature; it is based not on real human nature, but on a fiction which the Treasury tells in is human nature. I put it again to the House that, if anyone pays a tax, the circumstance that some of the payer's neighbours get a little advantage over his foreign competitors out of the payment, so far from causing anxiety, will give him nothing but pleasure. If that is so, surely also the fact that the levying of a tax enables the Government which levies it to differentiate that tax in favour of the Colonies, as distinct from those who are not members of the Empire, ought to be a circumstance in its favour. So much the more now, because the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the custom of the Colonies is now a matter of the greatest importance, and in future will probably be of vital necessity to this country. If that be so, may we not invoke another argument? Will any man of business deny that an individual trader will often make a small sacrifice in purchasing a commodity if by doing so he will not encourage or stimulate the trade of a rival? Suppose there is a competition between A. and B., and suppose B. can sell to A. cheaper than C, D., and E., A. would make a little sacrifice rather than add to his power. It is frequent in business that a man, rather than add to the power of a rival, will make temporary sacrifice so as not to advantage one whose competition is acute.
*MR. MOND: I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but as he challenged business men, as a business man I wish to say that I do not agree with him. If those are his views on business I am very glad for his own sake that he is not in business.
*MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to hon. Members that they have no right to interrupt in order to make such statements as that just made. If an hon. Member has any arguments to bring forward the proper time is to do so when he is making a speech. He should not do it by interpolation.
*MR. LYTTELTON: I gave way because by the courtesy and custom of
694
this House if any hon. Member has a statement to make it is usual to do so; but when advantage is taken of that courtesy to make a rude and, as I think, an irrelevant remark, it certainly does not encourage the continuance of what, before the hon. Member was a Member of this House, was a courtesy readily accorded. Notwithstanding the hon. Members authority, if he has any in the matter, I will say without the slightest fear of contradiction that in many cases a trader will find it better policy to make some sacrifice rather than increase and thus cheapen his competitor's output. The object of colonial preference is the joint prosperity of the United Kingdom and of the Colonies, and the essence of it is that we should strengthen our allies rather than our rivals. The discredit which the President of the Board of Education sought to attach to colonial preference on historical grounds, namely, the friction which he alleged existed in the past, is perfectly easily understood, if you read history carefully. The reason was that preferences were imposed on the Colonies in favour of the Mother Country, and by the Mother Country. It is absurd to confuse the results of such colonial preference as this with the results of those. The present proposals have nothing to do with the imposition, by force or with a high hand, on the Colonies. On the contrary no advocate of Preference has ever passed beyond the principle recognised and expressed in the clearest terms by the late Lord Salisbury: give nothing to the Colonies except that which you can freely give to them and take nothing from them except what you can freely receive. The whole system is to be on a voluntary basis. I quite accept that. From this Government, pledged as they are, the Colonies could not expect any great or radical change in the fiscal system of the country, but I think the Government, without any sacrifice of principle or setting aside a single pledge made at the election might have taken the position that out of the existing taxes they might have made a trifling sacrifice of revenue without putting on a single extra tax, in order to establish the principle. I think the Colonies are entitled by their kinship with us and by the immense expectations we have from them in the future to the admission of the principle. I regret the Government have not seen their way to do that: not indeed

695
as a Party man, for I can imagine nothing in the face of the movement of public opinion that will ultimately advantage us more than the attitude of Ministers who have asserted that a system which has only been in existence for some fifty or sixty years is unalterable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues have drawn the inference that the Colonial Premiers are asking for something unreasonable, and upon what is that supposition based? Upon nothing except the belief that our present fiscal system is so perfect that it cannot, even for a gain so splendid, receive the slightest modification. These are the grounds which make me give my adhesion to this Amendment, with the greatest possible enthusiasm, and I can only say that, four years from now, if this Conference again assembles, the right hon. Gentlemen, whoever they may be, who have to meet our Colonial friends, will, in Imperial interests, find themselves forced to give way in this matter.
MR. LAMBTONsaid the speech just delivered differed very much in tone from that of the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman who hid just spoken had asked a Question about the Colonial Conference—why ought we not to meet the wishes of the Colonial Premiers? He had spoken in a more statesmanlike manner than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, who had said that the Colonial Premiers had been met with a brutal refusal, while his right hon. friend had said that he had never expected that the Colonial Premiers would receive a favourable answer from the Government. He did not see that there was any reason why the Colonial Premiers should expect from the Government, at the head of a Free Trade Parliament, any other answer than that which they had received. His right hon. friend the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, had said that preference might be given to the Colonies without altering taxation, and he understood that these preferences were to be exceedingly slight. It would be almost laughing at the Colonies to offer them such a thing. His hon. friend the Member for Aston had alluded to South African wines. He really thought that they would not satisfy South Africa by giving her pre-
696
ference on wines. Who drank South African wines?
*MR. LYTTELTON: Dr. Jameson said he would very much like to see a preference given.
MR. LAMBTONsaid he knew that Dr. Jameson had said that he would very much like it, but we had our interests to consider, and we could not take our policy from the Colonial Premiers. Let them take, for instance, South African wines; how were they going to give the Colonies a preference on them? We did not drink so much wine now as we did some time back. Why was that? The public taste had altered. Was the hon. Gentleman going to dictate to the public of England what sort of wine they were to drink by imposing an import duty? If the people said that they did not want South African wines, Dr. Jameson would then say that the preference was of no good, and that they must put a higher tax on French and German wines in order to force the English people to drink South African wines. That would occur in most of the cases which the hon. Gentleman had put before them. He had never had much doubt about the meaning of the Amendment himself. From its wording it might have a good many meanings, but the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in moving it had dispelled that idea, for his speech was purely and simply protectionist. There was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Aston; it was not so long nor so complicated as that of the right hon. Gentleman, but it carried out the wishes of hon. Gentlemen on those benches who called themselves tariff reformers. The hon. Member for Aston's Amendment was blunt and straightforward. The official Amendment was rather like an overdressed Lady Godiva. He wanted to know why his hon. friends were afraid to call their proposals protection. Was not protection their aim and object? They must know that they were protectionists. Tariff reform as they presented it was protection. There might be a difference, but it was a very slight one and required considerable talent to find it out. The difference was exactly the same as the difference between grilse and salmon. Just as

697
the grilse became salmon when it went into the deep sea, so the tariff reformer became a protectionist when he reached the city of Birmingham. Why should they be afraid of being called protectionists? They were never tired of abusing free trade and appealing to foreign countries. We were asked, "Are all these foreigners fools?" If they were, they were not ashamed of their folly. Why were tariff reformers? Why did they depreciate free trade if they did not want to get rid of it. They were always appreciating protection. Why did they appreciate it unless they wanted to justify it? He was reminded of the custom of the market. They wanted to barter for free trade and they went about abusing free trade. It was like the Vicar of Wakefield's horse sent to the fair. In treating with the dealers at the fair Dr. Primrose was told that the horse was "a blind spavinned galled hack only fit for the dog kennel." Dr. Primrose said—
"By this time I had a most hearty contempt for the animal myself; I did not believe all they told me, yet from the number of witnesses I was under a strong presumption that they were right."
On the Opposition Benches there was a band of witnesses against free trade, but he would not join that band of witnesses. He could not give evidence contrary to his convictions, and he would not be an accessory to what he believed to be a crime against his country. He did not know how many there were, but he believed that there were many Members on that side of the House who shared his views. How many would come forward openly to state their objections to the Amendment he did not know, but he did know there were hundreds of thousands of Unionists in the country who would be grievously disappointed if they did not maintain in that House the principles which they adopted in the country. It might be pleaded that the unity of or loyalty to the party was a reason for adopting a policy which had shattered the Unionist Party, and, which in the end, if persisted in, would ruin the party. The candid friend was a very disagreeable person, but at all events he was more loyal than a false flatterer. What excuse had been adduced for this Amendment? Nothing and been urged, no new argument had been advanced, nothing but what had
698
been refuted hundreds and thousands of times during the last four years. The only reason for the Amendment seemed to be that the tariff reformers were trying to raise sympathy and popularity, because at the present moment the Colonial Conference was taking place. They waved the Imperial flag in one hand, and in the other the Hag of social reform, old age pensions, and many other impossible promises. He must say that he viewed with great concern this attempt to introduce the Colonies into a party question. The Colonial Premiers came here, as they had a perfect right to do, and the country, whose hospitality had been exorcised, took great interest in them. The people of this country would feel sorry if their guests went empty away. He did not believe they would. He would ask hon. Members, were they prepared to give the Colonial Ministers everything they asked? Did they think that the Colonial Premiers, who had perfect liberty in their own countries over their own fiscal systems, should have a voice in the conduct of our fiscal arrangements? Would his hon. friends attach the same importance to the views of the Colonial Premiers on the Irish Council Bill, or on the larger policy to which that Bill would lead? There was no doubt in the world that home Rule in Ireland would lead to protection, most probably to preference with the Colonies, and if the Colonial Premiers argued on that ground that they must give Home Rule to Ireland, would his hon. friends on those benches listen to such an argument? He thought that this was a great and serious occasion for the Unionist Party. It was a deliberate attempt by this Amendment to bind round the neck of the party the policy of protection. Why should they undertake these pledges? What was the necessity? In the Amendment his right hon. friend promised all sorts of things. He spoke of the "anomalies and hardships inseparable from the present high rate of particular taxes," which he said "may be diminished, the revenue necessary for the public service and for social reform raised with fairness to all classes of the community, and our fiscal system adapted to the present condition of national and Imperial trade," Why did hon. Members of his side want to hang these pledges round their necks? They were perfectly well aware that

699
these taxes would in the long run be imposed, not because they would benefit the State, but because they would benefit someone else. That was observable in America, and yet there were hon. Members who said they wished to improve the trade of the country by imposing onerous conditions which would do no good to any man. They seemed to think that the more taxes there were the better it would be. There was a good deal of talk about goods "made in Germany." They would only be displaced by goods "taxed in Birmingham," and they would not be in any better position if we taxed thorn. It was a strange anomaly that hon. Members should suggest that we I should tax everything because a man had I to pay more for everything he used from his cradle to his coffin. These suggestions were embodied in this Amendment. They had been told by the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire that this Amendment was moved for other purposes as well. These other purposes were to capture the froe traders who still remained in the party. He had some doubts whether they would go so far as to oppose the Amendment, but after the purely protectionist speeches f they had heard it was the duty of hon. Members who believed in free trade to vote. What are they afraid of? Personally, he would not sit in this House one hour if he could not voice his opinion. Some of them might lose their seats, but at all events they would retain their honour."
*SIR EDWARD SASSOONsaid the Minister for Education had stated that the effect of the argument used by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer would be to tax the poor more and relieve the rich. In the absence of the President of the Board of Education, he would like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he thought that all those legislative projects introduced by the President of the Board of Trade, the main object of which was to protect and defend the rights of British industries and British workmen, were tarred with the same brush, and tended towards injuring the poor and benefiting the rich. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the paucity and the meager-ness of the concessions foreshadowed by the Australian Premier. He wished to state that the Australians had not had
700
a proper chance of drawing up any outlined scheme in consequence of the way in which they had been treated by the Government, because they were given plainly to understand beforehand that chore was not even a shade of a shadow of a chance of the British Government, pledged as they were to the status quo of the present fiscal system, of even considering any preferential arrangement that might be outlined by the Colonial Premiers. The Minister for Education had said that the arguments they used against accepting the Colonial terms would have been the very arguments, the Colonies themselves would have used if we had asked them to change their fiscal policy. Did the right hon. Gentleman think the 33⅓ per cent, preference which Canada gave to this country constituted no derogation from the advantages Canada would have received if instead of doing that she had given that preference to the United States? Statistics proved conclusively that the granting of this preference to the Mother Country by Canada, had had the effect, not only of checking the dwindling away of British trade with Canada, but it had enormously added to its volume and importance. How could they expect the Colonies to come forward with any cut and dried scheme when they knew that the Government were absolutely opposed to even the smallest departure from the basis of existing taxation? In every part of the country it had been argued that the Canadian preference would he of no advantage to this country, and that it was given by Canada as a sort of attempt to extort further concessions from the Government. He thought the ascription of motives in this way was a very undesirable method to adopt even in regard to foreigners, but it was a still more undesirable course to pursue when dealing with a race of people of whom they were proud, and with whom they desired to carry on larger commercial relations. He looked upon this Budget as absolutely a Budget of despair. Not satisfied with the enormous revenue which the death duties and the income-tax at 1s. in the £ produced, the Chancellor of the Exchequer continued to pile on the agony. He thought he was quite justified in asking whether in any of those countries where democracy was in the ascendancy such taxes as those he had alluded to, so withering and blighting in their character, had been

701
sanctioned. It was quite obvious that hon. Gentlemen opposite had yet to learn that capital, unlike labour, was extremely fluid, and when they tried to crush it out of existence, it was then that its mobile character became apparent; it sought more congenial surroundings. And yet, with all these disquieting prospects before him, the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused absolutely to turn to a perfectly legitimate and reliable source of taxation. For all his terrific onslaughts on every form of property, delivered and foreshadowed, what had the Chancellor of the Exchequer to show? A mere £2,000,000 for some scheme of old age pensions that would cost at least £26,000,000. There was absolutely no demand for old age pensions from the prudent and thrifty amongst the members of friendly societies. In any scheme of old age pensions it was the personal contributory element which alone could free it from the stigma of pauperism and charity, and that feature was conspicuously absent from the scheme which had been put forward.
And, it being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATIOX BILL. (BY ORDER.)
As amended, considered.
Mr. FERENSmoved to insert the following proviso to Clause 5: "Provided also that no allowance shall be made for compulsory sale, but the arbitrator, arbitrators, or umpire, who shall determine such price or consideration (in this section called 'the court'), may make such allowance as they think just for re-coupment of any loss of interest pending reinvestment, as well as for the cost of reinvestment, and for covering any costs, charges, and expenses (other than costs in curred in any arbitration under this Act), which have been, or are likely to be, incurred in consequence of the passing of this Act by the company or the stockholders therein, and which ought, in the opinion of the court, to be borne by the corporation." He said the gas supply of Hull had until recently been in the hands s of three companies—the British Gas Light
702
Company, the Kingston upon Hull Gas Company, and the East Hull Gas Company. In addition to the gas under-taking, the corporation owned the water, the electric lighting, the electric power, and the tramway undertakings. Perhaps he was not exaggerating when he said that the tramway system was the best in the country. Those industrial undertakings had been so well managed by the corporation as to contribute to the reduction of the rates between £20,000 and £30,000 per annum. The East Hull Gas Company affected by this Bill were established in 1846 and obtained their first Parliamentary powers in 1867. The Hull Corporation for many years had intended to purchase the East Hull Gas Company when the opportunity came. In the last session of Parliament the gas company promoted a Bill to enable them to raise a large sum of ad ditional capital and also to obtain further powers, to which it was not necessary to refer in detail. The corporation were not informed of the intended promotion of that Bill and were not aware of the promotion until after the last day fixed by the standing orders to take the first steps in the promotion of a Bill them solves, and were not, therefore, in a position to promote a Bill last year to purchase the company's undertaking. They, however, opposed the company's Bill upon the ground that they should have an opportunity of purchasing the undertaking, and at their instance the Committee of the House of Commons to whom the Bill was referred, which was presided over by the hon. and gallant Member for the Abercromby Division, inserted a clause to the effect that if the corporation promoted a Bill in Parliament in the present session to enable them to purchase the undertaking nothing contained in last year's Act should in any way prejudge or prejudice the question of purchase, and that if the corporation's Bill became law, the value of the company's undertaking should not be enhanced or depreciated by the passing of last year's Act. The corporation accordingly were promoting the present Bill to empower them to purchase the undertaking, and they had, of course, obtained the necessary sanction of the ratepayers. The Bill proposed that in case the two parties concerned could not agree as to price it should be referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Lands

703
Clauses Acts, and, as was well known, these provisions were the most favourable from the point of view of the vendor. There was no provision whatever, in the Lands Clauses Acts requiring that any additional allowance should be given in respect of compulsory purchase, but the practice had been, and was now, quite settled under those Acts, where the subject matter of the purchase was lands or buildings, to make an addition to the sum awarded on the ground that the purchase was compulsory. The reasons given for this practice varied, but it was apparently generally recognised that there were two principal reasons, namely—(1) That there might be a difficulty in accurately determining the value of land which might have some dormant value not ret developed—some possible appreciation in value; and (2) That where an owner was required against his will to part with land for which, owing to its having been in his family for years, or for other reasons, he might have an affection, something in the nature of solatium should be given to him. The usual practice in the case of lands and buildings was to make an allowance which was probably never less and sometimes exceeded 10 per cent Neither of the foregoing reasons had any application in the case of the purchase of a gas undertaking, particularly such an undertaking as the one dealt with in the present Bill. In such a ease as that, an experienced arbitrator, assisted on either side by valuers who were constantly dealing with questions of this kind, would have no difficulty in arriving at the true value of the undertaking. This was done by ascertaining from past experience what was the amount of maintainable profits which the company (having regard to the provisions limiting their profits) were entitled to distribute in the shape of dividends, and by multiplying the sum so arrived at by an appropriate number of years purchase so that each shareholder could re invest the money paid to him in other securities, equally safe, to produce exactly the same revenue. The dividend of the East Hull gas company was strictly limited to 7½ per cent., so that there was no fluctuation on the shares. In such a case as this, there could be no dormant value and the true value could be ascertained with great exactitude. The first reason, therefore, for which the allowance was given in the case of lands did not apply. Moreover, the second reason that
704
an allowance should be given as a solatium to the owner for parting with property for which he might have an affection, was hardly applicable in the case of a gas share. One could not well imagine any-one having a sentimental feeling for a gas share. Consequently, he submitted that the practice of making an allowance for compulsory purchase ought not to be applied in the case of the purchase of the present undertaking, and his Amendment accordingly proposed, in the first place, to exclude an allowance for compulsory purchase. In order, however, to treat the shareholders in the company quite fairly, the Amendment proceeded to provide that the arbitrators were to make such an allowance as they thought just for recoupment of any loss of interest pending reinvestment, for cost of reinvestment, and for certain other costs. Obviously it might take some time before the shareholder was able to reinvest the money which he received, and he might be put to some expense in the matter, and it was only fair that these circumstances should be taken into consideration and a proper allowance made accordingly. The provision was taken practically word for word from Section 23, Sub-section (8), of the Metropolis Water Act, 1902, under which eight water companies' undertakings in London were acquired by the Metropolitan Water Board. It would be remembered that that was a Government Bill under the late Government, the late President of the Local Government Board being responsible for it. It was a public Bill, but nevertheless it was referred to a Joint Select Committee of the two Houses of Parliament, and counsel were heard before the Committee on behalf of the Local Government Board and of the Water Companies. The question was, therefore, very adequately considered, and the clause was settled in a form which dealt fairly as between the ratepayers who were buying and the shareholders who were selling. He was not aware that any other precedent existed for the exact proposal now put forward, but in recent years there had been several Acts which excluded allowance for compulsory purchase, namely, the Tramways Act, 1870, Section 43, where dealing with the purchase of tramways; the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, where dealing with the purchase of electric lighting undertakings; the Housing of the Working Classes Act,

705
1890, and the Local Government Act, 1894, with reference to the purchase of lands by parish councils or for the purposes of allotments. He submitted that the provision excluding compensation for compulsory purchase was particularly applicable in the present case, because the shareholders would, in fact, receive from the corporation a good deal more than they had put into the concern. By their Act of 1867 the company were specially authorised to issue all their additional capital by auction or tender at the best price obtainable, but instead of adopting that course, and although the shares already issued were at a considerable premium, they had issued all additional capital to their own shareholders at par, practically, therefore, giving them a very considerable bonus. The proviso now proposed to be inserted was included in the original Bill which passed the Second Reading, but was struck out by the Committee. Apparently the Committee objected to the provision, not on its merits, but on the ground that its insertion would, in the absence of a precedent in a Bill to acquire a gas undertaking, be beyond their powers. When the question was being discussed by the Hon. J. D. Fitzgerald, K.C., on behalf of the promoters, he was stating that the Committee were sitting there as "legislators," when he was interrupted by the chairman, the hon. and learned Member for Rugby, who said—
"Oh, no. If you came to me as a legislator (I am speaking now of course personally, and not at all as Chairman of this Committee) if you came to me as a Member of the House of Commons and asked me to vote for the Second Reading of a Bill proposing something of this kind, I should give you an entirely different answer to the answer that should give you as a member of this Committee. As I understand, this Committee is bound by precedent and it is only entitled (as I understand the practice) to make a new precedent where a ease of public necessity or of local necessity is made out."
Moreover, in the announcement of the decision of the Committee in disallowing the proviso, the Chairman stated as follows—
"If this clause were allowed, in the opinion of the Committee, it would be the creation of precedent in the matter of compensation which they think, if it is to be created at all, must be created by Parliament itself in a public Bill."
He did not bring this Amendment forward in antagonism to the Police and
706
Sanitary Committee, but to give the House the opportunity of doing what the Committee felt was more than they ought to undertake. It was a very important matter and this was the only opportunity the House would have of considering the proposal. If it were necessary to do so for the present purposes, it might, with all respect to the Police and Sanitary Committee, be well contended that the Committee had underrated their powers. They were an unusually large and exceptionally strong Committee, and they should, he suggested, not hesitate to create a precedent if it were necessary to do so, in order that justice might be done; and he further submitted that justice would not be done as between the ratepayers of Hull and gas consumers on the one hand, and the shareholders in the company on the other hand, if the proviso were not inserted. Accepting, however, for the moment, the view of the Committee that a precedent, was necessary, it was submitted that such precedent was clearly provided by the Metropolis Water Act. The only possible distinction between the two cases was that in the London case the shareholders were making their income from the supply of water, and that here the shareholders in the company were making their income from supplying gas. This could not possibly affect the question as to whether the shareholders were to receive at the hands of the ratepayers more than the full value of their shares, together with such a sum as might be necessary to enable them to re-invest the purchase money without loss. Apart from the London precedent, there were also the Housing of the Working Classes Act and other public Acts. Moreover, Committees of Parliament were constantly modifying the Lands Clauses Acts, and in each case where this was done for the first time, a precedent was created "in the matter of compensation." For example—one of the principles of the Lands Clauses Acts was that the sum to be paid for the land was the value thereof to the vendor and that no deduction could be made in respect of any improved value which might attach to other lands held by him by reason of the execution of the improvement for which the lands were acquired. This principle was frequently put aside by Committees by the insertion of a provision to the effect that the tribunal were to take into account any

707
increase in value to the lands retained, which would result from the proposed works. Further, the Land Clauses Acts prohibited the compulsory acquisition of part only of a house. Committees were constantly excluding this provision and allowing part of a house to be acquired. Again the Lands Clauses Acts provided that in all cases the vendor was entitled to his costs unless the purchaser made an otter of a sum not less than that ultimately awarded. Committees frequently modified this provision so as to deprive the vendor of his costs if he did not give to the purchaser adequate information. Further, under the Lands Clauses Acts the value of the property sold was ascertained as on the date on which notice to treat was given, so that the vendor could erect buildings and create new interests in the property between the date of the passing of the Act and the service of the notice and thus increase the purchase money. Committees frequently amended this provision also by providing that no such buildings erected or interests created after a fixed date before the passing of the Act were to be allowed for. In those cases, it would be observed, the Lands Clauses Acts were amended, and precedents in each case were created in regard to compensation for land, a matter to which the Lands Clauses Acts were intended to apply. So much the more could a Committee modify the Acts when applying them to the purchase of a gas undertaking, a subject matter to which they were not intended in the first instance to apply. It should be stated that when the Committee decided that the preamble of the Bill was proved, the gas company, in order to have their hands free to deal with the whole matter in the House of Lords, withdrew, and took no part in the discussion upon the clauses. He could but believe that his Amendment would meet with the approbation of the Committee, and he, with confidence, commended it to the favourable consideration of the House.
SIR SEYMOUR KINGin seconding, said that personally he had no quarrel with the action of the Committee. The Committee had acted strictly within the restrictions which Parliament had imposed upon them, and if they had gone outside the pre-
708
cedents they would not have acted in accordance with the visual custom of the House. But they were now in a different atmosphere; they had left the atmosphere of the Committee and coma down to that of the House of Commons, which, in these respects, was said to be omnipotent. It was not the business of the Committee to create precedents; that was the business of the House. He was not asking the House of Commons to inflict any slur on any Committee of the House of Commons; but he was asking the House to make a precedent. The position here was that the gas company was being bought out by the corporation of Hull. Everybody knew how corporations were bled by private companies in these circumstances, which prevented the municipalities carrying out improvements which they desired to do. This gas-company were absolutely prohibited by their Act from receiving more than 7½ per cent. dividend on their stock. Why on earth should they get a premium on their shares over and above the full equivalent for a 7½ per cent. stock, merely because the shares were handed over from one person to another? On whom would the loss fail? On the ratepayers, who were the consumers of the gas, and who would have consequently to pay more for their gas. He was the last man in the world who would advocate anything that would derogate from the rights of property; but he denied that the shareholders of the gas company should receive more than the fair equivalent of profits provided for them in their original Act of Parliament. The precedent had been quoted of the Metropolitan Water Board, but that Bill was a public Bill, and no doubt could not be adduced as an argument in regard to this Bill, which was a private measure.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 17, after the word 'contained,' to insert the words 'Provided also that no allowance shall be made for compulsory sale, but the arbitrator, arbitrators, or umpire, who shall determine such price or consideration (in this section called the court'), may make such allowance as they think just for recoupment of any loss of interest pending reinvestment, as well as for the cost of reinvestment, and for covering any cots, charges, and expenses (other than costs incurred in any arbitration under this Act), which have been, or are likely to be, incurred in consequence of the passing of this Act by the company or the stockholders therein, and

709
which ought, in the opinion of the court, to be borne by the corporation.' "—(Mr. Ferens.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
MR. RAWLINSONsaid he opposed the Amendment because he considered it a dangerous precedent that ought not to be followed. There was no reason why municipalities should not pay 10 per cent, more for property taken by them compulsorily for municipal trading purposes when other people had to pay that 10 per cent. according to long-established principles.
MR. GEORGE ROBERTSthought the Amendment involved a very important principle, and that no injustice was involved in it at all, because the holders of the present stock were practically guaranteed in regard to their dividend if their business was transferred to the corporation. He did not see why a public body when they had to buy should pay a 10 per cent, increase in price in consequence of compulsory purchase. They had to look after the interest of the public. He thought the Amendment was in the direction of enabling municipalities to acquire an undertaking on fair terms and to conduct the undertaking on business lines. He therefore associated himself with the Amendment.
MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid the speech which the hon. Member had just delivered was an admirable one in favour of the alteration of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts, but it was not a speech which showed that they should break an established rule of the House. That was the principle which lurked behind the Amendment which had been moved. There was no precedent for such a provision as the Amendment proposed in regard to a gas undertaking being inserted by a Committee. The practice of allowing something for compulsory purchase had been applied to every case of gas or water purchase that had come before the House, except that of the Metropolis Water Act, which counsel for the corporation admitted, before the Committee over which he presided, was an exceptional
710
case, and was a public Act. He did not say that there might not be a case for alteration, but if the practice were altered it should be done by a public Bill, which could be fully considered by the House and the Government.
*MR. LUKE WHITEquite agreed that the Committee had no power to make any alteration in the ordinary practice or to make this new departure. The House itself, however, had full power to do so according to the precedent in the case of the London Water Companies, and therefore he supported the Amendment, which would give to the shareholders all they were entitled to and ensure that justice was done between them and the corporation. Therefore in the interests of all concerned He had great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
*SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid he did not think such a case of hardship had been made out in this case as would lead to the House departing from its precedent in these matters. He viewed with some alarm the setting up of such claims by corporations who, though representing the ratepayers in some degree, also had a somewhat fiduciary capacity. An argument which had not boon sufficiently considered in this case was the great inconvenience and loss that fell upon those who had to sell under these compulsory powers. It must be borne in mind that money could not be reinvested without expense, without risk, or without trouble, labour, and anxiety for which some compensation ought to be paid. On that ground alone there ought to be some allowance, though he did not say what the allowance ought to be in this case. He hoped the House would support the Committee in what they had done. He agreed that the House was paramount in these matters, but they must bear in mind that the Committees gave much anxious labour to these inquiries, and that they created precedents not on their own initiative, but only after consideration of case after case and after years of experience; and the House, could not expect Members to devote their time to this work in Committee unless their decisions were treated with the highest respect. If the hon. Gentleman went to

711
a division he would be obliged to vote against the Amendment.
MR. J. W. WILSONsaid he was not so wedded to precedent that he would not depart from it, but before he did so he would have to have a strong ease and good reason shown for it in order that a revised precedent might be laid down for the future. If the House accepted the Amendment he did not think it would ever become a precedent for the Houses of Parliament. One case only had been quoted, and that was not on all fours with the case before the House he had heard cases of this kind argued many times, and the case in which the allowance for compulsory purchase appeared to him to be rather hard was when a corporation was seeking compulsory powers, not for the purpose of a profitable undertaking, but for the purposes of public health; where it was often a case of buying insanitary property and pulling it down for the benefit of the public health and the general welfare of the people. It might be quite right and fair to throw over a precedent of this kind, but he contended that it ought to be done only by a public Bill and after buyers and sellers had had ample notice that those would be the conditions under which they would treat. He supported the Committee in this matter.
*MR. C. NTCHOLSONas a member of the Committee which considered this Bill said he supported the action that that Committee had taken. His experience was short, but he did not think the House liked any sudden interruption or alteration of the practice and custom upon which the Committees acted. Therefore he thought the Committee were quite right in striking out this particular clause. He, however, thought there was too much reverence paid to precedents and too little consideration given to the time and circumstances under which they were created. The difficulty was to consider where the line should be drawn and what precedents should be regarded, and what ought to be left to the consideration of the House. In this case in his opinion the Committee were quite right. The question raised here was whether the Committee ought to make a new
712
rule for compensation in dealing with matters by private Bill. There was no doubt if that was once granted this provision would be inserted in every Bill of a like character that came before the Committee, It was, therefore, desirable that the House should consider and decide once and for all which principle should be adopted. He thought the line ought to be drawn between the purchase of land and property and the purchase of undertakings in which the interest of those concerned was purely financial. A person who was compelled to part with his house was entitled to more consideration than a man who sold a commercial undertaking, because it made very little difference to a shareholder, whose interests had alone been changed, whereas round a man's house there were many interests of a personal character which had grown up from association which could not be measured by a money compensation. He therefore hoped the House would allow this clause to stand. He should oppose the Amendment.
MR. BOWLESsaid that so far as he could see the question before the House was whether in this particular Bill under the particular circumstances of the case the House should sanction a complete abandonment of the practice that had hitherto unanimously boon imposed on the Committees by the House for sixty years. That was a considerable proposal to make to the House. Surely, if they were going to make such a fundamental change it ought to be done by a Bill before a full House, when all the reasons for and against it could be fully weighed. What was hero asked was a, complete reversal of the practice, and procedure of the House, which had continued for sixty years, and the introduction of a dangerous and far-reaching principle into the consideration of private Bills. The precedent of the Water Board Bill had been referred to, but that was no precedent at all. The Water Board Bill was a public Bill; and then, again, the state of affairs with regard to the water companies of London was that for years they had been threatened bodies; Bills had been brought in and had been rejected; and these companies had lived for years on the understanding, that they were to be bought out. He

713
did not know what might be the circumstances of Kingston-upon-Hull, but he took leave to say that the position of this particular gas company was entirely different from that of the London water companies in regard to purchase There was no precedent for this very large change, which he confidently submitted to the House ought not to be introduced into their ancient practice The existing principle was well established; everybody knew what it meant; it was to leave these matters to the good sense of the arbitrator on the understanding that an allowance would be made, usually 10 per cent. for compulsory disturbance, reimbursement for losses, and so forth. It might well be that vendors had been awarded undue profits by arbitrators, but if that were so it was, after all, due to human nature, which doubtless tenanted the breast of an arbitrator as that of any other person, and it might be that at times he dealt tenderly with those who were compulsorily turned out of their properties. But, notwithstanding those grounds, no single reason had boon shown why the House should depart from an ancient practice in favour of this Bill.
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN-BURNS,)said it was perhaps natural that hon. Gentlemen representing the borough of Hull should ask for exceptional treatment for that town; and, if it were done in the right way, at the right time, and with reasonable notice, perhaps more could be said for their claim than could be advanced in the existing circumstances. The proposal now before the House was struck out of the Bill by the Committee, notwithstanding which the Member for Hull persisted in appealing to the House to do what the proper tribunal, after reviewing all the facts, had declined to do. The common form in all private Bills for the acquisition of properties was the application of the Lands Clauses Act. This had been followed in all cases since 1845 except in the very exceptional case of the London Water Act. But that precedent did not apply to this case, as the London Water Act was a public Act for which the Ministry of the day took responsibility, and which dealt with interests of vast magnitude. If its precedent were applied
714
to this Bill every other private Bill before the House ought to be similarly treated, and even if that were done it would not meet the case of Bills already passed which would have lost the advantage of the Amendment. Why should Hull get unique treatment by way of a private Bill? It was hardly fair that the parties interested in this Bill should receive treatment as if the Lands Clauses Act had been varied by a public Bill—a course which at that moment they were not capable of adopting. The precedents of which the two hon. Members had spoken were not of the character which they had indicated. In the case of Housing Bills the principle of the Lands Clauses had either to be varied or modified or sot aside, and that could only be done where the House approved of it. Where public bodies asked for lands to be taken away for public purposes it was done by public Bill. The Lands Clauses Acts had been set aside, and Michael Angelo Taylor's Act also, to enable them to vary the Lands Clauses principle, and the general principle in regard to acquiring property, but all that had been done by public Bill. And he put it to the supporters of the extension of municipal ownership, and of municipal trading, that to vary these well-established conditions under which all municipalities had automatically acquired properties, and trading concerns taken over from private hands, would be to create a precedent which he believed would be dangerous, and for this reason: he thought that the Lands Clauses practice might be too generous; or it might be onerous, as it occasionally was to intending purchasers; but if it was to be altered they ought either to alter the Standing Orders of the House, or also amend by Bill the Lands Clauses Act. If that were to be done, as it might perhaps have to be done, it would facilitate the transfer of monopolies and other interests to municipalities. No one could accuse him of being indifferent to the interests of municipalities; on the contrary, few men in so short a life had done more to transfer great concerns from private hands to public bodies. He had always believed in it. We were all collectivists by compensation nowadays—he had adhered to that view because he thought it the line of least resistance. But if they embarked upon a public policy otherwise than in a public Bill

715
voted by both Houses, they would make the task of the acquisition of private properties by public bodies more difficult in the future than it was now. If they were going to make the condition of transfer less onerous to public bodies and less generous to private concerns, that was a strong argument in favour of the view that any such step as the alteration of their Standing Orders, or the modification or abolition of the Lands Clauses provision ought only to be made on the responsibility of the Government, so that everybody concerned could go into the matter with the whole of the facts before them. That issue should not be determined merely because two Members of a municipality were anxious to get favourable terms for their locality, but should be decided by a public Bill, brought in on the responsibility of the Minister. The post of office frequently meant the firing line of duty, and it was his duty as the
Minister partly responsible for this branch of public affairs, in the interests of fair and just treatment for all municipalities, to say that it would be against public policy to have on this particular subject a snatch vote which would recoil on the old policy of municipalities being allowed to acquire and retain powers which they were anxious to possess. He asked that there should be some reasonable continuity in these matters: the best thing to do was to adhere to the old policy which had been adopted for the last sixty years. If that policy was to be altered it should be done fairly and justly by the Government at the instance of a Minister responsible to the House and not in the way now proposed by the hon. Member for Hull.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 73, Noes, 123. (Division List No. 166.)

AYES.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

Kekewich, Sir George

Rendall, Athelstan

Barnes, G. N.

Kettle, Thomas Michael

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

Brace, William

Kilbride, Denis

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Brooke, Stopford

Laidlaw, Robert

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Burnyeat, W. J. D.

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Rowlands, J.

Crooks, William

Lehmann, R. C.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs

Steadman, W. C.

Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Dolan, Charles Joseph

M'Callum, John M.

Summerbell, T.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Monev, L. G. Chiozza

Tomkinson, James

Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

Murphy, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Gulland, John W.

Nolan. Joseph

Walsh, Stephen

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Hazleton, Richard

O' Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

White, Luke (York. E. R.)

Hedges, A. Paget

O'Grady, J.

Wiles, Thomas

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon. N.

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

Higham, John Sharp

O'Mara, James

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Hodge, John

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wood, T. M' Kinnon

Hogan, Michael

Parker, James (Halifax)

Horniman, Emslic John

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Ferens and Sir Henry Seymou King.

Hudson, Walter

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Jenkins, J.

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

Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

Radford, G. H.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Boulton, A. C. F.

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

Barnard, E. B.

Bowles, G. Stewart

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

Bramsdon. T. A.

Ashley, W. W.

Bell, Richard

Branch, James

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonpr't

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.

Brocklehurst, W. B.

Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester

Berridge, T. H. D.

Bryce, J. Annan

Barker, John

Bertram, Julius

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Hunt, Rowland

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Cairns Thomas

Jackson, R. S.

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Cawley, Sir Frederick

Kearley, Hudson E.

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Lambert, George

Rickett, J. Compton

Cheetham, John Frederick

Lane-Fox, G. R.

Ridsdale, E. A.

Cleland, J. W.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Clough, William

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Roe, Sir Thomas

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Levy, Maurice

Rose, Charles Day

Corbett. A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Lewis, John Herbert

Runciman, Walter

Corbett, CH (Sussex, E Grinst'd)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Russell, T. W.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lough, Thomas

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Craig, Captain James(Down, E.)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Cremer, William Randal

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Samuel. Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Crombie, John William

M'Crae, George

Sherwell, Arthur James

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

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

Simon, John Allsebrook

Essex, R. W.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Stanger, H. Y.

Esslemont, George Birnie

Mallet, Charles E.

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Everett, R. Lacey

Mansfield, H. Randall (Lincoln)

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Menzies, Walter

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Micklem, Nathaniel

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Molteno, Percy Alport

Thornton, Percy M.

Fletcher, J. S.

Mond, A.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

Montgomery, H. G.

Waterlow, D. S.

Glendinning, R. G.

Murnaghan, George

Watt. Henry A.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Napier, T. B.

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Nicholls, George

Whitchead, Rowland

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Nuttall, Harry

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (W'ore'r)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Hemmerde, Edward George

Paulton, James Mellor

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

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

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

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

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Corrie Grant and Mr. J. W Wilson.

Hills, J. W.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Holt, Richard Durning

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

Hooper, A. G.

Randles, Sir John Scurrah

Motion made, and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Chiozza Money,)—put, and agreed to.

Bill to be read the third me.

FINANCE BILL.
Postponed Proceeding on Amendment to Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time ":—
Which Amendment was—
"To leave out from the word 'That,' to the end of the Question, and add the words 'in the opinion of this House, the financial needs of the country, as disclosed in the Budget statement of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, require that the basis of taxation should be broadened in order that the anomalies and hardships inseparable from the present high rate of particular taxes may be diminished, the revenue necessary for the public service and for social reform raised with fairness to all classes of the community, and our fiscal system adapted to the present condition of national and Imperial trade.' "—(Mr. Austen Chamberlain)—instead thereof, resumed.
Question again proposed.
*SIR EDWARD SASSOON,continuing his speech, said he had alluded to a dissimilarity between capital and labour. He would now indicate a point at which they converged and assimilated. Capital
718
like labour was one of the raw materials without which industries decayed and manufacturers ceased to flourish. Furthermore capital represented the very life-blood of a normal and progressive expansion of all forms of industrial and commercial activity. When the attack made on capital reached the straining point he submitted that that policy became industrially inexpedient and wasteful and economically incapable of being defended. His hon. friend the Member for Durham had asked why we should make any alteration in our fiscal system. Might he venture to submit one or two reasons? After two years of unexampled prosperity at home, with abounding wealth, with an overflowing Treasury, with millionaires shuffling off this mortal coil in order to replenish the Treasury, with magnificent trade returns, with abnormal receipts from the coinage of silver—with all these phenomenal aids to our financial resources, what had the Chancellor of the Exchequer done? He was going in for abnormally high taxes on articles of food and non-alcoholic, beverages. In the case of tea 97½ per

719
cent, of the commodity came to us from India and Ceylon, where the cultivation of the plant gave employment to upwards of 2,000,000 natives. That article was taxed to the extent of between 75 and 100 per cent. Sugar, coffee and tobacco were taxed up to the hilt without mercy or remorse. Not a single penny had been devoted to the relief of the consumers of these articles. The income tax was maintained at the level of a war tax; and this, notwithstanding that there had been consi derable reductions in expenditure which might lead—he hoped they would not—to the weakening of our military and naval defences. If these were the straits to which the public purse was reduced now, it might not be unreasonable to ask what would be the case when a cycle of lean and unprofitable years came round, as it inevitably must. The coal tax, which was abolished light heartedly, was bringing in millions of money and he thought it was capable of mathematical proof that the bulk of it was paid by the foreign consumer. The supply of the particular class of coal exported was absolutely limited, and if the tax operated in restraint of trade, would the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been in a position to say that during the last eight months of the currency of the tax, when it was altogether to the advantage of the foreign purchaser to postpone his orders, no loss than £800,000 was received over and above the amount budgeted for? That almost conclusively proved that a considerable portion of the tax was paid by the consumer. As to the registration duty on corn, nobody had ever attempted to show that it had the slightest effect on the price of bread. Did hon. Members opposite believe that a small tax of that description, allowing Colonial corn to come in free, would not have the effect of enabling the Colonies to send in larger and larger proportion most of the food-stuffs the country needed? Surely this was not a Party question? [Cries of ''Hear, hear."] Hon. Gentlemen said "hear, hear," but the tariff reform party had done all they possibly could to keep this question out of the turmoil of Party politics. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had rather stood in the way of that being done. The Colonial Premiers had said in words that left no room for ambiguity that the one thing which they desired above all was to trade with the Mother Country, and to have preferences with the Mother
720
country, rather than to seek advantageous commercial alliances with the foreigner. The President of the Board of Trade had, in the legislative measures for which he was responsible, shown great perception in safeguarding the interests of British industry. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would continue on that wholesome path, but if the Party opposite refused to redress the inequalities in our financial system, and to bring it into line with the requirements of modern industry, the burden of that task would be cheerfully undertaken by the Unionist Party. [MINISTERIAL cries of "When?"] As soon as they had the opportunity, and that might not be so long as hon. Members thought. They would endeavour to pave the way for industrial freedom throughout the length and breadth of the dominions of the Crown.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I will endeavour to meet some of the points adumbrated by the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I listened with great interest to their speeches, and I confess that I was more interested in what they did not say than in the policy which either of them proposed. Of course, the Amendment intends, as far as possible, to bring together hon. Members who hold the various opinions which are known to exist on the other side of the House in regard to the fiscal question. We did, however, expect, and I think we were entitled to expect when a solemn Amendment of this sort is brought forward, some light and leading on the question; but, as far as I am concerned, I must say that I have derived no light and no leading from the speeches of the right hon. Gentlemen. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, dealt almost entirely with the question of preference, and not really with the question before the House. I heartily endorse all that was said by my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education on this matter. We desire to be friendly towards the Colonies, and, indeed, both sides of the House, and all parties in the country, have the same object in view, though they do not see eye to eye in regard to the mode in which it is to be carried out. I think the right hon. Gentleman has conceded the whole position of the Government. He admitted

721
that after the last election it would be practically impossible for the Government to grant the full preference for which some of the Colonies are asking. He suggested that we might have met the Colonies in regard to the existing sources of taxation; but though that might in substance have been a minor matter, in principle it would have been exactly the same, and the demand for further preference would have been practically overwhelming. It has been represented that it is inconsistent to reject preference between the Mother Country and the Colonies and to assist it between the Colonies themselves. But the two cases are very different. The Colonies are protectionist countries, and it is, therefore, natural that the Government should encourage them to make preferential arrangements between themselves, because any such arrangement is a mitigation of the protectionist system to which they are subject, and tends towards free trade within the Empire. There is nothing inconsistent in encouraging inter-colonial preference, while at the same time we are not able to accept it for ourselves. If the House will allow me, I want to deal with what, after all, is the basis of this Amendment, and with what was the whole gist and substance of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, namely, the question ought we, or ought we not, to enlarge and broaden the basis of our taxation? I thought the right hon. Gentleman would tell us exactly how he proposed to broaden the basis of taxation, especially as he spoke with the authority of an Ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer who has studied these things very carefully. I think we were entitled to hear from him a clear and concrete alternative to the present Budget. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's Division said it was not necessary to go into details; but in this matter details are everything. It is no use suggesting that we should broaden the basis of taxation unless you are going to show in detail, in pounds, shillings, and pence, whore you are going to get the revenue from, and how you are going to relieve the present taxpayers from some of the burdens which they have to suffer. It is a very old method of argument to say that the doctor should not prescribe until he is called in; but when right hon. Gentlemen are proposing to alter the
722
whole fiscal system of the country, I think we are entitled to ask on this occasion what it is they actually propose. What we have suffered from so much in the fiscal controversy is, in the first place, that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the other side cannot be got to agree among themselves; and, in the second place, that they cannot be induced to sot clown in black and white exactly white they propose for the improvement of the trade and commerce in the country. I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman what are his definite proposals for the improvement of the trade and commerce of the country, and for obtaining an increased revenue The right hon. Gentleman says that he and his friends are going to produce them, but they have not done so yet. So far as I am concerned I deny altogether the premisses on which the right hon. Gentleman's argument is founded—that our present system of taxation has broken down. I do not think we want to broaden the basis of taxation; we may be quite content with the existing fiscal system. The right hon. Gentleman drew a very gloomy picture of the finances of the country and said that they were in a parlous way. But if we take the last two years it will be found that there have been remissions of taxation to the extent of some millions, and, the National Debt has been reduced by no less than £25,000,000. We are told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that our export trade is going. It has not gone; it is increasing; and remembering what the Chancellor of the Exchequer did last year and this, I doubt whether our finances have been for many years in a sounder condition than at present. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, quoted Sir George Lewis that there ought to be a large number of taxes on a large number of articles, each producing a comparatively small sum; but my recollection is that Mr. Gladstone made short work of that argument, and that the whole House was on the side of Mr. Gladstone, and not on that of Sir George Lewis. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire seemed, in a half-hearted way, to suggest a tax on the import of foreign manufactured articles; but the Leader of the Opposition, while in favour of preference, has hitherto said that he

723
was opposed to any tax which would be at all in the nature of a protective duty, Well, a ten per cent, duty on manufactured goods may be a very low duty, but clearly it must be more or less of a protective duty. If a duty of that kind were imposed, I find that the total number of articles which would be taxed would amount to between 200 and 300. In time of war taxes were imposed upon coal, corn and sugar. Two of these duties have been taken off, and probably the third will disappear as soon as it is not desirable for the purpose of our present finances. I think our present fiscal system, which has grown up gradually, is the right basis on which we ought to levy our taxes. It has been growing up since 1843, and came to fruition in 1860, and under it, by confining the taxes to a few articles of general consumption, no impediment is imposed on trade, while the cost of collection is reduced to a minimum. While many duties have gone, while others have been greatly reduced, and none has been added, the Customs and Excise, which in 1860 produced forty-two millions, now produces sixty-two millions. This is a sufficient testimony to the advantage of the present system of taxation. In the late war, moreover, the present system provided the means by which taxation was easily raised. I do not know how far the night hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's agrees with his right hon. friend about the ton per cent, on manufactured goods; but they both advocated preference, and we all know that preference can only be given by imposing a tax on corn, wheat, bread, butter, and other articles of daily consumption, and it is proposed with that money to reduce the taxation on tobacco, tea and sugar. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is better to have a tax on six articles instead of on three. We hear a good deal about a free breakfast table; but the right hon. Gentleman proposes to attack the dinner table of the working man.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: the promise of a free breakfast table has been unfulfilled up to the present moment.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: That is due to the £240,000,000 which the late Government put upon the expenditure for war purposes. The only point of the right hon. Gentleman out of which I can make an exact and concrete proposition is that he is very anxious, as his leader was the other day, that the shilling income-tax should be reduced. I do not deny for one moment that a shilling income-tax is a very high figure, but I do not think it should be forgotten that that shilling income-tax will be borne by only a few persons, and by no one with an income under £2,000. If the present Budget goes through those below £2,000, to the number of half a million or so, will be relieved. Although I do not deny that a shilling income-tax is a heavy duty, still I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is a tax which weighs very heavily upon the trade and industry of this country, whereas all the proposals of the right lion. Gentleman opposite for broadening the basis of taxation will fall in some way on the consumer. And while I should be prepared to say that it would be desirable that the income tax should be reduced, I say it should not be reduced in such a manner as to alter the relation between direct and indirect taxation. In other words, it ought not to be reduced unless the indirect taxation is also proportionately reduced. I do not think it is a right thing that the income-tax payer should be relieved at the expense of the consumer of articles of general consumption. The right hon. Gentleman makes three proposals for the broadening of the basis of taxation; first, retaliation, secondly, preference, and, thirdly, the taxation of foreign manufactured goods. Retaliation will give us no relief; but it is said by the Leader of the Opposition that he only asks for retaliation in case it is necessary to use it, and he merely wants it because the threat of retaliation will make other countries give way in regard to their tariffs. Obviously there is no revenue to be derived from retaliation, and therefore we are left with the question of preference. What amount of revenue does the right hon. Gentleman expect to get from preferences which are going to

725
do the evils to which I have referred? He says they will not touch raw materials. I am surprised at that, because the right hon. Gentleman says that an additional preference tax on corn, meal, and butter will not really add to the price to the consumer; and what is true of wheat, meal, and butter, must be equally true with regard to raw materials. But it is not the fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite are willing to withdraw raw materials from taxation. I do not believe you can carry on a legitimate and systematic system of preference unless you tax the raw material of industries. The right hon. Member for St. George's said you cannot expect in these matters mathematical precision; but what we say is that if it is true, as we are told it is, that the only way to keep the Empire together is by these commercial bonds in addition to others, they will not help us very much in keeping the Empire together. Some parts of the Empire cannot benefit if we do not tax raw materials, and if we are going to lose our other Colonies because we will not give them preference, I am afraid it is a very bad look-out for the Cape. The proposal is to put a duty on articles of large consumption, such as corn, meat and butter. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham estimated that that would produce about £4,400,000 a year. That does not seem very much among all these claimants to whom the right hon. Gentleman has referred. But oven so, what is he going to do with his £1,400,000? It is true the liquor duties would not be touched, and tobacco is a luxury and therefore the duty is not to be touched. [An HON. MEMBER: Yes.] Then that would take off a considerable slice of the £4,400,000. Then the duty on sugar has boon dwelt upon. That tax was after all put on to broaden the basis of taxation. My right hon. friend, in his Budget speech, enunciated the irresistible argument that though it would be a good thing if we could get rid of it altogether, to reduce the sugar duty by one-half would be uneconomical and wasteful. You
726
would retain all the vexations and all the cost of collecting the tax, and the farthing would not go to the consumer, but to the middleman. So much was that thought to be the fact at the time when the sugar tax was repealed in 1874 by Sir Stafford Northcote that he repealed it largely on the ground that the factor was uneconomic. I suppose, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman does not propose to deal with that. That leaves the tea duty, and I do not believe it would be to the advantage of the working man in this country to have his tea duty reduced at the expense of a duty on meat, corn, and butter. The only tax still remaining, therefore, at a high figure is the income-tax. That I have dealt with, and I should steadily resist the reduction of the income-tax and the expansion of those taxes to which I have referred. I have said that the estimated revenue was £4,400,000. We have to recollect this in regard to preferential duties; the object of this proposal for preference is that Colonial corn and meat shall supersede that of foreign countries. What does that mean? It means that by so much as these Colonial products take the place of foreign produce the revenue disappears; that the more successful this system of preference is the less revenue will there be year by year; that if it is carried out with the success that is anticipated there can be no reduction in the taxes from which we suffer so much. That is what retaliation and preference come to. With regard to the taxation of manufactured articles, to which the right hon. Gentleman says his whole Party is committed, I do not know what his Chief Whip thinks of that; we have always up to now looked upon him as a free trader.
SIR A. ACLAND HOOD: We are all free traders.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: What is really proposed in regard to this duty on manufactured articles? I am prepared to admit that the right hon. Gentleman and those who support him do not desire

727
to go back to the bad old days when these duties were very high, but, as I have pointed out, they will have to go back to an extent, and to have duties on an enormous number of articles in place of the simplicity we have in our present system. Therefore, we are entitled to ask how they are going to define manufactured articles. I should like to ask the Loader of the Opposition, now that we understand that these proposals for preference are adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, whether he agrees with the view put forward by his right hon. colleague—whether he is in favour of an export tax on foreign manufactures, because that must be in the nature of a protective duty, its whole object being to protect our industries. I should like to know whether he is in favour of a protective duty ask the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire how he is going to define foreign manufactures. He is against the taxation of raw material, and I believe that it is beyond the wit of man to disentangle wholly and partly-manufactured articles from one another. In the second fiscal Blue-book these articles are defined as far as they can be, and they amount to about £180,000,000 and produce about £10,000,000 a year. Is the right hon. Gentleman really going to tax these partly-manufactured articles to which I have referred? I remember that when the right hon. Gentleman went to Warrington he, in a celebrated speech, proposed to tax foreign wire. Norwich manufacturers who use foreign wire in the production of a more complete manufacture said that the proposal was all very well for Warrington, but it would not suit Norwich. I remember Mr. Gladstone illustrating the difficulty of these definitions by mentioning a curious dispute as to whether a mummy which had been imported was to be taxed as raw-material, a partly-manufactured, or a wholly manufactured article. I believe it was finally declared to be a completely manufactured article. We are in a very great difficulty with regard to this matter, and we are entitled to some answer from
728
the right hon. Gentleman as to how far and to what extent he proposes to tax these partly-manufactured articles. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will be able to carry out the proposals which he has made across the floor of the House. He has suggested the reduction of the income-tax, but no such reduction ought to take place at the expense of indirect taxation and at the expense of the consumer. Whatever way we look at it, whether from the point of broadening taxation, of preference, of retaliation or of protection, I believe it will be shown that our present system of taxation for revenue purposes on a few articles of consumption is in its simplicity by far the best for the finances of this country. The right hon. Gentleman is not likely to get for his proposals a sufficient amount to attain his ends, and any departure from our present system is likely to load us into hopeless financial confusion.
*MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid that the right hon. Gentle-man in his speech had used only the stock arguments which were in use fifty or sixty years ago, and he had added nothing to the knowledge which had been obtained since that time. He had said that if retaliation were successful and other countries were induced to lower their duties, then no revenue would be obtained. Quite true; but had the right hon. Gentleman reflected on the enormous increase of employment it would give to this country? Unless they argued this question from the point of view of good, constant, well-paid employment, which was the solution of all our social difficulties, they missed the main point. Some years ago we imported 600,000 gallons of wine per annum from South Africa. An understanding made with France put an end to that; but if we were to give preference to South Africa in wines and tobacco, the purchasing power of South Africa would be increased and we should get the benefit of it. The right hon. Gentleman had asked how the difference between wholly and partially-

729
manufactured goods was to be defined, and said it was beyond the wit of man to define it. It did not defy the wit of man, but it defied the wit of the present Government to do it. It did not defy the wit of other Governments like those of Germany and France. What was the test which they adopted? They took a certain article and judged how much labour was in it, and to the extent of the labour in it they required that import duty to be paid upon it. That was an effective way of doing it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not only slammed the door in the face of our Colonial brethren, but he had had the hardihood to assure them that the last general election had finally settled the question of free trade. If the Government really believed that, then let them appeal to the country on that one particular point, and they would get quite a different answer. Everything had changed since the year 1860. The carriage and other expenses connected with the importation of corn, which was once equal to about 10s. or 12s. per quarter, had disappeared, although the Cobden school at that time thought they were going to remain. Everything was different now. It was said that under free trade no more land would go out of cultivation, and in less than five years every nation would follow our example Food was to be abundant and cheap, pauperism was to disappear from England, workhouse were to be abolished; it was said that workhouse would be seen standing ruined and empty as monuments of the success of a free trade policy. But all that had not come about. The workhouses of to-day were bigger and more numerous. Pauperism had increased considerably, and its cost was now more than four or five times as much as it used to be. Everything which had been foretold in regard to free trade had not come to pass. If that was the case where was the success of this one-sided free trade which was no more like real free trade than chalk was like choose? Foreign
730
countries always kept the producer to the front. In America the producer was always considered first because the greater the production the greater the employment. The greater the employment the more money there was to buy with, and when there was plenty of money to buy foreign countries rightly put price in the second place. In this country they placed the consumer first and the producer second, with the result that they had no employment and no money to buy with, and under those circumstances what did it matter about the price? At present they put an import duty upon what they did not produce. If, instead, they put a duty on what they did produce, the weekly budget of the housekeeper-would not be a farthing more, but the employment would be greater, because there would be a greater production of those things in this country, and there would be more regular employment. He had listened with interest to the admirable speech of the hon. Member for the Black-friars Division of Glasgow, and he agreed with him as to the inequality in the distribution of the wealth of the country. In what the hon. Member said about poverty and misery and destitution, his description was very touching. He followed up his argument by saying that things were getting worse, but this was under so-called free trade. His remedy, however, seemed to resolve itself into one of charity and State aid for the sufferers. He had stated that they wanted several great social reforms based on free trade, and that they would cost millions of money. He did not tell them where the money was to come from, but simply said that be would place that task upon the shoulders of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In his opinion nothing had helped forward the question of fiscal reform so effectually as the Budget which had been introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was a Budget of despair. It stated in so many words that the Government had got to the end of their tether as far as other sources of revenue were concerned. It was

731
practically admitted that under the present system it was impossible to get any more money to carry out those great social reforms which they were all anxious to see brought about. In this country the import duty upon food and drink was higher than in any other country. An import duty on silks, satins, motor cars, and a thousand and one other things would increase employment in this country. They very properly objected to the importation of sweated labour, but why did they favour the importation of the productions of sweated labour? There was an enormous trade in hats in the Midland counties. The bulk of the hat trade abroad was done in Italy by people who worked for 8s. to 10s. a week, their hours of labour being from twelve to fourteen per day. He wanted an answer to this question. Supposing 100 of these Italians were imported into Nuneaton and employed by hat makers, and supposing they agreed to work twelve or fourteen hours a day for 10s. a week, would not the English hatmakers very properly say "You are sweaters and blacklegs and we will not have it?" But these 100 Italians could go back to Italy and produce hats under precisely the same conditions, and the hats could be imported into this country free to compete with the hats produced under other conditions at Nuneaton. It would be bettor for the community that the Italians should be in Nuneaton, because they would be paying rates and taxes, spending money with the shopkeepers, and in a variety of other ways. He asked the hon. Member who represented the district if he could tell him the difference.
*MR. W. JOHNSON: I can only say that the hat manufacturers of Nuneaton and district have made large fortunes the last ten years.
*MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid he was not speaking of the master hat manufacturers who received 50 per cent, on their imported stuff and in some cases more.
732
They were making money, but how about the working men? He wanted an answer to the question. What was the difference between preventing sweated labour at home and welcoming the importation, without any import duty, of articles produced by sweated labour abroad? He had never been able to see the difference at all. While the free importation of foreign-made goods was going on, something far worse was happening in the removal of factories from this country to places abroad. That statement was challenged the other day. He did not know whether hon. Members had read the evidence given by gentlemen of the first standing in several trades before the Tariff Commission. From that evidence it appeared that the lace manufacturers of Nottingham, the manufacturers of Bradford and other parts of Yorkshire and Lancashire, were removing their factories to other countries. There was thus an exportation of capital, but the men were left behind. The labour of this country was destroyed by so-called free trade, and the working people of England were finding it out. In the not distant future the Labour leaders would have a very rude awakening. He could give many other instances showing how unfair foreign competition was injuring our trade, but he would only mention one. The making of packing cases was an important industry in this country. It employed thousands of men. The United States said to our manufacturers that if they sent their goods packed in cases made in America they would not charge duty on them. The consequence was that the packing case workmen, as in many other trades, were being done away with by this unfair competition.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
Adjourned sit seven minutes after Eleven o'clock.