Commons Sitting of 14 May 1907

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before Three o' Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Great Central Railway Bill.—As amended, considered, a Clause added,

765
Amendments made, Bill to be read the third time.
Tyne Improvement Bill [Lords] (by Order).—Read a second time, and committed.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill.—Read a second time, and committed.

OREGON MORTGAGE COMPANY LIMITED, ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
"To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Oregon Mortgage Company, Limited," presented by Mr. Sinclair, and ordered, under Section 7 of the Act, to be considered upon Thursday.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Evesham, Melton Mowbray, the Dewsbury Joint Hospital District, and the Mid Sussex Joint Water District," presented by Dr. Macnamara; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 195.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the borough of East Ham and urban districts of Barking Town and Ilford, and the borough of Sunderland," presented by Dr. Macnamara; supported by Mr. Burns; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 196.]
Newquay and District Water Bill [Lords].—Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
London United Tramways Bill.—Reported, with Amendments [Title
766
amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Baines' Name Bill [Lords].—Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.
Borax Consolidated Bill [Lords].—Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.
Tees Conservancy Bill [Lords].—Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the Destructive Insects Act, 1877, to all pests destructive to crops, trees, or bushes." [Destructive Insects and Pests Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Urban District Council of St. Neot's to acquire the undertaking of the St. Neot's Water Company, and to supply water throughout their district and the neighbourhood thereof; and for other purposes." [St. Neot's Urban District Council Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the granting of superannuation allowances to the officers and servants of the Council of the royal borough of Kensington; and for other purposes." [Kensington Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Corporation of Tyne-mouth to construct additional works; to borrow additional moneys; and for other purposes." [Tynemouth Corporation (Water) Bill [Lords.]
St. Neot's Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; Kensington Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill [Lords]; Tynemouth Corporation (Water) Bill [Lords].—Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  COAL MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petition from Aspatria, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Petition from Fulham, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Aberdour; Dumfries; and Wick and Pulteneytown; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SPECIAL RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION) BILL.
  Petition from Blackwell, against; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SPECIAL RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION) BILL.
  Petition from Fulham, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES, ETC., BILL.
  Petition from Falkirk, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Assynt; Candleriggs; and, Kirkintilloch; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against; from Barry; and, Bishop's Fonthill; to lie upon the Table.
  PAUPER LUNATICS (COST OF MAINTENANCE).
  Petitions for legislation: From Farnham; Faversham; Lewisham; Long-town; and, Romford; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CLYDE PORTS (VESSELS ENTERING, ETC.).
  Return [Presented 10th May] to be printed. [No. 154.]
  RAILWAY RETURNS (PRELIMINARY STATEMENT).
  Copy presented, of Return relating to the Railways of the United Kingdom for the year 1906 (Preliminary Statement) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, amending the Robertsbridge and Pevensey Light Railway Orders of 1900 and 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the borough of Mansfield and in the urban districts of Mansfield Wood-house and of Sutton-in-Ashfield and in the rural district of Skegby, in the county of Nottingham, in extension of the Light Railways authorised by the Mansfield and District Light Railways Order, 1901, and for other purposes [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, amending the Leicester and District Light Railways Order, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, amending the Brackenhill Light Railway Orders of 1901 and of 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the West Riding of the county of York, from Ackworth to Kirk Smeaton [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the urban district of Llanelly and in the rural district of Llanelly, in the county of Carmarthen [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, amending the Dudley and District Light Railways Order, 1898, and the Dudley and District Light Railways (Extensions) Order, 1900 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the West Riding of the county of York, from Sharow to Kirkby Malzeard [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3782 and 3783 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES AND QUARRIES (EXPLOSION AT URPETH COLLIERY).
  Copy presented, of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by J. B. Atkinson, Esquire, M.Sc. one of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines, on the circumstances attending an Explosion which occurred at Urpeth Colliery, near Birtley, Durham, on 17th December, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the West Riding of Yorkshire altering certain Polling Districts in the Sowerby, Barnsley, Doncaster, and Holmfirth Parliamentary Divisions [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TAXES AND IMPOSTS.
  Return ordered: "showing: (1) the Rates of Duties, Taxes, or Imports collected by Imperial officers; (2) the quantities or amounts taxed; (3) the gross receipts derived from each Duty; and (4) the net receipts and appropriations thereof in the year ending the 31st day of March, 1907; and (1) the aggregate gross receipts derived from all such Duties, Taxes, or Imposts under the principal heads of revenue; (2) the aggregate net receipts; (3) the charges of collection; and (4) the produce, after deducting these charges, in each of the ten years ending the 31st day of March, 1907; and notes to show any changes in the Taxes, Duties, and Imposts consequent upon the acceptance of the Budget proposals of 1907 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 253, of Session 1906)."—(Mr. Goddard.)
  CROFTERS HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACTS.
  Copy ordered "of the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Acts, indicating the extensions and Amendments thereof proposed by the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill."—(Mr. Sinclair).
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Dumbarton Sewage Purification.
  MR. ROBERT DUNCAN: To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state how many Scottish burghs, including police burghs have adopted, or have under consideration, modern systems of sewage purification works; and whether there are any special circumstances in the case of the burgh of Dumbarton why similar works should not be constructed by it.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) The Local Government Board inform me that in February last it was found that eighteen Scottish burghs had biological systems of sewage purification already in operation. In seven cases systems were being laid down, and in the case of fourteen burghs schemes were under consideration. What system would best suit the burgh of Dumbarton could only be decided on after obtaining expert advice.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Thomas Walsh.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the evicted farm of Thomas Walsh, on the Ormathwaite Estate, at Coolodorig, Listowel, was inspected; when the offer, if any, has been made to the landlord by the Estates Commissioners; and what reply, if any, has the landlord given in connection with the reinstatement of Thomas Walsh.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners first communicated their estimated price for the holding to the owner's agent on 18th September, 1906. No reply having been received the Commissioners sent reminders to the agent, who, on 20th April, informed them that he had forwarded their estimate to the owner, but had not yet received a reply.

  Land Purchase Finance—Opportunity for Discussion.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Prime Minister if he can now say approximately when the promised opportunity will be afforded for discussing land purchase finance; and will the question be raised in such a way that discussion of the method of inflating price and bonus will be in order.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) The Government will try and give an early Friday after private Members' rights over Fridays have been satisfied.

  Letting of Crown Property—Employment of Local Agents.
  SIR GEORGE KEKEWICH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the letting of local properties belonging to the Crown is left entirely in the hands of the Crown Agents, Merssrs. Clutton; and whether he will consider the advisability, with a view to securing the more speedy letting of such properties and avoiding loss of revenue, of placing them in the hands of local agents instead of merely placing notice boards on the properties.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) My hon. friend is mistaken in thinking that
  772
  Messrs. Clutton are the only agents for Crown property. Except in London it is part of the duties of the Crown receivers (including Messrs. Clutton) to arrange relettings when necessary of the premises for which they are receivers, subject to instructions from the Commissioner of Woods in charge of the premises. To employ other agents would lead to additional expense which as a general rule is not considered necessary. In exceptional cases agents are employed and Crown premises to let are advertised in local or other suitable papers as appears expedient.

  Sale of Spirit Licences in Amritsar.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he is aware that by notification, dated the 4th September, 1906, the number of licences for the sale of country and English spirits in Amritsar to be auctioned for 1907–8 was fixed at six, and that fourteen licences have again been sanctioned; whether he is aware that this is a contravention of the Excise Commissioner's Circular Letter, No. 608, of May 19th, 1906; and whether, having regard to the public protests which the confirmation of these licences has evoked, inquiries will be made with a view to the reduction originally contemplated being carried out.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) I have no information regarding the circumstances to which my attention is called, but I will request the Government of India to make inquiries into the matter and to instruct the local government to take any acton that may be necessary to bring the licensing arrangements at Amritsar into conformity with the circular of the Excise Commissioner.

  Irish Savings Bank Business.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will state the total amount of Irish Savings Bank withdrawals for the last annual period for which the figures are available; the total amount of Irish withdrawals of one pound and under for the same period; and the number of complaints received from depositors in Ireland during the same period in respect to the inconvenience caused to them

  773
  by having to send their deposit books to London for examination on every occassion when they withdrew amounts of one pound or under.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The total amount of the Post Office Savings Bank withdrawals in Ireland during the year ended December 31st, 1906 (the last annual period for which the figures are available), was £2,209,846. Of this amount it is estimated that about £144,000 was withdrawn "on demand" in sums of £1 and under. No complaints appear to have been received from depositors in Ireland of inconvenience occasioned to them by the rule which requires that the deposit book shall be sent to London on each occasion of a withdrawal "on demand."

  Irish Postal Business.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that 99 per cent. of the manufactured stuff used in the Post Office in Ireland is not manufactured in Ireland, and that clerical work can be as efficiently and, having regard to the cost of housing accommodation, more economically performed in Dublin than in London, will he explain why all the paid Irish postal orders are sent to London for checking purposes.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am having inquiry made in order to ascertain whether any part of the work of examining postal orders paid in Ireland could, with advantage, be performed in Dublin.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will state the annual income and the annual expenditure relating to the Post Office in Ireland for the past twenty years, and the approximate amount of this expenditure spent during each of those years on material imported into Ireland; whether the loss shown on the Irish Post Office is only a paper loss; and whether he will state the approximate annual profit on the Irish Post Office for the past twenty years when debited and credited with actual figures.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The annual income and expenditure relating to the Post Office in Ireland for
  774
  the seventeen years from 1890 to 1906 were as follows:—

  Year ended 31st March.

  Annual Income.

  Annual Expenditure.

  £

  £

  1890

  678,710

  664,099

  1891

  701,049

  688,978

  1892

  724,812

  749,046

  1893

  734,889

  772,300

  1894

  752,293

  792,810

  1895

  763,647

  801,561

  1896

  795,168

  807,720

  1897

  809,000

  823,000

  1898

  824,000

  866,000

  1899

  846,000

  943,000

  1900

  878,000

  1,025,000

  1901

  903,000

  1,061,000

  1902

  923,000

  1,087,000

  1903

  960,000

  1,140,000

  1904

  980,000

  1,126,000

  1905

  1,002,000

  1,172,000

  1906

  1,043,000

  1,199,000

  The above figures have been taken from the Financial Relations Returns, which were first compiled in 1890. The approximate expenditure in those years on material imported into Ireland for Post Office purposes cannot be stated. The annual loss shown on the Irish Post Office in the last fifteen years is not merely a paper loss, but the best available estimate of the financial results of the working of the Irish Post Office in those years.

  Suggested Transfer of Irish Postal Savings Bank Business to Dublin.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the late Government

  775
  had decided to transfer the Irish portion of the Post Office Savings Bank from London to Dublin shortly before the Dunraven devolution scheme was discussed in the public Press; if so, will he say why the late Government abandoned the carrying out of such transfer; and how many Savings Bank clerks were asked at that time whether they would serve in Dublin in case of a change.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) There was not, so far as I am aware, any decision such as that mentioned by the hon. Member.

  Loss of Registered Letters Addressed to Spain.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the number of thefts of letters registered and otherwise despatched from this country to Spain; whether he has communicated these complaints to the Spanish postal authorities; and, if so, with what result; and whether he has paid compensation for registered letters despatched to Spain and which were not delivered; and, if not, will he do so.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) All complaints of the loss of registered or other letters despatched hence to Spain are duly communicated to the Spanish Post Office; and every endeavour is made to clear them up. In five cases during the last twelve months registered packets sent to Spain were proved not to have been delivered. Three of these were sample packets, and were seized by the Spanish Customs authorities because the addressees refused to pay the duty levied on them. The Spanish Post Office authorised payment of compensation, i.e., the prescribed postal union indemnity of 50 francs, to the senders in the other two cases.

  Overtime of Dublin Telegraphists.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that certain Dublin telegraphists who performed overtime on 9th April, had their regular attendances subsequently curtailed and overtime cancelled; whether he can state the reason of this departure from practice, and
  776
  whether this course has his sanction; and whether the officials subjected to this treatment, who made representations locally, will be favoured with a reply to their representations.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The matter to which the hon. Member refers was reported to me, and I have already given instructions for the full overtime payment to be allowed.

  Metropolitan Railway Whistles.
  MR. STANGER: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that annoyance has for a long time past been caused to residents in North Kensington, in the neighbourhood of the Metropolitan Railway, owing to the drivers of locomotives sounding their whistles or sirens upon approaching the stations, and that this practice has continued in spite of constant protests, and notwithstanding assurances by the general manager of the company that such whistling is contrary to orders; and whether he will consider the advisability of taking action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) I have communicated with the railway company in this matter, and have received a reply of which I am sending my honourable friend a copy.

  Local Government Electors in Ireland.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the population and number of local government electors in each of the Parliamentary constituencies in Ireland according to the latest Returns.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Parliamentary Return, No. 22, of this session shows the population and the number of Parliamentary electors in each Parliamentary constituency. Particulars as to the number of local government electors in each Parliamentary constituency in Ireland have not been prepared, but if the hon. Member should see fit to move for a Return giving those particulars, I will offer no objection to its being granted. Its preparation would,

  777
  however, take some time, as the information would have to be obtained from the clerks of the peace, who have the custody of the registers. The population of each constituency could also be shown in the Return.

  Restriction of Ocean Fishing Rights off County Donegal.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution, unanimously passed by the County of Donegal Committee of Agriculture, in condemnation of the by-law proposed by the Agricultural Department restricting the fishermen's rights of public fishing in the ocean off the congested districts of the county Donegal, in the sole interests of the Foyle and Bann Fishery Company which has the monopoly of the entire of Lough Foyle and its rivers and tributaries; and, if so, what reply has been given to that resolution; and what steps have the Government taken or do they propose to take in prevention of this incursion of public rights.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.): The proposed by-law was submitted for the approval of the Lords Justices in Council, but they declined to approve of it. The by-law has therefore not come into force.

  Irish Stone for Irish Government Buildings.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution of the Donegal County Council, unanimously adopted by the County Donegal Committee of Agriculture, protesting against proposals for the building of the superstructure of the technical training college with Portland stone, notwithstanding that a much superior stone, Mount Charles stone, can be had in the county Donegal, and has been used with great success in large buildings, among others in the cathedral in Letterkenny, its superiority having been conclusively proved by analysis; and, whether, by representation to the Treasury or by any other method, steps will be taken that Irish stone, when admittedly superior in quality, will be used in Irish
  778
  Government buildings in preference to foreign material.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) I am informed that large quantities of brick and stone of Irish origin will be used in the superstructure of the building and that Portland stone will only be employed when no other is so suitable.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Francis Gallagher.
  MR. DOLAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for reinstatement from Francis Gallagher, an evicted tenant living at Irvinestown, county Fermanagh; and, if so, whether any steps are being taken to reinstate him or provide him with a farm.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners have inquired into the case of Francis Gallagher, and upon full consideration of the facts have decided to take no action in the case.

  Whereabouts of Burrowes, of Burrowes and Mayne.
  MR. COGAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police are aware of the whereabouts of Burrowes, of the firm of Burrowes and Mayne, stockbrokers, who defrauded his clients; and, if so, why they do not bring him to justice.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It does not seem desirable to answer such a Question as this, as doing so might in many cases defeat the course of justice. The hon. Member may rest assured that the police will spare no effort to bring offenders to justice.

  The Irish Privy Council.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to furnish a list of the present members of the Irish Privy Council, showing the county or city in Ireland in which each is a ratepayer.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I refer to my Answer to the Question put by the

  779
  hon. Member for South Down on the 10th instant.† I have no information as to the districts in which members of the Privy Council may be ratepayers.

  The Dunraven Devolution Scheme.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can see his way to circulating, for the information of Members of this House, a copy of the scheme of Devolution drafted in 1903–4 by Lord Dunraven and the Under-Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) I find that no such document exists among the records of the Irish Government.

  The Irish Council—Revenue of the Eight Departments to be Absorbed.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the gross revenue from all sources of each of the eight departments to be placed under the control of the Irish Council, and the total; the gross revenue from all sources of each of the Irish departments not to be placed under that control, and the total; and add to this latter total the gross annual payments and expenditure for and in connection with land by the Congested Districts Board, the Land Commission, and Estates Commissioners, respectively, the total sum paid as bonus under the Land Act of 1903 to the 31st March, 1907, and the total net loss incurred under all heads under that Act to 31st March, 1907.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) It would not be desirable to attempt to deal with a complicated matter of this kind by way of Question and Answer. If the hon. Member should think fit to move for a Return, and would acquaint me in the first place with the terms of his proposed Motion, the question of granting the Return would be fully considered.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Bryan Galvin.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when the Estates Commissioners hope to be able to reinstate Bryan Galvin,
  † See (4) Debates, clxxiv., 468.
  780
  of Inch East, near Listowel, an evicted tenant, in his holding.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates-Commissioners have investigated the case of Bryan Galvin, and, upon full consideration of all the facts, have decided to take no action in the case.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Michael Mulvihill.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application for a grant from Michael Mulvihill, of Shronowen, Listowel, who claims he was evicted in 1889, and 1900, and again in 1901; and whether his application can be acceded to.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The application referred to was only recently received by the Estates Commissioners. The case will be investigated in due course.

  Irish Evicted Tenants—Case of Mrs. Connor.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether John Sands, the landlord of the evicted farm at Cloontubbrid, Listowel, has offered same to the Estates Commissioners, so as to reinstate the evicted tenant, Mrs. O'Connor; and, if so, how soon the evicted tenant may hope to get back.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Estates Commissioners are about to have an inspection made, with the owner's permission, of the lands of the Cloontubbrid South, with the object of estimating the price which they may offer for the property. The question whether the evicted tenant can be reinstated cannot be considered at the present stage.

  Free Grants to Congested Districts Boards for Construction of Piers, Harbours, etc.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the total amount of the free grants of money that have been made to Ireland under the heads of Congested Districts Boards, Department

  781
  of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, piers, harbours and navigation since 1840, and other free grants, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The preparation of a statement of expenditure from State sources upon piers, harbours, and navigation works for the past sixty-seven years would involve the utmost labour, and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by preparing such a statement unless corresponding statements were prepared for England and Scotland in order to permit of comparison. The sums spent by the Congested Districts Board and the Department of Agriculture can be ascertained from the Annual Reports of these bodies.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Greenwich Observatory and the County Council Generating Station.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether a formal reply on the subject of the generating station at Greenwich has yet been received from the London County Council in compliance with the request made to them last March.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMUND ROBERTSON,: Yes, Sir. I may add that the Admiralty stands by the report of the special Committee, and have communicated that fact to the London County Council.
  MR. ASHLEY: Have the County Council agreed to carry out the recommendations of the Committee?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I have reported the latest phase of the proceedings.

  Sales of Obsolete War Vessels.
  MR. WATT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can give the estimated market value of the three obsolete war vessels sold from the Holy Loch, had these been sold without the breaking up condition; and, if not, will he take steps to find this out regarding the remaining vessels anchored in the Clyde.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: It is not possible in either case to say what price the vessels in question would realise if sold without any condition as to breaking up. We have no data on which to base an estimate.

  Dockyard Writers.
  MR. BRAMSDON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the attention of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty has been called to the disappointment which their new scheme with reference to the dockyard writers has aroused among the members of that class; whether their Lordships will receive a representative deputation from all the Royal Dockyards in order that the writers' views may be expressed; and whether, until that is done, their Lordships will give directions that the new scheme should not be put into force.
  MR. MALLET: At the same time may I ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that first-class dockyard writers have had no improvement in their maximum scale of pay since 1879; whether, under the new scheme just issued by the Admiralty, these writers will be unable to get an advance of pay unless they give up their established positions and their right to a pension; and, if so, whether, before that scheme is acted on, the Lords of the Admiralty will consent to receive a deputation from the writers to show why, on this and on other points, the new scheme has caused dissatisfaction to the men.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Though the maximum pay of these writers has not been changed there have been improvements in their pay and possibilities of promotion during the period mentioned. First class established writers who receive the maximum rate of pay of 8s. a day have been given the option of entering the new (hired) grade carrying an increased maximum of 8s. 6d. a day. The acceptance of this offer will not involve the forfeiture of pension in respect to their service prior to date of transfer to new grade. No reason is seen for suspending the order issued recently that the new scheme was to come into operation on the 1st ultimo. The writers were heard at the dockyard inquiries

  783
  last year, and the same class have brought their complaints before the Board at the visit to Chatham this year, and will be allowed to do the same thing when the Board's visits take place to the remaining dockyards this summer.

  Royal Scots Greys.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for; War whether, if he persists in sending the Royal Scots Greys to Bulford, there will be thirty-eight families who will be compelled to live at Tidworth, a distance of eight miles, and thirty-eight married men, not on the establishment, who will be separated from their wives and children completely for a period of probably eighteen months or two years; and, if so, whether, in view of the cruelty and hardship involved, he will consider the advisability of utilising the empty infantry barracks at Tidworth, so as to make proper provision for all the married men, it being only necessary to put up wooden stabling for the horses; and whether he could see his way, even now, to make this most necessary and desirable change in the arrangements.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): Arrangements are in course of being made for moving the regiment to Tidworth instead of to Bulford.

  Volunteer Field Artillery.
  CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that by the Bill now before the House it is proposed to create Volunteer Field Artillery, he will adhere to his expressed intention of destroying some 3,800 of the Royal Artillery, and by so doing reduce the Artillery Reserve.
  MR. HALDANE: I have nothing to add at present to the very full statements which I have already made on these points.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: What will be the name of the Field Artillery in the Territorial Force?
  MR. HALDANE: I cannot say at present.

  Unrest in India.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, having regard to the fact that the political agitation in India has for its purpose the desire of the educated Indians, Mahomedans, and Hindus to participate in the government of their own country, he will give instructions that Mr. Lajpatrai, the pleader of the Punjab chief court, who has been recently deported, shall be given a public trial.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): I made a very full statement on this subject yesterday, and I have nothing to add to, or take from, it.

  The Zambesi Falls.
  MR. ESSEX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now inform this House of the terms and conditions of concessions and reservations made at the Victoria Falls (Zambesi) by the British South Africa Company.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The British South Africa Company have, by indenture dated the 14th December, 1906, in pursuance of an agreement of even date, granted and devised to the African Concessions Syndicate, Limited, the exclusive lease of the entire water power of the river Zambesi at the place known as the Victoria Falls, for a period of seventy-five years from the 31st December, 1906, with power to enter upon and use an area of land which is described as having a five-mile radius from Livingstone Islands—always excepting the Rain Forest and the public parks on both banks of the river. No works, however, are to be constructed in this area other than a weir and a canal. The agreement fully defines the purpose of the lease to the syndicate, and attaches certain conditions to the use of the Zambesi for the purpose of developing and transmitting electrical power. One of these conditions is that the syndicate shall undertake that none of the works to be carried out under the agreement shall destroy, disfigure, or interfere with

  785
  the natural beauty and characteristics of the Victoria Falls and their surroundings. The other provisions of the agreements are too long to be compressed within the limits of an Answer in this House.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Does the agreement reserve any revisionary powers to the British South African administration, safeguarding the public interest and preventing the creation of a monopoly?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I must ask for notice of that Question.
  MR. LUPTON: In view of the danger to the picturesque ness of the falls, will care be taken that too much water is not taken from the Zambesi from above the falls during the dry season?
  MR. CHUECHILLwas understood to say that that was provided against.

  The New Hebrides.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the case of children or young females being recruited as indentured labourers under the New Hebrides Convention, they shall only be so recruited when accompanied by their parents, from whom they shall not be separated.
  I beg also to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the case of married women being recruited under the New Hebrides Convention as indentured labourers, they shall only be so recruited when accompanied by their husbands, from whom they shall not be separated.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Owing to the fact that natives of the New Hebrides have three or four wives, who are exchanged whenever it pleases the men to do so, there are difficulties in the way of adopting the hon. and gallant Member's suggestions as they stand. No doubt these difficulties were felt by the Conservative Government which in 1888 passed the Ordinance under which females between the ages of twelve and forty may be recruited from the New Hebrides for service in Fiji without any restriction
  786
  but their own consent. His Majesty's Government are, however, considering whether any licences issued to British vessels should not altogether forbid the recruiting of females for service outside the group. I have already explained that the limit of height under Article XXXIII (2) of the recent Convention will be so fixed as to exclude the employment of children of tender years.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Will the restriction of which the right hon. Gentleman speaks affect also the importation or exportation of children to New Caledonia?
  MR. CHURCHILL: If the hon. Gentleman had followed my Answer he would have heard that the Government are considering whether any licences issued to British vessels shall not altogether forbid the recruiting of females for service outside the group.
  LORD BALCARRES: Will that restriction involve an alteration of the text of the Convention?
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. The licences which have to be issued under the Convention can be withheld at the discretion of the officer in charge.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Will French vessels be allowed to carry them?
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid the British Government only dealt with the affairs of the British Empire, affairs which concerned British people and people who came under its authority.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: Are we to understand that the Government has not a joint responsibility with the French Government for the exportation of labour in any portion of the South Seas?
  MR. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; but notice should be given of questions in regard to matters of legal difficulty, complicated by our relations to another Power.

  St. Helena.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any official information as regards the present

  787
  condition of the island of St. Helena; whether any offer has been made by the Government to help the inhabitants to emigrate; and, if so, how many, if any, of them took advantage of the offer.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State is kept fully informed by the Governor as to the condition of St. Helena. Inquiries were made recently as to how many persons would wish to emigrate if passages were provided; and eleven men and women offered themselves for domestic service in South Africa, and sixty-three men for employment as ordinary seamen; but it has not yet been possible to arrange a practical scheme of emigration.

  British Embassy at Tokio—Medical Officer.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the medical officer to the British Embassy at Tokio is a British subject; and whether he is a legally qualified medical practitioner within the meaning of the Medical Acts.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): I understand that Dr. Wunsch, the medical officer referred to, who was appointed early in 1905 and still holds the post, is not a British subject. But before he was appointed endeavours were made by His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokio to secure the services of a suitable British subject, and none was available. As regards the second part of the Question, I must point out that Dr. Wunsch has very high qualifications, and as his practice is in Japan the special technical qualification referred to does not apply.
  SIR W. J. COLLINS: Is not the British Embassy at Tokio a public institution within the meaning of the Act, and is it not therefore contrary to law to appoint anyone else than a registered medical practitioner?
  SIR EDAVARD GREY: If so, the Embassy would have had to go without a medical officer.
  MR. SMEATON: Was the appointment advertised?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I cannot say.

  Sweden and Norway—Treaty Negotiations.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any progress has yet been made in the negotiations between this country and other Powers with a view to the substitution of a new treaty for that of 1855 with, reference to Sweden and Norway.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The negotiations to which the hon. Member refers are still under consideration, and, for the reason given in my reply to a similar Question on 11th April,† I am unable to make any statement concerning them.

  Tonkin Railways.
  SIR F. CAWLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the arrangement with France in 1896, whereby it was agreed to share equally all privileges or advantages that might be conceded by China in Yunnan, included any arrangement for the passage of British goods for China through Tonkin without payment of duty, or for a drawback on the Chinese frontier of any duty which may have been levied at the port of entry; if not, whether, in view of the penetration of the Chinese provinces of Yunnan and Kwangsi by the Tonkin railways, His Majesty's Government will, in the interests of British trade, endeavour to make such arrangements; and whether any preferential treatment is accorded to French goods on the steamers on the Red River or on the railway in Tonkin.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative, but the matter will be considered in the event of an opportunity occurring. Nothing is known of any preferential treatment of French goods on the steamers on the Red River or on the railways in Tonkin.

  Egyptian Ministry of Justice.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the number of British judges and other British judicial officers attached to the Ministry of Justice in Egypt; and what is their rate of increase since the conclusion of the Anglo-French Agreement of 8th April, 1904.
  … See (4) Debates clxxii., 361.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I have no information which enables me to answer the hon. Member's Question exactly. But he can find particulars respecting the number and rate of increase of the European staff of the Egyptian Ministry of Justice in Lord Cromer's last Report (see Egypt Blue-book No. 1, 1907, page 38). I will make inquiry as to the further information asked for.

  British Consuls in Egypt.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any, and which, of the British Consuls in Egypt have been appointed to such posts by reason of their commercial and industrial experience; and whether, if such be not the case, he will, in order to assist British subjects in meeting the severe and increasing competition in that country, replace the present Consuls by others possessing the requisite experience, or, alternatively, will appoint commercial and industrial experts to British consulates in Egypt.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: There are two British Consuls, one with the local the other with the personal rank of Consul-General, in Egypt, apart from Sir Eldon Gorst. Both of these Consuls are officers of long and thorough experience in all the duties, including the commercial duties, discharged by their service in oriental countries; and no reflection has been cast upon their qualifications for their present posts, which they have held for some years. There is, therefore, no reason for making any change at present of consular officers in Egypt. There are, in addition, two Vice-Consuls in Egypt. Consular posts in Egypt are usually filled from the Levant Service, entrance to which is obtained by open competition. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member that commercial and industrial exports should be chosen outside the service, I must point out that there is no more reason for doing this as regards Egypt than there is in the case of other industrial countries. The best we can do is to get men who have some commercial knowledge to enter for the Consular Service, to give thorn some training at the Board of Trade before beginning their duties abroad, and to encourage the study of commercial matters afterwards.
  MR. C. E. PRICE: Have any of these Consuls employed in Egypt received any commerial training? Has not Germany several Consuls in Egypt having business qualifications?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I am not aware of the particular qualifications of the German Consuls, but with regard to the whole Consular Service our effort is to encourage commercial training.

  Cairo Post Office.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, why, seeing that Friday is the Moslem day of rest, there is not the same restriction of hours on that day as on Sundays in the postal service at Cairo and Alexandria; and whether the Customs offices are closed on Sundays and open on Fridays.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I do not know what the facts are, and I am not aware that any complaint has been made on the points referred to in the Question. But it is clearly a matter which must be left to the discretion of the Egyptian Government.

  Alien Criminals.
  CAPTAIN FABER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of persons received into London prisons on conviction, summary or other, during 1906, who according to their own statements were born in foreign countries.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,: The figure is 1,823, which compares very satisfactorily with the figure 2,206 for the previous year, 1905.

  Hours of Work in Mines Inquiry.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will expedite the issue of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Hours of Work in Mines immediately the Report is made; and if he can now say when it is likely to be in the hands of Members.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Committee expect to place their Report in my hands

  791
  this week, and steps will be taken to expedite the printing as much as possible so that it may be available for Members shortly after Whitsuntide.

  South Metropolitan Gas Company and the London Municipal Society.
  MR. WILES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the South Metropolitan Gas Company made a contribution to the funds of the London Municipal Society previous to the late London County Council election; and, if so, is he in a position to state the amount of such contribution.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,: I am informed by the South Metropolitan Gas Company that they subscribed a sum of £21 to the funds of the London Municipal Society in January last. I am causing the directors' letter, which is rather too long to read to the House, to be printed with the Votes.
  [The letter was as follows]:—
  "South Metropolitan Gas Company.
  "709, Old Kent Road, S.E.
  "8th May, 1907.
  "The Assistant Secretary
  "(Harbour Department),
  "Board of Trade,
  "7, Whitehall Gardens, S.W.
  "Sir,
  "In reply to the question anent a subscription to the London Municipal Society in your letter of the 1st instant, which was read to my Board to-day, being their first meeting after its receipt, I have to say that this company subscribed £21 to that society in January last.
  "In response to your further inquiry for any observations the directors may have to make on the subject, I am instructed to say that this company is one of the largest ratepayers in South London, paying £88,000 a year in rates, being an increase of 50 per cent. in the last seven years.
  "Under the operation of the sliding scale as applied to gas companies whereby gas shareholders and gas consumers
  792
  are made partners, gains or losses are divided in the proportion of about 6½to the consumers to 1 to the shareholders. Consequently of this large sum about 86 per cent., or £75,000, a year is paid by the consumers, the predominant partner.
  "Parliament having by the sliding scale united the interests of consumers and shareholders, it is the duty of the company as well as its interest to do the best for both parties by economising in every possible way.
  "It is to the advantage of the consumers, who are all ratepayers, as well as that of the company's shareholders and its employees, who are also shareholders, that the waste and extravagance of the local authorities should be checked, and that honest and capable men should be elected on public bodies to secure economical and efficient management, for efficiency cannot be separated from economy. The directors consider it their duty to adopt all lawful means to that end, and they believe the action they have taken is for the public good.
  "I am also instructed to direct attention to the gross injustice which the continuance of the present system inflicts on all joint stock companies, they pay a very large and increasing proportion of the rates with no control whatever over their expenditure, and with no voice or vote in the election of the London and borough councillors or the members of the boards of guardians. Such taxation without representation cannot be justified. The system, or rather the want of system, has been allowed to grow with the growth of joint stock companies, and a remedy is urgently needed to give them their proper share in municipal government.
  "I am, etc.,
  "(signed) FRANK BUSH,
  "Secretary."

  Registrar of Births and Deaths.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a number of registrars of births and deaths in certain districts suffer serious reductions of income by reason of depopulation, and consequently on retirement receive superannuation allowance sums disproportionate to their contributions in the early years of their

  793
  appointment; and whether he will consider the advisability of appointments to registrarships at a fixed salary instead of the present system of payment by fees, and the need of an inquiry into the practicability of a proper system of promotion.
  THE PEESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,: I am aware that in a certain number of cases the amount of the fees received by registrars of births and deaths is reduced by reason of a diminution in the population of the areas for which they act and other causes, whilst in a certain number of other cases the amount is increased by reason of a rise in the population of these areas and other causes. The registrars, however, accept the possibility of any such increase or diminution with their appointment, and where they lose fees in consequence of a re-arrangement of registration sub-districts they, as a rule, receive compensation. A fixed salary could not be substituted for the present system of payment by fees without legislation. I am not aware of any sufficient reason for an inquiry of the kind suggested.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: Is it not a fact that they are paid by salary in Scotland?

  West Riding Higher Education Rate.
  MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has yet decided, concerning the appeal of the West Riding County Council, to substitute a 3d. for the 2d. limit upon the rate for higher education imposed by the Education Act, 1902; and whether his decision is favourable to the substitution.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I have received the report of the inspector after the inquiry recently held by him on this subject, and I am in communication with the Board of Education with regard to it.

  Hong Kong Mail Service.
  MR. HOLT: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the unsatisfactory character of the French mail service between this country and Hong Kong; and, having regard to
  794
  the fact that letters for Hong Kong despatched from London to Singapore via Bombay, and posted again in Singapore, reach Hong Kong from three to five days earlier than they would do if posted in London on the same day direct to Hong Kong, he will take steps to forward mails to and from Hong Hong by this route, so as in conjunction with the fortnightly Peninsular and Oriental mail to give an efficient weekly mail service between this country and Hong Kong.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): My attention has not been called to anything unsatisfactory in the character of the mail service to Hong Kong by French packet; and there have not been any special complaints on the subject recently. It may be the case that letters for Hong Kong sent to Singapore by British contract packet via Bombay and reposted at Singapore occasionally reach Hong Kong earlier than the mails despatched by French contract packet the same week. This, however, can only occur when the Singapore Post Office happens to be in a position to send a mail to Hong Kong by a steamer leaving Singapore almost immediately after the arrival of the mails from England via Bombay; but the first regular contract packet from Singapore for Hong Kong is the French one. There would, therefore, be no advantage in sending mails to Singapore to wait there two or three days for the French packet by which they might have been sent from Europe. The British packet frequently arrives at Hong Kong ahead of the scheduled time while the French one is occasionally a little late, with the result that the French packet usually arrives ten days after the British one of the preceding week; but it must be borne in mind that correspondence for transmission by French packets can be posted in London at the General Post Office up to 9.30 on Saturday morning, while correspondence for the British packet leaves on Friday evening.

  Punishment in the Post Office.
  MR. O'GRADY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, when a Post Office servant is punished by loss of seniority, no amount of unblemished service will suffice to restore him to his former position; and, if so, whether he

  795
  will modify the regulation which inflicts punishment for the whole of the man's service and denies him any power of recovery.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: In such a case the lost seniority is irrecoverable, except in so far as it might be regained by promotion to a superior class. To revise the rule would inflict injury on the reduced officer's colleagues whose conduct was better than his own and below whom be had been placed. Loss of seniority is a punishment imposed only in cases of grave misconduct; and I am not prepared to take any step which would weaken its effect.

  Education of Boarded-Out Pauper Children.
  MR. HART-DAVIES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that hitherto children boarded-out in the country by Poor Law guardians have been admitted to free education in the local public elementary schools equally with the other village children, but that recently several provincial education authorities have claimed from the guardians the net cost of the education of boarded-out children, and intimated that in future children will not be admitted unless they are so paid for; and whether, with a view to preventing the discouragement of boarding-out in the country, he proposes to take any, and, if any, what steps in the matter.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. MCKENNA,: I have no desire to discourage the system of boarding-out, and where the guardians' area is within the educational area in which children are boarded-out I agree with my hon. friend that there is no sufficient reason for the education authority to exact a contribution from the guardians. So far as I am aware no such claim is usually made. If any case of the kind is brought to my notice I shall be prepared to hold that the exclusion of such children on the ground that the guardians have refused to make a contribution is not reasonable. But where children are boarded-out in an area other than that in which they are normally resident it does not appear to me equitable that the ratepayers of that area should be under any obligation to
  796
  bear the cost of educating such children if the guardians refuse to take advantage of the provisions which Parliament in Section 2 of the Elementary Education Act, 1900, has provided for the purpose.

  Halsall Charity.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education whether, seeing that the trustees of the Halsall Charity applied for a new scheme more than two years ago, i.e., in November, 1904, and that the Board of Education have continually been pressed by the ratepayers of Great Crosby to proceed with the scheme, he will state what are the reasons for the delay which has taken place in the preparation of the scheme; and whether the Board will now press forward the scheme for publication without further delay; and, if not, why further delay is judged necessary.
  MR. MCKENNA: The preparation of the scheme was originally postponed in view of the fact that a sale of the charity property was in progress which was calculated materially to increase and has in fact materially increased the income available; and a further postponement was due to last year's Education Bill. A draft scheme is now in course of preparation and will be proceeded with as expeditiously as possible.

  Board of Education.
  MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education of whom the Board consists; when and by whom they were appointed; the salaries and emoluments attached to the office of each member, apart from the President himself; whether he can state the date of its last meeting; when it is likely to be summoned to another meeting; and whether the Board, as a Board, have the appointment and dismissal of the staff and are responsible for its adequacy and efficiency.
  MR. MCKENNA: The Board consists of a President, the Lord President of the Council (unless he is appointed President of the Board), His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, the First Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury, and the Chancellor of His Majesty's Exchequer. The Board was appointed in pursuance of Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Board of Education Act, 1899. A part from the

  797
  meagre allowance paid to the President no member of the Board receives any emolument by virtue of his membership. I have no record of any meeting of the Board, and I have no immediate intention of convening one. The Answer to the last paragraph is in the affirmative.
  MR. CLOUGH: Is any ecclesiastical or sectarian test applied to members of this Board?
  MR. MCKENNA: No, Sir.

  Defaulting Education Authorities.
  MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education in how many instances the Education (Local Authority Default) Act, 1904, has been put into operation, and will he give a list thereof with the dates and causes of default, and of those which have since been withdrawn.
  MR. MCKENNA: I will send my hon. friend a statement showing the payments under the Education (Local Authority Default) Act, 1904, with the dates on which they took place. The cause was in each case that specified in Sub-section (1) (b) of Section 1 of the Act, viz., that it appeared to the Board that the managers had for the purpose of maintaining and keeping efficient the school incurred expenses for which provision should have been made by the local education authority. I am not sure what meaning my hon. friend intends to attach to the last part of his Question. Transactions under the Default Act, as he is doubtless aware, consisted in reimbursing to the managers certain sums which were subsequently deducted by the Board from the grants payable to the local education authority. No question of withdrawing these transactions can, therefore, arise.
  MR. CLOUGH: Have any withdrawn after being declared defaulters?
  MR. MCKENNA: The moment they are declared to be in default the money is paid over to the managers so that there is no possibility of withdrawal.

  School Return for Wales.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education if he will give a Return showing, by counties,
  798
  in Wales and Monmouthshire the numbers of provided and non-provided schools, respectively, which do and which do not receive assistance from the rates towards their maintenance.
  MR. MCKENNA: As I stated on 15th and 18th April, I do not think it would be possible to compile a Return of this nature, and I am quite certain that the advantages to be derived from it would not be commensurate with the labour and expense which an attempt to obtain the information would involve

  Boy Clerks in the Civil Service.
  SIR GEORGE KEKEWICH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the Treasury have yet considered the memorial of the boy clerks in the Civil Service and are now prepared to give a reply to the prayer of the memorial; and, if not, whether he can state approximately when an Answer is likely to be given.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,: The subject is receiving careful consideration, and I hope that a decision may be arrived at before long.

  Customs Service.
  MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury in what years since the issue of Treasury Minute, 24th March, 1891, departmental examinations for first-class examining officerships of Customs have been held; how many officers have been invited to attend; how many have presented themselves for examination; how many have passed on each occasion, and what modifications have been introduced from time to time in the various examinations; and under what conditions have the successful candidates qualified at each examination.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I have obtained these particulars and will show them to the Hon. Member.

  House-Letting in Scotland.
  MR. R. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can inform the House as to the progress made by the Departmental Committee appointed to report upon the present system of house-letting in Scotland and proposals submitted for its reform.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that, at a meeting of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, held in Aberdeen last week, attended by 132 delegates from trades unions from all parts of Scotland, representing 122,000 tradesmen, the house-letting question was considered, and a resolution passed in favour of reform; and whether, in view of the importance of this question, he will say when the Report of the Departmental Committee, which some time ago concluded its inquiry on this subject, will be issued.
  THE SECEETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. Sinclair,): I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division of Glasgow on the 9th inst.†

  Inverness-shire Sanatorium.
  MR. J. DEWAR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the interdict recently granted against the parish council of Boleskine and Cleertarf from putting a road, which has always been regarded as a right of way, into a state of repair, which will permit it to be used as a means of access to a sanatorium being built by public subscription for the benefit of the people of Inverness-shire; and if he will take steps to enable this work to be completed.
  MR. SINCLAIR: I have no official information, and am not in a position to express an opinion. The question appears to be one of disputed right of way, and while the general views of the Government on such questions are well known, I do not think that direct intervention is within my power.

  Grazing Farms in Ireland.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will advise the Estates Commissioners, or ensure in some other way, that the consideration of purchase by the State of grazing farms which have been surrendered and have come into the market in consequence of intimidation shall be deferred until such estates as are legitimately vacant shall have
  †See (4) Debates, clxxiv., 369.
  800
  been disposed of under the Land Act of 1903.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): If the hon. Member's suggestion were acted upon the result would be that landlords who may have already suffered by having grazing farms left on their hands would still further suffer by being unable to sell such farms. I may however observe that on a previous occasion the Estates Commissioners have declared that if they should purchase untenanted lands in regard to which intimidation has taken place, they might be constrained to refuse to allot any portion of the land to persons who may have taken part in any such intimidation. I have repeatedly stated that all possible protection will be afforded to the occupiers of grazing farms in the exercise of their legal rights.
  MR. MOORE: Is the intimidation so general as to make the danger a real one?
  MR. BIRRELL: No, I do not think it is.

  Scotland and the Irish Council Grant.
  MAJOR ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: I beg to ask the Prime Minister what amount will fall to be paid by Scotland of the £600,000 which the Government proposes to devote to the new Irish Council.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): The additional amount proposed to be allocated to Ireland out of the proceeds of the taxation of the United Kingdom generally under the Irish Council Bill is £650,000. The contribution of the taxpayers of Scotland to this amount would, I take it, be in the same proportion as their contribution to English, Scottish, and Irish services generally, of which annual Returns are presented to the House.

  New South Wales and Unimproved Land Values.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the proposed legislation in New South Wales involving the paying for town

  801
  improvements by a rate on the unimproved land value instead of on industry; and whether he will try to obtain and lay upon the Table of this House a Report from the Premier of New South Wales on the aims and scope of this proposed legislation, as well as on the Shires Act that was passed in 1905.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: So far as I am aware no new legislation is proposed. If my hon. friend desires it I will present to Parliament the Shires Act, 1905, and the Local Government Extension Act, 1906.

  Standing Committees.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTasked the Prime Minister if his attention had been drawn to the fact that Standing Committee "A" had had to be adjourned on the previous day to the great inconvenience of private Members, because no member of the Government or law officer of the Crown was present. He asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would take steps to secure that such a state of matters did not occur again.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the adjournment was only for half an hour, and that at the end of that time the Bill under discussion was gone through and reported to the House?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the Bill was a private Member's Bill, the adjournment was for seventeen and a half minutes, and the whole proceedings were thereafter finished in one and a quarter hours, when the Bill was reported to the House. He could not think, therefore, that any great inconvenience had been caused.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Did not the hon. Member for South Tyrone himself move the adjournment in order not to bring these Committees into disrepute?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked as to the business to be taken immediately after the holidays.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANstated that on Thursday, 23rd May, it
802
was proposed to take in Committee of Supply the following Votes—the Board of Agriculture, Prisons, Industrial Schools, and Poor Law Asylums. On Friday, the following day, it was the intention to take the Criminal Appeal Bill, but that question was deferred by request till the following Friday. He hoped the measure would be treated as non-Party, and that the progress made might be as rapid as possible, as the Bill had been postponed twice by request. It was proposed to take instead, on Friday, 24th May, first, the financial Resolution on the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill; and, secondly, the Second Reading of the following Bills in succession: —Merchant Shipping (Tonnage Deduction) Bill, Vaccination Bill, Education (Administrative Provisions) Bill, Released Persons (Poor Law Relief) Bill, Poisons and Pharmacy Bill, Employers' Liability (Insurance Companies) Bill, Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Bill, and Patents and Designs Consolidation Bill. This was, as might seem to some, a long story, but he hoped that many of its chapters would prove to be very short. On Monday, 27th May, the Government proposed to take the Report of the Financial Resolution on the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill, and then the introduction of the Small Holdings and Allotments. Bill for England.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Mr. STUART-WORTLEYreported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir William Holland to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A, in the place of Sir Thomas Esmonde; and Sir David Brynmor Jones to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B, in the place of Mr. J. W. Wilson.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A (in respect of the Notification of Births Bill): Mr. Secretary Gladstone and Mr. Herbert Samuel; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of

803
the Notification of Births Bill): Mr. Burns and Dr. Macnamara.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee A the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Notification of Births Bill):—Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Lyttelton, Mr. Verney, Mr. Gulland, Mr. Masterman, Mr. Sherwell, Mr. Tennant, Dr. Cooper, Mr. Bridgeman, Mr. Holt, Mr. Duncan Schwann, Mr. Cecil Harmsworth, Mr. James Gibb, Mr. Charles MacVeigh, and Mr. Percy Barlow.
Sir WILLIAM BKAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B (in respect of the Butter and Margarine Bill): Dr. Macnamara and Mr. Burns; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Butter and Margarine Bill): Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland and Sir Edward Strachey.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee B the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Butter and Margarine Bill):—Viscount Morpeth, Mr. Hicks-Beach, Mr. Lonsdale, Mr. Hugh Barrie, Lord Willoughby d'Eresby, Mr. Lundon, Mr. Kilbride, Mr. Halpin, Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Nuttall, Mr. Dalziel, Mr. Winfrey, Major M'Micking, Mr. Arthur Henderson, and Mr. A. H. Scott.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they haddischarged the following Members from Standing Committee B (in respect of the Probation of Offenders (No. 2) Bill): Mr. Burns and Dr. Macnamara; and had appointed in substitution (in respect of the Probation of Offenders (No. 2) Bill: Mr. Secretary Gladstone and Dr. Macnamara.
Sir WILLIAM BRAMPTON GURDONfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee B the following Fourteen Members (in respect of the Probation of Offenders (No. 2) Bill): Mr. Cave, Mr. Pickersgill, Mr. Maclean, Mr. Lief Jones, Mr. Arthur Dewar, Mr. Sloan, Mr. Hall, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Thomas F. Smyth, Mr. Crooks, Mr.
804
Mitchell-Thomson, Mr. Charles Corbett, Mr. Clough, and Major Dunne.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend The Diseases of Animals Act, 1896, with regard to the importation of Canadian live cattle," presented by Mr. Cairns; supported by Mr. Hamar Greenwood, Mr. Robert Price, Mr. Baker, Mr. Halley Stewart, Mr. Maddison, Sir Gilbert Parker, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Sir Frederick Cawley, Mr. Cross, and Mr. Crooks; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 4th June, and to be printed. [Bill 197.]
  IMPORTED WATCH-CASES BILL.
  "To exempt from assay foreign watchcases imported into the United Kingdom before the first day of July, nineteen hundred and seven," presented by Mr. Kearley; to be read a second time upon Monday, 27th May, and to be printed. [Bill 198.]
  CONVEYANCING BILL.
  "To amend The Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881," presented by Mr. Micklem; supported by Sir Henry Kimber, Mr. Radford, Mr. Berridge, Mr. Cave, Sir Francis Lowe, Mr. Astbury, Mr. Whitehead, Mr. Bertram, and Mr. Napier; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 28th May, and to be printed. [Bill 199.]
  SETTLED LAND BILL.
  "To amend the Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890," presented by Mr. Micklem; supported by Sir Henry Kimber, Mr. Radford, Mr. Berridge, Mr. Cave, Sir Francis Lowe, Mr. Astbury, Mr. Whitehead, Mr. Bertram, and Mr. Napier; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 28th May, and to be printed. [Bill 200.]

  MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY BILL.
  "To amend The Married Women's Property Act, 1882," presented by Mr. Micklem; supported by Sir Henry Kimber, Mr. Radford, Mr. Berridge, Mr. Cave, Sir Francis Lowe, Mr. Astbury, Mr. Whitehead, Mr. Bertram, and Mr. Napier; to be read a second time upon

  805
  Tuesday, 28th May, and to be printed. [Bill 201.]

  EVIDENCE (COLONIAL STATUTES) BILL.
  "To facilitate the admission in Evidence of Statutes passed by the Legislatures of British Possessions and Protectorates, including Cyprus," presented by Mr. Churchill; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 202.]
  BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (HULME TRUST ESTATES EDUCATIONAL) CONFIRMATION BILL.
  "To confirm a scheme approved and certified by the Board of Education under The Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853, relating to the Hulme Trust Estates (Educational)," presented by Mr. McKenna; supported by Mr. Lough, Mr. Bright, Sir Charles Schwann, Mr. Talbot, and Mr. Toulmin; to be read a second time upon Friday, 24th May, and to be printed. [Bill 203.]

  FINANCE BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [13th May] ''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.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEYsaid he was one of those who viewed with very great regret the introduction into the debate of the question of colonial preference, though he confessed his sorrow was considerably mitigated by the admirably wide terms in which the Amendment was conceived. Since the issue had unfortunately been raised, he
  806
  craved the indulgence of the House to make one or two observations upon it, before proceeding to what he conceived to be the more important part of the discussion. He listened very carefully to the speeches from the Front Bench opposite the previous day, and he had been at the trouble of reading them over again that morning. He confessed they suggested to his mind a sense of vagueness and want of definiteness which was entirely the impression he received when he heard them. It seemed to him that the ghost of the old mercantile system was still stalking on the benches opposite. What was that system? It was founded upon the idea that the Colonies should remain, by nature appointed, producers of raw materials, and that the Home country should be the sole market for those raw materials, whilst, on the other hand, the Colonies were to be the monopolised market for the British producers. That, combined with the notion that it was the whole duty of the nation to export as much as possible of its production without any regard to the imports it received in exchange, might be said to be the beginning and the end of the old mercantile system. How much of it had been modernised and how much of it remained in the proposals put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham? He gladly admitted that some measure of enlightenment had come to those who were the inheritors of the old mercantile theory; as the right hon. Member for St. George's said the previous day, they at any rate fully recognised that any arrangement now made between ourselves and the Colonies must be on a voluntary basis. But still enlightenment vainly contended with mercantilism. They found them one moment appealing to the British people to make sacrifices to consolidate the Empire, and the next they found them holding out visions to the people of better employment and higher wages; one moment they were portraying Canada as Britain's Granary and the next they were presenting to the agricultural industry here a system that would protect them. The right hon. Member for St. George's the previous day, as he understood him, asked them what business man would give his rival an order even if he profited himself. They found right hon. Gentlemen opposite at one moment expressing lofty conception of Empire, and at the next

  807
  going to the British manufacturer and asking him what sort of duty he would like to assist him in his business. Even were the most worthy part of the argument true, of whom was the sacrifice on behalf of the Empire demanded? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, whose absence they all deplored on this occasion, talked to the nation of sacrifice. What nation? Lord Beaconsfield said there were two nations—the nation of the rich, and the nation of the poor. Of which of these was the sacrifice demanded? It mattered little or nothing to him (Mr. Money) or to those above him in the social scale whether they taxed tea, sugar, corn, meat, cheese or butter; but it mattered a great deal, it mattered everything, to the other nation—to the great mass of the poor in our towns. It mattered a great deal to them whether or not they proceeded, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite put it, to broaden the basis of our taxation. It remained true, as the author of the modern form of this policy had said, that if they wanted to give a preference to the Colonies, they must put a tax on food. When right hon. Gentlemen opposite appealed to them in the cause of Imperial unity, he thought he might say, on behalf of himself and every hon. friend on that side of the House, and on the benches below the gangway on the other side of the House, that they were not deaf to that appeal. He was not, at any rate; but if he was to cherish this lofty conception of a united and consolidated Empire, which might be, as he thought, a tremendous idea for good in the world in the future, was he to put aside the even loftier idea, as he conceived it, of the re-union of the British-speaking peoples of the world? This policy of preference did nothing of a very material character for the Colonies; it established a tie which at the very best and highest could only be regarded, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham put it to the Colonial Conference of 1902, as a matter of sentiment—as a sentimental tie. Even regarded from that aspect, at its very highest, what was it in relation to the United States of America, the great race of English-speaking people? It had another aspect to them, and it seemed to him that it was a blow chiefly directed against
  808
  the United States of America, who were one of our chief suppliers of food, raw material, and partly manufactured articles, which right hon. Gentlemen opposite desired to tax at an average of 10 per cent. It was against that nation, far more than Germany, that this policy was directed, and it was to be deprecated on that ground, because it was something to prevent the union of the British-speaking peoples of the world, which, in his opinion, was fraught with the most tremendous consequences for good, not only to ourselves but to the world at large. There was very much to be said for a policy of free trade within the Empire with or without an Imperial tariff against the nations outside the Empire; but what was it that stood between ourselves and free trade within the Empire? Let them take the case of the trade of 1906. We did about £260,000,000 worth of trade with British Possessions as a whole. Only £82,000,000 worth of that trade represented imports from the self-governing Colonies, and only as to a part of that £82,000,000 did the self-governing Colonies apply customs duties. Even in regard to those duties a certain portion of them were necessarily duties which new countries like our self-governing Colonies must need apply to imported goods in order to get a revenue at all. If that part were subtracted, it would be seen that only a small part of the trade within the Empire was not done on free trade conditions. As to that small part we were not to blame. It was the self-governing Colonies themselves that had erected any barrier that existed in the way of free trade within the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's had said that the President of the Board of Trade had elsewhere welcomed the forging of fetters between the several parts of the British Empire. Was that quite the proper way to represent what was said? They, as free traders, had not the slightest objection either to a self-governing Colony reducing these barriers, which were the only barriers which stood in the way of the realisation of the conception of free trade within the Empire, or of reducing the barriers which stood in the way of free trade with each other. The Cobden Club, which guarded the pure milk of the Cobdenite gospel, begged Sir

  809
  Wilfred Laurier, whose Government had given a preference to the United Kingdom, to accept their silver medal, and he believed he accepted it. That entirely represented the position of free traders with regard to any expansion of the preferential principle of the self-governing Colonies either toward each other or toward this country. They welcomed it as something towards free trade within the Empire. Unfortunately, it had been pointed out that the self-governing Colonies did not intend to lower their tariffs to the revenue point. Their doctrine was well expressed by the Resolution passed by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association in 1902—
  "Whilst the Canadian tariff should be primarily framed for Canadian interests, it should give substantial preference to the Mother Country, recognising always that the minimum tariff must afford adequate protection to all Canadian producers."
  That, of course, was a most important Resolution. He wished it had remained a pious Resolution; unfortunately, it was carried into very practical effect. Our chief competitor in the Colonies was not the foreign but the Colonial manufacturer; and it was equally true that the Colonial manufacturer's chief competitor was not the foreign but the British manufacturer. Of course, the anxiety of the Colonial manufacturers that a minimum tariff high enough to protect them should apply to British goods was the best possible compliment that could be paid to the exporting strength of the United Kingdom. The Canadian preferential tariff reached its highest point in 1900, when it was increased to 33⅓ per cent. reduction in all duties which were applied to imports, but unfortunately it had since been amended. Wherever it had since been shown, either by statistics or by the experience of Canadian manufacturers, that this gave any particular advantage to British manufacturers, the Canadian manufacturers were soon heard from by the Canadian Government. When Mr. Fielding, the Canadian Minister of Finance, rose in the Canadian House of Commons in June, 1904, to make his Budget statement, he found himself compelled to take serious notice of the complaints made by Canadian manufacturers. The chief complaints were made by the woollen manufacturers. They Deere saying in every place where they
  810
  could raise their voices that they were being ruined by British competitors. Mr. Fielding began by reproaching them—
  "I am afraid they are not all equipped with the most modern machinery, and have not put themselves in a condition to fully enjoy the benefits the tariff holds out to them."
  But he was sorry to say Mr. Fielding continued by giving way. He went on to say that the complaint was made very largely by their woollen manufacturers that, although in the better grade of goods they could fairly compete with all persons, a very large proportion of imports of British woollen goods were really shoddy goods of inferior character, against which they ought to legislate. Then he said that they did not propose to increase the general tariff, but to put a limit on the preference which should apply to these goods. It was hoped it would prove enough to keep out British goods, and, ex hypothesi, all other goods which were not so strongly competitive as British goods. That policy was not confined to woollen goods, but was applied to other goods in which it was alleged that British competition was severely felt. He thought therefore that he was entitled to say that the Canadian preferential tariff was whittled away in those respects in which it was shown it was any decisive advantage to the British manufacturer. It had never been with any enjoyment that he had looked the Canadian gift-horse in the mouth, nor had he analysed the preference with any desire to belittle it. His desire to do that only arose when the preference passed from the sphere in which it was admitted that no reciprocal obligation was imposed upon this country to another sphere in which we were told it was our duty to set up food taxes in order to pay for this Colonial preference. When that point arose, but not till then, they had a right to analyse the Colonial preference and cast doubts upon the advantages of it to the manufacturers in this country. If he might sum up their objections to the preference, he would say that it weakened the heart of the Empire, struck a blow at the trade of the United Kingdom, accentuated the local interests of the Colonies themselves, and produced feelings of division and feelings relating to sordid interests which would never arise if the policy of preference were not discussed.

  811
  Even in regard to Canada itself, it could not truly be said that the Colony collectively had ever had any advantage by the preference. Indeed, while on the one hand the policy was designed to benefit Canada as a British Colony, it actually caused discussion among the native manufacturers themselves. That was not a feeling the creation of which had done anything towards the consolidation of the British Empire. Colonial preference would strike not only at the United States, but at Argentina, where, he would remind the junior Member for the City of London, the railways and various undertakings were very largely owned by British capital. That was a consideration which appealed not so forcibly to him as it would to the junior Member for the City of London; but he was perfectly sure he could appeal to him to remember those widows and orphans dependent upon a small investment, say in Argentine railways, whom, only the other day, when discussing the question of old age pensions, the hon. Member used so touchingly and so effectively as an argument in connection with railway stock. There was another Imperial point which he thought ought to be seriously regarded by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that was the question of India. He did not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite had heard of the Swadeshi movement. He was informed that the meaning of the word "Swadeshi" was "own country," but he thought it might be translated as protection in excelsis. They refused to buy foreign goods at all. That serious movement surely demanded the attention of hon. Members. Was it wise on our part, the great and prosperous head of the British Empire to confess that we needed import duties, and at the same time to deny these import duties to India? The Indian imports of manufactures were derived almost entirely from this country. He forgot the proportion, but he thought it was something like eighty or ninety per cent. The Indian protectionist rightly regarded this country as his strongest competitor, and, if we taught these British subjects of ours that we ourselves regarded protection as necessary for the welfare of this country, how could we deny that same remedy to Indian manufactures? He did not know whether
  812
  any answer would be afforded by hon. Gentlemen opposite. John Stuart Mill, and many other quite academic free traders, had held that if protection was anywhere excusable, it was in connection with new countries, or countries new in the sense that India was new to modern industry. He now passed to the question of revenue, which was touched upon in the Amendment, They assured people that they were going to protect their employment and give them more work, while they raised revenue by admitting foreign goods. That sounded like a paradox, and yet it was not so much a paradox as it seemed. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had failed to realise how exceedingly difficult it was to keep manufactured goods out of any country. An average 10 per cent. duty would probably not keep out more than 5 or 2½ per cent of the manufactures which now came in. [Hear, hear.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite said "Hear, hear,'' and he was glad to hear it. If they really cheered that, would they be good enough to remind their constituents that they did not expect an average 10 per cent. duty, which was propounded at Glasgow, to keep manufactured goods out of the country? Their constituents would know then what to expect. What would it do? They knew very well it would raise prices. He did not assert for a single moment that it would raise them by precisely 10 per cent., but that it would raise them all round there was no manner of doubt whatever. On the point of the difficulty of keeping manufactured goods out of a country, he would direct the attention of hon. Gentlemen to the fact that the Dingley tariff of America failed to keep out of the United States of America a quantity of manufactured goods which was as large as that imported into the United Kingdom; as a matter of fact the imports of manufactured goods into the United States of America for the first three months of this year were almost of the same value as the imports of manufactured goods into the United Kingdom. That showed that the greater part of the manufactured goods imported into any country under any fiscal system was absolutely necessary to its industries and must be imported, whatever tariff they liked to impose, or whatever fiscal system they enjoyed or did not enjoy. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, although they had

  813
  not asserted it in that House, had, wherever they could get a hearing, told the people in the country that it was the foreigner who paid the import duties; and he believed that the introduction of the words "broaden the basis of taxation" into the Amendment would be interpreted in the country to mean that the basis was to be broadened until the foreigner was included. That part of the Amendment which related to revenue was only worth serious consideration at all if it could be shown in the long run and on the average that the foreigner paid the import duties. How could hon. Gentlemen opposite reconcile that theory with the fact that in every protectionist country, practically without exception, manufacturers who re-exported any article containing either raw material or partly manufactured or wholly manufactured material which had previously paid duty on importation, had the duty returned to them by the country which was supposed not to pay it? Was that not conclusive as to the ordinary view which was taken of import duties by business men? He might point out that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, when he introduced his proposals, said he had no intention of ruining the industries of this country by taxing raw materials. We produced a not inconsiderable amount of raw materials ourselves. If the importation into any country of any considerable quantity of raw material caused the foreigner to lower his price to an extent which might be represented as paying an import duty, it would be our duty not only to tax food but to tax raw materials in order to give preference to the Colonies. He might give another practical illustration of the incidence of import duties. The United States under their scientific system of tariffs had to set up courts and assessors to deal with the question of duties in detail. For instance, the United States produced 25,000,000 dollars worth of zinc ore a year, but it also had to import a large quantity, and they found a firm of importers anxiously fighting before the court whether zinc sulphide was a raw material or a manufacture and whether it should pay no duty or 20 per cent. Why was this firm fighting the question if the foreigner paid the import duty? What did it matter in such a case whether the duty was 20 or 50 per
  814
  cent.? The truth was that the business man looked upon an import duty just as he did upon any other element in the cost of production. It must be an element in price. It was perfectly true that when an import duty was placed on an article, just as much as when a raw material rose in price, the change might not make itself at once apparent in the price of the article as it reached the consumer. Last year, roughly speaking, raw materials went up 10 per cent.; did the price to the consumer go up? Not at once, but the prices of manufactured articles rose gradually, were rising now, and would continue to rise. At first the increased cost of manufacture and of materials could not be passed on to the consumer. The same might be said of an import duty, and he was sure that hon. Members who would consider the matter from purely business considerations would not argue in their constituencies that it was possible to tax the foreigner. He took great exception, as he had explained before, to the use of the words, "the broadening of the basis of taxation." There was only one basis of taxation, and that basis was the national dividend which consisted of the whole product of the work of the nation. That was the true basis, and one could neither widen nor narrow it. If it wasnot possible to tax the foreigner the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to tax the people of his own country, and the only election open to the right hon. Gentleman was as to what class of goods or people he should levy his tax, and as to the means which they had to pay the tax. What he considered to be the chief consideration which he had to put before the House in connection with this Budget was this—that while it had been demonstrated that this country was increasingly prosperous and wealthy, the greater proportion of the people were property less people who had no tangible assets, and the sole factors between them and destitution were the health and strength which they possessed. He did not want to weary the House with figures, which were always tedious, but if he were to take a page of the Order Paper of the House and tear off a small corner, what was left would represent the property of 5,000,000 people, while the piece he had torn off would represent that of 39,000,000 people. That and similar facts were what the Chancellor of the

  815
  Exchequer had to face. When he looked at the Finance Bill and at the Amendment which had been proposed, his mind was not so much fixed upon the fiscal question which it had been his misfortune to discuss so often, but upon the considerations which must be in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposed to apply taxation to the people under the circumstances he had indicated. This brought him to the savings of the poor, in regard to which a statement of the hon. Member for Woolwich had been challenged by the hon. Member for the City of London, who assured the House that the rich were very poor and the poor were very rich. The hon. Gentleman pointed to the millions of money which were possessed by trade unions or lodged with friendly societies. Did the House really know what these millions were? What did they really mean? The few shillings, the few pounds that were stored up in the trade unions and friendly societies and such-like bodies, merely represented the premiums which had been paid to save the man from destitution when he got out of work, to keep him going in a small way when he got ill, and to pay his burial expenses when he entered into the possession of that bit of soil which was the only piece he was ever likely to have the privilege of possessing. That was the real meaning of the savings of the poor, and when they came to building societies it was a fact that a great part of the savings were not those of manual labourers, but those of the middle classes and even of professional men. Max O'Rell had said that the average Englishwoman's method of making an apple pie was to take "some" flour, "some" water, "some" fat, "some" apples, and so on, without any precise regard for quantities. As a result, sometimes one got apple pie and sometimes an indigestible conglomeration. So Chancellors of the Exchequer took "some" individuals and "some" duties, such as those on tea, sugar, and so forth, without the slightest idea of what individuals were to pay the duties. Surely it was time we dropped rule of thumb and had regard to the means of taxpayers. This Finance Bill recognised, perhaps more fully than any previous Budget, that there was a common sense difference between income which was earned by the individual worker by the work of his own hand or brain,
  816
  and the income derived from property. That was a tremendous principle to have recognised, although it was not recognised sufficiently. The differentiation which was proposed did not really touch the great mass of incomes which were derived from property, and did not sufficiently recognise the distinction between money derived from exertions and income derived from such sources as land or capital. The only commonsense way to differentiate the income tax was to graduate it. The great mass of unearned incomes was at the top of the scale and they did not touch it by specific differentiation of small incomes. It was not worth while to pursue little incomes derived from property. As incomes grew in size more and more of them was derived from property; therefore graduation was the true differentiation. He thought it was high time that regard, should be had to the fact that in spite of the wealth of the country there was an enormous number of the people who were not taxable subjects at all. The principle of no representation without taxation could be pressed too far. After the scientific investigations that had taken place everyone would be convinced that with all our wealth there was probably one-third of our population on or near or under a poverty line arrived at on the basis of the workhouse dietary. His constituency contained a spot of fifteen acres loaded with about 7,500 human beings the average income of each of whom was well under 25s. a week when they could get it, and they did not always get it. Were they taxable subjects? No. Why? Because they did not receive sufficient to enable them to sustain physical efficiency to say nothing of being able to obtain luxuries and enjoyment. He submitted that they should be regarded as subjects who were not taxable unless they cared to tax themselves. He did not suggest that the tax should be taken off drink and tobacco. On the contrary those taxes should be left on. The principle should be adopted that these people were not taxable unless they taxed themselves by buying these things. To carry that out would necessitate the removal of the tea duty and the sugar duty and other indirect taxes now levied. The tea duty must go because tea was one of the most innocent luxuries of the poor and helped a woman to get through

  817
  her work, and because in taking it off they would assist temperance. The sugar duty must go because it was not only an article of large consumption among the poor, but a raw material in many of our industries. He passed to the question of old age pensions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid it down as a principle that they should be non-contributory, and he agreed; but if they paid pensions through food duties they would in a real sense be contributory. If people had to buy taxed sugar was it not the same thing as if they had to pay no duty on sugar but 4d. a week for a pension? The sugar tax amounted to 16s. a head per annum, and so long as that was maintained old age pensions would be contributory. The hon. Member for Preston had laid down the principle that the employer ought to contribute, the employer who had the use of the man during his working hours and who could discharge him at a moment's notice. He agreed to that also, but if they had a properly graduated income-tax they would make the contribution of the employing classes so that that end of the hon. Gentleman would be served. In all these matters they must have regard to the practical limits of taxation. They must not begin to trench on the amount of capital saved in the country every year, and which was devoted to the establishment of new or the expansion of old businesses, and to the general welfare of the community. That was obvious, but they need not fear that the grant of old age pensions would diminish capital saving. It was years ago said by Professor Marshall that probably £100,000,000 a year was wasted by the working classes, and £400,000,000 a year by the rich, in a manner which contributed nothing to the welfare of the country. Were those estimates extravagant? Certainly not. He stated with confidence that Professor Marshall had full warrant for what he said. Let them take the wealth of the rich people of this country at the present time. It was so large as to be extraordinary. The extraordinary luxury of the country had even attracted the attention of Bishops. A graduated income-tax, rising to Is. 6d. or 2s.,would by no means trench on capital savings, or cause any risk to the trade and the credit of the country. The financial strength of the nation was imperfectly realised. It was only a few years since that we entered
  818
  into a war which cost £220,000,000, which, from an economic point of view, he thought might have been better employed in some other way. Only a few years had passed since then, and never had the trade of this country, its total production, and the income of its employers of labour been greater. They knew that the trade of the country at the present time was, in spite of the war, in a most flourishing condition. The financial position of the country had thus been demonstrated in a very remarkable way, and he did not think that that strength was sufficiently appreciated. He submitted that if the needs of the time and the conscience of the nation demanded it we could safely increase our national expenditure for social purposes. He thanked the House for the great kindness with which it had listened to him.
  MR. LANE-FOXsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was full of information, and though they did not all agree with him, they listened to his observations with interest. But the hon. Member had posed, as was often done on the opposite side of the House, as one of the exclusive friends of the working classes; but he repudiated the implied suggestion that they who were on the Opposition side of the House were not equally anxious and willing to safeguard the interests of the poorer classes in connection with taxation. They might differ from hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the methods to be adopted, but he did not think that any hon. Gentleman would insinuate that there was less inclination on that side of the House to safeguard the interests of the poorer classes than there was among supporters of the Government. The hon. Member had dwelt very eloquently on the luxury and great expenditure of the richer classes of the country. Were such references as that to be used as arguments, seeing that the great mass of taxation under the present Budget was upon commodities mainly used by the poorer classes? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire had been accused of not giving any definite details of what his scheme would be. But he thought the Opposition were entitled to ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Bench what was the remedy for the very large

  819
  and growing expenditure which must inevitably come in respect of the promises made not only in that House but in the country. The hon. Member had admitted that 10 per cent. or a less duty on manufactured goods could not keep them out. That was a very considerable admission from so consistent and vigorous an advocate of free trade, and perhaps would not be lost sight of by those who took part in the debate. As regarded the question of colonial preference, he wished, if possible, to ascertain from the Government what their attitude was towards that subject, and what they intended to do in the matter of future taxation to meet the great expenditure which had been foreshadowed. The Post-master-General had said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire was like a conjuror with a hat, from which he was to bring a rabbit, but the rabbit was not forthcoming. But hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to him to be like a conjuror who violently waved a hat in the air and showed that there was nothing in it. They could not expect the audience to be very much impressed by that. What they wanted to know was where the sources of revenue were to be found, when, as was perfectly evident from his Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was pretty well at the end of his tether. The President of the Board of Education had drawn a touching picture of the condition of the poor of the country, and had said that the object of Members of the Opposition was to tax the poorer classes, and even the imported boots and shoes of the wives and children. He did not see why they held it to be a greater hardship to tax boots and shoes when they taxed tea and sugar, which were just as much used, and the tax on which pressed just as heavily on the poor as a tax on boots and shoes. Taxation in the end fell on the poorer classes of the community, and what they all wanted was to see adumbrated some system by which they would levy taxation more on articles of luxury used by the richer classes who were better able to afford it, than, as seemed to be the proposal of the Government, on those commodities which were used mainly by the poorest classes of the community. The President of the Board of Education had pointed to the great increase of wages in
  820
  1906, and had remarked that the revenue of the country was so elastic, and the prospects of trade were so good, that we should not be in any financial difficulty in the near future. But the right hon. Gentleman had not pointed out that that was a mere boom in trade which was being experienced in other countries besides our own; it was a temporary phase of trade, which fluctuated, as the Returns showed, in every country of the world. It was very rash to draw from that boom in trade any definite rule as to what might happen in the near future, or to establish upon it any definite basis for a permanent system of taxation. What struck him particularly about the debate was the breezy hopefulness with which hon. Gentlemen opposite attacked this question. It reminded one of the spirit of the early Christian martyrs who faced all the possibilities of their fate; similarly, hon. Gentlemen opposite said that they had no fear, and that whatever the expenditure before them might be, they put their trust in a good providence with no apprehension as to what would happen. He would like the House to consider what the expenditure was in regard to which they were asking for fresh sources of taxation. Partly by recent legislation, and partly by recent speeches and by utterances during the general election, they were promised an increase in the bureaucracy of the country. They had been promised an increase in the number of inspectors; and anybody who had discussed the possible schemes of hon. Members opposite connected with such subjects as small holdings and the better housing of the working classes must recognise at a glance that an increase of expenditure was inevitable in the rural districts. Unless a heavy increase was to be put on the rates—and he did not think that any hon. Gentlemen who knew the rural districts would wish to see that—considerable assistance would have to be given from the Imperial Exchequer to carry out those projects. Then they had schemes for the payment of Members, payment of railway fares, and other expenses for matters which would conduce to the comfort of their existence in that House. They would also have the rush of extra shipbuilding, which must come if hon. Gentlemen opposite were prepared to cut down the shipbuilding programme now. The

  821
  history of the country showed that whenever there had been a lull in shipbuilding for the Navy, the time shortly afterwards arrived when there was a panic, and the shipbuilding was increased to an undue extent. In addition there was the expenditure of £650,000 needed for the new Irish Council. They were face to face with the grant to Jamaica, which must certainly diminish the surplus which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was relying on for next year. In addition to that, they had the proposal for old age pensions, which, it seemed to him, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had entered upon so lightly. The ordinary man in the street regarded the old age pension as 5s. a week at the age of sixty-five, and it was not for a moment to be supposed that they could have any final or speedy solution of the question with the sum the Chancellor of the Exchequer had at his disposal. Everybody knew, as was admitted by the President of the Local Government Board, that the full cost of a scheme of the kind would cost £29,000,000; even making the deductions proposed by the Hamilton Committee, the cost would be more than £12,000,000. Those deductions, however, must be difficult to carry out, and in any case an enormous sum of money would be involved. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had earmarked £2,250,000, and he expected to get another £600,000 out of the death duties. That seemed to him to be a sanguine estimate as regarded the death duties, because they must take into account that generation after generation there would be more evasions of the tax. Already they had instances of arrangements by which the burden of the death duty was evaded, and the yield was more likely to become smaller than greater. But supposing the whole of that sum from the death duties was realised, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have about £3,000,000 a year. It was clear that that sum would be perfectly inadequate to meet the demand for old age pensions. What was the fresh taxation to which they were to look to help the Government out of their difficulty? They had heard from various quarters that they were to be taxed more. It was impossible to raise £20,000,000 out of taxation alone. The Front Government Bench had not given
  822
  them a really serious idea of what their suggestions would be, but they had heard certain suggestions from hon. Gentlemen below the gangway or elsewhere. The hon. Member for South Hackney had suggested various measures for broadening the basis of taxation; whether the Government would adopt them he did not know, but the hon. Gentleman had suggested, among other things, taxes upon theatre tickets, advertisements, etc., as a fruitful source of revenue. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had been accused of endeavouring to tax the food of the poor. By maintaining the present taxes upon tea and sugar the Chancellor of the Exchequer was doing the very thing which had been advanced as the worst accusation against the policy advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. Unless the Government could tell them where they proposed to look to for their necessary revenue in the future they would be providing the strongest possible argument by this Budget in favour of tariff reform. If that was the result, the Government would only have themselves to thank.
  MR. J. RAMSAY MACDONALDsaid that no man would envy the Chancellor of the Exchequer who had to make up his mind what classes were to be beneficiaries under his Budget. The Labour Party were profoundly dissatisfied with the choice he had made, because they considered that one class had an unanswerable claim, and that class was the old people of sixty-five years of age who had not enough property to keep them out of the workhouse, or to enable them to live without charitable assistance. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that perhaps next year he would consider the claims of those old people, and that he had, in fact, set aside £2,250,000 as a nucleus or a sort of reservoir from which he could draw, provided everything went well. He did not desire to discount the promises made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer he believed they were genuinely made; but his difficulty was that many other right hon. Gentlemen equally honest had made the same promise. It looked as though upon this subject they were going to get promises until time had sounded its last knell. They were told

  823
  that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's estimate came out as he anticipated, if trade remained as good as it was at the present time, next year they might find themselves discussing a practical scheme of old age pensions. They were tired of promises and were going to accept no more. Moreover, they were anxious to find out what the scheme of old age pensions was going to be. The President of the Local Government Board the other day gave them certain very interesting figures on the subject, and he classified the poor into independent and dependent poor. He presumed they would not be doing the right hon. Gentleman any injustice if they assumed that that classification indicated the direction in which the Government's mind was running. Did they imagine that the working classes would accept a scheme of old age pensions which was not going to relieve the old people who were now living upon the Poor Law? That at any rate was what was suggested by the speech of the President of the Local Government Board. The sooner the Government dispossessed their mind of that idea the better, because the Labour Party were not willing to accept or even to associate themselves in any way with a scheme which differentiated between the poor at sixty-five who had been compelled to resort to the Poor Law and those who had not. They would never regard a proposal of that kind as in any sense satisfactory. When the pledge was given in an old-fashioned general sort of way that they were going to have old age pensions next year they were just as interested in being told what the scheme was as hearing the oft repeated promise once more. Whilst the class which they thought ought to be the first beneficiaries under a Liberal Budget was waiting to be dealt with, a much more well-to-do class was going to receive substantial benefit under the provisions of this Finance Bill. The people with incomes of from 3 guineas to £40 a week were going to receive substantial relief to the extent of from 3d. to £25 per annum. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant to redeem some of the pledges given at the election he ought not to have chosen for those benefits the people receiving from 3 guineas to £40 per week, but should
  824
  have devoted his attention to the old people of sixty-five years of age who were struggling to keep themselves outside the workhouse. Surely they ought to have been chosen instead of the-middle classes who were being benefited by this Budget. It was very extraordinary that a Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer had selected for relief a class whose incomes had been going up by leaps and bounds during recent industrial developments. The people who had been suffering reductions of income and wages were the very people who had to wait for another period of twelve months before any relief was promised. It was quite true there were certain good beginnings in the Budget, but he thought it was an exceedingly feeble attempt to do the right thing. With regard to the Amendment he thought it really meant nothing whatever. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire, in his speech, gave voice to all sorts of notions of taxation. One moment he had advocated protection in order that British industry might increase in bulk, and at another moment he had advocated a tariff which would contribute substantially to the revenue of the country and supply funds for old age pensions. Then the right hon. Gentleman had invited their attention to colonial preference, telling them that they ought to invent some tariff which would give the Colonies a substantial preference in our Home market. Then he had passed on to retaliation and reciprocity, and after that he seemed to have mixed up all his schemes together. It was quite possible that all those schemes could be mixed up together, but if they tried to devise a system which would be protective to industries, which would increase the revenue and increase the demand for home labour, and at the same time offer preference to the Colonies and retaliation, and enable this country to bargain with foreign countries, then they would get a minimum of each and not a maximum. From the point of view of protection and revenue that sort of hybrid system of tariff reform yielded so little benefit that they might discount it altogether in the Budgets brought up year after year. He felt certain that they could not decrease their expenditure. He did not think any section of the House hoped to reduce the present

  825
  scale of national expenditure to any material extent. They might save upon the Army and Navy and in other directions, but every 6d. which they managed to save would be spent in other directions. The total expenditure of the country was not going to be reduced to any appreciable extent. He thought it rather a pity that the Leader of the Opposition did not take alarm at the increase in expenditure before that £220,000,000 was spent on the South African war, which debt was now lying like a millstone round the necks of the people. But it did not matter how large the expenditure was, they ought to levy the taxes in a scientific way. The Amendment proposed that the basis of taxation should be broadened, but in his opinion that basis was now as broad as it possibly could be. There was not a single family in the country that did not pay taxes. There was not a single man or woman who consumed tea or sugar, however insignificant their income, whether a pauper or independent worker, who did not contribute something towards the revenue of the country. It was a melancholy and lamentable fact that the poorer they were the heavier taxation pressed upon them. There were people whose incomes were so small that they could not keep themselves in an adequate state of physical efficiency, and yet those people had to pay taxes on tea, sugar, and tobacco, equivalent to the taxes paid by the richest consumer. What they complained of was that the basis of taxation was too broad at the present time, for they taxed people who ought not to be taxed, and they taxed incomes every farthing of which ought to be spent in keeping their possessors in a state of physical efficiency. They were taxing family incomes which ought to be spent to the very last farthing upon feeding and clothing the children and bringing proper facilites within their scope and command. At the present time the working classes, whose incomes averaged £70, were paying something like £48,000,000 to the National Exchequer. There was not a sensible man in the House who would not say that that basis ought to be narrowed. The pyramid ought to be based not on its broad basis but on its apex. The time had come when the Chancellor of the Exchequer in national finance had to work
  826
  out a pyramid of taxation, raised not upon its broad basis, which was oppressive and crushing, but upon its apex, which would enable the pyramid to lie on that small section of the community who held property which was social in its origin and which ought to be spent on social purposes. If they took the figure he had just quoted, namely, the £48,000,000 contributed by the working classes to the national income, it worked out at 2s. in the pound income-tax. If they considered the final utility of 2s. in the pound to a man whose income was anything between 15s. and £1 a week, and worked that out, they got an equivalent in final utility to a man whose income was £5,000 of probably something like £2,000. It was not a question of amount of money; it was a question of final utility—the question of discovering the equivalent to people who had enormous incomes to the tax of 2s. income-tax in the pound which the working classes had to pay. At the present time the income-tax upon the working classes was a tax upon life, not upon property; and he submitted that what the Chancellor had to discover was how to remove all taxes upon life and place them upon property. The question one would like to see answered was how right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House would readjust the incidence of taxation. The proposal was that something should be taken off tea and tobacco, and that something should be put on cheese, meat, flour, and bread. The proposal was not that the volume of taxation should be reduced, but that what was now imposed should be split up into small particles and that those particles on the whole should be equivalent to what was now being paid. He ventured to say that that was rather a futile result. If they were going to relieve people of taxes, let that be done, but let them not merely split the taxes up and then in the aggregate take away as much from them as before. Broadening the basis of taxation as defined by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, was that more commodities should be brought within the net of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but that simply meant that they were taxing trade, and there was nothing more objectionable than a tax upon trade. That limited industry. Moreover, though they might

  827
  appear to be taxing things consumed, ultimately the incomes of the people had to bear the tax, and that in the most objectionable way, because they had to bear it not in relation to the ability to bear, but in relation to the use which the holders of the incomes made of the various commodities they had to use. No more objectionable system of taxation could be devised than that method of broadening the basis of taxation, because it meant that an increasing number of articles would have to bear taxation than at present, and from the point of view of the working classes that was infinitely worse even than the present bad system. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham promulgated this scheme for breaking up taxation and levying it in small homeopathic doses on many commodities; but even on the platform he confessed the working classes would only be helped to the tune of nine or ten farthings. That was no relief of taxation. If the proposal made in the Amendment did not reduce taxation, what about its Imperial aspect? The right hon. Gentleman in his speech yesterday had laid special emphasis upon the Imperial aspect of his proposal; he had told the House that we ought to reciprocate the commercial offers of the Colonies, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, later on had described those offers as being important. As there was to be an opportunity of discussing those proposals later on, it would not be necessary to go into details now, but he was bound to take that opportunity of saying that he thought those offers and proposals would be much more important than they were if they had been a little more detailed and a little more definite, and if they had been conveyed in pounds, shillings, and pence—if they had been conveyed in schedules rather than in grandiloquent periods and general language which might or might not be capable of application to our commercial conditions. But he took this objection. Why should we, simply because the Colonies asked us, change our fiscal system? Why should they not change their fiscal system upon our invitation? Was it going to be a one-sided bargain altogether? Was that how right hon. Gentlemen did business? If the Colonies offered something, were right hon. Gentlemen going
  828
  to accept that offer without consideration as to whether it was valuable in itself or not? Was His Majesty's Government going to be accused of pursuing a wrong policy because it insisted on discussing the value of the proposals made to it by business men and apparently for business ends? He read a leading article in the Melbourne Age the other day, which wound up with a statement to the effect—
  "We are offering preference, not only because we want to show our love for the Mother Country, but because we are convinced that the Mother Country requires it for business purposes, and we are also convinced that if the Mother Country does not adopt a new fiscal policy the Mother Country's business will disappear as it is rapidly disappearing."
  He thought that must have been written some years ago. Certainly it must have been written by somebody who had not the most recent trade returns published. If those things were true, if there was any foundation for these statements, they were statements which could be discussed from two sides. Surely they ought to be the subject of discussion on the part of the preferentialists and protectionists on the one hand, and the free traders on the other. It was simply absurd for anybody to say that, because the Colonies, acting upon ideas of protection, offered us certain preferences, and because we turned to them and said, "We believe that free trade suits our purpose better; we believe that free trade is a better economic foundation for the Empire than preference or protection," we were not Imperialists, that we were not taking an interest in the Empire, and that we were aiding and abetting dismemberment and dissolution. If they were going to allow the people of the Empire to decide, then the majority of the people were in this country. The most important business centre of the Empire was still in this country, and if there was going to be a public appeal in regard to the economic interests of the Empire the matter was not going to be settled by people outside the Mother Country but by people inside. The people who voted in the recent elections were not going to be called anti-imperial and told that they were indifferent to imperial interests because they had decided, and he thought decided well, that free trade was to be the basis of the fiscal policy of the mother land.

  829
  They were told that they did not even go the length of taking off in favour of the Colonies some duties which were now imposed on imports. If the Colonies would be satisfied with that he was not sure but that the suggestion might at any rate be considered on its merits. There was no general formula of fiscal policy or a tariff creed that was from the beginning and was going to remain true until the end of things. Everyone of the elements of our fiscal dogmas had to be decided generation after generation as circumstances changed. Hon. Members above the gangway did not monopolise the free mind. Hon. Members who were on the other side measured the success of their policy year after year and generation after generation, and they stood by free trade not because Cobden preached it, but because it was beneficial to us at the present time, and because it was going to be beneficial to the country for a considerable time to come. He did not believe that preference would encourage the Colonies to trade with us, or that our trade with the Colonies would thereby be affected to any considerable extent. Had the Premier of Australia given us any pledge that if we lowered duties on Colonial imports upon our present tariff schedules he would be satisfied? Had the Premier of Canada given us any assurance that that would satisfy him? It was quite true that South Africa would be rather pleased with it, but South Africa was in a peculiar position. South Africa was mainly interested in wines and tobacco, and a change in the present tariff would suit South Africa in a special degree. But what would it mean to this country? It would be the beginning of the principle of protection. Our tariff policy was not to be dictated by the opinion of a majority of the Colonies. At least he hoped it had not come to that yet. There were three views of taxation; they might either tax articles of general consumption, which was the protectionist theory; or they might tax property, or combine a tax on consumption and property. The Labour Party held that all taxation on articles of consumption should be removed because they bore oppressively upon the poorer classes of the community, and that taxes should be levied upon wealth that had not been earned by individual service. The values created not by
  830
  individuals but by the community should be transferred to the community and not allowed to be enjoyed by individuals who had not earned them by service. Industrial capital and wages ought to be free altogether from taxation. The State should claim as its property the value of that which it had created. If after that revenue was still required, incomes and other property should be taxed. The Labour Party would not support the Amendment because they believed not in broadening but in narrowing the basis of taxation. The Amendment had really been framed in alight-hearted, sympathetic, and lightsome moment by men who wanted to meet the demands of Colonies who do not understand our tariff policies, whose economic conditions differed from ours, whose markets were not our markets, and whose competition was totally different from that which we had to meet.
  MR. MALLETsaid that everyone admitted that the Imperial aspect of this great business question was the most attractive, and perhaps the only attractive, aspect which it had; but that there was nothing in the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite to show how Imperial feeling could be strengthened by increasing the taxation on articles of large consumption, or, in other words, on the necessaries of life. It was perfectly clear that there was one ground on which tariff reform was advocated which could not be properly maintained. Speeches had been made from the Opposition side which advanced the theory that we owed it to our Colonies to make them some further return for the preference they offered us, but he thought that that view was neither tenable nor fair When they remembered that the preference offered by the Colonies was still very limited in extent—Sir William Lyne said that the Australian proposals only applied to 8 per cent. of Australian imports, and that even then British goods going to the Australian Colonies must be carried in British ships manned by white labour, a condition which millions of our fellow subjects had a strong right to resent when they remembered that the Colonies still imposed high protective tariffs on most of our goods, whilst we in return offered them, on everything they sent us, a liberality of treatment which no other nation in the world offered them, and which they

  831
  never dreamt of offering us; and when they remembered that we, unaided, bore the whole burden of Imperial defence; surely it was not fair to urge that we were required to make any further return to our Colonies. After all, in any bargain between ourselves and our Colonies, we were and must remain their creditors, offering them far more than we could ever look for in return. That was the nature of all bargains between parents and children, and he thought that in all such bargains this policy of haggling was a grave mistake. As long as the Empire held together, the Colonies would always owe a debt to the generosity of the English people, but that was no reason why they should impose on that generosity, as Gentlemen opposite would have them do, an intolerable strain. Mr. Lowe once said in a passage of illuminating pessimism that we lost half our Colonies by trying to tax them, and that we should lose the other half by their trying to tax us; and he suggested to hon. Gentleman opposite, who loved the extremities of the Empire, but who minimised, he thought, the claims of the heart of the Empire, that, if they laid down the principle that we could only keep our Colonies by submitting to impositions on our food, and interference with our freedom, they ran the risk of making the Empire not the pride, but the bugbear, of the English people. He wished tariff reformers would tell them in more detail how they could possibly reconcile their proposals with what they believed to be the needs of our own people. Free traders had always insisted that they could not give any colonial preference worth having without taxation of corn, but that was a point on which they had never been able to ascertain definitely the views of the Leader of the Opposition. They had always insisted also that it involved a tax on raw materials, but they had never yet been able to get a definite pronouncement on that point from the Protectionist Leader. Gentlemen opposite had shirked these definite paints, on which the whole meaning of their policy depended, and instead of facing them had urged the House to try to do something for the Colonies on the basis of existing taxation, so that they might drift imperceptibly into abandoning free trade. The right hon. Gentleman the Member
  832
  for St. George's, Hanover Square, had complained that the Government had refused to take our existing duties and to try to offer a little preference upon them. The right hon. Gentleman had said it was ridiculous to go into details and he quite agreed it was so, because when one began to go into details one saw how ridiculous that proposal was. He did not know whether anyone had noticed the recent arrangements in Australia for giving a preference to South Africa in regard to the trade between the two Colonies, but there were one or two points in them which were significant. There had been a great increase in the use of agricultural machinery in Australia, and they had been buying their harvesters principally from Canada, which were imported at a duty of £5. Last year the duty was raised to £12, and at the same time a handsome preference was offered to South Africa in regard to harvesters imported from that country to Australia. How did the protectionist party in Australia justify that preference to South Africa? They justified it on the ground that South Africa did not send any harvesters to Australia at all. A preference was also given by Australia to South African wines, and that was justified on the ground that the people in Australia did not like and did not drink South African wines. The fact was, when one looked into the details of these preferences, it very often happened that the preference was little more than a pretence. Let them take the case of Canada and consider for an instant what we could have done for Canada on the basis of existing duties. It was said we might have made a beginning and gone into the Conference and offered something. What did that mean? On the basis of existing duties we could offer nothing to Canada on her great exports, timber, corn, bacon and cheese; we could only offer her a preference on certain dutiable articles such as tobacco, sugar, tea, coffee, cocoa, wines arid spirits, and dried fruits. If the House looked at the details it would be seen how absurd such suggestions were. As to tea Canada only sent us £999 worth in 1905; and that could not be Canadian, because Canada did not grow it; a preference on tea could not therefore benefit her. Again our imports of sugar

  833
  from Canada were only of the value of a few thousand pounds, and there again it could not be said that that import offered much scope for preference. The import of tobacco from Canada was worth only £9,000, while wine and spirits only amounted, to £10,000. Coffee she sent none; cocoa only £1,100 worth, and dried fruits practically none. From these figures it was obvious that, on the basis of existing duties, the opportunity of giving a preference to Canada, the margin for "broadening the basis of taxation," was comparatively small. This great Dominion came to us and offered us in a friendly and generous spirit concessions on our manufactures which hon. Gentlemen opposite rated very high. Did they seriously mean to answer: "We will give you a preference on nothing of any importance which you sell, but only on a few trumpery articles which are not really Canadian at all." The same thing might be said with equal truth in regard to the other Colonies. They had had references to South Africa, and they were told that they might do something by giving a preference on South African tobacco and South African wine. The amount of tobacco which we got from South Africa was infinitesimal, and did not amount to £1,900 a year, and the amount of wine imported last year was very little more. The hon. Member for Gravesend always spoke with authority on Colonial matters, but he must always be regarded even when he spoke of Imperial economics as first and foremost a master of romance. The hon. Member had told them that if Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Cobden had loft the wine of South Africa alone, and if it had not been for the Treaty of 1859, the trade in the wine of that country might have grown to large dimensions. Of course it was all the fault of that wicked Mr. Cobden, who was responsible for so much evil, and also for such wonderful prosperity in this country. But in 1905 the importation of South African wine was only worth £8,500; in 1906 it had shrunk to some £2,000; and here they got no opportunity of broadening the basis of taxation. In regard to Australian wines, there was some better scope for a preference, but would any preference ever make those wines a competitor with the products of Portugal or France. Australia sent us hardly any tea or tobacco, but
  834
  she did send us a certain amount of wine. In 1905, it amounted to as much as £136,000, but last year it fell to £100,000; and there there was perhaps a limited opportunity of showing good-will to Australia, if we were willing to shut our eyes to the principle of free trade. But the fact was, we did not buy Australian wines because we did not drink them, and he doubted whether they were drunk even at the banquets of tariff reformers. Erasmus once said that he could not fast on Fridays, because while his heart was Catholic, his stomach was Protestant, and in the same way he suspected that while the appetites of tariff reformers were Imperial, their palates owned the heresies of Cobden still. Moreover, Australia was of all our Colonies the most rigidly protectionist, the most determined, by tariffs or bounties, to keep her own market for herself. Would that resolution be changed by a trumpery preference on Australian wines? To have gone into the Colonial Conference expressing a willingness to grant preference on the basis of existing duties without intending to go on would have been to play a dishonest game. Imperial unity would never be built up on any scheme of pooling Parliaments or pooling trade, or on a fiscal system which added intolerably to the burdens of the people. It was because by relying on those specifics, the Party opposite had turned the strong current of Imperial feeling into mistaken channels that he resisted these preference proposals whatever shape or form they took.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member for Plymouth concluded his speech by accusing the party to which I belong of having directed the stream of patriotic emotion, which might have been directed into better channels, into the channel of preference, which in his view can produce, in the long run, no good consequences either to this country or to our Colonies. The hon. Gentleman does us more than justice. It is not we, it is the Colonies, those great self-governing communities in which the hon. Gentleman professes, and I doubt not with perfect truth, an interest as great as that felt by any of my hon. friends, who turned the stream of patriotic emotion into that channel. And the complaint we make against His

  835
  Maiesty's Government, and against their supporters in and out of the House, is that they have ignored through all these years the offers made to us by those communities, that they have sheltered themselves behind self-made rules of finance which have, to my mind, no solid basis either in scientific or in applied economics, and that they have, in consequence of these limitations, put it absolutely out of their power, when they met the Colonial Prime Ministers in conference only a few days ago, to do anything in the direction which the Colonies desire. There is, I believe, one exception. There is, or has been, a suggestion made that there should be a preference in shipping, or that there should be a shipping subsidy, or some expedient of that kind. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and who is an ardent economist of a certain school, regards that as consistent with free trade as he understands free trade; and, if he does not, I wonder whether he is going to make the same eloquent speech in denouncing it, if it should ever come before the House, as he has just made in denouncing other schemes which are certainly no more inconsistent with free trade than this. I suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us, or indicate, when he comes to deal with this branch of the question, what it is the Government really do propose with regard to shipping subsidies, and will give us the opportunity of practically testing exactly what it is that they mean when they talk of supporting "the theory of free trade." We have often tried to find out, but we have not always succeeded; and I remember that when a Motion was moved on the subject last session they very wisely closured the debate after two days discussion, because they found themselves wholly unable to explain the meaning of the phrase. The discussion has very naturally, and I think very rightly, ranged over a wide surface. We have not only dealt with the question placed before us by my right hon. friend's Amendment, but some speakers have also discussed various outlying portions of the same great theme, and discussed them in many cases with great clearness and ability. We have had a sketch Budget of one character from the hon. Member for North Paddington. The hon. Member for Leicester gave us a sketch of another
  836
  Budget on somewhat different lines, and we have departed, more or less, no doubt, from the perfectly narrow limits laid down by the Amendment, strictly interpreted. I think I shall probably best consult the convenience of the House if I confine the few observations I have to make to a survey of the condition of things with which that Amendment is intended specifically to deal. If we were merely discussing the question of colonial preference and the question of the propriety of possessing some power of bargaining with foreign countries, I should really have nothing to add to what I have often said to this audience and to other audiences. The reason I think it worth while to speak at all on this subject is not that I have anything to modify in any statement of principle I have ever laid down. It is not that I think those statements were ever lacking in clearness or precision or lucidity. [Ironical cheers.] It is not that I have changed them even by a hair's breadth. [Ironical cheers.] But it is that I think the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, taken in combination with what we know to have passed at the meeting with the Colonial Premiers, gives new opportuneness, new force, and new applicability to the principles which I have ventured often to lay down as representing my own views and those of many of my friends. I heard ironical cheers just now when I said that I have never changed my opinions. Those ironical cheers came from Gentlemen who have never taken the trouble—I do not know whether it was worth their while—to master the views I have from time to time put forward; and among the people who have not taken that trouble I may count the Prime Minister, who spoke the other day at Manchester, and repeated, with his usual force, the oft-repeated charge that I had, as a matter of fact, modified my views from time to time, that I had, in accordance, as he suggested, with political exigencies and political pressure, changed opinions to which I have given expression and modified principles which I believe to be sound politically and economically. No man can say that who has read or listened to what I have at various times spoken on this subject, and who is at the same time gifted with ordinary powers of comprehension. The Prime Minister has powers of comprehension far above the ordinary, and I conclude, therefore, that

  837
  he has, very wisely from many points of view, never taken the trouble to acquaint himself with the opinions which I and others hold on this subject. We have had the old battle-cry of protection and free trade raised again to-day. I am not going into that subject. If by protection is meant—and it is probably the most accurate, scientific meaning of that much-abused term—a policy which has for its object the diverting of the trade and commerce of a nation or of the world from its natural channels by artificial legislative means, that has never been, and is not now, any part of the policy which Ire commend. I do not want to see grow up in this country industries which under natural and free conditions would have no chance of flourishing. I do not desire to see that policy carried out; and, that being my view, I think it perfectly absurd, from a scientific point of view, to describe my policy as a policy of protection. But let it be remembered that we are now dealing with a world which has evidently set itself determinedly to divert commerce and industry from its natural channels and to our disadvantage. When we hear the authority of Sir Robert Pool quoted, as we often do on these occasions, let us remember that Sir Robert Peel never contemplated anything distantly approaching the condition of things that we have got to deal with. I do not for a moment believe that he would have tolerated leaving this country absolutely without weapons for the purpose of negotiations when every other country, or almost every other country—every country, I believe, but Turkey—does as a matter of fact, endeavour artificially to divert the stream of manufactures and commerce in a direction hostile to our interests. And if you tell me that that is all a vain and useless endeavour, that these efforts made by foreign countries are doomed to lead to nothing, then I say, what is the value of your talk about the evils of protection and the evils of tariffs? The only reason that protective tariffs are bad is that they divert commerce. If you put on protective tariffs and they do not divert commerce, they do not have any of the evil consequences which hon. Gentlemen opposite assume. Therefore, I think we may say without paradox, what every sound economist admits, that we have to deal with a world in which
  838
  the natural course of events is artificially perverted by every nation of the world, and it is folly not to arm ourselves, as far as we can be armed, with a weapon which will enable us to deal with that state of things. I have expressed clearly now, as I have always expressed clearly—I have often said it before, and it is perfectly clear to anybody acquainted with even the elements of economics—the view that I am a free-trader, and I am in favour of a weapon by which we can deal with hostile tariffs. Those are my first two propositions. The next proposition I would lay down is that colonial preference is a most valuable means of binding the Colonies together. That is one thing we ought to aim at. Doubtless there have been, and still are, after all that has happened, difficulties in the way; but those difficulties are difficulties which we should set ourselves to surmount, and not approach in the spirit of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and who, following His Majesty's Government, prejudged the whole question and issue by saying that the scheme is eminently so absurd that closer examination is not required and we will reject any possible policy which is based upon preference.
  MR. MALLET: I did not suggest that the entire policy of preference was ridiculous, though I should not be averse to arguing that. What I did say was that preference based on existing duties was, if you came to examine it, hopelessly ridiculous.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I accept the hon. Gentleman's correction. But even with that limitation I should wholly, dispute his doctrine. Nothing, in my judgment, can be regarded as ridiculous in the way of a modification of our tariffs which commends itself to our great self-governing Colonies. The hon. Gentleman's view is that no, preference based upon our existing duties, or any duties which the country would tolerate, could be of any use to the Colonies. Well, the Colonies are the best judge of that. When you have the Colonies coming, not once nor twice, not in one year only, but in a succession of years, and reiterating the same story and indulging in the same feelings, I think that a concession to those feelings ought not to be described, even in the most

  839
  amiable spirit, as ridiculous On the larger question, I have gone much further—and have always gone much further—than expressing my desire to see preference based upon existing tariffs. Before the controversy arose—I believe it was on the very day on which my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham made the speech which is usually, and, I think, very properly, regarded as the date when this great cause first came into evidence before the public eye—on that very day I expressed my views in favour of Colonial preference in the strongest and clearest language; and from that date, now four years ago, I have never varied, even by a fraction of an inch, on one side or the other. There is another proposition I have laid down, which is that, if you are to carry out this great national object of giving us a weapon to deal with foreign countries, and of giving us the means of preference, it is no reason for rejecting the plan that it may involve small Customs duties for which there is no counter-balancing excise. Such duties, of course, have a fractional protective effect, but I never suggested that they were put on for protection; I do not value them because they have a protective effect, I do not believe that the protective effect is material; and I appeal to the whole experience of the civilised world whether that is not a rational contention in matters of this kind. We do not call Turkey protective because it puts on a revenue duty, we do not call India protective because it puts on a revenue duty; and, if there is a sufficient reason for putting on duties for great national or Imperial objects, the mere fact that they may have the corresponding disadvantage of some slight protective effect is no reason why a sane and rational financier should reject them. And I do not believe there is a scientific economist in the world who would think that the statement that I have just made to the House has any element of paradox whatever in it. That is my fourth proposition. My fifth proposition, which I venture to press earnestly upon the House, is that, if you could obtain some preferential arrangement with the Colonies, which the Colonies thought worth giving something for in the way of advantage to our manufactures, you do make a clear and distinct step in the direction of free trade within the Empire. It is perfectly true that the full idea of free trade within the Empire
  840
  may be an ideal which we never shall realise. The general tendency of civilised mankind seems to be going so strongly in favour of protection that I think probably it never may be reached, at any rate in our lifetime. But, if yon are to have any approach to it, that approach can be obtained, and obtained only, as I think, by some arrangement of preferential duties within the Empire, by which our great manufacturing industries may obtain that market which, in spite of what optimists say, is going tobe—probably within the experience of many whom I am now addressing—one of the great difficulties of a manufacturing country like ourselves, which must import largely from abroad, and must have large exports to pay for those imports. And observe that the advantage to be gained ought never to be measured by the immediate and present statistics of the moment. I think it was the hon. Member for North Paddington, following in the steps of many predecessors, who explained how our commerce with the Colonies was relatively so small that it was not worth our while, as it were, to make any important sacrifices to obtain a preferential footing in them. You have not to consider merely what a trade is now, and you have not to consider merely what the Colonies are now; you have to consider what the trade is going to be and what the Colonies are going to be. And when hon. Gentlemen dilate, as they often do, on the evils resulting from building up artificially great interests in any community on the basis of protection—I agree with their general theory—do they not see that, if we could in any respect prevent the building up of those great interests in certain departments of industry, and if there was the smallest prospect that we should be allowed in the future in these great and growing communities to introduce our manufactures on something like equality, on terms which would enable them, at all events, to compete in the Colonial market, we should be doing an enormous service to the manufacturing industry of this country, and we should be doing it on the strictest free trade lines and for free trade reasons? Well, that is the fifth of the propositions that I have laid down—all, I venture to say, perfectly clear and perfectly precise. I believe they are all absolutely consistent with sound economic theory; and I should not

  841
  have taken the trouble to repeat them again to the House if it had not been that, in my judgment, two events have occurred since I last spoke in this House upon the subject which have a very great bearing, not upon the theory of the case, but upon the practical grounds on which statesmen modify their policy. Well, what are those two circumstances? One is the view given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech—endorsed by almost every speaker on the other side of the House—namely, the relation of our expenditure to our present means of taxation. Everybody admits that the expenditure of the country is very large. Some people think—I believe it is the old Radical orthodox view—that it is more than the country can stand. That is not the new view. The new view, expressed with great force by the Member for Leicester, and, I think, also by the Member for North Paddington, was that the expenditure of the country was very much less than the country could bear, and that it would undoubtedly require to be greatly increased. That is the new view. We have got a long way from the days of Joseph Hume. When we examine the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer what do we find? Do we find that there is great latitude for future expenditure, even at the present rate of taxation? As I understand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's position is this. He expects a surplus of £2,250,000 for the next year. This is to be a kind of nucleus for a scheme of old age pensions, which, we are told by another member of the Government, will require about.£25,000,000 a year to satisfy. Just think of how precarious a tenure the right hon. Gentleman has of this £2,250,000. If the Education Bill had been carried last year he would have had to diminish the £2,250,000 by a £1,000,000. If the Irish Council Bill is carried this year he will have to diminish that diminished sum by £650,000. In other words, if the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues succeed in their projects of legislation, his £2,250,000 will be reduced to something a good deal less than a £1,000,000—a very small nucleus indeed for a scheme of old age pensions which is to cost £25,000,000 a year. And observe, the right hon. Gentleman filled a great deal of his speech by discussions as to the need of raising
  842
  the national credit. But if by raising the national credit he means making permanent provision for paying off debt, that further permanent provision will have to be made at the cost of what remains of the £2,250,000. It will have to be made at the cost of the £600,000 or £700,000 which, if his projects of legislation are going to be successful, is all that he will have to pay either for the purpose of old age pensions or for the purpose of raising the national credit. And this leaves out of account altogether all the big schemes of social reform. It leaves out of account altogether the natural growth of expenditure, which no Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the best will in the world, has ever been able to resist, and which certainly the right hon. Gentleman shows no greater power of dealing with than any of his predecessors. That is the position on the present basis of taxation. And what is that basis of taxation? The basis of taxation is 1s. in the pound on income-tax, a very heavy duty on sugar, a very heavy duty on tea, and other taxes which I need not now dwell upon. Does anybody think that satisfactory? The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not. Does the hon. Member for Leicester, who spoke for the Labour Party? Does the hon. Member for North Paddington think it satisfactory? The hon. Member for Leicester got up, and, while he occasionally threw a faint compliment to the good intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he filled all the earlier part of his speech with the most vigorous denunciations of the selfish character, or the anti-social character of the Budget, for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible. And what is the Member for North Paddington's view? He objects altogether to putting any tax upon a new article. That is his first proposition. His second proposition is that the expenditure of the country must be greatly increased. His third proposition is that you must take all the duty off tea; his fourth proposition is that you must take all the duty off sugar; and his fifth proposition is that you must get the enormous deficit by graduating the income-tax. That is practically the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Paddington for our future guidance; he acknowledges the accuracy of my summary of his very interesting speech.

  843
  Does he suggest that that is practical politics? Does he really think that any Chancellor of the Exchequer can come down and modify the Budget in that fashion? I doubt it. I believe that even in the serried ranks among which he is now sitting he would find no support for such a proposal, and everybody would recognise that his scheme, at all events, is one wholly impracticable. I do not know that the hon. Member for Leicester's scheme is much more easily carried out. His plan is, not to throw everything in a differentiated income-tax, but to try to get out of ground values, I think he said by simply appropriating them without compensation, all the money now required for carrying on the public service and initiating those great schemes of social reform with which, no doubt, all sympathise in every quarter of the House. Is that a practical system? Is that the kind of Budget the House is going to accept? We have three suggestions before us. We have that of the Member for North Paddington, that of the Member for Leicester, and the actual plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not defend his own plan. He does not say that 1s. income-tax is a good thing. He says it is a very bad thing. He does not say that the tax on sugar is good, nor does he wish to keep the tea duty at its present level. Yet he knows better than anybody that the claims which will be made upon him, and which he will not be able to answer on the present basis of taxation, are claims which are certain to come in and which it will not be possible for any Chancellor of the Exchequer now or hereafter to resist. When you survey the actual balance sheet of the country and the way of meeting expenditure, surely you must be driven to the conclusion that, in the words of the Amendment, the basis of taxation ought to be widened. There have been very curious misconceptions as to the meaning of the phrase "widening the basis of taxation." The present Minister for Education seems to think that, by widening the basis of taxation is meant the increasing of the number of people taxed; and precisely the same meaning was put upon it by the Member for Leicester. That is not the meaning which the framers of the Amendment attach to the phrase, and it is not the ordinary meaning which attaches to it. When you speak of
  844
  widening the basis of taxation, you mean, not drawing more people into the net of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but drawing more articles for taxation into his net. Those are two quite different propositions. There seem to be some hon. Gentlemen opposite who do not appreciate that. I confess it seems to me rather elementary. But it is quite evident that you attack the same person either by extracting £10 from him in the way of income-tax, or £10 by a tax on sugar, or £10 by a tax on motor-cars. In each of these cases you put the same tax on the same person; but if you put a part of the income-tax, or a part of the sugar tax, or a part of the motor-car tax on him, you then have a more extended system of taxation, so far as it goes. Now I hope even the most anxious of my audience are clear as to the moaning of "widening the basis of taxation." That is the meaning in which it is used in the Amendment, that is the sense in which it has always been used, until this debate, in economic discussions. Now, Sir, we do not raise, nobody desires to raise, by this Amendment any question as to the incidence of taxation as between the different classes of the community. That may be just, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer supposes it, or it may be unjust, as the hon. Member for Leicester and the hon. Member for Paddington suppose it. We do not raise that question, though it is, no doubt, a most important question. We assume that the incidence of taxation is not in question. We only say that the taxation on the same people may be better raised than it is now. It is admitted that there are great and obvious evils in attempting to keep the income-tax at 1s. or in attempting to maintain a high rate of duty on tea, sugar, and tobacco; and if you can extend the subjects which you tax and not the individuals you tax we believe you will probably find a better system than you have now. But I believe you will be forced to extend them whether you like it or not, unless you are driven to some of those methods of dealing with a graduated income-tax and so forth which, in my judgment, would give you very little money and would enormously disturb the country's industries. If you are not going to do it by a graduated income-tax, this increased expenditure, which all admit will occur

  845
  and may desire to occur, must be taken from other taxable articles. You cannot add materially to the income-tax or to the tea or sugar duties or to the spirit duties, and even if you could you would leave your system open to many objections, and certainly most inelastic in times of national stress and emergency. What we say is that the situation displayed by the Budget statement has the peculiarity of casting the view forward, far beyond the year in which the statement is made. We deduce from that that for our own purposes, without having any regard to the Colonies or foreign nations, without touching on the question of retaliation or preference, we ought to modify the existing system. That is the first conclusion I draw, and it is drawn from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement. My second conclusion is drawn from the views expressed by the Colonial Prime Ministers. I say that any taxation you put on for your own purposes should be used, us far as it can be, to meet the views of the Colonies, and I believe this system of taxation, to which you will be forced, whatever your views about preference, will prove to be useful, and can be used for the purpose of Colonial preference Now, it will be seen that my suggested policy depends on the House accepting three propositions—one, that the present system is not sufficient for our needs; secondly, that any change in the system must be in the direction of extending the not of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and taxing fresh articles; and, thirdly, that when you have extended your system of taxable articles, you will be in possession of a fiscal system which can be used, to the immense advantage of the commerce and manufactures of the country and for the benefit and unity of the Empire, for the purpose of establishing Colonial preference. I have been attacked by the Prime Minister for enunciating these views while the Colonial Premiers were in this country. I have been told that this is turning the visit of the Prime Ministers to a political object. It is nothing of the kind. So far as my poor powers go, I have most sedulously avoided, in the presence of the Prime Ministers, saying one single word which would be capable of a Party interpretation. But is my mouth to be shut on these questions simply because the eminent statesmen who are now our
  846
  guests happen to be in the country? Are we to draw no moral and no conclusions from what they say? Are we to be blind and deaf to all their utterances? That seems to me to be a counsel, not only not of perfection, but of the utmost imperfection; and having to address my fellow-countrymen, I certainly think I should have been wanting in my duty if I had not at once pointed out what I considered is the new practical situation brought upon us in reference to this great question by the double fact of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget and the reiterated and re-expressed wishes of the Colonial Prime Ministers. Some hon. Gentlemen have told us that this attempt to make arrangements with our Colonies will be in the nature of bargains which turn friends into enemies, and which do not bind closer the bonds which already unite friends. I cannot understand that reasoning. I notice that yesterday.Mr. Deakin himself said that unity was his great object. The methods by which that unity is to be arrived at are relatively unimportant. Unity ought to be our great object. Are we seriously to be told that unity is not enhanced because you happen to come to arrangements about which it is possible to have controversy? I do not know whore any human relations would be if these principles were to be accepted. Matrimony would vanish at once. Of course all close relations give possible material for controversy. Nobody doubts it; but without close relationship you cannot have unity. The ideal of hon. Gentlemen opposite is to have our interests so separate that it is impossible to conceive of any difficulty arising between us because there is nothing about which we can conceivably quarrel. That is not an ideal of the relationship which ought to exist between human beings, between the Mother Country and the Colonies, or I would even say, between separate States. Dangers there are, dangers there must be, in any course which we decide to pursue; but surely we feel our fate too much, or our deserts are small, if we cannot trust ourselves to meet wishes expressed, not once, not twice, not casually, but officially; not by this man or that man, but by the authorised representatives of these great self-governing communities—if we cannot trust ourselves to try to come to some

  847
  arrangement with them which will be so enormously for the benefit, as I think, of the commerce of both the Mother Country and the Colonies, and which would make us feel from day to day that we were something more than citizens even, living under the same flag and owning allegiance to the same Sovereign, but that we were people with common interests present to our minds from day to day. I do think that we have now a situation in this country which we should be criminal if we neglected. I perfectly understand that. I never agreed with those of my friends who have thought that our existing system of taxation is so satisfactory that even for these great objects it would be folly to disturb it. I have never agreed to that. But now that it is admitted that our existing system is not satisfactory, and that even those who are going to support the Government are telling the Government that their Budget is based on intolerable principles; now that the Government themselves admit that they have to keep all these duties at an inexpedient level to meet the expenditure which they foresee, and have nothing whatever in hand to meet expenditure which they do not foresee; now that we have the Government committing themselves, as they say, to a scheme of old age pensions and making no provision for it except the beggarly residue which is to remain of this £2,250,000—in that situation surely we have the right to say that an adhesion to the system of the past is really an outworn policy, that adhesion to the past is a thing that cannot go on, that something new must be devised, some new plan invented. When that plan is devised and invented, the least we can do, the smallest tribute we can pay to the warmhearted wishes of those who only desire closer union with us, will be to give some consideration to their reiterated demands for closer commercial union.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUES (Mr. ASQUITH,: I trust I shall not be thought wanting in respect to the many admirable speeches which have been made on both sides of the House in the course of this debate if I venture to say that its practical interest, in the stage which this controversy has now reached, is narrowed down to a single point—namely, whether or not the Party who sit opposite are at last
  848
  definitely, and as a Party, committed to protection. The Amendment which we are ostensibly discussing is drawn like so many of its predecessors—and it is quite worthy to take a place in the long series of official, or quasi-official, declarations of fiscal policy which have proceeded from those right hon Gentlemen during the last four years—it is so drawn that, according to the mind or the taste of the person who reads it, it can be construed to mean anything in the world, or nothing at all. The views of the right hon. Gentleman who moved it yesterday, although they were not ostentatiously obtruded in the speech which he delivered, are perfectly well known, and to do him justice they have never been concealed. But, though I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down will accuse me either of a deficiency in common intelligence or of a want of care and attention in reading his public utterances, and I would plead guilty to the first much sooner than to the second, I say that the state of his opinions was, until he rose just now, and I venture to say remains now that he has sat down, one of the most interesting and at the same time one of the most baffling psychological problems that have ever been known. The right hon. Gentleman tells us to-day, not for the first time, that he is not a protectionist. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] That was very faint applause. He is not protectionist; yet let me console those Gentlemen who were silent just now; although not protectionist, no one has ever shown himself more sensitive, or I think I may say more copiously alive, to the infinite imperfections of what we call free trade. The right hon. Gentleman, in fact, has succeeded in a feat which to any one of less intellectual dexterity than himself I should have thought impossible, the feat at one and the same time, without apparently any sense either of logical or dialectical incongruity, of repudiating protection and denouncing free trade. I, like so many of my friends, may not be endowed with those special interpretative faculties which are necessary for the purpose of piercing the true and inner meaning of the right hon. Gentleman's declarations, but I am as much in the dark at this moment as I have ever been as to what is the definite and specific policy he proposes to this House. The right hon. Gentleman tells us he has

  849
  not changed his opinions; well, I daresay he has not. He tells us that he has long thought and often said that matters have changed so much in the tariff system of the world since the days of Sir Robert Peel that the argument for free trade which was then, or might have been, presented as a thoroughly sound argument is no longer valid. [An HON. MEMBER: "Free imports."] Well, what I call free trade and shall continue to call free trade. The right hon. Gentleman must forgive me for saying that he is entirely wrong. In the first place, in point of fact—I am speaking now from memory, but I am pretty sure I am accurate—the tariff walls which British trade had to surmount in the time of Sir Robert Peel were higher than any corresponding walls they have to surmount to-day. And in the second place, so far from Sir Robert Peel, or any intelligent supporter of Sir Robert Peel, thinking that his advocacy of free trade was in any way dependent upon the breaking down of those tariff walls, he expressly, in advance, repudiated more than once any such view. This is a false view of history which is so current that I will not apologise to the House for troubling them with two or three quotations from Sir Robert Peel himself, short and very much to the point. In 1846 he said—
  "In making this great reduction on the import of articles from foreign countries, I have no guarantee to give you that other countries will immediately follow our example."
  [Interruption.] Yes, but let the hon. Member wait. Late in the same year, on resigning office, Sir Robert Peel said—
  "I trust that the new Government will not resume the policy which they and we found so inconvenient—namely, haggling with foreign countries instead of taking that independent course which we believe to be conducive to our own interests."
  Three years later, when experience had already shown that foreign countries were I not going, to any considerable extent at any rate, to relax their tariff system, speaking in this House on 6th July, 1849, he used these memorable words—
  "I maintain that the best way to compete with hostile tariffs is to encourage free imports."
  That was the doctrine of Sir Robert Peel, and it has been the doctrine of every free-trader who understood the meaning of free trade.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURdissented, and mentioned the French Treaty.
  MR. ASQUITH: I think I can demonstrate to the right hon. Gentleman that the French Treaty and everything connected with it was a policy perfectly consistent with that. So much for that point. The right hon. Gentleman has also told us that he is in favour now, as he always has been, of Colonial preference; but what does he mean by Colonial preference? That is what he has never told us. Colonial preference clearly does one thing which, in his view of free trade, in his comparatively modest view of free trade, it ought not to do, it diverts the natural course of trade.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURdissented.
  MR. ASQUITH: What good, then, is it going to do?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURwas understood to say that the course of trade was not natural, that it was diverted by duties, and that he wished to get it nearer the natural channel.
  MR. ASQUITH: That explanation, I think, may be left to speak for itself. If hon. Gentlemen like, I will pursue the subject. I said that unquestionably it would divert the course of trade, and the whole object of it is that it should. In other words, instead of getting, as we do now, our supply from every available source in the world, the foreigner would be penalised as compared with the Colonial producer, and therefore the natural course of trade would be turned into another channel. I do not know any other meaning that can be attached to it. But the right hon. Gentleman added that we ought not to be too pedantic, that oven if there was a small protective element in these preferential duties we might regard it as the first step, at any rate, towards free trade within the Empire. That brings mo to an argument used, I think, by my right hon. friend the Member for St. George's last night, quoting the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, who had expressed pleasure at the conclusion of preferential arrangements as between the different Colonies themselves. When two Colonies which are protective countries enter into a preferential arrangement the one with

  851
  the other, that undoubtedly is a step, slight, may be, but still a step, in the direction of freer trade. Of course, a free trade country like this would not withhold its pleasure from such an arrangement. But when you ask us to come in, exactly the contrary takes place; instead of taking down a stone or two from the walls which already exist, if we enter into this preferential arrangement with them we are to build up for the first time as against the foreigner a wall which has no existence at all. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that two now factors have recently come into view which have had a great influence, at any rate in his mind—the Budget and the Colonial Conference. As regards the Budget, I wish I could think that it was so startling in its originality that it could have produced the same effect on the mind of the right hon. Gentleman as I think the reading of Hume produced on the mind of Kant, and have awakened him from what I would call his undogmatic slumber. But I cannot claim for it any such title, anxious as I am in my parental solicitude to magnify its importance in every possible way. I commended the proposals of the Budget to the House, and still commend them, not merely on their own merits, but because I believe they open and clear the way to larger and better things in the near future. But the Budget involves no departure in point of principle from preceding Budgets, and yet I observe it is treated by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues as though it were in some way or other a practical confession for the first time that our fiscal system—free trade—has broken down, or is on the point of breaking down. I cannot understand that argument at all. I said the exact contrary. In my Budget speech I never said that we had reached, and I do not believe that we have reached, the limit, or anything like the limit, of our possible taxation. And when I spoke of setting aside a modest nucleus of some £2,250,000 or £2,500,000, I never said that that was the whole sum we hoped to have available. I am not to be tempted into giving a forecast of what next year's Budget will be; but I said that we should start with so much to the good, and that is something gained. It is said that we can only produce this revenue by a system of bad taxes; but all taxes are bad—it is only a question of degree. The exact effect
  852
  of the income-tax at 1s. in the pound will be this. If you take into account the number of persons who benefit by the existing scales of abatement, and those who will benefit by the 3d. differential rate of computation, you will find that out of an estimated total of 1,025,000 income-tax payers some 920,000 will pay less than the 1s. in the pound. If you aggregate the amount of income assessed to income-tax before deductions and abatements at £770,000,000, and the estimated yield at £31,250,000, the average rate per pound that will be paid on the yield will not be more than 9d¾d.in the pound. So that I am giving relief to 920,000 income-tax payers, and the average rate will not be more than 9¾d. in the pound. I now come to the proposition that we should broaden our basis of taxation. I assert that, in any intelligible sense of the word, the basis of taxation in this country is as broad as, and I believe it to be broader than that of any other country in the world. It consists, first of all, of taxes upon necessaries, next, of taxes upon the simpler luxuries and alcoholic drinks and tobacco, and finally, of taxes upon income and property. You cannot make a system of taxation very much broader than that, and the confusion of thought consists in confounding the number of persons and interests over whom taxation is spread with the multiplicity in the number aud variety of things in regard to which taxes are levied. We have had practical experience of what the right hon. Gentleman calls broadening the basis of taxation in the past in this country. Sir Robert Peel found a tariff covering a very large number of commodities. What was the result of practical experience upon that broad basis? The result was it hampered all trade, it encouraged evasion, produced incalculable friction and constant intriguing on the part of competitive interests, and a large and unnecessary rise of price to the consumer, and, finally, an inelastic revenue to the State. It was abandoned, not in deference to any dogma or theory of free trade, but because in practical experience it was found to be injurious to the country. Then we had the experiment made a few years ago by Sir Michael Hicks Beach. What has become of that? Sir Michael Hicks Beach was a free-trader, and I doubt whether he would have tried that experiment at all if he had not been in

  853
  urgent need of revenue for the purpose of the war. Finding himself in need of war capital, he divided his war taxes into two categories—temporary and permanent. The permanent taxes were the corn tax, the coal tax, and the sugar tax. What has been their history? The corn tax lived precisely twelve months, when it was repealed by the very Cabinet who had levied it. The coal duty suffered its death blow at my hands last year; but whatever Government had been in powor—Liberal or Conservative, free trade or protectionist—that coal tax could not possibly have survived for more than another year. I remember very well that in the stress, or I might say the agony, of the general election the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham made a declaration of great interest to the mining industry, that if the late Government had remained in power this tax would have been abolished. The only tax that remains then is the sugar duty, and there is a consensus of opinion in all quarters of the House that it should be diminished, or, as I think, when the time arrives, entirely removed. So that I venture to say, whether in the remote past or in the recent past, attempts to broaden the basis of taxation have not had a happy experience and should not be repeated. Then as to the statement that new light had been thrown on the matter by the Colonial Conference, I fail to see where the novelty comes in. Everybody knew before the Colonial Premiers came here that the self-governing Colonies had either put into operation, or else offered to do so, preferential tariffs in favour of British trade. These tariffs vary very much in their nature and value. The Canadian and the South African tariffs are relatively wide in their scope and substantial in the preferences they give. The New Zealand tariff affects only 20 per cent. of our imports into that Colony. The Australian tariff has never yet come into operation, because the Bill had to be reserved. Let me say here that I quite agree with what Mr. Deakin said at the Conference that it was intended to be but a forerunner, and therefore it would not be fair to take it as representing the final form the Australian offer may ultimately take. But this Australian tariff will apply to only 8 per cent. of the total importation of the United Kingdom produce into Australia,
  854
  and it will only apply then if we accept a condition, which I do not believe the people of this country will ever accept, namely, that these goods shall be carried only in British ships manned only by white labour. Everybody knew that these tariffs existed, and everybody knew also that all these tariffs are so contrived that under them British manufacturers have no chance of any sort of competing on level terms in the Colonial markets with native producers. I do not complain of that; I said so at the Conference. On the contrary, I said—
  "We have given you fiscal autonomy, and we should be madmen if we attempted to interfere with your full exercise of it. You are just as much entitled as we are to freedom in fiscal ideas."
  We have no right to complain, and they would be acting like fools—flying in the teeth of the very economic system they have adopted—if they let us, the most enterprising manufacturing nation in the world, undermine their native industries. Everybody knew all that before the Premiers arrived. Everybody know, too, that the electors of the United Kingdom had by an unexampled majority, after a controversy prolonged for three years, in which every aspect of the matter had been exhaustively reviewed in every town and in every hamlet—[OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh," and MINISTERIAL cheers]—the electors of this country had by that unexampled majority declared that they were not going to change our fiscal system or abandon froe trade. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh," and renewed MINISTERIAL cheers.] Therefore, I do not understand what is the new fact which has been brought home to the right hon. Gentleman by the Colonial Conference, and which was not common knowledge before any Premier left his own shore. But we sat for five days discussing these matters in the frankest and fullest fashion. They spoke very plainly to us and we spoke very plainly to them. I am quite certain that, notwithstanding the mischievous and unscrupulous activity of the baser section of the protectionist Press, who have shrunk from no kind of imagination and of innuendo for the purpose of creating bad blood between the Mother Country and the Colonies in the hope that, peradventure, they might in that way manufacture a little dirty political capital—I say again what is

  855
  absolutely free from doubt, and I am sure every one of my friends, for so I will call the Colonial Premiers, will agree with me, that after this full and frank and candid, but at the same time most cordial, interchange of opinion, although we agreed to differ, we rose from that table better friends than when we sat down. That is the only new fact, so far as I know, that has come into view. I come now to the practical conclusion of the whole matter. What is it that you want us to do? What is it you want the House of Commons to affirm? Surely not the principle that was put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's last night, which I think was given only some faint countenance by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, that we should give the Colonies a preference on our existing duties. What possible good would that do to the Colonies? To some of them it would make no difference of any sort or kind; to none of them would it be any appreciable material advantage. We hear about Cape wine. I am speaking from memory, but I think the exports of Cape wine to this country are valued at £8,000 a year. I hope it will grow very much; it was once much larger than it is now. But it is now only £8,000. This proposal would only affect a little part of South Africa. What about the sheep farmers and other persons engaged in agricultural pursuits chroughout South Africa, who would obtain no advantage of any sort or kind from our tampering with the wine duty? It is a very good object lesson as to the way these things are apt to work out. For the sake of giving a preference to this small industry we are to revise our wine scale and impose differential duties against France and Germany, and possibly—I am not sufficiently informed as to the alcholic strength of the wines of Spain—against Spain and Portugal also. The thing is not worth thinking about; everybody knows it is not. It is all very well to say it cannot do very much harm even if it does not do very much good. At any rate, it concedes the whole principle. When you have once granted preference in regard to existing duties, you have no longer an answer to the demand for that other from of preference which consists of the imposition of new duties. I venture to say that you are asking for something which is of no value to yon but which to
  856
  us would involve the sacrifice of the whole of those principles in which we believe Only one thing remains. As I have said over and over again, I am sorry to have to repeat it, it may be for the thousandth time—and this is where I complain of the right hon. Gentleman, for he will not bring his mind to the concrete facts of the case—you cannot give an effective or even an approximately just preference to the Colonies unless you impose discriminating duties against foreign food and foreign raw material. There is no way under Heaven by which the thing can be done except by adopting one, and I will say both, of those two expedients. And this Amendment to the Bill which has been moved from that Bench, although we have not heard a single right hon. Gentleman who has ventured to adopt that construction of it, is open to no other construction in the mind of any intelligent man. If this Amendment were carried the Colonial Premiers could go home and say, "The House of Commons has in effect conceded everything we went to England to ask for." Therefore the sum and substances of the whole matter is that under the guise of this Amendment—although the right hon. Gentleman who supported it was very gingerly in coming to close quarters with its practical application—the House is being asked to-night to reverse the verdict that was given by the country at the last general election, to be false to the pledges which the vast majority of us gave to our constituents, and to take steps towards undermining the free trade system of this country.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman, when he accused a section of the Press of attempting to create bad blood between the Mother Country and the Colonies, had forgotten the action of his own Party at the time of the general election in regard to Chinese labour and the alleged slavery in regard to it. He thought it was a pity that he did not address to his own friends the little lecture he had given to the Opposition that evening. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there was nothing new about this question of Colonial favour or preference, and that everybody knew that the Colonies had either given us a preference

  857
  or had made us the offer to do so. If everybody knew that why had every speaker on the other side gone about the country saying that there had been no offer? In this debate, moreover, nearly every speaker on the other side and certainly the official speakers had tried to shift the onus of drawing up an alternative Budget on to the Opposition, but he thought the justification for the Amendment lay in the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had introduced into his Budget this year a new principle. This was a Budget, they were told, not for one year but for several years, and in order to buy off opposition to it the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a very vague and indefinite offer about old age pensions. That promise, if it was to be fulfilled, could only be fulfilled by some increase of taxation, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to redeem his promises in regard to future years he should provide the means of carrying them out, and when he made such promises he should say how he intended to carry them out on our present basis of taxation. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to say how he intended to carry out his promise with regard to old age pensions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that next year there would be two and a half or two and three-quarter millions for old age pensions, but it had been pointed out to him that some £650,000 would be due to Ireland and £150,000 to Jamaica. They were also told that there were going to be subsidies given to the shipping lines to the Colonies, and the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have entirely left out of account the automatic increase of the Civil Service, an increase which this year had amounted to £650,000. That left very little indeed for a nucleus for a scheme of old age pensions next year, and it all depended upon the right hon. Gentleman having as prosperous a year as he expected whether he would be able to carry out his promise. That, however, was a matter of some question. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be right in his forecast. If hon. Members opposite came down like the President of the Board of Education had done and said that the one idea of himself and his Party was to relieve the
  858
  poor and to take off taxation from the shoulders of those who felt it most, he would like to know why neither in this year's Budget nor in last year's Budget any effort had been made in the direction of relieving those who felt most the burden of taxation. True it was that last year a 1d. was taken off the tea duty, but they were told this year that that was no use, and that unless they reduced the tea duty by 2d. the money wont into the pocket of the tea dealer. If that was so, the 1d. remission of last year was useless and nothing had been done this year. Therefore he did not think it lay in the mouths of hon. Members opposite to talk about relieving those who were the most heavily taxed portion of the community. Several strong speeches had been made in which was repeated the old maxim that if they were going to make a reduction in direct taxation it ought to be accompanied by some concurrent reduction in indirect taxation. The indirect taxpayers had not, however, had any relief, and he did not see the slightest chance of their getting it unless they had from those who were responsible for the finance of the country some new form of Budget. They had had suggestions from various parts of the House as to objects for which additional funds were required, but there had not been from any responsible person a single suggestion as to how those objects were to be carried out. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that some day he was going to take off the sugar duty if it was possible to do so, but had not said how it was to be done. There were a good many Members of the House who would like to see more money spent on education, especially in regard to providing for secondary education out of the taxation of the country. Last year the zeal of His Majesty's Government was so great that they said that this year they were prepared to spend £1,000,000 under what they called an Education Bill. Now that education was separated from the process of destroying religious teaching in the schools, not one penny could be found for education. What was proposed in this Budget would stand for all time in front of any chance education might have in the future. Again, people could only be brought back to the land, and those who were now there kept there, with the assistance of public money. By the suggestion that local taxation grants

  859
  would not increase but probably diminish, the £3,000,000, which, according to the report of the Local Taxation Committee, ought to come out of the public purse in order to adjust the unfair burden of local taxation, would be prevented from reaching the pockets of those who ought to be relieved. Therefore he failed to see what possible opportunity they would have of carrying out a feasible scheme of bringing the people back to the land if they were to be constantly told there was no money to be had from the Exchequer and that everything had been promised for old age pensions. Whether the right hon. Gentleman was going to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Leicester, who said that our system of taxation ought to be that of a pyramid standing on its apex, or that of the hon. Member for North Paddington, who proposed to get over the whole difficulty by a largely graduated income-tax, or whether he inclined to the idea that the only method of securing reforms that all required was by dropping a battleship, or so many regiments, each year off the estimates, the country ought to be told how he proposed to carry out his scheme. If the right hon. Gentleman proposed to budget in advance he surely ought to say what he intended to do to find the money.
  MR. MONDsaid he desired at the outset to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's division. When he interrupted the right hon. Gentleman, as he thought at the right hon. Gentleman's desire, and said he thought it was fortunate that the right hon. Gentleman was not in business, he did not wish in any way to reflect upon his mental capacity, but only to imply, when the right hon. Gentleman challenged business men to deny a proposition that he made, that though the right hon. Gentleman might be an eminent statesman, he would be a very poor man of business. The House had listened to a most eloquent, inspiring, and oratorical speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. He had listened to that speech with great interest and delight and had sympathised very much with the right hon. Gentleman in one way. He had been unfortunately misunderstood with regard to fiscal policy not only on the Government, but on the Opposition side of the House. He
  860
  had never soon himself that the right hon. Gentleman had changed his views from the moment he began to explain them. The right hon. Gentleman was a philosopher and an economist. He saw the evils or the wants of free trade and the heresies of protection, and walked gingerly between the two in a manner which satisfied neither his friends nor his opponents. That was a characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman. He remembered speaking to one of the electors of Manchester shortly after the last election and that gentleman said of their late representative that if he had been a good free trader they might have got him in, and if he had been a good protectionist they might have got him in; but the people of Manchester would not vote for a metaphysical abstraction. He felt for the right hon. Gentleman, because he himself had taken an interest in metaphysics, but he hoped that in time the right hon. Gentleman would convince and convert his right hon. friend the Member for East Worcestershire, who was now leading the tariff reform party, that there was no occasion for the valentine letters, which, according to the right hon. Gentleman, need never have been written; that the Party opposite were quite a happy family if he would only give up repeating economic views which nobody could follow. He was grateful not to hear from him that the foreigner was going to pay the tax, and that the policy of the Tariff Reform League, with all its speeches, pamphlets, letters, and machinery, was never adopted by the right hon. Gentleman; that he was a good free trader at heart to-day; and that it was only with the soft hand that he inflicted wounds on her he loved to assuage the anger of the ravening wolf of tariff reform. He, however, quarrelled very seriously with the right hon. Gentleman's definition of free trade. A free trader believed that it was not the function of the State, by means of tariffs or duties on imports, to interfere with the industries of the country. A protectionist believed that it was the function of the State to do so, and to develop the interests of some industries at the expense of others. That was a good definition of the two principles, though he did not deny that much might be said in favour of both policies. He had read a most interesting book by a German protectionist who

  861
  however, did not say the foreigner was going to pay the tax. That gentleman said Germany must protect her agriculture because they wanted to keep the people on the soil and wanted soldiers; that they must decrease the imports of manufactured goods because they were parasites on the industry of the country. That was a logical argument which they could follow; but here there was the same kind of argument used again and again about the foreigner paying the tax, providing revenue while excluding foreign goods, and it was all to be done by the same duty. So long as they went on one duty they could not do it. If they really believed in stopping the imports of manufactured goods, why did not they advocate the passing of a short Act prohibiting their importation? Why should they follow the hideous traditions of other countries? Let them look at what happened in America. The right hon. Gentleman was not a protectionist, and never was, nor was America protectionist. The first American tariff was put on for revenue purposes simply at the time of the American war. But when the war came to an end the manufacturers who had grown rich under the tariff remained and the tariff was revised; all the protectionist portions of it were extended and the revenue parts of it were diminished. Ever since then there had been a continual see-saw, sometimes there was a high tax on pig iron and a low tax on wool, some times a high tax on wool and a low tax on pig iron. £30,000,000 the American steel trust drew from the American people every year because of the American tariff. He made a serious appeal to hon. Members opposite. He asked them to read the history of the American, or any other tariff, and to read of "Pig Iron Kelly" and others who had built up those tariffs, and then say whether they wanted to repeat that sort of thing in the House of Commons; whether they wished to come there to represent the interests of the British nation, or that of pig iron or some other industry. Hon. Members opposite said that such things would not occur in this country; but that had been said by every one of these people, all of whom had been dragged down into the pit. And as those people had been dragged down, so should they all, if protection once came into that House. It was irresistible.
  862
  They should come to that House session after session, and discuss high and low tariffs and duties, or no duty, on wool, and matters of that kind. Let them go to Germany, and see how the agricultural party raised the price of agricultural produce, with the result that the people were starved because of the bargains made in the lobbies—"Votefor a higher duty on iron and we will vote for a higher duty on corn." We were pure in our politics in this country in a way they were not pure in any other country in the world, but if protection was once again introduced the same jobbery would go on here that went on in America. One of the leading statesmen of Australia, Senator Edward Pulsford, said—
  "If supporters of preference in the United Kingdom could but know how they have strengthened the barriers that exclude British goods in Australia, and probably throughout the world they would feel both sorry and ashamed."
  That was from one of the leading and responsible statesmen of Australia. All that the tariff reformers were doing, in advocating preference with the best motives, was to encourage the protectionists of Australia to help to exclude those goods which they wished to see admitted. In that House they might discuss this subject in a more or less statesmanlike way. But let them go out to the public platforms, during any by-election, and what did the issue come to? There was only one issue that the people would listen to, and that was free trade or protection. Before that issue all the beautiful shades of meaning of the Leader of the Opposition disappeared. For the people there was only the brutal and naked fact which they fought against years ago, and which they would fight and defeat again. He had taken the trouble to get together some figures with regard to this matter in reply to the argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite that the exports to our Colonies had increased much more largely than to foreign countries. That statement was a mistake. The export of manufactured goods to agricultural and non-agricultural countries had increased more rapidly than the exports of manufactured goods to self-manufacturing countries. That was pretty obvious. He had taken 1898 and 1905; there was no trick about the years he had chosen. In the period from 1898 to 1905, the exports to the Argentine Republic had

  863
  grown by £7,571,065; to Canada by £6,592,259; to Australia by £530,218; to New Zealand, by £2,529,180; and to India by £13,998,219. Those were our total exports. He never made fancy distinctions between manufactured articles and other things; our business was to sell what people wanted to buy and to receive the money for them. The man who worked in the mine, who produced iron ore, or coal, did not pause to consider whether the article was highly finished; he was content if he got his money on the Saturday. The figures which he had quoted showed an increase of our exports of 120 per cent. in the case of the Argentine; 90 per cent. Canada; 3 per cent. Australia; 50 per cent. New Zealand and 80 per cent. India. We had £300,000,000 worth of capital in the Argentine which was really an English Colony in all except nationality. Were the tariff reformers going to interfere with that? Let them take Germany. To that country from 1898 to 1905, we had increased our exports by over £9,410,599—as much as the whole of the self-governing Colonies put together; to Italy by £3,502,341; and to Japan by £4,734,750. Where did they find the confirmation of the wonderful statement that our exports to foreign countries were diminishing year by year? He wished some of the gentlemen who made such statements would look into the figures, or go to the big houses in Manchester, Liverpool, and London, and ask the merchants whether they found their statements to be the fact. Our exports to Germany had increased in the period stated by 25 per cent.; to Italy by 50 per cent.; and to Japan by 90 per cent. We were not only holding our own, but were gaining every day. To enable us to continue gaining, he would say to hon. Gentlemen opposite, "For goodness' sake leave us untouched.'' As a man responsible to many thousands of shareholders, for many million pounds' worth of capital, and for the welfare of many thousands of English workmen, he bogged hon. Members opposite not to shackle their hands and feet by trying to assist them in their industry. If they tried to assist them they would make a complete and hopeless mess of it. Let them settle this as business men. If they interfered with commerce they would do much more harm than good. He wished to quote a
  864
  few words about Colonial preference or Imperial reciprocity—
  "This proposal requires that we should abandon our system in favour of theirs, and it is in effect that while the Colonies should be left absolutely free to impose what protective duties they please, both upon foreign imports and upon British commerce, they should be required to make a small discrimination in favour of British trade, in return for which we are expected to change our whole system, and impose duties on food and raw material. Well, I express again my own opinion, when I say that there is not the slightest chance that in any reasonable time this country, or the Parliament of this country, would adopt so one-sided an agreement. The foreign trade of this country is so large and the Colonial trade so small, that a small preference given to us upon that foreign trade by the Colonies would make so trilling a difference."
  Those were the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, speaking at the Canada Club m 1896. On many other occasions the right hon. Gentleman had spoken with great force and vigour and truth, and he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not maintained the sound opinion which he then expressed. Again, speaking at Manchester in 1897, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said—
  "Anything in the direction of an Imperial Commercial League would weaken the Empire internally and excite the permanent hostility of the whole world. It would check the free import of the food of the people. It is impracticable, but if it were practicable and done in the name of Empire, it would make the Empire odious to the working people, it would combine the world against us, us, we would be a cause of imitation."
  He asked the House to realise what those words meant. Somebody would tell the millions outside that Empire meant dear bread and dear meat, and did they think that would endear the Empire to the masses? As one who loved the Empire, he wanted to see it democratically upheld; and he protested, and would continue to protest, against the odious idea of putting into the minds of the democracy the idea that the Empire must necessarily mean dear food. A celebrated British statesman said—
  "It may be that I shall leave a name sometimes remembered with expressions of good-will in those places which are the abode of men whose lot it is to labour and to earn their daily bread by the sweat of their brow—a name remembered with expressions of good will when they shall re-create their exhausted strength with abundant and untaxed food, the sweeter because it is no longer leavened with a sense of injustice."

  865
  Those were the words of Sir Robert Peel in the last speech he delivered in 1846. Statues of Sir Robert Peel stood in the country with the inscription, "He gave us free bread." Did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire wish to be remembered by statues with the inscription, "He taxed the children's bread?" If ever the Opposition were returned to power as tariff reformers he assured them that they would be fought by the free trader; like Cobden and Bright, fought them in the most gloomy days, and they would go on fighting until this corpse of protection was buried again. It was no use dressing up the old skeleton in preference clothes, or hanging on it the totems of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, because it was still the old corpse of the corn tax which had been dug up again, the stench of which made the people of this country ill, and which, if the hon. Gentleman opposite ever wished to return to power, they had best reinter at the earliest possible opportunity.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSONsaid he gathered that the hon. Member for Chester, who had just spoken, was opposed to the Amendment, and he wished to examine for a moment or two the reasons which had been put forward why the Amendment should not be accepted. The reason put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Member for Leicester was that this was a chose, jugée. The answer to that contention was in the speech of the hon. Member for Chester. Fiscal reform was, he said, the one question which interested the people and upon which they still had an open mind. It was, he said, a question upon which they wanted to have their minds made up. In the second place tariff reformers were told that the people of this country would never buy social reform or old age pensions at the price of a tax upon food. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Hear, hear."] He wished to point out that the Government now proposed to sell it at the price of taxation on food. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh."] Was sugar not a food? Upon that point the Chancellor of the Exchequer was much wiser than some of his followers, because with his great dialectical skill he foresaw that objection and said that his reason for
  866
  the retention of the sugar tax was that it was a war tax and no war tax ought to be abolished until the war indebtedness had been discharged. That was an ingenious, but unsound argument. Was the House aware that at that moment they were paying for the war indebtedness of the Crimean War and the French Wars? He did not suppose the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm as a financial purist would carry him so far as to propose to return to the war taxation of those periods. Had hon. Members opposite ever thought how duties on sugar and corn were felt in practice? A duty of 2s. per quarter on corn had been suggested. If such a duty were imposed it would be placed upon foreign corn, and Colonial corn would still continue to come in on the same terms. That would be a duty which would be not universal but only partial in its application. However, he would concede for argument's sake that the whole of such a tax would be paid by the consumers in this country. What would it amount to? A duty of 2s. upon corn represented something like 7 per cont. upon the value of the article, whilst the duty upon sugar represented 35 per cent. He would for a moment consider the figures, in regard to consumption. Roughly speaking, for the last ten years the people of this country consumed on an average six bushels of corn per head of the population. A 2s. tax on corn upon six bushels amounted to 1s. 6d. per head per annum. The average consumption of sugar in this country was something like 85 lbs. per head of the population. Last year the average was over 87 lbs., but he would for the purposes of his argument place it at 80 lbs. That would amount at a halfpenny per pound not to 1s. 6d. but to 3s. 4d. per head. There was a further question which arose out of this. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not reduce the duty on sugar by half because the consumer would not get the benefit, and if the sugar duty meant a burden of 3s. 4d. per head of the population, how was it if they were going to take off half of the sugar duty, which was 1s. 8d. per head of the population, that that was going to be of no use to the consumer, while in the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite the consumer would be so vitally affected by a duty on corn when the taxation

  867
  would only amount to about 1s. 6d. per head of the population? The second contention he wished to deal with was the statement of the old doctrine that taxation ought to be levied only for revenue purposes. That article of the free trade creed was now renounced by the Free Trade Party. They had heard a good deal about the taxation of ground values, and everybody knew that a scheme of that kind was in the air, somewhere between heaven and earth. Personally he had had some experience upon a Committee of inquiry into the question of ground values during the last year. The Committee of which he was a member, and also a previous Royal Commission, had reported that taxation of ground values could not be recommended because it would provide any very large hitherto untaxed source of revenue, but it was recommended because the majority of the Committee considered that it was likely to make some change in existing social conditions. That was imposing taxation not for revenue purposes, but for social purposes, and that was also the result of the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Leicester. Therefore the doctrine of taxation for revenue purposes only had gone by the board, and it was very doubtful whether it was ever seriously entertained by the Free Trade Party. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken about Mr. Pitt as the father of income-tax, but exactly between Mr. Pitt's first speech on the income-tax and the time the right hon. Gentleman spoke, Lord Beaconsfield in the autumn of 1852 proposed a scheme of differentiation between earned and unearned incomes, which was almost precisely the same as that now proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That proposal was denounced by Mr. Gladstone and his Party, and the Government was thrown out of office on the introduction of that very scheme. When the President of the Board of Education said that differentiation of the income-tax was not likely to cripple its expansive power, he was going contrary not only to the belief of Mr. Gladstone, but to opinions which Mr. Gladstone succeeded in inculcating into a Cabinet. The doctrine of taxation for revenue purposes was not necessarily one which was adhered to by the Free Trade Party. Mr. Gladstone upon one celebrated occasion, in a Memo-
  868
  randum, alluded to in that life of Mr. Gladstone which was written by the Secretary of State for India,† recalled the fact that in 1843 he made strong speeches in favour of the extension of the system of colonial preference from Canada to the other Colonies of the Empire. He had one of Mr. Gladstone's speeches on that question in which he referred to the question of the extension of a preferential duty on corn between Canada and this country, and he said—
  "he believed that the exportation from Canada to England would give a great stimulus to the agriculture of the Colonies and be beneficial to the male of both countries. At the same time it could not exert any injurious effect upon the productive industry of the English agriculturists. That was the kind of trade, independent of foreign countries, and mutually beneficial to two parts of the same Empire which could not be affected by hostile tariffs, which it was the duty of Parliament to encourage more than any other trade."
  He commended that quotation to some hon. Members who admired Mr. Gladstone's principles so much but did not always follow in his footsteps. For that was the argument which was stated now by fiscal reformers. If they were going to raise the necessary revenue, they could not do it by confiscation pure and simple, and if they adhered to the present limited basis of taxation, then every day our system of taxation approximated more and more nearly to confiscation. If they were going to raise the necessary taxation fairly, it could be done only by broadening the basis of taxation. He did not ask the House to take that from himself. The Undersecretary for the Colonies in 1902, speaking on the problem of unemployment in this country, said that—
  "The only chance for the struggling millions of whom they read in Mr. Rowntree's book, if ever they were to enjoy the bounties of nature, lay not in any socialistic system of taxation, not in any charitable enterprise, or charitable immunity from taxation, but solely and simply in effective scientific commercial development."
  He commended that opinion to hon. Members opposite. If they really believed that in the name of free trade they could resist the object which this Amendment put forward, and if they really held that taxation was never to be laid on with the view, or indeed with the possibility, of benefiting British industry and furthering British commerce—if that
  † Morley's "Life of Gladstone," vol. i., p. 255.

  869
  was their conception of free trade, and if, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, free trade was to them the breath of life, all he could say was that the sooner they gave up the ghost the better.
  MR. RENDALLsaid the last speaker had quoted the opinions of certain well-known men. He and his friends were not concerned to defend the opinions which were held and expressed at a time when the speakers had not advanced to that position of intellectual development which they afterwards achieved. The scientific arid commercial development to which the Under-Secretary for the Colonies referred in the passage quoted by the hon. Member had nothing to do with protection. The business people who wanted scientific and commercial development were the last people in the world to want any sort of tariff interference with their business. The only result of that debate was to show once more to an astonished country that the Opposition were hopelessly divided as to what they meant and wanted,and that the only Party that had the faintest idea of what they meant were the Liberal Party. If that end had been served once more he thought there would be some advantage to the country from the debate. During the last Parliament the members of the then Opposition tried unsuccessfully to ascertain what were the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London in regard to free trade and protection, but now apparently the members of the present Opposition were anxious to know what his opinions were. Whether they were satisfied or not with the speech the right hon. Gentleman had that day delivered, it was not for him to say. He hoped that the hon. Member for Ludlow would have an opportunity of addressing the House and stating what he thought about his leader's opinions. From a speech delivered by the hon. Member some time ago they gathered that he was unable to fathom what the opinion of his leader was. It would be interesting to know his opinion now. He himself claimed no particular capacity to interpret what the Leader of the Opposition had said on the question, but having read his speeches and his pamphlet, and having listened to his speech that day, he
  870
  was bound to say that he was quite unable to fathom what the right hon. Gentleman meant, or what his views were in regard to tariff reform. What were the right hon. Gentleman's views in regard to duties on manufactured articles imported into this country, on raw materials, and on articles of food? The right hon. Gentleman had gone out of his way to avoid the mention of the word food. These were points on which the House ought to have some information before voting on the Amendment, which seemed to be capable of an enormous number of different constructions. The Budget of this year was not a Budget of despair; it made a perfectly clear pronouncement that the first duty of this country was to lessen its debt. They knew also that it provided for the nucleus of a fund for old age pensions. It was not an electioneering Budget, it did not try to provide social reforms on credit and not for cash, and it tried to meet obligations fairly and squarely. The important principle was acknowledged that there was to be a differentiation of the taxation of earned and unearned incomes. Some Colonials with whom he had recently been conversing told him that they had been struck with the extraordinary conditions in connection with our factories and workshops. A lady said to him that she was surprised at the enormous number of hours shops were open in this country. He thought he might say without disrespect to those members of the Party opposite who represented capitalists and landowners that those conditions represented their profits in some measure, and that they had very strong reasons for trying to draw something across the path of progress in that direction. They were anxious to prevent changes in the law which would interfere with the profits which they derived under present conditions. Therefore, when social reforms were proposed, they were always told by the Opposition that the Empire was in danger. The present Government had come into power with an enormous majority after a direct fight mainly on the question of free trade. That battle having been fought and won, it ought to be regarded as completely settled during the present Parliament. He had during the last few weeks received from tariff reform organisations communications asking him to

  871
  support various proposals of colonial preference. These were practically requests that he should break the pledges which he gave to his constituents at the time of the election.
  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.

  HUMBER CONSERVANCY BILL [LORDS].
  (BY ORDER.)
  Second Reading deferred till Monday, 27th May.

  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 this 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.
  MR. RENDALL,continuing his speech, said that it was not right that hon. Members should be asked to break the promises which they had made to their constituents. As regarded the Amendment generally, they all felt that it had been drafted to rope in certain Members of the Unionist Party; but he could not help feeling that there were a good many Members on the other side of the House whose silence could not be construed otherwise than as indicating their opposition to the Amendment. He himself would have no hesitation in voting against it.
  MR. HUNTsaid that one hon. Gentlemen after another on the Ministerial side had impressed upon the House that we were a free trade country. The statement was absolutely
  872
  untrue. The import duties on the necessaries and luxuries of the poor came to about £25,000,000 a year; how could that be called even free imports for the poor, let alone free trade? There were also many millions of money taken every year in the excise duties on beer and spirits which were also largely used by the poor. On the hand, almost all our manufactured exports by which our working people earned their wages were very heavily taxed by other nations. Where, then, did the freedom of trade come in? He had never been able to make it out. If hon. Gentlemen opposite were to say that our system was one of State aid to foreign countries, he thought they would be much nearer the truth. Under our present system we were practically giving foreign nations an advantage on manufactured goods in our own market of about £12 in every £100 worth of goods which they sent to us. The reason was that our manufacturers had to pay in rates and taxes about £12 for every £100 of manufactured articles which they exported, while we allowed all foreign goods to come into this country without paying one half-penny towards rates and taxes. He would like to ask if any one would deny that proposition.
  MR. LUPTONsaid that he would deny it.
  MR. HUNTsaid he would give the hon. Gentleman his chance after he had done. On the other hand, foreign nations made us pay a great deal more than the equal of their rates and taxes for the goods we sent to them, so that we paid not only our own rates and taxes but a great deal more than their rates and taxes, as well as for the goods which we sent to them. Let them take the carpet trade. The charge on our carpets was £72 on every £100 worth of carpets sent to America. The head of an old firm of carpet manufacturers in his own constituency had told him that it was perfectly impossible to do trade with America now, unless they produced some new kind of carpet the design of which they had invented, but which the American manufacturers had not yet learnt to make. American carpets were sold in Bridgnorth, one of the homes of the carpet trade, whilst workers in the carpet trade in that town were obliged

  873
  to be kept on short time. On the other hand, the Americans can send any number of £100 worth of their surplus carpets into this country without paying a halfpenny towards our rates and taxes, and, according to Mr. Carnegie's statement in his address to the students at St. Andrews University in Scotland, surplus goods do not even pay rates and taxes in their own country because the extra amount made does not increase the numerous general charges. In the case of carpets America has not only kept our carpets out by her high duties, but in the early nineties gave a bounty on exported carpets, mid the effect was that several firms in Kidderminster closed their works, many looms were broken up and sold out of the country, and carpet weavers who had been earning £3 a week were left to starve, or attempt to get work as ordinary labourers at less than a third of their former wages. He (Mr. Carnegie) pointed to the industry of agricultural implements and showed how the Americans had triumphed and beaten us in our own market, so that now one agricultural implement maker made more machines in America than are made in the whole of Great Britain. The same unfair disadvantages applied to agriculture. Land in this country was heavily burdened by rates and taxes, and by death duties as well. When he was in America twenty-eight years ago he was told that, besides there being hardly any tax on the land, the work was done by niggers whose wages were much lower than those of agricultural labourers in this country. The farmers sent over their produce to this country, and also obtained preferential rates from our railway companies. Under those circumstances, he did not think that agriculture could be expected to flourish in England. What was wanted was to help the agriculturists and the agricultural labourers; but it must be on a different system from that proposed by the present Government. Could anybody explain how it was that we should have in this country such a number of unemployed and unemployable men? As the hon. Member for Woolwich had said, if a man was out of work for so many months he became to a certain extent an unemployable. China and Japan were becoming great manufacturing countries, and we should have in the near future to face products of the cheap labour of those countries.
  874
  Goods manufactured by means of that cheap labour would soon be coming in free in increasing quantities. He would ask the Labour Party to bear in mind that in those countries a man worked for 8d. a day and a woman for 3d. or 5d. The supply of articles produced by means of that cheap labour was beginning to arrive already. He had recently bought in one of the best shops in London a Japanese table cloth, and he was told by the shopman that Chinese goods of a similar description were also coming in. It was by goods such as those that the Irish linen industry was being under sold. He would remind the House that the American Press had very strongly pressed upon the American people that if the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham came off it would do an enormous amount of harm to American trade and an enormous amount of good to British trade. Public men in America had also expressed the same opinion. The exchange of products benefited both buyer and seller, and there was a great difference between a home and a foreign market. With British home commerce both buyer and seller were Britons and both employed British workpeople; with foreign commerce only one was a Briton and one employed British workpeople. Hence home commerce was doubly profitable. But that was not all. Our coal and machinery being sold to go abroad helped to develop foreign industries, and those industries in return produced goods which competed with our manufactures. If our coal and machinery were, however, sold at home they would assist in developing home industries and in keeping our own workmen employed. About fifty years ago we made more iron and steel, manufactured more machinery, and wove more cloth than all the rest of the world. At the present time we were beaten in two great industries by America and Germany. We were becoming more and more the exporters of raw material and partly manufactured goods, whilst other nations were more and more sending us their finished products. In consequence of that state of things our people suffered terribly from want of work. During the ten years ending 1905 Germany took £63,000,000 in gold more from this country than we did from Germany. He could not help thinking

  875
  that this went to show why employment was so plentiful in Germany whilst we suffered so much from want of employment in this country. Probably a large part of the £63,000,000 was spent in wages in Germany. From Great Britain, says the German official writer, Germany takes chiefly raw material and half finished goods, so that Germany may manufacture them themselves; and he added that German raw produce and semi-crude materials are now only sent to Great Britain in a very limited degree. Hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite are always taking about what they call our invisible exports, chiefly ships and investments abroad. Mr. Perris, the present Secretary of the Cobden Club, had himself pointed out that our capital and plant had been steadily flowing abroad for the last fifty years. No doubt our money and machinery went abroad, but it employed foreign labour instead of British labour, and, not only that, it often employed very cheap labour which competed with our industries and our workmen at home. People who called themselves free traders made a great point about our great shipping trade, but from the working man's point of view our shipping trade really did the donkey work for the other nations of the world and humped their goods about. Even in that case we had to employ a number of foreign and Asiatic sailors, and he did not see where the benefit of that system came in. The President of the Board of Education told them yesterday that the poor paid enough in taxation. He should rather think they did. They paid an Empire tax of something about £25,000,000 a year upon the necessaries of life (if tobacco was to be counted a necessary, although it might perhaps be called a luxury). But, on the other hand, in the year 1906 there came into the country without paying a halfpenny of taxation such luxuries of the rich as ornamental feathers, silk manufactures, leather gloves, motor cars, fancy goods, musical instruments, toys and games, dressed skins and furs, and undressed skins and seal skins, excluding rabbit skins, to the value of £27,874,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not put a halfpenny of taxation on these things, because it might help our people to get work and wages, and none of the money would come out of the pockets of the poor. The right hon.
  876
  Gentleman said at Penzance in 1903 that the adoption of a tax of 2s. a quarter on corn would inflict a grievous burden on the poor; yet that worked out at a tenth of a farthing on 10 lbs. of wheat. The right hon. Gentleman this year said that after a careful review of the existing circumstances in connection with the tea duty, the reduction of 1d. in the pound would be of no relief to the consumer, and that if the sugar duty were halved it would be no good to the great bulk of the consumers. So that while something under a quarter of a farthing on a 4-lb. loaf would be a grievous burden to the consumer, although about half the supply would be untaxed, and therefore there would be competition with an untaxed supply, the reduction of 1d. a pound of tea, in regard to which there could be no competition with an untaxed supply, would make no difference to the poor people this year, although it was a great deal of good to them last year; and on sugar, which the right hon. Gentleman said was a food and a necessity of the poor, a reduction of a farthing a pound was no use. He supposed that they must remember that lawyers were educated, trained, and brought up to argue one day that black was white and the next day that white was black, but he really thought that the kind of argument used by the Chancellor was a trifle overwarm for ordinary working people. The Government had lost a great opportunity of consolidating the British Empire. They appeared to be so tied up with their gigantic election inexactitudes of big loaves and enslaved Chinamen, who, however, could not be persuaded to leave their slavery; and were so wedded to the old-fashioned, obsolete, out-of-date, wooden-headed, blind-eyed fallacies of Cobdenism, that if they had their deserts they would go down to history as the Ministry of inexactitudes, lawyers, and second-class parish councillors.
  MR. TOULMINsaid the hon. Member for Ludlow usually managed to entertain the House, but he had omitted one point from his speech on this occasion. They would have liked to have heard from him his opinion of the speech of his leader so that they might know whether in his opinion his leader had toed the line. That at all events was the object of this Amendment. It was in order that the country might get to

  877
  know how the right hon. Gentleman stood with regard to this matter. He was mistaken as to our exports and imports. During the last three months our imports of raw material had increased by,£6,500,000, and of manufactured articles by £1,333,000. Our exports of manufactured articles had increased by £6,000,000, and of raw material by £1,000,000. The hon. Member for North-West Lanark had endeavoured to put the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the horns of a dilemma with regard to the sugar tax. But he did not think his right hon. friend, in saying that if he took off a portion of the sugar tax this year no benefit would accrue to the consumer, was laying down a principle as to the general influence of the reduction of a tax. He understood his right hon. friend to mean that no benefit could accrue in the present state of the market. If the hon. Member claimed that whenever a tax was taken off the consumer always got the whole benefit he must also admit that when an extra tax was put on the consumer always paid it. Attention had been called to the speech of Mr. Gladstone in 1843 when he advocated a preference on corn to Canada. But at the time we had a tax on corn, and in as much as we were breaking down the tax we were proceeding in the direction of free trade, and it was not inconsistent to support Mr. Gladstone on that occasion. To-day hon. Members might see Canada and Australia breaking down the barriers between them and reducing taxation. He objected to a corn tax, not merely because it was protective, but because bread was the last resource of a person who had only one halfpenny to spend. It was the one thing that those who were poorest must have, and therefore in his opinion it ought not to be subject to taxation at all. He had never heard protectionists face the fact that where there was a protective duty the consumer paid both the duty and the increased price of the goods which did not come under that particular duty. The right hon. Member for St. Georges desired to diffuse the burden of taxation by taxing more commodities. But why were these commodities chosen? Sugar was chosen in place of corn because the whole of the revenue went into the Exchequer. If they chose other commodities the consumer not only paid the
  878
  whole duty, but also paid an increased price. What was the result in the case of the French corn tax? The price was not raised by the whole of the amount of the duty, but notwithstanding that, the consumer paid the duty many times over. Only 5 per cent. of corn was imported into France, and that 5 per cent. paid the Government 12s. 2d. per quarter. Ninety-five per cent. was home grown, but the price of the whole 100 per cent. was raised by 8s. a quarter. The price to the consumer was raised by 800 shillings, of which 60 shillings as duty went to the Government, and 740 shillings went elsewhere. One need not wonder at there being an enthusiastic army of advocates for such a system of taxation. The right hon. Member for East Worcester had said that our present fiscal system handicapped our industries; but no evidence had been adduced in favour of that contention. He repudiated that suggestion, and contended that our fiscal system provided a medium for an abnormal growth of industry, such as had never been seen in any other country since the world began. Certain industries which were highly specialised had a greater development here than anywhere else Free trade provided a better soil and industries obtained a luxuriant growth. Let them take the textile and shipping industries. This country was not defenceless; we had cheap goods and cheap services which through free trade enabled us to bargain with any other nation in the world. Which nation with a tariff was able to get better terms than ourselves with other nations? He had some figures which would disprove the contention of the right hon. Gentleman that countries with tariffs could always keep their mills going. He would not go into details, but would merely quote—
  "By inquiries addressed to 1,233 Berlin hardware concerns it was found in October, 1901, there was a decline of from 15,000 to 18,000 workmen, chiefly adults, as compared with the corresponding months of 1900. In the iron-founding industry no less than 39 per cent of the workmen were discharged. A month later another 7,500 were thrown on the labour market owing to the cessation of the 'season' trades."
  Of the 6,375 weaving looms at Aachen 1,231 were standing still and fully 1,300 men were without employment. So far as he had been able to discover, the seasons of depression, either in the United States or in Germany, were worse and

  879
  more profound than here, and they recovered later and not sooner. Then again, the right hon. Gentleman had said that they could not put more capital into their mills. Really, to any one going over Lancashire, that seemed very peculiar, because he did not think that any one who took an hour's journey in any part of the spinning portion of Lancashire could fail to see a new mill either working or rising. How did free trade affect that? It enabled them to build mills more cheaply than any other manufacturing country. A mill which in England cost £125,000, in Germany cost £185,000, in France £200,000, and in the United States £250,000. The interest and depreciation alone on the extra money spent in the United States, was more than the wages which were paid to operatives in England. He was speaking entirely of the cost of building the mill before it was run. This "handicap" result was that in the Oldham district there were actually more spindles at work than in the whole of Germany. Was it not a most marvellous fact that we took America's raw material, although she was a manufacturing nation, brought it 3,000 miles across the sea, worked it up here, and then exported £100,000,000 worth of it to every quarter of the globe? [An HON. MEMBER: It has got less and less every year.] No; it had got more and more. Taking the figures for ten years, it had grown from £65,000,000 to £100,000,000. We were not taking as much extra raw material, but we were exporting greater value. Why? Because we were putting more work into it. He could not see any economic disadvantage whatever in that. We exported of goods, made from the raw material from America, ten times as much as they did. What was our record in regard to shipping? The right hon. Gentleman had referred to our supremacy in shipping as having been as great half a century ago as it was now. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken. In regard to the United States, which had everything that was required for shipping within its own borders—skilled workmen, iron, wood, water, magnificent waterways, and everything which ought to encourage it to be the greatest maritime nation the world had ever seen—why was it that we had in their ports 25,000,000 tons of shipping while they had in ours 1,500,000? The whole reason was free
  880
  trade, because free trade gave us, in the building, the furnishing, and the working of our great steamers—which were not donkey-power as the hon. Member opposite had remarked—all the advantages which enabled us to build cheaply. These steamers had the the most highly organised engines that the world had ever seen. More skill went to the building of those ships, more intelligence and power in sailing them about the world and in conducting its commerce, than had ever been seen in any other industry. Our shipping industry was one of the marvels of the world at the present time. We not merely did the shipping between the United States and ourselves, but we did 14,000,000 tons of their shipping with other foreign nations, and that was how we paid for the corn and cotton which we got from them. In 1840 our maritime supremacy over France was four times, whereas it was now nine times as great; our mercantile navy was nine times that of France. In 1868 the United States had 2,500,000 tons of shipping compared with our 4,500,000 tons. In 1870 we were 5,500,000, and the United States 1,500,000 tons. In 1901 we had 9,500,000, and the United States had less than a million. That, in his opinion, and after reading what had been said by inquirers in the United States, was entirely owing to the fact that we were a free trade nation and they were not. We were threatened with Germany getting up to us. Between 1870 and 1900 the figures for Germany had doubled, but they had only added a million tons while we had added 4,000,000. It would take Germany at that rate a longtime to get up to us, although they had doubled and we had not. Our superiority over Germany in regard to steam was even greater. In 1880 we had 2,500,000 tons more in steam than Germany; in 1890 we had four and one-third millions more; and in 1900 we had 5,750,000 more steam tonnage than they had. He wished for the indulgence of the House while he turned to the Imperial side of the question. Lancashire was in the fore-front of this battle, not because of any accidental circumstance, but because she was interested in two of our great trades, shipping and cotton. Those were the two trades which would suffer most if the proposals of hon. Gentlemen opposite were adopted. The

  881
  right hon. Gentleman had said that the preference proposals were the first great advance towards greater unity. He (Mr. Toulmin) said on the contrary, that if they began with tariff bargaining they would throw not an apple but a whole bushel of apples of discord between ourselves and the Colonies. We should set every trade in England examining the kind of injury which was done it by the colonial tariffs. The Leader of the Opposition had said that afternoon that without close relations they could not have unity. Close relations in what? Close relations in those things on which they could agree, and on which they could unite, but not close relations when they were actuated by absolutely opposite principles. On the one side they were protectionists; they at home were free traders, and to set them haggling on this point was to invite disaster. Sir Robert Peel repudiated haggling with foreign nations; they introduced haggling with our Colonies as a step towards free trade. What did that lead the Leader of the Opposition to? They had again that afternoon the schedule of forbidden industries in the Colonies. Nothing was more marked in the tour of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham than the fact that he referred to the industries which the Colonies were not to begin. That he believed was kept out—he hoped that he was correct in saying so—of the revised edition of his speech. Of course it must be left out. It was never intended that there should be a restriction of Colonial industries; otherwise, we should at once get to loggerheads with them. Now, the right hon. Gentleman said that they were to prevent the building up of industries in the Colonies, and we were to supply the manufactured goods. There they had something to quarrel about, because they were asking the Colonies to give up the whole basis of their policy. There had been a good deal said both inside the House and out of it, about, the foreigner paying the tax. He was not going into the point whether the foreigner paid the tax, because, in reference to the question he was about to ask, he did not very much care which answer they gave. Who paid the tax imposed by Canada on Lancashire cotton? Whoever paid it, as he had said, it was a penalty and an obstacle to trade. He had not forgotten the campaign in
  882
  regard to the Indian import duties, nor had he forgotten what hon. Members opposite had told Lancashire in regard to it. That was the occasion on which the present Chancellor of the Duchy defended India. Hon. Members opposite then said that the Indian 5 per cent. duty came out of the pockets of Lancashire. Very well then, out of whose pocket did the Canadian twenty-three and one-third come? Did it come out of the pocket of Lancashire or the Canadian consumers of Lancashire goods? He had said that the duty was an obstacle to trade between Canada and England. They gave us a preference, and so far as that went it reduced the obstacle and they welcomed it; so far as it was a sign of goodwill they welcomed it. In criticising Canada in this matter he hoped that it would be clearly understood that he was criticising only those who were advocating what they believed to be Canada's position in that House and outside of it. He had to look at the matter from the point of view of one whose welfare depended on that of Lancashire. He had business relations with three of the great trade centres of Lancashire, and he represented the fourth, and whatever did Lancashire harm, would do himself the greatest possible harm. That might sound a selfish argument. They were told that Lancashire was selfish, and that her object in supporting free trade was selfish. Let that be so. Let them be taken as they were. Sometimes they had a rub at their neighbours, and they must be content to take a rub in turn. He had never known a Lancashire man get the better of a Yorkshire-man in a horse deal. Let it be so. They were both of them hard men. Let the House beware of setting them bargaining. It would be the millions of Lancashire against the millions of Canada: and the millions of Yorkshire against the millions of Australia. What was the picture which the hon. Member for Aston Manor had given them of the Colonies? He had said they would be ready to prefer a reduction of Italy's tariff to our own open market. Did hon. Members believe that the Colonies would be ready to give benefits to Italy which they did not give to us, although we kept our doors open? This country bought from them every year £28,000,000, and they only bought from us £14,000,000. He hoped the

  883
  House would not take the hon. Member's estimate of the Colonies. Having an open market, we had not become adepts at tariff bargaining; but if Lancashire was to go in for bargaining then she must start at the beginning and go into it pretty thoroughly. What was the present position? Great Britain had given her Colonies freedom to tax Colonial purchasers of our goods. That freedom was greater than preference, nay it was even greater than equality, because in this particular case equality was greater than preference. Their absolute freedom was greater than any trade relations with us, however beneficial, could be. If Lancashire worked for Canada in the United Kingdom there were no obstacles to the payment from Canada, but if Lancashire wished to pay for Canadian corn how did Lancashire stand? What would be the position between Lancashire and Canada if they agreed to try to strike a bargain? Lancashire cotton was taxed 25 per cent. in Canada. Canadian corn was free in Lancashire. How, then, could Lancashire bargain with Canada for preference when there was this inequality between Lancashire cotton and Canadian corn? If they placed a tax of 25 per cent. on English purchasers of Canadian corn they would then be equal, and they could bargain. They only tolerated the present position in the name of political freedom and because they wished the Colonies to be absolutely free; but once set them to tariff bargaining, then the position would become intolerable. How did the position stand with regard to the suggested preference? What was the preference to be? Lancashire also dealt with the foreigner, and consequently Canada's position, according to the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, would be "We, Canada, penalise your import trade into Canada. We have the thumbscrew on Lancashire to the extent of 25 per cent. If England will impose penalties on Englishmen dealing with foreigners we will relax the thumbscrew a turn or two off your Lancashire cotton. We cannot relax it altogether for fear of our own manufacturers." He protested against the false view taken of this preference by bringing in a comparison with the foreigner. Members opposite said "Look how Canada taxes the foreigner." His contention was that they must look at the position between Lancashire and Canada before they looked
  884
  at the position between Canada and the foreigner. They had to look at the position of Canada and Lancashire in regard to cotton goods, and Canada and Yorkshire in regard to woollen goods. The effect of Canada's barrier was that we bought from Canada £28,000,000 and Canada bought from us £14,000,000. In the face of that fact Canada could not hoodwink them by diverting their attention to the foreigner and saying "We tax the foreigner more." That was not the question. They replied" Look how you treat our trade and how we treat yours; look how we treat your corn growers and our own upon an absolute equality; look how you treat your own cotton and woollen manufacturers and our cotton and woollen manufacturers." If once they accepted the tariff reform policy they would be committed to retaliation, preference and protection, and they would be putting into the hands of friends weapons with which they might mutually hurt one another, because inevitably every great trade would have to fight for its own hand, and where there was unity at the present moment, they would produce enmity. Where was the greater unity that would come from these negotiations? If it came to a general scramble, Lancashire would fight, and Lancashire would be right. The Colonies at the present time had fiscal freedom to tax any of our goods for the purposes of retaliation and protection. They taxed our goods and when they offered us a preference it was only a form of retaliation, because they put a duty on which they said they would take off if we would give them something in return. They could not adopt such a system by halves, but must adopt all its evils, jealousies, and strife. Lancashire now fought with a single eye for free trade. There was a great reserve of free trade strength in Lancashire to-day. Many thousands in Lancashire voted for Unionists at the last election, because they knew that free trade was safe, in fact the first day settled that, and that prevented the Unionist Party from falling to pieces. The hon. Member for Durham had spoken of 100,000 Unionist free traders, and he had no hesitation in confirming his statement so far as Lancashire was concerned. Lancashire Members were not receiving from their constituencies a shower of resolutions in favour of tariff' reform. By free trade Lancashire had

  885
  grown, and if they destroyed free trade they would increase the manufacturers' cost, burden the workers, hinder their customers' payments, and lay them open to retaliation the whole world over. Preference would bring no increased unity, but internal tariff wars, and would produce not bonds of unity, but burdens of bitterness. Canada herself made no such claim as had been suggested by those who wished to entrap her and get her to pull the protectionist chestnuts out of the fire for them. They were calumniators of the Colonies who represented them as already traitors in their hearts to the Empire. He would like to read to the House the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier—
  "The people of Canada did not come here as suppliants; they did not come here to ask for anything for their benefit; they asked the British people simply to consider whether such a policy would be in the interests of the British people. If the British people came to the conclusion that it would not be in their own interests, then Canada wanted none of it. He had read in some newspapers here that unless the British people gave a preference to Canada, unless there was mutuality of preference, that they in Canada were prepared to desert the British policy and to seek markets in the United States. That statement had no shadow of foundation. Their neighbours were well aware that whenever it came to a matter of competition in Canadian markets between products of the United States and products of Great Britain their choice was made—they stood by the Mother Country."
  There was no system of preference which could be devised which was not unjust between Colony and Colony. It would give to the poorest of the King's dominions such as South Africa the least, whilst it would give to the richest Colonies like Canada the most. It would be unjust between the Home Country and the Colonies, and the various industries both at Home and in the Colonies. It would also be unjust between trade and trade. The House of Commons in its vote that night could not do better than respect the ripe political wisdom and the long experience of that great Canadian statesman, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, expressed in his words—
  "If preference for preference were not given, however, their loyalty would remain the same. The courageous ancient Gauls were afraid only of one thing, and that was of the canopy of heaven falling. Those who entertain a doubt of the loyalty of Canada might just as well fear the fall of the blue vault of heaven. The future of the British Empire was absolutely secure so long as it
  886
  rested upon the complete and untrammelled autonomy of all its component parts."
  By that autonomy this Empire had been built up, and by that autonomy, without preference, it would stand.
  MR. PIKE PEASEsaid he had listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Bury, because he remembered the excitement about the corn tax when he was first elected at a bye-election there. He remembered a speech made by the hon. Member in which he said that he was anxious to take the whole of the taxes off the poor. It seemed to him that the debate which had taken place had not touched to any great extent the question before the House, namely, the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, but was chiefly in regard to economic doctrine. He would like to say a word or two in reference to the taxing of the poor. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, in what he might call a provocative speech, had said that the Unionist Party were dishonest. What he had stated was that the Unionist Members advocated the views they held upon tariff reform, not because they believed that tariff reform was in the interests of the country, but because it was in their own interest. He had also said that the resolutions passed in favour of tariff reform were dishonest resolutions. Surely the hon. Member knew that resolutions were passed upon every conceivable subject in almost every constituency, and it was the custom to send them to the Member of Parliament representing that particular constituency. He wished to deal for a moment with the question of taxing food. Hon. Members opposite had stated on many occasions that they would like to do away with the tax upon sugar. He believed that at the last election there were 131 Members who pledged themselves, under any circumstances, not to vote for any tax on sugar at all. The only excuse put forward for the sugar tax was that it was a payment for old age pensions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had on many occasions advocated contributions from individuals towards State-aided pensions, and if that was what this Budget meant there would have to be a compulsory contribution towards those pensions so long as there was a tax

  887
  on sugar and tea. If those taxes were increased next year a great deal of the money would go towards old age pensions. They frequently saw at election time great placards "Vote for So-and-So and no taxes on food." It was often said by speakers on the Government side of the House that the people of this country would not stand taxes on their food; but the taxes upon food and drink excise and customs last year amounted to no less than £48,000,000. We were at the present time the greatest tariff State in the world. He was not at all a bigoted protectionist. If they taxed the things they produced instead of those they did not produce they did increase the price in the home market to some extent if the foreigner did not decrease the price of the article to the extent of the tax. Let them take the position of many firms in the north of England. Of course there was at present a very great deal of prosperity all over the country. His friends on the other side of the House knew that there were a considerable number of works stopped owing to the present fiscal conditions. Some of the owners of these works had gone abroad with their factories. If a man had to decide whether he would put up works in this country or in Germany he found that by putting them in Germany he had the advantage of a market of 60,000,000 people in Germany and 40,000,000 in this country. If a man had the offer of two pieces of land separated by a stream over which there was a bridge, and he was told that if he erected his factory on one side there would be a toll to pay if he brought his goods over the bridge, but that if he placed his factory on the other piece of land there would be no toll, there could be little doubt as to the place which he would choose for the erection of his works. That applied to our fiscal system at the present time. He was not going to advocate the system of Germany. He thought he might say however that in the interests of this country something should be done to alter our present system. Referring to the question of the income-tax, he appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the present system which prevented people who paid the tax and who were not liable for it from getting their money refunded. This was a very
  888
  hard condition. There were thousands of people who were paying income-tax which was not due by them to the State, and he hoped the Government would be able to do something to alleviate the hardship. He would give two instances. One was the case of an overdraft in respect of which £5,000 worth of shares were deposited with the bank against a loan of £4,000. The borrower had to pay income-tax on the interest which he received on his £5,000 worth of shares, but as he had to pay to the bank interest on the £4,000 of borrowed money, he was really only getting an income on £1,000. The great majority of the people did not know that they could obtain a refund of the income-tax in respect of such a transaction. the other case was that of poor people, of whom there was a large number, who had from £100 to £300 in some shares on which the income-tax was paid before they received the dividend. Those people whose incomes did not come within the taxable limit did not as a rule make any application for the tax which had been deducted. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer should do something to make the process of getting the money refunded simpler. If a graduation of the income-tax was going to take place in future, it should not be done on the lines advocated in the Budget. He admitted it was the clearest Budget statement he had heard in the House of Commons, but they were not carrying out the principle of taxing the people who were best able to pay. A poor widow loft with a bare competence who had to pay Is. in the £ income-tax was not so able to pay that tax as a bachelor earning £2,000 a year. He hoped these suggestions would receive the consideration of the Treasury.
  MR. HARWOCDsaid he did not think they could look forward to any decrease in the total cost of running the State, and therefore he regretted that the Government had given up the coal tax. There were certain advantages in that tax. One was that a portion of it—much the larger portion of it—was paid by the foreigner. Another was that it enabled the nation to get something out of its own property. As a Radical he had always held the opinion that the nation had property in its mineral

  889
  wealth as well as in its land, and the coal tax was one of the means by which the nation could get something from its own. It was not enough that the miner should get his wages, the mineowner his profit, and the shipowner his freight. He wanted the people who were the owners of the coal to get something, but practically the nation at present was getting nothing beyond the ordinary profit of trade. But whether that tax was a good one or not, at any rate it brought in £2,500,000, and he would have preferred it to remain in order to make a beginning with old age pensions. He was deeply disappointed that a beginning was not made with the solution of that question. He held that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had anything to give, he should have begun by giving to those who needed it most. He did not think that the cost of old age pensions would be anything like what had been put before the House. There were a great many considerations in the calculation which he thought had not been given weight to. As an employer of labour he believed that of all classes of the community those who, beyond the people receiving the pensions, would derive the greatest benefit would be employers of labour. Fifty or sixty years ago that principle was discovered in the Poor Law. When the State subsidised wages it more or less gave a benefit to employers, and he believed it would be fair if they had to contribute a certain proportion to the solution of the pension problem. Therefore, he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer! would not be deterred from tackling the problem by any fear of treading on the corns of employers. The suggestion of the Opposition as to the method of raising money was about the worst possible. The Leader of the Opposition, while professing to be a free trader, said they were under the necessity of raising money, and that, therefore, he was inclined to favour the proposals for preference because they were a means of raising money. But surely that was going on the principle of "killing the goose that lays the golden egg." If the nation had to raise more money, the greater was the necessity that the business capacities of the nation should be untouched, and, therefore, if they weighted the nation with anything like these duties they would be impeding the
  890
  nation in providing the additional wealth required. The suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition was contrary to common sense. The right hon. Gentleman had said he was in favour of free trade in principle. How did he justify his departure from that principle? He had said that free trade in the abstract was a right principle; there was no doubt about that; but it did not answer the case, because no one else adopted it. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends did not believe in the kind of free trade we had in England. On the Ministerial side of the House they did believe in it. If we were the only people to adopt free trade they would still believe in it. The Leader of the Opposition said, "Do you mean to say that England knows better than anybody else? Here are Germany, France, and the United States, and here are all our Colonies adopting plans of protection. Are you any wiser than they?" He thought we were, and there were many cases in which we had been wiser. He thought we had taught Continental countries and the Colonies a great deal more than they had taught us. We had taught them constitutional government, given them railways, and no end of things, and when he looked round he thought we were more likely to be right than they were. Who was suffering from the protection in Germany, France, and the United States? Speaker after speaker had talked as if protection in those countries had succeeded. He knew the industrial conditions of those countries pretty well, having close business relations with them, and he submitted that it was not protection which had succeeded. Why had German trade developed? It was because Germany had practically adopted free trade ever since the foundation of the Empire. He remembered when there were thirty different systems of customs in Germany. When the Empire was founded, those were swept away, and Germany had prospered, not by protection, but by her free trade. He wished to speak respectfully of France. He read an article in a French paper the other day on the question "Is France prospering?" He gathered from it that the French people were coming to the conclusion to which observers had come for some time, that the system there was not prospering. Considering her natural advantages France was not prospering as she would have done under free trade. He was

  891
  very strongly of opinion that if the United States adopted a policy of free trade it would be a great danger to England, considering the enormous natural advantages of soil, climate, minerals, and rivers which that country possessed. He did not think that we could compete with the United States under those circumstances. Again, the United States was an instance of the advantages of free trade. There were no customs duties between one State and another. The United States was a cosmos, and within its vast continental borders they had all the advantages of free trade. Their prosperity was due to free trade; where there was failure it was due to protection. It was said that we had not been perfectly frank in regard to the business relationships between the Colonies and the Mother Country. The Colonies said to us—"You are to jeopardise four-fifths of your trade in order to develop one-fifth of your trade with us." But, in the first place, they would not give us their trade; and, in the second place, they had not got it to give. He spoke from his own personal experience. The Colonies treated the trader in this country worse than anyone else in the world. He said to his Colonial friends, "Do you mean to admit my goods on the same conditions as we admit yours in this country?" And they frankly said, "No; we cannot afford it, but we will give a preference." They acknowledged that they built a wall against us, but the preference they offered was that they would add another twenty feet to that wall against the foreigner. But what use was that to the traders in this country? As a matter of fact, the duties against his goods were greater in Canada and Australia than they were in Germany and France. It was said that if we did not close with the Colonial offer they would make terms with someone else. As a business man he wished to do business with any one who would do him good; and the closer they kept to the business point of view the better it would be. Where would the Colonies find anyone to treat them better than we did? The whole of the Colonies did not contain as large a population as the two counties of Lancashire and Yorkshire. Hon. Members opposite said that we should think of the future. He maintained that we should think of the present at first. Another striking thing
  892
  was that the Colonies were wedded to their protective system. But how did the tariff system work in the Colonies? He said frankly that Australia was not a progressive country at all, it was non-progressive. Its population was not increasing. Its wealth was not increasing. The one Colony which adopted protection in its most severe form was the one Colony which did not prosper. Hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House were often charged with not realising the greatness of the Empire. From his point of view, they were proud of the Empire, and he had taught his children to be proud of the Empire, because it had stood as no other country in the world had done for liberty, freedom, and righteousness. He was so proud of the Empire that he trembled lest anything should be done to put it in jeopardy. They were told that a relationship that was not founded on interest was not a solid relationship, and an hon. Gentleman opposite had instanced the case of matrimony. But the matrimony which was founded on money considerations was sure to end in failure, and in an unhappy life. It was the nexus of money that had broken up Empires in the past; and it was money and considerations of tariff which had lost to this country the United States. He remembered when he was young hearing Mr. John Bright speaking in his father's house on this subject and saying—
  "We are trying to build an Empire upon sentiment. I do not know it we shall succeed, but I am certain that on no other basis will we succeed."
  There never had been an Empire in the whole history of the world which had been so successful as ours in binding together its elements of loyalty and high feeling, and that was because we had never tarnished it with money considerations. We said to the Colonies: "Do as you like in your own interest.'' We treated them as a father treated his children; and one and all came back to us for advice and assistance. But once we began to bargain and haggle the whole thing would break up. In a great question of this kind we had a right to ask what was the true ideal for nations to strive after. The world had been made by the Almighty with great varieties of soil and capacity for production. Was the right ideal that nations should build walls round themselves?

  893
  No; the right ideal was not that nation should strive against nation, but that all I should participate in the benefits of all; and he hoped that this country would adhere to that ideal.
  MR. BONAR LAW: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down began his speech by repeating very much the same line of thought which has been used by everyone from those benches. He admitted that our existing means of taxation was not equal to the demand, and he proceeded to say that anything in the nature of this Amendment would make things worse. That is common ground; but my hon. friend is always original, and he did not keep long to the beaten track. He said that protection was built up by self interest, and he summed this up by saying that he, a business man, could not sell to the Colonies because the duties were so high. I would point out that the extent of the protection of any duty does not depend upon the size of the duty, but the extent to which it is protective. I do not know the nature of the hon. Member's business. [HON. MEMBERS: "Muslin."] I put it to him. Does he sell more muslin to the Colonies with the higher duty than to Germany with the lower duty?
  MR. HARWOOD: To Germany, decidedly.
  MR. BONAR LAW: That does not in the least alter the argument I put before the House—namely, that the extent of the protection does not depend on the amount of the duty. A small percentage of duty in a highly-developed country like Germany is more protective by far than a much higher duty in a country where manufactures are not highly developed as in the Colonies. I was taught at school that America was going some day to adopt free trade, and then look out for us. As the hon. Member said, when that view was expressed more than thirty years ago there was much more chance of its being realised than today, because there was then a political party in the United States which advocated free trade. There is no political party of any size in the United States to-day, however, which recommends the system which prevails in this country.
  894
  The hon. Gentleman says that Germany has prospered because she has free trade; I do not want protection greater than the free trade which has been so prosperous in Germany. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was wrong in his corrections of my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition. For more than a generation after the abolition of our Corn Laws we had an effective entry into the markets of the world, because their manufactures had not grown up. So much was that the case that even so recently as 1879, when Bismarck altered the fiscal system of Germany, he was able to point out to the German people that the system which then prevailed in Germany had the effect of making Germany the dumping ground for England, and that by no other means than protection could they build up industries in Germany. If the right hon. Gentleman imagines, or tries to get other people to imagine, that the problem is the same as that with which Peel had to deal he has not begun to realise the A B C of the fiscal question. I challenge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give any evidence for his statement that Peel never expected that our adoption of free trade would break down the tariffs of other countries. I say you will not find anywhere in Peel's speeches anything which does not agree with the assertion that is constantly made by Cobden that the effect of our adoption of free trade would be to compel other countries to adopt free trade also. Peel said he was going to fight hostile tariffs by free imports—[MINISTERIAL cheers] —yes, but he meant that he was going to beat them by free imports. These statements of Cobden and the implied acquiescence of Sir Robert Peel are not accidental. They are part of their deliberate philosophy on this subject. Not merely were they free importers, but they were free-traders, which meant free exchange, which meant buying as well as selling, and it was part of their policy that they should have both. That was the prospect they held out to the people of this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also reminded my right hon. friend that in the Cobden treaty with France there was nothing contrary to free trade principles. There are few things in a dialectic way which the right hon. Gentleman is not capable of, but I do not think that even he is capable of

  895
  proving that, and for three good reasons. In the first place, Cobden himself admitted that it was contrary to free trade principles—["No"]—in the second place, Mr. Gladstone, who carried through the treaty, took the same view; and in the third place, Mr. Gladstone himself, in defending the treaty in the House of Commons, defended it on the curious ground that at the cost of a small loss of revenue we had gained a great extension of trade—the very argument used this afternoon by my right hon. friend in recommending preference. The discussion on the Budget is so wide that it is difficult to get out of order and difficult to make a selection. I shall take the line of the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Budget. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement said that he proposed to budget for some years ahead. That was very interesting, and reminded me that Mr. Gladstone once made a similar attempt and failed. When the right hon. Gentleman made the same attempt I listened for the development, but that development never came. There was nothing in his speech to show he is looking ahead except two things which are important. The right hon. Gentleman did make it clear to the House that for two or three years, the life of the present Parliament, we are to have no remission of taxation. The income-tax is to remain at a shilling, and the duties on tea and sugar are to continue for that period. For the present there is to be a burden; the advantage is all in the future. I feel that this is by far the most momentous Budget that has been presented to Parliament in my Parliamentary career. It marks, I believe, the beginning of the end. It is a confession of impotence, an admission that even from the point of view of revenue we have reached the limit, and that our fiscal system is on the verge of bankruptcy. Let me examine that statement in the light of the facts which have been presented to us in connection with this Budget. The right hon. Gentleman looks forward to having a surplus of £2,250,000, which is to be applied, if nothing happens, to old age pensions next year. But that surplus is dependent on many things. It is dependent on no other demands more pressing being made in the meantime on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, as was pointed
  896
  out by my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, if a Bill which is now before the House is carried, a quarter of that surplus will immediately disappear. It depends also on the revenue proving at least as productive in the next year as it has been in this year, and that depends upon our trade on the whole continuing in at least as good a state as it is at present. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education told us yesterday that it was not only going to continue at the present level, but was going to get better, but he proved it in a curious way by pointing out that up to the end of 1905, we were having a bad period of trade. Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten his election speeches? There is not a gentleman on the Government Benches who did not point out that the boom in trade had completely knocked the bottom out of protection. The yield of revenue is dependent on a better state of trade. That may be realised, but I think it is doubtful. Of this I am sure, that the majority of business men in this country believe that we have now reached the top of the boom. But it depends on more than that. It depends on the expenditure for our defensive forces not exceeding the amount put down in the Estimates. I do not claim to be an Army expert. I am one of the few Members of the House who do not make that claim. But is that likely to be realised? Judging only from the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I have arrived at the conclusion that the Army scheme of the Secretary for War, if it succeeds at all, is going to cost a great deal more than he estimates. But we have something more to go upon in the fact that only recently the right hon. Gentleman had to divert money that was going to the Sinking Fund, a system of finance so unsound that nearly a dozen of his supporters voted against him. Then as to the Navy, we know now from the First Lord of the Admiralty that it is the intention of the Government to keep the Navy at its present scale of superiority over other nations. That means that the control of our expenditure on the Navy is entirely taken out of our hands, and depends not on this Government, but on what is done by

  897
  other Governments over which we have no control. In the face of these considerations is it not at least probable that in a short time the right hon. Gentleman may be face to face with these alternatives—either to increase still further the enormous height of the taxation with the existing duties, or to put a tax on something which is not taxed now? It is true, as was pointed out by the hon. Members for North Paddington and Leicester this afternoon, and an hon. Member yesterday, that he might have another alternative, the alternative of making this country a place very undesirable for the rich man to live in, and still more undesirable for him to die in, but the amount of money which could be derived even if he adopts such a course will inevitably be very small. That brings us to the main purpose of the Amendment—the widening of the basis of taxation. My right hon. friend tried to explain what this meant. [Ironical MINISTERIAL Cheers.] I thought he explained it—[MINISTERIAL laughter]—and if he failed—I am not sure whether he failed or whether Members are laughing at their own inability to understand him—if he failed, then I have not much chance of succeeding. I will take the same illustration which he used. Suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to get £10 out of men of a particular class. On the average, he estimates on getting £10 out of income-tax, or £10 from sugar, or £10 from the motor car. In the long run, one man averaging another, the Exchequer will get the same amount of money. But the effect on the individuals in this class will be very different. If the money is raised by one-third on each of these articles, what will happen? A man who has a bad year pays no income-tax, and he does not buy a motorcar; and if it is all raised on sugar, however little or much money he has made in the current year, he will use approximately the same amount of sugar, and he will suffer as he would not have suffered if the burden had remained on the other articles. Hon. Members may agree or disagree with my views, but I hope they understand what those views are. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that he had shut himself off from this wider basis of taxation, but he justified it on grounds
  898
  which were perfectly satisfactory to him. He justified it by the illustration (and a very good one from his point of view and I believe he must have thought so), that he had only blocked himself off from unsound and marshy ground. Illustrations are not arguments, and nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman how easy it is to find them. If his illustration represents the facts he is wise. If it does not represent the facts then he is not wise. I will give him an illustration which I think is much more appropriate. The right hon. Gentleman has waiting for him a dwelling-house. It seems to be desirable, it apparently meets all his requirements, but he will not enter it. Why? Not because its foundation is insecure, but because there is a current report, which he is superstitious enough to believe, that it is haunted. The right hon. Gentleman is not very consistent even himself. If this kind of thing is marshy ground, there are present, as he well knows, in this country industries like that of tobacco manufacturing and the cocoa trade which are resting on this marshy ground. Why does he not remove them? If the duties on those industries are so bad, why does he leave them there to vex the country? He gave an explanation with regard to the cocoa duties which did not seem to me to be quite adequate. He admits that there is severe protection there, but he leaves it alone, the only reason, as I understood, being that Mr. Gladstone was a free trader and did not touch it. I do not think that is quite sufficient. In the first place, the conditions are different now. In Mr. Gladstone's time the principle on which our taxation was based was never challenged. It is challenged now. It is because it is challenged—I know of no other reason; I do not suppose it was vindictiveness—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year removed the arrangement with regard to stripped tobacco, which was far less protective, and which was introduced by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer. But there is something more to be said. I may be wrong, and I give it to the House for what it is worth. The duty on these commodities remains the same but the protection is probably not the same. The cost of manufacture, if it is

  899
  like other things, must have been greatly reduced, and, therefore, as the duty on the raw material and the manufactured article is the same, the probability is that the protection on cocoa industries now is at least twice what it was in the time when Mr. Gladstone fixed the duty. I confess that if anyone had moved an Amendment to remove these anomalies, I would hardly have known which way to vote. On the one hand, I believe the arrangement is not a bad one—that the country gains more than it loses by the flourishing of these industries in its midst. But on the other hand, there are other industries which might be benefited in the same way, and from the point of view of having these other industries benefited it is very desirable that all the people, whose interests ought to be the same, should be placed in precisely the same boat, and dealt with from precisely the same point of view. Another consideration is this: I think it very unreasonable and most unfair that the large fortunes which are made in this country out of the protection of these industries should be used as they are to subsidise newspapers and to help to finance Members of Parliament whose influence is used to prevent other people getting precisely the same advantage as they enjoy, and without which advantage there would be none of the money to spend in this way. Now I come to the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the tea and sugar duties. What he said about the tea duty is really very amusing to me. Last year the House will remember he took a penny off the tea duty because it was going to benefit the consumer. This year he does not take off a penny because it would not benefit the consumer. When right hon. and hon. Gentlemen quote what they are pleased to call axioms of political economy against us, they speak as if these things were the laws of nature, as inevitable as the law of gravitation; but apparently the right hon. Gentleman is able to suspend the laws of nature. They only apply when they suit him; and they do not apply when they suit us better than they do him. My right hon. friend the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer said this was an extraordinary explanation. The Chancellor of the
  900
  Exchequer said in reply, "There is such a demand for tea all over the world that I am informed if you take 1d. off the duty, the consumer would get no benefit." I will put the reverse of that: There is so little demand for tea, and the price is already forced down so low that if you take 1d. off, the middleman will get the benefit of the whole of it. That statement is like the other, and I think it is as good and perhaps a little better than the other, and I would suggest it for the use of the right hon. Gentleman in his next year's Budget. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the sugar duty, and I noticed that what he said about it was not cheered by hon. Gentlemen behind him. I am not surprised it was not cheered, but I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have used the argument that no benefit would result from taking off half the sugar duty, because the farthing is an unknown coin in retail business. The right hon. Gentleman is an economist, if he will allow me to say so without offence. The right hon. Gentleman confessed a few months ago that he boasted in his salad days that he had not only studied political economy but had actually taught it. Well, that is fatal. When a man has gone through that experience it has only one effect, which is that the knowledge disappears and the prejudices remain and cannot be shaken. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to produce any economist in the world, of any school, who would make himself responsible for the assertion that the want of a coin has anything to do with the incidence of a tax. When Sir Michael Hicks Beach introduced his duty on corn some of his hon. friends used the same argument. They said it is only a half-farthing on a 4lb. loaf, and will mean nothing to the consumer. Did the right hon. Gentleman accept that argument then? If the argument is inapplicable in the one case it is inapplicable in the other, unless the laws of political economy are to be varied to suit the Liberal Party, and the incidence which affects the cost by way of increase is to have no effect by way of subtraction. The President of the Board of Education said that what we mean by widening the basis of taxation is to transfer the burdens which are now borne by the rich to the backs of

  901
  the poor; and nothing that he said was more loudly cheered by his supporters. In a speech which otherwise I thought was very able I was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should make that statement. That is the most absolute claptrap, and the right hon. Gentleman must know it. More than that, it is absolutely untrue, and he ought to know it. Owing to the system on which we levy our indirect taxation, there is no country in the world in which that taxation bears so hardly on the poor as it does in this country. That is inevitable. We put indirect taxation on articles of food and drink, and that means that a man is taxed not in proportion to his ability to pay but according to his capacity to eat and the extent of his thirst. We put taxation only on articles of food and drink, and the result of that system must have the effect that a far larger part of the burden falls on the poorer classes. [Hear, hear.] If the right hon. Gentleman agreed, why did he make that statement?
  MR. MCKENNA: Because we have other taxes, such as income-tax and death duties, and I understand the broadening of the basis of taxation was proposed in order to reduce the income-tax.
  MR. BONAR LAW: No such statement was ever made, ["Oh."] All any one said on our side of the House was that both the income-tax and the indirect taxation of sugar and tea were too high. Taxation on other things was suggested as a means by which this excessive taxation might be relieved. There is no proposal, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine, to put on this taxation unless more money is needed. There is nobody who would not propose to relieve indirect taxation to the same extent as direct taxation is relieved.
  MR. MCKENNA: It was proposed, on the Resolution, to reduce the income-tax to 11d.
  MR. BONAR LAW: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was also proposed to do away with the tea duty
  902
  and the sugar duty. There is one other matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that it is impossible to have any system of preference without the taxation of raw material, because it would be so unfair to the different Colonies as compared with each other. In the first place, let me point out that this proposal for preference came not from my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, but from the Ministers of the different Colonies in the first Conference, and it has been persistently pressed by them ever since. If, therefore, you want to find out what the proposal means, you must go to the authors of the proposal. There is no suggestion that duties should be imposed so as to be equally favourable to all parts of the Empire. All that is asked is that preference should be given on any duties in this country. More than that, if the difficulty exists, it exists in the Colonies between themselves. Yet they are making these, arrangements—I do not say behind our backs, but in our presence—they are making these financial arrangements from which we are excluded. Nobody suggests that the advantage between one Colony and another is exactly equal. Let us for a moment look at this thing upon its merits. The right hon. Gentleman judges the value of preference by our existing trade; but that is begging the whole question. The Colonies desire preference because they believe that it will alter the whole course of trade and make an entirely new arrangement of their business. Take as an illustration the case of Ireland. Hon. Members representing Ireland took a great deal of trouble this year to carry through a Bill to enable them to grow tobacco in Ireland. Upon the right hon. Gentleman's principle what is the value of that? The value is in the future and will not be derived until after the passing of the Bill. The argument has been frequently used that we cannot give Australia a fair preference except on wool, but any Australian statesman would tell you that the wool trade would take care of itself, that they did not want to be a one horse country, and that though their exports of wheat were smaller than their exports of wool, yet a preference on wheat that would stimulate it would be of enormously greater value to them than

  903
  a preference on wool. The right hon. Gentleman really looks at this question from the wrong point of view, if I may say so, and it is wrong for this reason. He is against preference, he does not believe in it, and, therefore, he hunts for arguments which will make it impossible; but if he could imagine that he was in favour of it in principle, then objections like that which he has stated, and like those used by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, would disappear. They would not be worthy of consideration assuming that you wanted to carry the thing through. If you make that assumption, look at the position in which the right hon. Gentleman places himself. He represents to the country that he goes to the Colonies with whom there is a proposal to make this arrangement. He is the seller for us, but he acts both as the buyer and seller. He says, "That is what we have got to sell, but I advise you not to accept it, because it is not worth having." That was undoubtedly the position he put himself in the last time he spoke on the subject. But if South Africa came and said, "We are unfairly treated," the same answer was not to be given. The assumption of the right hon. Gentleman is based on the deep-rooted idea that the Government are not only best able to judge what is best for us, but also what is best for the Colonies. It was the feeling that that is the attitude of the Home Government which made Mr. Deakin good-humouredly, but evidently with some feeling, say that hat the Home Government thought Would be done with the representatives of the Colonies was that they should be brought over here occasionally in order that they might be given admonition and advice. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that they needed it?
  MR. ASQUITH: Not at all. I say they gave us quite as much advice as we gave them.
  MR. BONAR LAW: That is a reasonable arrangement. With an arrangement of that kind no one can find fault. The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech this afternoon, got extremely indignant and very eloquent about what he called the reptile Press, on the fiscal reform side, and the dirty Party capital they try to make out of the Colonial Con-
  904
  ference. I should be sorry if that has been done. It is not desirable from any point of view that the Colonies should regard one of the Parties in the State as their enemy. But the right hon. Gentleman must feel that in this kind of thing fiscal reformers at their best are only amateurs, that in such a business it is the Liberal Party who are the professionals, as the success of their efforts over Chinese labour proved. But I have a serious charge in this connection to make against the right hon. Gentleman himself. I shall put it very moderately. I felt that the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, in reference to the offer of preference by Australia were altogether unjustified and that they would have the effect of conveying to the people of this country the idea that the proposals of Australia were entirely different from what the proposals were. The right hon. Gentleman said the Bill of the Prime Minister was all they had to go on. Was an offer a Bill? What Mr. Deakin said on introducing the Bill was that it was a preliminary overture, that it was no more than the first step on the road they desired to travel, and along which they should proceed with the Mother Country in amity together for all time. Was it fair to assume that all the Australians offered was contained in that Bill? Without saying more on the political aspect of the question, there is one aspect of preference the friends of closer union desire to put forward. Is it not the fact that all the Colonial Premiers and all the Colonies consider that the first and only practical step towards closer union is by means of trade relationship? [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Is that not a reason for thinking long and carefully before turning a deaf ear to the proposals they make? Is it not a reason for giving anything we can give without disadvantage to ourselves? I maintain that the Government could without any disadvantage have given preference upon existing duties, and the Under-Secretary for the Colonies has pointed out that a duty taken off is a benefit to either party. Why has that not been done? The President of the Board of Education gave the reason. He said the Colonies could do it because it did not alter their system, but that we cannot do it without breaking down our fiscal system. That is

  905
  plausible, but it was not sound. It was a Government of free-traders in 1892–5 who introduced into India a system of revenue duties without corresponding excise, and they did so for the sake of revenue. It was then an object of sufficient importance for them to waive their theoretical objections; but now they do not think the object of sufficient importance to prevent them from sacrificing it on the altar of pedantry. A great deal has been said on the economical side of this question. I would like to point out briefly the advantages of preference. I can only repeat the arguments which I have used before, but I am justified in repeating them for they have never been answered. Even now for our total exports of manufactured goods the best market is to be found in the British Empire, and in the Empire the best market is in the Colonies. ["No."] Gentlemen who deny that should look at the figures; I have done so. Of course, I know we are told that it is illusory to make a distinction between manufactured goods and raw materials. The fiscal system of every country in the world except ours, however, is based on that distinction, and on nothing else; it aims at encouraging the importation of raw material, at discouraging the importation of manufactured goods, at encouraging the export of manufactured goods, and discouraging the export of raw material. Can any one doubt that a distinction which works in every country but our own is a real and vital one? The value of the Colonial trade is not in the present only; it lies in the future. These countries are only just beginning their development. If we choose we may have a share in the enormous trade which they are going to do with some one. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have told us since the beginning of this controversy that goods must be paid for by goods. The Colonies, for generations at least, must be great exporting countries, and they cannot export unless they import. That is a platitude; it is common ground in every school of economics; yet hon. Gentlemen think they have discovered therein an argument for free trade. These countries must be great importing countries, and, however high they may have to erect their tariff walls, if the preference is high enough we
  906
  are certain of securing that the immense trade will be in our hands.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. RUNCIMAN,: But for brief interludes a singularly languid interest has been taken in the whole discussion. That is due to the striking fact that after three years campaigning the country and the Members of this House have satisfied themselves on this great question, and now we are able to see the result. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is always frankly protectionist. He has indulged in a series of gloomy predictions not only as to the future of the Colonies, but also as to the decline of our own industries. These gloomy predictions are not made for the first time to-night. Three years ago, addressing the House on the subject of the iron trade—about which he is one of the first authorities—the hon. Gentleman stated that before twelve months were past the production of steel in America would be so great that they would overflow their own requirements.
  MR. BONAR LAW: I would like to know when I did say that?
  MR. RUNCIMAN: I think the hon. Member will recollect] [OPPOSITION cries of "Quote."] he anticipated that the over-production in the United States would be so great that the United States would be exporting rails to this country at £2 10s. before long.
  MR. BONAR LAW: "Before long" and "twelve months" are very different.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to go into the definition of what is "before long." The hon. Member, a prominent protectionist, admits quite fairly that a country cannot export unless it imports. Therefore, he granted at once the first hypothesis upon which free trade is founded. The hon. Member attacked the Budget of this year because he said it was a confession of impotency and had no

  907
  elasticity about it. He said we had in fact reached the limits of our present fiscal system. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible for a Budget based on this system in 1905, and he deplored the fact that he was bound by the free-trade pledges of his Government and was not able to add any elasticity to our national finance. I venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman did not realise that our national finance depended on both revenue and expenditure. We have succeeded in making our expenditure elastic, and for the first time for many years there has been a reduction in Army and Navy expenditure without any diminution in the efficiency of either service. Let us take what has been done under this inelastic system. During the last two years we have sanctioned no more expenditure under Military Works and Naval Works Acts. The amount spent under the Naval and Military Works Acts has gone down to no more than £2,500,000, and next year I believe not a single penny will be spent under them, and the capital expenditure will now be borne boldly on the annual Vote. That is one example of the way in which this inelastic system of ours has been expanded. Take the Sinking Fund. In 1905 the Sinking Fund was destroyed. In 1906–7 the Sinking Fund was made effective to the extent of nearly £10,000,000, and in 1907–8 it will be made effective by over £14,000,000. In addition to that, during that period we have succeeded in reducing taxation on tea, coal, and earned incomes. That alone is sufficient proof that the system which the right hon. Gentleman found inelastic has been found by his successors to be the most elastic system in the world. The right hon. Gentleman is an advocate of broadening the basis of taxation. My right hon. friend the President of the Board of Education put his own interpretation on that phrase, and it was the only sensible interpretation, namely, that the basis of taxation was to be found in the taxpayer. What is meant by broadening the basis of taxation is that there should be a greater variety of indirect taxes. I will give the House some idea of the effect of broadening the basis of taxation in the early part of the nineteenth century, when the tariff was formed
  908
  by William Pitt, Sir Robert Peel, Sir F. Baring, and George Canning, all scientific financiers. The scientific tariff of those days covered a large number of articles. In 1821 no less than 1,709 articles appeared on the tariff. In 1842 the number was 886. In almost every year that followed a large number of articles were taken off the tariff, and the number was reduced to 389 in 1859 and to 112 in 1863. At the present time there are something like ten classes on which customs are levied. During that period the return from indirect taxation has remained at practically the same amount, of about £23,000,000, until during recent years, when it has gone up to £32,000,000; showing that as the variety of the tariff is diminished the productivity of indirect taxation was increased. From the year 1835 to the year 1855, the great period during which we were narrowing the basis of taxation, some nine and one-third millions of duties were taken off. They have been removed and the customs revenue has not varied during the period more than £1,000,000 one way or the other. The experience of the nineteenth century has shown, first, that our tariff should be simple; and, secondly, that by a simple tariff the cost of collection is diminished. The cost of collection in this country, with its higher wages, is less than in any other civilised country in the world. In Germany the total cost amounts to no less than 10 per cent. of the total duties collected. In France it is 7 per cent.; in the United States of America 3·5 per cent.; while in the United Kingdom it is only 2½per cent. The cheapness of the collection is put down to the fact that the bulk of the import duties is collected on a small number of articles. What is put forward as the alternative to our present fiscal system? Four definite proposals have been put forward. Every one of them is said by its supporters to provide, funds not only for a reduction in direct taxation, but sufficient to carry through some of the great social reforms which are now looked for. The first is that there should be a 5 per cent. duty on all imports into this country. Then there is another subject of a kindred nature which also received the blessing of Mr. Deakin at the Colonial Conference, and that is a proposal for a

  909
  1 per cent. duty on foreign imports into the Empire for Imperial purposes. In the United Kingdom such a duty would produce £4,500,000 sterling; in Australia it would produce—the inequality is worth noting—£100,000: in New Zealand £20,000; in Canada £400,000. What is the £4,500,000 for the United Kingdom to do in the way of reducing income-tax or providing funds for social reform? If used as Mr. Deakin intends, it will be used for another purpose. If used for a l½d. reduction in the income-tax there will be absolutely nothing for old age pensions. Another proposal is that we should have duties on corn, meat, and other foodstuffs. We have had experience of a duty on corn. It produced £2,500,000 sterling. That would be sufficient to wipe off something less than 1d. of the income-tax, and would provide nothing for social reform. Another proposal is that there should be a duty of 10 per cent. on foreign manufactured goods imported into this country. The total produce of this duty would be something like £13,000,000, if the goods came in. That would be sufficient to provide the poor of this country, over sixty-five years of age, with a pension of 2s. 6d. a week, and nothing would remain for the relief of the income-tax payers. Such proposals as have been put forward in concrete terms by right hon. Gentlemen opposite would not provide for any of the great schemes which under a free trade Budget I believe we shall be able to carry out in the ordinary course, if allowed to carry out our intentions. It has been suggested that we have somehow been responsible for the Colonies bargaining with each other behind our backs. If they are prepared to bargain behind our backs for a reduction of their tariffs I do not see why we need grumble. A great deal of rubbish has been talked about trading with the Colonies. We do not trade with the Colonies, but with merchants who inhabit the Colonies. And let it be remembered that the Australian corn-grower, wool-grower, wine-grower, or manufacturer is no more entitled to consideration from this Government than the poor who inhabit our great towns. The hon. Gentleman embarked on a discussion as to the views of Cobden when he advocated free trade and negotiated the French Treaty.
  910
  Here are Cobden's own words, as set out in the "Life of Gladstone" by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India—
  "I will undertake that there is not a syllable of our treaty that is inconsistent with the soundest, principles of free trade."
  The Government and its supporters advocate free trade, not because of our adherence to a theory or doctrine, but because of its business advantages. We believe it to be good business for our manufacturers, our carriers, and our consumers. In the long run an import duty tends to delay a fall in the price of the imported commodities, and it also accelerates a rise in the price which the consumer is bound sooner or later to pay. If the consumer does not pay, who pays? Is it the foreigner? ["Yes."] If the foreigner pays 10 per cent. on manufactured goods, why do we not put on 100 per cent. when we are about it? If the foreigner pays the import duties it is clear that the price in this country will not rise, and if the price will not rise it is certain that the Colonists cannot get an effective preference here, and that we must go on with that import duty until the price is affected in order to give an advantage to the Colonies. If the foreigner pays and not the consumer, will the hon. Gentleman kindly tell me why raw material should be excluded, or bacon, or maize? The truth is that hon. Gentlemen opposite are insecure. They have some doubts in their own minds as to some duties which would in some way be paid by the consumer. The real fact with regard to our trading position is that we buy foreign goods because we want them. We rely on foreign countries because they supply what we want. We wish to draw our supplies from the widest possible markets in order that those who devise and conduct "corners" shall find their operations the sooner broken. The Government believe in the broadest possible basis of supply, in the policy of abundance, and not of restriction. It seems strange that after last session and the controversy of the last five or six years it should still be necessary to point out the particular individual position of this Kingdom. But if you look through history you will find that the two great industrial marvels

  911
  of the world are our cotton and shipping industries. Three thousand miles away from its source of supply you will find the greatest cotton industry ever known; £14,000,000 was invested in new mills in Lancashire last year, I am told. It is increasing by leaps and bounds at a time when America with its natural advantages might be expected to beat us. So far it has done nothing of the kind, but once you jeopardise the cause of free trade you jeopardise the prosperity of the cotton industry. I need scarcely refer to our shipping, but as to that we have succeeded in building up the most wonderful shipping industry ever known. It exceeds the total tonnage of the rest of the world, and it is dependent for the first conditions of success on our free trade policy. So success-
  ful have we been in fostering exports and imports that they exceed those of the United States, of Germany, or of France, per head of the population, and are still increasing. Surely, in face of these circumstances, the man who would, lay his hand on this delicate machinery deserves the reprobation and not the approbation of the country. Our present fiscal system is financially sound, and any departure from it will be commercially and socially unprofitable. Those who will suffer most will be not the rich, but the poor, who already have difficulty enough to endure the ordinary stress of life.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 376; Noes, 108. (Division List No. 167.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Cox, Harold

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Brace, William

  Cremer, William Randal

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Crombie, John William

  Agnew, George William

  Branch, James

  Crooks, William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bright, J. A.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Alden, Percy

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Dalmeny, Lord

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch

  Brodie, H. C.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Armitage, R.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

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

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Astbury, John Meir

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

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

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Dilke,Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Duckworth, James

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

  Cameron, Robert

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Barker, John

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Barnard, E. B.

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall]

  Barnes, G. N.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Cherry, Rt.Hon. R. R.

  Elibank, Master of

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Erskine, David C.

  Bell, Richard

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Essex, R. W.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Cleland, J. W.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp't

  Clough, William

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Benn, W. (T'w1r Hamlets, S. Geo.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Bennett, E. N.

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

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Fenwick, Charles

  Bertram,; Julius

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth

  Ferens, T. R.

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

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

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon

  Cooper, G. J.

  Findlay, Alexander

  Billson, Alfred

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Corbett,C.H.(Sussex, EGrinst'd

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

  Black, Arthur W.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Boland, John

  Cory, Clifford John

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Gibb, James (Harrom)

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Gill, A. H.

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

  Radford, G. H.

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Lough, Thomas

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Glover, Thomas

  Lupton, Arnold

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Gooch, George. Peabody

  Lynch, H. B.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Grant, Corrie

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester

  Rees, J. D.

  Greenwood,G.(Peterborough

  Macdonald, J M (Falkirk B'ghs

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Maclean, Donald

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

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

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Richardson, A.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard, B.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Hall, Frederick

  M'Crae, George

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r.)

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

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

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

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

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

  Harwood, George

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants

  Robinson, S.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Hedges, A. Paget

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Marks,G. Croydon (Launceston

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Marnham, F. J.

  Rose, Charles Day

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

  Massie, J.

  Rowlands, J.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Runciman, Walter

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Russell, T. W.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Mond, A.

  Samuel,Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Hobart, Sir; Robert

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Hodge, John

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Hogan, Michael

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Morrell, Philip

  Sears, J. E.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Morse, L. L.

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Seddon, J.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Murnaghan, George

  Shackleton, David James

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Murphy, John

  Shaw, Charles Edw.(Stafford)

  Hudson, Walter

  Murray, James

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

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Myer, Horatio

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Napier, T. B.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Nicholls, George

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Jackson, R. S.

  Nicholson, Charles N.(Doncast'r

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Nolan, Joseph

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Jenkins, J.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'r'ryMid

  Steadman, W. C.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea

  O'Connor. John (Kildare, N.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Grady, J.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Kearley, Hudson B.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  O'Malley, William

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Partington, Oswald

  Summerbell, T.

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Pearce, William (Limehouse

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

  Lambert, George

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

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Philipps, J Wynford (Pembroke

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

  Leese,Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Thorne, William

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Tomkinson, James

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Price, C. K (Edinb'gh, Central

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.

  Toulmin, George

  Levy, Maurice

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Ure, Alexander

  914

  915

  Verney, F. W.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Whitbread, Howard

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

  Walsh, Stephen

  White, George (Norfolk)

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

  Walters, John Tudor

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Winfrey, R.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Wodehouse, Lord

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Wardle, George J.

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Waring, Walter

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Pease.

  Waterlow, D. S.

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

  Watt, Henry A.

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

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Ashley, W. W.

  Fell, Arthur

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Nield, Herbert

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fletcher, J. S.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Baring,Capt.Hn.G(Winchester

  Haddock, George R.

  Percy, Earl

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

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfo'd

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Ratcliff, Major R, F.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bull,Sir William James

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

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

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Hills, J W.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Starkey, John R.

  Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey-

  Keswick, William

  Staveley-Hill, Henry(Staff'sh.

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos H. A. E.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Turnour, Viscount

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

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareh'm

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Liddell, Henry

  Walker, Co1. W. H (Lancashire)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

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

  Walrond, Hon. Lionel

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

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

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

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Lowe, Sir Francis William

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

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Doughty, Sir George

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  TELLERS FOE THE NOES—Sir

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Viscount Valentia.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Gov'n

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Moore, William

  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes. 304; Noes, 54. (Division List No. 168.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Barnard, E. B.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Astbury, John Meir

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Agnew, George William

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Bell, Richard

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Benn, Sir J. William (Devonport

  Armitage, R.

  Barker, John

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

  Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Bennett E. N.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Maddison, Frederick

  Bertram, Julius

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Billson, Alfred

  Glendinning, R. G.

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Black, Arthur W.

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

  Boland, John

  Grant, Corrie

  Marnham, F. J.

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Massie, J.

  Boulton, A. C. F.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Branch, James

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Bright, J. A.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Mond, A.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

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

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

  Morrell, Philip

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Morse, L. L.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Harwood, George

  Murnaghan, George

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Murray, James

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Napier, T. B.

  Cairns, Thomas

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Cameron, Robert

  Henry, Charles S.

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Nicholls, George

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast 'r

  Cawley, Sir Frederick

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nolan, Joseph

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Hohouse, Charles E. H.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hogan, Michael

  Nuttall, Harry

  Churchill, Rt. Hn. Winston S.

  Holden, E. Hopkinson

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Cleland, J. W.

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Partington, Oswald

  Clough, William

  Hooper, A. G.

  Paulton, James Mellor

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

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Hyde, Clarendon

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

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

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

  Cooper, G. J.

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Philipps, J. Wynford (Pemb'oke

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

  Jackson, R. S.

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Cory, Clifford John

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Cotton, Sir H. J.S.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

  Cox, Harold

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

  Crombie, John William

  Kearley, Hudson E.

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

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Radford, G. H.

  Crossley, William J.

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Dalmeny, Lord

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Kitson, Rt. Hon. Sir James

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Rees, J. D.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lambert, George

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Lamont, Norman

  Richardson, A.

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

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

  Ridsdale, E. A.

  Duckworth, James

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)

  Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

  Levy, Maurice

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Lough, Thomas

  Robinson, S.

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Elibank, Master of

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Essex, R. W.

  Lynch, H. B.

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Macdonald, J. M. (FalkirkB'ghs)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Rowlands, J.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Maclean, Donald

  Runciman, Walter

  Fenwick, Charles

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Russell, T. W.

  Ferens, T. R.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Ferguson, R, C. Munro

  M'Crae, George

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Findlay, Alexander

  M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Freeman-Thomas, Freeman

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

  Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

  Fuller, John Michael F.

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

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Schwann, Sir C. E.(Manchester)

  918

  919

  Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

  Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

  Sears, J. E.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Seaverns, J. H.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Whitehead, Rowland

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

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

  Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Tomkinson, James

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n

  Silcock, Thomas Ball

  Toulmin, George

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Ure, Alexander

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Verney, F. W.

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

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

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

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

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

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

  Steadman, W. C.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

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

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)

  Winfrey, R.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Waring, Walter

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Waterlow, D. S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Whiteley and Mr. J. A.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Pease.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hall, Frederick

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

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Hodge, John

  Seddon, J.

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

  Hudson, Walter

  Shackleton, David James

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Jenkins, J.

  Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Summerbell, T.

  Brace, William

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thorne, William

  Cave, George

  Marks, H. H. (Kent)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Clynes, J. R.

  Murphy, John

  Walsh, Stephen

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Crooks, William

  O'Grady, J.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  O'Malley, William

  Du Cros, Harvey

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Arthur Henderson and Mr.

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  George Roberts.

  Gill, A. H.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Glover, Thomas

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

  PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

  LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS [STAMP DUTY].
  Committee to consider of authorising the imposition of an ad valorem Stamp
  920
  Duty on contributions by limited partners in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to establish Limited Partnerships (King's Recommendation signified), Tomorrow.)—(Mr. Whiteley.)
  And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at four minutes before Twelve o'clock.