Commons Sitting of 25 May 1909

Preamble
Mr. SPEAKER took the chair at a quarter before Three of the clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Llanelly Water Bill [New Title],
Read the Third time, and passed.
Central London Railway Bill,
Dudley Corporation Bill [Lords],
Holywood Tramways Bill,
Hull and Barnsley Railway Bill,
Sligo and Arigna Railway Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time.

PETROL TAX.
Mr. HORATIO BOTTOMLEY: I have a petition, signed by 1,500 drivers and conductors of the General Omnibus Co., representing those who signed the petition already presented by the whole of the employés of that company, praying the House to relieve them from the burden of the proposed petrol tax.
Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member bring the same to the Table?

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (KING'S BENCH DIVISION).
Return ordered of the sittings of the judges of the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, in the same form as that given in the Civil Judicial Statistics [Cd. 4029] for the judges of the Chancery Division.—[Mr. Soames.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Medical Dispensaries (Egypt).
  Mr. JOHN ROBERTSONasked what are the total sums expended by the Egyptian Sanitary Department during the years 1906, 1907, and 1908 upon medical dispensaries and first-aid establishments?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I have no information on the subject, but I will enquire whether the information is available.

  Reclamation of Land (Egypt).
  Mr. JOHN ROBERTSONasked whether a contract was entered into between a company and the Egyptian Government to reclaim land at the Western Oasis; whether the company undertook, in the event of their failing in their reclamation, that the land should revert to the Government; whether they have failed to reclaim any land, and yet have been allowed to retain all; and whether they merely built a railway which the Government has taken over at a cost of £125,000?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no information on this subject, but I will enquire whether any information is available.

  Lunatic Asylums (Egypt).
  Mr. JOHN ROBERTSONasked what is the reason for the protracting of the period of building the new lunatic asylum at Khanka, in Egypt; whether the building can be completed in a much less period than two or three years, as promised in Sir Eldon Gorst's latest Report; and whether the extensions of the Abassieh asylum are yet nearly complete?
  Sir E. GREY: My only information is contained in the passages in Sir Eldon Gorst's Report, to which the hon. Member refers.

  Indian Deportations.
  Mr. MORRELLasked, in view of the fact that in December last an Act was passed by the Government of India for the more speedy trial of criminal offences before a special court of three judges without a jury and without any preliminary examination of the accused, and that a few days afterwards nine Indian gentlemen were deported and imprisoned without charge or trial, what reason there was for not bringing them to trial before the special court for any offences they might have committed?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a similar question asked by him on 16th March last.
  Mr. MORRELL: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me on what information these gentlemen were deported?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, I cannot. That is precisely the information which has been asked for in several quarters of the House, and which the Secretary of State has always refused to give.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Was the evidence on which they were deported evidence which would not be accepted as legal evidence by a court of justice?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That I cannot say.
  Mr. MORRELL: Was there any evidence?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Secretary of State has always refused to give information on this point, and the hon. Gentleman is only now putting in another form the question which I have already answered.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the names of the informants from whom the evidence came?
  Mr. GWYNNasked whether the nine British subjects in India who were deported in December last without charge or trial are debarred from taking any civil or criminal proceedings either to obtain their liberty or vindicate their characters; and, if so, what safeguard any British subject in India possesses under the existing administration against being imprisoned for an indefinite period by the Executive?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Secretary of State is advised that the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second part is that no British subject in India runs any risk of the danger indicated unless his conduct be such as to satisfy the Governor-General in Council that it is necessary to place him under restraint in order to secure British Dominions from internal commotion?
  Mr. GWYNN: Are there not among these nine deported gentlemen persons against whom no charge has been ever brought except that of being constitutional agitators?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No charge has ever been brought against these gentlemen.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked whether any or all of the nine British subjects who were deported in December last by order of the Indian Executive without charge or trial have made protestations to the Government of their innocence of any offence, and asked to be informed of the grounds for their deportation and imprisonment; and, if so, whether any reply has been sent?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: According to the information received by the Secretary of
  998
  State three of the persons arrested have made representations in the sense indicated. They were informed in reply that they were arrested in order to preserve a portion of His Majesty's Dominions from internal commotion.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: If these men had no chance of rebutting the charges against them, how was the Viceroy to know they were guilty?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have already pointed out in answer to many questions in this House that these gentlemen, never having been brought before the Court, and the Regulation of 1818 expressly provides that they need not be brought before the Court, no charge has ever been preferred against them.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Does not the Regulation of 1818 in terms provide that they shall at all times freely be able to make representations on the supposed ground of their deportation? How are they to know the supposed ground if they are refused all information?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is open to them to make representations to the Government of India and those representations have been made and they have been considered, as I pointed out in answer to a question about a week ago.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Have they been told the supposed grounds of their deportation?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is for them to suppose the grounds.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked whether, in the case of Krishna Kumar Dutt, Krishna Kumar Mitra, and the other Indian gentlemen who were deported and imprisoned without trial in December last, any warning was previously addressed to any of them by the Government of India indicating that they were suspected of practices dangerous to public order or of any indictable offence; and, if so, with what result?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: So far as the Secretary of State is aware no communication of the kind described was made to any of the persons arrested.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Would these gentleman be free to communicate direct to the Secretary of State for India?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is necessary that these communications should go through

  999
  the Government of India who are primarily responsible for their arrest and deportation.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: How is a man who is deported to know that he is a danger to the internal safety of India if he is not warned at all by the Government beforehand?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: He finds out that he is considered dangerous by his deportation.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: What safeguard is there for any British subject in India?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is precisely the question which I answered at an earlier part of the afternoon.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: Have these men been given any opportunity to explain the charges brought against them?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have pointed out that no charges in that sense are ever brought against them.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: Have they ever had explained to them the grounds on which it has been thought necessary for the Government of India to interfere with their freedom?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of that question I will give an answer.
  Mr. CHARLES PRICEasked whether the Secretary of State is now prepared to reconsider the position of the nine Indian gentlemen who were deported, last December, by order of the Executive; and whether these gentlemen can be informed of the nature of the charges brought against them?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. In reply to the second part the Secretary of State has nothing to add to the answers which have already been given to similar questions in the House.

  Treatment of Juvenile Vagrants (Egypt).
  Mr. JOHN ROBERTSONasked whether any new accommodation has lately been provided by the Egyptian Government for the treatment of juvenile vagrants; and whether juveniles of this description when taken into custody are now kept separate from those convicted of crime?
  Sir E. GREY: The treatment of juvenile vagrants in Egypt is regulated by a law
  1000
  dated 9th May, 1908, which provides that such children shall be committed to a reformatory, or other similar establishment, till the age of 18, or till such previous time as the parents, parent, or legal guardian may demand the child's release. I have no further information on the subject.

  Egyptian Sanitary Service (Mr. H. C. Ross)
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Mr. H. C. Ross, late of the Egyptian Sanitary Service, left the Navy to join that service on an understanding given him by Sir Horace Pinching, then Director-General of the Egyptian Public Health Department, that so soon as a vacancy occurred in the permanent staff it would be filled by Mr. Ross; that Mr. Ross received from Sir Horace Pinching information that his services were entirely satisfactory; and that, on the appointment of a new Director-General, Mr. Ross was informed that he would not he appointed to the permanent staff because in future such appointments were to be given to natives; whether he is aware that the next vacancy was filled by an officer of the Royal Army Medical Corps, and that Mr. Ross was then ordered to relinquish charge of work which he had planned and carried on for the extinction of malarial fever in Cairo; and whether, seeing that, as the result of the action of the Egyptian Government, the attempts inaugurated in Cairo and Heluan to extirpate mosquitoes and rid the country of malaria were stopped, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Sir E. GREY: My information is to the effect that Sir Horace Pinching did not promise Mr. H. C. Ross a permanent post in the Egyptian Sanitary Service, but that he offered him a temporary post with the prospect of a permanent appointment if his work proved satisfactory. Mr. Ross's work was considered satisfactory by Sir Horace Pinching, but not by that gentleman's successor, who, in the exercise of his discretion, did not feel justified in giving Mr. Ross a permanent appointment. Mr. Ross states that Mr. Graham informed him that in future such appointments were to be given to natives, but there is no corroboration of this in Mr. Graham's account of the interview. I am aware that the vacancy in question has been filled by an officer of the Royal Army Medical Corps, and that Mr. Ross was ordered to Upper Egypt on plague duty. I have no information to the effect that the attempts

  1001
  to extirpate mosquitoes at Cairo and Heluan have been abandoned, but, in June last, I received a Report that the work at the latter place was being very efficiently supervised by a subordinate employé. The Director-General of Health at Cairo must be left full discretion to select for permanent posts in his department those persons whom he may consider most suitable, and His Majesty's Government have no ground for interference with his decisions.

  Indian Deportations.
  Mr. PONSONBYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Secretary of State to sanction any further deportations of British subjects without charge or trial in India; and, if so, whether he will recommend to the Indian Government that before a man is deported some warning should be given to him by the authorities that he is considered to be a danger to the public peace within the meaning of the Bengal Regulation of 1818?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Secretary of State is unable to make any statement as to the course that he may adopt in circumstances which have not arisen and may not arise; but he is not in any case prepared to take the action suggested in the second part of the question.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman has not seen a statement that at the time the Government of India had not considered the question of the deportations at all?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of the answer.
  Mr. LUTTRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that the Government of India regard proceedings under the Bengal Regulation of 1818 as preventive and not punitive, he can state whether the evidence upon which the nine British subjects in Bengal were, in December last, deported without charge or trial was evidence which showed that no crimes had been actually committed by any of those persons, but only that they were suspected of being likely to commit crime.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: As I stated in reply to a question last Tuesday, the Secretary of State is not prepared to make any statement as to the nature of the information on which the Government of India acted in applying the Regulation of 1818.
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the reliance which is now being placed by the Government of India upon the Bengal Regulation of 1818 for the deportation and imprisonment of British subjects without charge or trial, the Secretary of State will recommend the Amendment of that Regulation, by providing that, in accordance with the provisions of the Irish Protection of Person and Property Act of 1881, no person shall be arrested by a warrant of the Executive unless that warrant states the character of the crime of which the prisoner is suspected and a copy of the warrant be furnished to the prisoner, and a statement of the ground of the arrest laid before Parliament, and each case reconsidered every three months by the Executive Government?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Secretary of State is not prepared to take the action suggested. The Regulation already provides for the reconsideration of each case every six months by the Governor-General in Council.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is not just that a man should be told the nature of the charge against him when he is deported?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No charge has necessarily to be formulated under the Regulation of 1818.
  Mr. BYLESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State has received any official information that the nine gentlemen who were deported from Bengal without trial last December were so deported for their connection with a political agitation dangerous to public order; and, if so, can he say whether the agitation was that known as Swadeshi, for the encouragement of native industries, or was it some other and separate movement of a criminal nature?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The persons referred to were arrested because the Government of India were satisfied that their detention was necessary to secure a portion of His Majesty's dominions from internal commotion; the Secretary of State is not prepared to make any further statement as to the nature of the grounds upon which the Government of India took action.
  Mr. BYLES: It is quite a different point that has been raised. May I ask whether

  1003
  political agitation is the acknowledged reason for the commotion or whether it is on account of the Swadeshi movement or some other movement?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I understand that the hon. Gentleman asks whether the commotion to which I referred in my answer was caused by the Swadeshi movement. I believe that is partly the cause.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the exercise of the power of arbitrary imprisonment led to a. successful revolution and a change of dynasty in this country, and whether subjects who have been guaranteed full rights as British subjects ought to be arbitrarily imprisoned in India?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: They exercise those rights subject to the civil security of the country being in every way complete. If they endanger the civil security of the country they are liable under the Regulation of 1818.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is not the case that Viceroys, including Lord Curzon, have supported the agitation for the encouragement of native industries?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes; that may be so, within limits.

  Hospitals at Madras (Operations).
  Mr. MOONEY (on behalf of Mr. Kettle)asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can say how many times in the week the assistant surgeons at the General Hospital and the Eye Hospital, Madras, are allowed to perform major operations; and whether the operation work is restricted exclusively to members of the Indian medical service?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Secretary of State has no information on the subject.
  Mr. MOONEY: Will the Secretary of State inquire?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It does not seem to me to be a very important point.
  Mr. MOONEY: Did the hon. Gentleman say that it was not an important point?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I did say that it did not seem an important point. I will ask the Secretary of State whether he will inquire.

  Medical and Sanitary Services (India).
  Mr. MOONEY (on behalf of Mr. Kettle)asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the higher ranks in the medical and sanitary services in the Native States of India are usually filled by Indians; and whether it is proposed to follow the example in British India, or, on the contrary, to close the higher ranks of the medical profession in British India against qualified Indian gentlemen who are unable through poverty or other reasons, to come to London foe the examination for the Indian medical service?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a similar question on 17th May, and to the papers since presented to Parliament (Cd. 4,666).

  Births and. Deaths in Institutions (Registration).
  Mr. ESSEXasked the President of the Local Government Board whether there are in Great Britain any religious institutions, imbecile, lunatic, or other asylums wherein the ordinary provisions of the law enforcing the registration of births or deaths do not apply?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns): The Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1874, requires that every live birth and every death occurring in England or Wales shall be registered. There are no institutions in which this requirement does not apply. As regards Scotland, the question is one for my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate.

  Loans for Higher Education (Lancashire).
  Lord BALCARRESasked the President of the Local Government Board, if he can undertake to comply with the repeated requests of the Lancashire Education Committee that the Board shall withdraw their objection to the insertion of a clause in the agreements between the council and non-county boroughs respecting loans for higher education, in order to safeguard the financial interests of the county authority?
  Mr. BURNS: The difficulty in this matter was a legal one, but I am glad to say that it has now been removed, and that the Board have felt themselves able to waive their objection to the proposed clause in the agreement. They have so informed the Lancashire Education Committee.

  Motor Vehicle Drivers (Licences).
  Mr. RUPERT GUINNESSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that under the present system licences to drive motor vehicles are granted to persons without proof of fitness to drive, and that the United Kingdom is the only country where such a system obtains; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take, by legislation or otherwise, with a view to requiring, in the interests of the safety of the public, that before a licence is granted a certificate be forthcoming from a suitable authority that the fitness of the applicant to drive has been tested?
  Mr. BURNS: I am aware that in some foreign countries a test of capacity to drive a motor car is required before a driving licence is given, and that no such test is required in this country. This subject was carefully considered by the Royal Commission on Motor Cars, and I would refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 92 to 95 of their Report. The conclusion at which they arrived was that it was not desirable or necessary for the safety of the public to establish a national system of examination of drivers before licences are given to them. They expressed the opinion that accidents with motor cars are rarely traceable to incompetence to drive, while they are not infrequently associated with undue confidence or occasional recklessness on the part of skilled drivers. I see no reason at present to dissent from the conclusion of the Commissioners.

  Education Code (New Regulations).
  Mr. ESSEXasked the President of the Board of Education if he can state at what date the changes in the Code announced in Circular 709 will come into force; and whether he will arrange so that they shall take effect gradually?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): It has always been my intention that the changes should be gradually introduced in the areas of the several local education authorities, and that those whose present standard is below that required by the Circular should have ample time to adapt their arrangements for the new provisions. The changes will be embodied in the Code for 1909, which will come into force on 1st August but I am contemplating an arrangement that, as regards individual schools, the new Regulations to be embodied in Articles 12 and 14 of the Code
  1006
  shall only operate in respect of school years commencing after 1st August, 1909, and I may add that the Board will ordinarily be satisfied if they are assured that the local education authority are taking steps which will secure full compliance in each school by the end of the school year commencing after that date. This means that the earliest date by which any individual school in a given area must have fully complied with the new Regulations will be 31st August, 1910, and the latest date 31st July, 1911. In almost all schools the dates of full compliance will fall between 30th September, 1910, and 30th June, 1911, giving each authority between one and two years to complete the new arrangements in their area. Of course, where the matter can be dealt with by mere adjustment, such as the reclassification of scholars, the Board will expect steps to be taken in this direction at the first convenient opportunity.
  Mr. JAMES PARKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman not mean to say that he is not putting a premium upon bad education by allowing those districts which are afraid of spending money upon education to neglect the education of many children because of the size of the classes? Why cannot this circular be put in operation almost immediately?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman's question is in the nature of an argumentative speech.
  Captain MORRISON-BELLasked the President of the Board of Education how many estimates of local education authorities, with reference to Circular 709, he has now examined in detail; whether he has found them accurate; what are the minimum and maximum amounts of the increased expenditure disclosed by such estimates; and what is the amount of the increased rate involved in each case?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board have received estimates from 30 local education authorities, but of these only 14 have been supported by statements sufficiently detailed to afford a basis for critical examination. Of these estimates eight are now in the hands of His Majesty's inspectors for the purpose of investigation and discussion with the local education authorities concerned. In a considerable number of eases there is reason to suppose that the estimates are capable of reduction, especially in urban areas. I think it is desirable that I should defer giving detailed figures until the investigation is further advanced.
  Captain MORRISON-BELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman let me have a copy of the Estimates?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know which Estimates the hon. Gentleman refers to.
  Captain MORRISON - BELL: Those which the hon. Gentleman referred to as having been received.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, I do not think it would be advisable to give out information of that kind piecemeal. The Estimates are being examined on expert advice by the permanent officials and the local authorities, and in due course I will be glad to give to the House full information as to the result.
  Captain MORRISON-BELL: Is it the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that there has been a great deal of unnecessary exaggeration in these estimates?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: There has been exaggeration, but whether it is unnecessary or not I cannot say.
  Captain MORRISON - BELL: Did it arise from the incapability of understanding the circular properly, or is it an exaggeration which could have been avoided?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is a matter of opinion. I have said here and must repeat that some of the figures which have been handed in are certainly exaggerations, whether intentional or not I cannot say. I hardly think it likely that the officials of the local authorities would intentionally exaggerate.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that if, as a great many local authorities think, there will be a great increase in the rates by this circular, he will do his best to get an increased grant from the Treasury?
  Lord BALCARRES: As only 30 authorities sent in replies, would the President say whether they have all been requested to do so, or have these 30 volunteered?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: There have been no individual requests because already there is a very large number of authorities in the country whose standard is above the circular, and it is only those which feel that they are severely touched by the circular have communicated upon it.
  Captain MORRISON - BELLasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will consider the advisability
  1008
  of modifying Circular 709 so that no increase in the local rates may be involved thereby?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: There are many areas where the circular will cause no increase in local rates, but I certainly cannot so modify it that it shall involve no increase in the rates of any area, as this would be equivalent to the withdrawal of the circular, which I have no intention of doing.
  Mr. BYLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope to the local authorities that they will be afforded any financial relief from the burdens imposed on them?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is a question which would be more properly addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Dalziel School Board.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the action of the newly elected Dalziel School Board at their first meeting in excluding by special resolution two members of the board from the convenerships of any of the public schools in the parish; and whether, in view of the duties imposed upon this authority by the Education (Scotland) Act of 1908 and previous Acts, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): I regret that I am not yet in a position to answer the question of the hon. Member.

  Catholic Schools, Edinburgh (Free Books).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the fact that the Edinburgh School Board has refused to grant free books to the children in Catholic schools of parents in necessitous circumstances, he will ascertain under what provision of The Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, this action was taken?
  Mr. URE: I am informed that the opinion of the Edinburgh School Board on the matter referred to is to be taken at a meeting to be held to-day, and I hope to be in a position to reply to the question of the hon. Member on Thursday next.
  Mr. BOLAND: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give me an answer to-morrow if I give him private notice?
  Mr. URE: Yes. I shall endeavour to do that, certainly.

  Torpedo-Boat Destroyers.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked how many completed torpedo-boat destroyers in the British and German navies respectively have a fuel capacity of 100 tons or over?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): German, 72; British, 40.
  Mr. MIDDLEMORE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he does not consider that the offensive capacity of all these vessels away from our shores mainly consists in their fuel endurance, and is he satisfied that we have succeeded in providing fuel endurance adequate for the occasion?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes. The hon. Gentleman has selected as his standard, curiously, 100 tons. If he had selected 105 tons he would have had a very different answer. There is a large number of German destroyers that are just 102 tons. Had the hon. Gentleman selected 95 tons also he would have had a very different answer. It is only by the arbitrary selection of 100 tons that he has got the answer which I have given.
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of his statement that the Navy List shows the standard of strength in destroyers which the Admiralty deem necessary for this country to maintain, the Board have satisfied themselves that for Great Britain to provide for 49 destroyers in the period 1905-9, compared with Germany's 54, and to have completed of that number five to Germany's 30, is an adequate means of maintaining that standard?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir, taking into account our great preponderance in earlier types. The hon. Member omits to mention the 36 ex-coastal destroyers built during this period.

  Navy (Ammunition Allowance).
  Mr. MIDDLEMOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the annual allowance of ammunition to His Majesty's ships for the preparation for and carrying out of gun-layers' tests, the preparation for and carrying out of battle practice, and all other purposes respectively; and whether he can give the House the corresponding figures for the German fleet?
  Mr. McKENNA: The total allowance of service ammunition is 16 rounds per gun for 10-inch and above, 32 rounds for 9.2
  1010
  inch to 12-pounder, and 40 rounds for 6 and 3-pounders. Sub-calibre, 160 rounds per turret gun and 20 for other guns. Aiming rifle, 400 rounds per gun. No definite number of rounds is allowed for the gun-layers' tests, each nature of gun firing for a specified time. It is considered undesirable in the public interest to publish the number of rounds fired at battle practice. We have no official information as to the allowances of ammunition in the German Navy.

  Mediterranean and Far East Fleets.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked how many battleships were maintained in full commission in the Mediterranean and in the Far East respectively in 1903, and how many are at present stationed in those waters?
  Mr. McKENNA: At the beginning of 1903 there were 14 battleships in the Mediterranean; at the end of 1903 there were 12 battleships. Throughout 1903 there were four battleships in the Far East. In 1909 there are six battleships in the Mediterranean and none in the Far East.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is there any intention of increasing the strength of battleships in the Mediterranean?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.

  Naval and Military Interpreters in German.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked how many executive officers on the active list are qualified as interpreters in German?
  Mr. McKENNA: Twelve, Sir.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to give somewhat more encouragement to naval officers to qualify themselves for employment as interpreters?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes. We have, of course, in addition to these twelve, a very considerable number of Army officers who are qualified.

  Expenditure on Destroyers.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that an average sum of £40,815 is to be spent this year upon the construction of the German destroyers of the current programme, and that the whole of the German vessels of the 1907-8 programme are in commission, while the earliest of the English are not expected to be delivered

  1011
  till October, he will increase the expenditure on the British destroyers of this year's programme above the figure of £5,450 each at which it now stands.
  Mr. McKENNA: The Admiralty are not in a position to make any statement on this subject at present.
  Mr. ASHLEY: May I take it that there is no intention of increasing the Estimate, and that the Admiralty are going to spend one-eighth of what the Germans are going to spend on destroyers?
  Mr. McKENNA: No. I have stated that I am not in a position to make a statement on the subject.

  Dockyard Wages for "Dreadnoughts."
  Mr. GRETTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state upon what basis the official estimate was made that 70 per cent. of the total cost of a "Dreadnought" is spent upon labour in the dockyard, in view of the fact that this estimate gives an average wage during two years of upwards of £450 per annum for each of the 1,500 men stated to be employed?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think the hon. Member may have been misled by the answer given to his question on the 19th May. The number of men employed stated to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury to be between 1,000 and 1,500 was, as I stated in my reply of the 19th May, calculated for dockyard construction work only. Seventy per cent. of the total cost of the ship was not spent on labour in the dockyard; this percentage is the roughly estimated proportion of the total cost due to all the labour employed. Assuming 35s. per week as an average wage for workmen of all grades, including those employed in the dockyard and elsewhere, the sum of money spent on building the "Dreadnought" represents the continuous labour during a period of two years of some 7,000 men, of whom the 1,500 referred to in the former reply were dockyard employés. We have no exact information, but I am advised that the above figures may be taken as a reasonable approximation.

  British and Japanese Gunfire.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the weight of metal thrown in one discharge of the guns of the Japanese battleship of the "Sutsu" class is 11,710 lbs., and from the guns of the British "St. Vin-
  1012
  cent" class 9,000 lbs.; and whether he is in a position to assure the House that the British ships of this year's programme will not be inferior in gunfire to these Japanese vessels?
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member may rest assured that the British battleships of the "St. Vincent" class and of this year's programme will not be inferior in gun-power to the Japanese vessels.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the "St. Vincent" class is inferior in gun-power to the "Sutsu" class in the Japanese navy?
  Mr. McKENNA: No. What I am denying is the standard of measurement adopted by the hon. Gentleman. The gun-power of the ship is to be measured not by the weight of metal it can throw on broadside, but by the probable hits.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Is there any reason to suppose that the Japanese are less likely to hit the target than we are?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes. There is much less reason to suppose that they would be able to hit with all these large guns and the small guns at the same time.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Why is every country except ours having 12-inch guns and we are only having 11-inch guns?
  Mr. McKENNA: We are not having any 11-inch guns at all.
  Mr. LEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when these new standards of measuring the accuracy of gunfire, as compared with the weight of metal, were adopted by the Admiralty?
  Mr. McKENNA: Since the adoption of fire control and recent developments of measurement of gun-power, a very different measurement of the standard of battleships has arisen.

  Acts of Parliament (Printing).
  Viscount HELMSLEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the practice of the printers of Acts of Parliament to issue them to persons concerned in their administration incorrectly printed, whole parts of sections sometimes being omitted; and, if so, what steps are taken to correct the errors?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): I presume that the Noble Lord refers to an error which occurred in the omission of part of

  1013
  a sub-section from the Children Act. No blame attaches to the printers for this error, which was due to an oversight for which they were not responsible. As soon as the error was discovered the printers were instructed to re-issue the sheet in which it occurred with the error corrected. No similar error has, it is believed, been made before.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the corrections do not appear in the official copy in the Library?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think that is quite possible.
  Viscount HELMSLEY: Is it not an extremely dangerous precedent that the printers should omit certain sections?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is not the fault of the printers at all.

  Provincial Homes Investment Company, Limited.
  Mr. WARDLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the remarks of the jury in a case against the Provincial Homes Investment Company, Limited, held at Manchester Assizes last month, where in their verdict ten of the jury expressed the opinion that the contract entered into between certificate holders and the company was too one-sided and far too favourable to the company; and whether, in view of the fact that the certificate holders are unable to obtain redress in the Courts, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to prevent the enforcement of such contracts?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill): My attention has not been called to the remarks of the jury in the case to which the hon. Member refers, but I am not prepared to introduce legislation to change the rights of the parties under the contracts.

  Coventry Grocers' Association (Railway Deliveries).
  Mr. WARDLEasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the fact that complaints have been made by the Coventry Grocers' Association against the delay in the delivery of goods by the London and North-Western Railway; whether the agreement arrived at between the London and North-Western Railway and the Midland Railway has been a contributory cause of this
  1014
  delay; and whether, in view of the resultant public inconvenience, he proposes to take any and, if so, what action?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No such complaint has been brought to my notice, but if particulars of delays in the delivery of goods are furnished I will communicate with the company concerned.

  Scottish Railway Companies (Traders' Dispute).
  Mr. WARDLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the steps he has been taking to secure a settlement of the dispute between the Scottish railway companies and the traders have had any effect; and, if not, whether, in view of the suffering to miners and other workers caused thereby, he will state what further action he proposes to take?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: A meeting between representatives of the railway companies and of the coal, iron and steel industries was held yesterday. No agreement was arrived at, but a further meeting has been fixed for the 4th proximo.

  Rhondda and Swansea Bay Railway Company (Agreement).
  Mr. WARDLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a working agreement has been arrived at between the Rhondda and Swansea Bay Railway Company and the Great Western Railway Company; whether he has a. copy of such agreement; and, if not, will he endeavour to procure one; and will he lay a copy of such agreement upon the Table of this House?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am aware of the existence of this agreement. The companies concerned are not under any obligation to deposit a copy of such an agreement at the Board of Trade, and the Board have no power to require them to do so.
  Mr. WARLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask them if they will do it?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I will bring under their notice the question of the hon. Member.

  London and North Western Railway Company (Conciliation Board).
  Mr. WARDLEasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the position of the conciliation board on the London and North-

  1015
  Western Railway; whether he is aware that since the award of Sir Edward Fry the company refuse to recognise the conciliation boards; whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists among the men at the manner in which the award is interpreted and administered by the company; and whether, in view of the fact that in the event of disagreement the company refuse to recognise the right of the men to appeal to the conciliation boards, or agree to a joint appeal to Sir Edward Fry for his interpretation of certain disputed portions of the award, he will state what action he proposes to take?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have communicated with the railway company in this matter, and have received a reply from which it would appear that the hon. Member is under a misconception in suggesting that the company refuse to recognise the conciliation boards. There must naturally be some difficulty in applying the award to 30,000 or 40,000 men, but as the employés' representatives have been informed that any alteration which may ultimately be made by agreement or otherwise in the first interpretation of the award will refer back to the date on which the award came into force any temporary difficulty should be obviated. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the company's letter.

  North Eastern Railway Company (Battersby Junction Accident).
  Mr. HUDSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the fatal accident to a guard at Battersby Junction, North Eastern Railway, on 7th May last; whether he has any official information showing that the brake van was placed next the engine when working the train from the mines to the junction, and that the van was being fly-shunted at the time the accident occurred; and whether an inquiry is to be held into the circumstances connected with this accident?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The company's return of the accident has been received, and an inquiry has been ordered. The van was placed next the engine, but it is not stated in the return that it was being fly-shunted.
  Mr. HUDSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of my question, whether an inquiry will be held?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: An inquiry has been ordered.

  Spirits in Bond (Labelling Bottles and Cases).
  Mr. TIMOTHY DAVIESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Customs and Excise officers have any power to interfere in cases where traders affix labels to bottles or cases of spirits in bond bearing false descriptions as to age, etc., of the contents?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): Officers are not allowed to interfere on their own responsibility with labels on bottles or cases except in certain instances, in regard to which I am forwarding a memorandum to my hon. Friend.

  Home-Grown Tobacco (Grants).
  Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that £6,000 a year is granted to Ireland in order to encourage tobacco growing in that country, he will give a similar or greater grant to Scotland for the same purpose.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: If it can be shown that similar conditions subsist in Scotland as in Ireland in respect of tobacco growing I shall be glad to consider the question of giving a similar grant to Scotland.
  An HON. MEMBER: Will the right hon. Gentleman do the same for England?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly, if similar experiments are made. A good many experiments have been undertaken in Ireland at great expense. If I find a similar state of affairs in England I shall consider the question of a grant.
  Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Scotland is constantly being overridden by the predominant partner?
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it not the fact that this grant to the Irish tobacco industry was not given until after there had been six or seven years of costly experiments which have proved successful, and that is the reason we got it?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is what I have indicated. If experiments are made in Scotland and in England, of course I shall consider the question of giving the same treatment to those two countries as to Ireland.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the Chance1lor of the Exchequer aware that Ireland had her tobacco trade deliberately destroyed by the English Government?

  Tobacco Trade (Discharge of Employés).
  Mr. STEADMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the increased duty of 8d. per pound on unmanufactured tobacco has resulted in a number of men and women employed at cigar making being discharged or suspended from employment, and the trade paralysed, owing to the difficulty of dividing that amount over 100 cigars, if it is his intention to continue the increased duty on leaf tobacco taken out of bond for cigar-manufacturing purposes, seeing the amount of unemployment and poverty now existing and the permanent future injury it will inflict upon the work-people engaged in the trade?
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: My hon. Friend is aware that I have received deputations from both the Cigar Manufacturers' and the Cigar-Makers' Union on this subject, and that I have personally inquired most carefully into the matter. I cannot, in view of my investigations, agree with him that such derangement as has been caused to the cigar-making industry by the imposition of the additional duty on unmanufactured tobacco, is likely to prove more than a transitory disturbance while the trade is adjusting itself to the new conditions. I am afraid I cannot see my way to grant lower rates of duty in the case of tobacco destined for this particular purpose.

  Deportations from India.
  Mr. MACKARNESSasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the numerous deportations recently sanctioned in India, he can state any precedent for refusing information to the House of Commons as to the grounds upon which the Executive have deported and imprisoned British subjects without charge or trial, in a time of peace, when the courts of justice are open, in a British Dependency for the Government of which the Imperial Parliament is responsible?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The House of Commons was, during the Debate on the Address, fully informed as to the grounds on which the persons referred to have been deported, and the Secretary of State is not aware of any precedent for going into further detail. As the hon. and learned Member is aware, the fact that the courts of justice are open is irrelevant since the
  1018
  Regulation purports to provide for cases in which the institution of judicial proceedings may be "unadvisable or improper."
  Mr. MACKARNESS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that ten years ago two men were deported by the late Government in Bombay, and the fullest information was given by Lord George Hamilton to the House without the slightest demur? Is there any objection to following that precedent?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I think the statement of the hon. Member is not absolutely accurate.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: In what respect?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: In that the information in that case was, I understand, refused to the House of Commons.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I myself put the question, and that Lord George Hamilton gave me the fullest information about the two brothers?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order.
  Mr. BENNETTasked the Prime Minister whether any evidence has been laid before him to show that the nine British subjects who were deported from their homes and imprisoned by the Government of India in December last, without charge or trial, have committed or been parties to any form of anarchical violence, such as was suggested by him in a reply recently addressed to the memorial of 146 Members of this House; and, if so, whether that evidence has been or will be at any time made known to the persons implicated, so that they may have an opportunity of clearing themselves?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE (for the Prime Minister): I would refer the hon. Member to the speech of the Under-Secretary of State in the Debate on the Address on 24th February, to which the Secretary of State has nothing to add.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: Has the evidence against the persons concerned been made known to them, so as to give them an opportunity of explaining or dealing with it?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is the fact that when it was thought necessary to imprison people in Ireland without a charge being

  1019
  made against them or trial being given they deemed it necessary to pass a special Act of Parliament in this House, known as the Coercion Act of 1881?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am not familiar with the details of Irish administration.
  Mr. MACKARNESS: May I ask whether any evidence was laid before him to justify the deportation of these gentlemen?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Secretary of State has constantly refused to give any information as to the reason why these gentlemen were deported.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the objection to informing persons who have been deported as to the evidence and grounds upon which they have been deported?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: They have been informed that their continued residence in the place where they were would be dangerous to the internal affairs of the State.
  Mr. MacNEILLrose.
  Mr. SPEAKER: Any further questions must be put down.

  Agricultural Rates Act, 1896.
  Mr. SOAMESasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to renew the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, which expires on 31st March, 1910?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I can only refer my hon. Friend to an answer that I gave yesterday on the same subject in reply to a question of the Noble Lord, the Member for the Thirsk and Malton Division (Viscount Helmsley).
  Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that his answers on this question are causing great anxiety among a very wide circle? May we, at all events, know if the Act is to be allowed to lapse in 1910, whether the right hon. Gentleman has any idea of proposing anything in its place?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I can only give the answer on that subject which I gave yesterday, and I cannot think that the anxiety is yet very widespread. I said the whole matter was receiving the very carefulconsideration of His Majesty's Government.

  Indian Administration (Popular Representation).
  Dr. RUTHERFORDasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the passing by the Imperial Legislature of a measure granting an extension of popular representative elements in Indian administration, as foreshadowed in his recent reply to 146 hon. Members of this House, His Majesty's Government will consider the expediency of a general act of amnesty for political offenders in India, and especially the restoration to their homes of those British subjects who have been deported and imprisoned without being charged with or tried for any offence?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE (for the Prime Minister): The Secretary of State sees no good reason in existing circumstances for acting on the suggestion contained in the question.

  Welsh Church Disestablishment Bill.
  Mr. F. E. SMITHasked the Prime Minister whether the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a correspondent that the Welsh Church Disestablishment Bill will be taken through all its stages in the House of Commons and sent to the House of Lords this Session represents the present policy of the Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware that any pledge of the kind has been given.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: May I ask whether his attention has been called to a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer:—
  "You ask me whether, if this Parliament runs its normal course, it is the intention of the Government to pass a measure for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church in Wales through all stages in the House of Commons. To this I can give an unqualified answer in the affirmative…. I have just seen the Prime Minister—"
  (that is the late Prime Minister)—
  "and he fully sanctions the above as an accurate interpretation of his views."
  May I ask whether he is aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in explaining—
  Mr. SPEAKER: These questions should not be raised without giving notice.

  London and North-Western Railway Clerical Staffs.
  Mr. WARDLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the offices of the goods

  1021
  clerical staff at Rugby, Tipton, Great Bridge, Albion, Spon Lane, and Wolverhampton, on the London and North-Western Railway, are occupied night and day; whether he is aware that in some cases the buildings are only one-storeyed wooden sheds, and in one case the office is built over the side of a canal; and whether, in view of the danger to the health of the clerical staff, he will consider the advisability of seeking powers for the inspection of railway offices?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The Secretary of State has no in-information with regard to the offices in question, which do not come within the jurisdiction of the Home Office. The matters complained of appear to be such as would properly fall within the scope of the law relating to public health.

  Motor Cab Drivers.
  Mr. RUPERT GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to carry out the arrangements recently indicated by him to a deputation of motor-cab drivers to enable them to leave their cabs for the purpose of obtaining food without running the risk of being summoned?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The deputation which the Secretary of State received more than three months ago represented in general terms that motor cab drivers suffered some hardship in this respect. He then asked them to submit particulars, which they promised to send, in support of their case. Some particulars have been submitted, but the information is not sufficiently complete to enable inquiry to be made. If fuller information is given, it will receive the Secretary of State's consideration. Motor cab drivers have ample opportunities of taking their meals at coffee houses, and when they leave their cabs outside such places for this purpose, the police do not take proceedings unless exceptional circumstances render it necessary to do so.

  Palace Yard (Motor Cabs).
  Mr. RUPERT GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware that there are at present difficulties in the way of motor cabs ranking in Palace Yard; and whether he could see his way to removing these difficulties and so placing motor cabs on the same footing in this respect as horse-drawn cabs?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Commissioner of Police informs me that no. differentiation is made between horse and motor cabs as regards ranking in Palace Yard; they are on an equal footing in this respect.

  Post Office Overseers.
  Mr. E. A. GOULDING (for Mr. Watson Rutherford)asked the Postmaster-General, whether the female assistant supervisors in the provinces who objected to being designated overseers were informed that the acceptance of this title would involve an eight hours' attendance instead of seven, with a rise of £5 per annum; and, if so, whether he will now grant them the new increment without inflicting one extra hour per day for an additional payment of less than 4d. per day?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Sydney Buxton): In accordance with their desire I have decided to allow the female assistant supervisors to retain that title instead of the title of overseers, whether they elect to take the new scales or no. The new scales, which mean an increase in the maximum, involve an eight hours' attendance; in accordance with the specific recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee in regard to the London class.

  Hope Street Post Office (Edinburgh).
  Mr. CHARLES PRICEasked the Postmaster-General whether the Hope Street branch post office, Edinburgh, has participated in the curtailment of duty after 8 p.m., such as has taken place at the other branch offices in Edinburgh, and, if not, whether there are special circumstances for exceptional treatment at this office?
  Mr. BUXTON: There has been no curtailment of the hours of attendance at any of the branch offices at Edinburgh. Some of the town sub-offices, which are on a different footing, now close at 8 instead of 9 p.m., and I am inquiring whether public inconvenience would be caused by a similar charge at the branch offices.

  Australia and Vancouver Mail Contracts.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Postmaster-General what are the mail contracts now in force between Australia and Vancouver?
  Mr. BUXTON: The mail service between Australia and Vancouver is carried on under a contract between the Govern-

  1023
  ment of Australia and the Union Steamship Company of New Zealand, which provides for a four-weekly service between Sydney and Vancouver, with a call at Brisbane. The Governments of Canada and Fiji contribute to the subsidy.

  Local Government (Ireland) Audits.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in view of recent experiences, and of the fact that tolerance of irregular accounts and of imperfect audits until there is somebody to be punished results in loss to the ratepayers, whether the Local Government Board for Ireland will endeavour to prevent irregularity and loss by requiring from their auditors henceforward more minute local investigation and fuller reports than hitherto, especially when in receipt of warning from any authentic source?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Cherry, replying for Mr. Birrell): The Local Government Board see no reason for taking the action indicated in the question, as the suggestions and allegations contained in it are not warranted by any facts within their knowledge. There is no ground for the allegation that irregular accounts and imperfect audits are tolerated. The Board's auditors investigate accounts minutely, acting upon any warnings respecting irregularities which may be received from authentic sources and making full reports when they appear to be required.

  Working Classes (Ireland) Act (Loans).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will ascertain and state if the Town Commissioners of Mullingar borrow this year £5,000 for the purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Act, 1908, in what time and by what annual sum for interest and sinking fund will repayment be required; will that sum continue fixed or be liable to fluctuation; and to what amount of help will that town, in the circumstances, be entitled under section 5 of the Act?
  The HON. MEMBERfurther asked if the Chief Secretary will ascertain and state the lowest annual rate of repayment for interest and sinking fund at which a loan of £5,000 would now be made to the Mullingar Town Commissioners for 80 years, for the purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Act, 1908; and to what sum per annum would these Com-
  1024
  missioners be entitled out of the Irish Housing Fund in relief of that annual payment?
  Mr. CHERRY: I will, with the permission of the Hon. Member, answer this question and No. 65 together. The Local Government Board will not be in a position to say what time would be allowed for repayment of a loan until plans of the contemplated works are submitted to them, as the number of years over which repayment of the principal of the loan may be spread will vary according to the class of buildings to be erected. If the loan which may be shown to be required is obtained from the Commissioners of Public Works, repayment must be made by equal half-yearly instalments of principal, that is to say, 12s. 6d. per £100 in every six months if the loan is for 80 years, and interest must, in addition, be paid on the balances outstanding from time to time at the minimum rate for the time being allowed for loans out of the Local Loan Funds, which is at present 3½ per cent. per annum. The proportion of the Housing Fund to which the Town Commissioners may become entitled from year to year, under section 5 of the Housing Act of 1908, will depend on the etxent to which all local authorities in Ireland avail themselves of the Housing Acts; and this proportion can only be ascertained at the close of each financial year.

  Dispensary Doctors (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how long do the Local Government Board for Ireland allow a dispensary medical officer to continue incapable from excessive indulgence in intoxicating drink before taking action; and what precautions, if any, do the Board take for the lives of the poor, who have no choice of medical practitioner, after the Board have learned that the officer is addicted to this vice?
  Mr. CHERRY: The hon. Member is in error in assuming that action is not taken at once when a complaint is made officially to the Local Government Board that a medical officer of a dispensary district has become incapable of discharging his duties owing to excessive indulgence in intoxicating drink. The medical officer, however, can only be deprived of his post on sufficient grounds, which should be established at a public inquiry where he can be afforded a full opportunity of offering a defence. Allegations of intemperance contained in anonymous letters or made

  1025
  by individuals who refuse to permit their names to be disclosed, would not be a proper basis for an official investigation against a medical officer. The boards of guardians are charged with the supervision of the medical officers, and are assisted in that duty by the Local Government Board's medical inspectors. In addition, the poor may at all times complain against medical officers either to the guardians or the Local Government Board, and in that way secure redress and efficient medical attendance.

  Ardee Union Dispensaries.
  Mr. NOLANasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in 1904 the Irish Local Government Board insisted upon a re-arrangement of dispensary districts in the Ardee union, in the counties of Lough and Meath; whether, under the altered arrangements, no doctor can be had in case of accident or sickness in Collon at a less distance of 6½ miles, and in the case of poor people the double journey has to be made on foot; whether, previous to this intervention on the part of the Local Government Board, the people of Collon had a medical officer for the poor of the district for more than 100 years; whether the existing state of affairs has been protested against by the inhabitants of the district without distinction of creed or class; and whether, in view of the hardships suffered by the sick poor by the 1904 arrangements, lie will now consider the advisability of reverting to the old conditions?
  Mr. CHERRY: This is an old-standing dispute which has formed the subject of decisions in the King's Bench Division and Court of Appeal, by which the Local Government Board's action was upheld. In view of the increased cost of Local Government administration in Ireland, the Board have felt bound to carry out the pledges given by successive Chief Secretaries, and to reduce the burdens falling on the ratepayers by amalgamating unions and dispensary districts whenever opportunity offered. While this principle is generally approved by local authorities, its application in particular instances is sometimes opposed, and this was the case in Ardee union in 1904, when the Collon electoral division was amalgamated with the Dunleer dispensary district as then constituted. It is a fact that the village of Collon is some 6½ miles from Dunleer, where the dispensary doctor now resides;
  1026
  but he visits the dispensary at Collon twice weekly. In the great majority of rural dispensary districts in Ireland there are townlands which are quite as far from the doctor's residence as Collon is from Dunleer. The area of the dispensary district which includes Collon is not extensive or thickly populated, the whole of the Collon electoral division only including about 900 people; and the Board are satisfied from the experience of the last five years, and from the recent thorough inquiries of their medical inspector, that the facilities afforded to the poor for obtaining medical relief are adequate.
  Mr. NOLAN: May I ask if it is not a fact that the representatives of the ratepayers are willing to pay, if the Local Government Board withdraw their objection?
  Mr. CHERRY: I am afraid I could not answer that question without notice. I am sure the Local Government Board will be willing in every way to convenience the people of the district if they are satisfied on the subject.
  Mr. NOLAN: Am I right in understanding from the right hon. Gentleman that the decision is on grounds of economy?
  Mr. CHERRY: Yes.
  Mr. NOLAN: If the ratepayers are unanimous in desiring to have the arrangement of 1904 upset and the old state of affairs reverted to, where can be the objection of the Local Government Board?
  Mr. CHERRY: Under those circumstances the Local Government Board could have no objection, but that is a matter for them.
  Mr. NOLAN: If the representatives of the ratepayers are willing to incur additional cost, will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the Local Government Board in Ireland to withdraw their objection?
  Mr. CHERRY: I have no authority whatever to instruct them.
  Mr. NOLAN: Will the matter receive the attention of the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. CHERRY: Oh, certainly.

  Cardiff Rhymney Railway Accident.
  Mr. HUDSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if an inquiry has been held into the circumstances attending the fatal accident to F. Styles, at Cardiff Rhymney

  1027
  Railway on 10th March last; and, if so, whether he can lay the Report of the officer who held the inquiry upon the Table of this House, seeing that the Blue Books containing such reports are so late in being issued?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: An inquiry was held into the causes of this accident, and the sub-inspecting officer's Report has been received. I do not, however, think it desirable to publish the Report out of the ordinary course.
  Mr. HUDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Report received has not been issued yet, and when may we expect it?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I will inquire into any unnecessary delay.

  Registration of Births and Deaths (Ireland).
  Mr. ESSEXasked whether there were any religious institutions, asylums for lunatics, imbeciles, or others in Ireland wherein the ordinary provisions of the law enforcing the registration of births or deaths did not apply?
  Mr. CHERRY: No, Sir. There are no institutions in Ireland to which the ordinary law with respect to the registration of births and deaths does not apply.

  Insanitary Dwellings (Mullingar).
  Mr. GINNELLasked how many dwelling houses now occupied in Mullingar had been condemned by the sanitary officer as unfit for human habitation, and how many as being insanitary?
  Mr. CHERRY: The Local Government Board have ascertained that 20 houses in the Mullingar North and South Urban Electoral Divisions have been certified as unfit for human habitation in connection with the last two schemes promoted under the Labourers Acts by the Mullingar Rural District Council. Seventy-nine cottages have been recently built, or are building, and a further 21 are projected in and around the town. There are still about 30 insanitary houses in the township.

  Colonel Smythe's Estate (Westmeath).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he would state the ground upon which Colonel Smythe, of Barbavilla, Westmeath, had refused to sell the Riggs
  1028
  evicted and untenanted farm on his estate to the Estates Commissioners for the re-instatement of the evicted family?
  Mr. CHERRY: I regret that I cannot add anything to the information which my right hon. Friend has given in reply to the previous question about this case, asked by the hon. Member on 15th May, 1908.
  Mr. GINNELL: In view of the fact that the Chief Secretary has never answered this simple inquiry, will either he or the Attorney-General answer the question or not?
  Mr. CHERRY: It is not possible for the Government to obtain reasons from a landlord who is unwilling to sell. He is entitled to refuse to give any reasons.
  Mr. GINNELL: Has not the landlord stated his reasons to the Commissioners?
  Mr. CHERRY: I am not aware that he has. I do not know what he has stated.

  Chapman Estate, Westmeath (Case of Mrs. Early).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the fact that the Irish Land Commission was not proceeding against Mrs. Early, of the Chapman estate, Westmeath, pending investigation of the disputed agreement signed by her under duress of the vendor's bailiff and witnessed only by the bailiff, if he would explain why the Land Commission had now, without any investigation, served Mrs. Early with a civil bill under the vitiated agreement; and whether lie would take steps to have the proceedings stayed until the value of the farm had been ascertained by official inspection and a new agreement made in accordance with the value?
  Mr. CHERRY: As the Hon. Member has already been informed, the Estates Commissioners will, when the estate is being inspected in its proper turn, inquire into the allegation that Mrs. Early signed a purchase agreement under duress. In the meantime the Commissioners are bound by statute to collect and pay over to the owner the interest on the purchase money, which is considerably below the rent the tenant would otherwise have to pay. If Mrs. Early thinks that she is not legally liable she can have the matter decided in the County Court.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when this question was

  1029
  asked on a previous occasion, the Chief Secretary said that the Commissioners would not proceed against this woman?

  Motor Service (Ireland).
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he could give any information as to the proposal made some years ago to connect certain remote districts in Ireland by a motor service with the railways; and whether the proposal was likely to be proceeded with?
  Mr. CHERRY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by Mr. Bryce to a question on the same subject asked by him on 19th March, 1906. I am informed that the position remains unchanged.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman direct the attention of the Irish Government to the urgency of this question, and see whether some progress cannot be made?
  Mr. CHERRY: I understand that two distinguished gentlemen arranged the project with regard to running a motor service in Ireland; I do not think the Government had anything to do with it.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham), when Chief Secretary, took a great interest in this matter, and gave it encouragement?
  Mr. CHERRY: I think the Government would be anxious to give any encouragement they could if there was a prospect of anything being done, but as far as I can judge nothing has been done in the last three years. Of course, we have no power to compel either of these two gentlemen to start a scheme at once.

  Labourers' Cottages, Lisnagry, Limerick.
  Mr. JOYCEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention had been called to the proceedings of the No. 1 District Council of Limerick re the erection of two labourers' cottages at Lisnagry; whether he was aware that, at the inquiry held in February, 1908, by the inspector, Mr. M'Caffrey, those cottages were passed on the grounds that the houses inhabited by Peter Sulivan and William Boyle were unfit for human habitation; would he say what action had been taken since by the
  1030
  district council, or any of its members, with the view of preventing the erection of those cottages; had the Local Government Board asked for the reasons of the council for stopping the work of erection, had any reasons been given; and would the Local Government Board hold a full and searching inquiry into the whole matter so that the Labourers' Acts might not become a dead letter in this district?
  Mr. CHERRY: I am informed that the facts of this case are as stated in the question. The council at first proposed to change the sites, and subsequently to abandon the erection of the cottages altogether. The Local Government Board have asked for a statement of the council's reasons for their action, but have not yet received a reply, the council having referred their letter to the district councillors concerned. The Board are again writing to the council on the subject.
  Mr. JOYCE: If the Local Government Board does not press this matter, I will refer to it by question again.

  Territorial Army (Presentation of Colours).
  Major E. DUNNEasked the Secretary of State for War whether a date had been definitely fixed for the presentation of colours to units of the Territorial Army by His Majesty the King; and whether he could state where that presentation would take place?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): The presentation will take place at Windsor on Saturday, 19th June. I have it in command from the King to state that His Majesty will be glad if any Members of this House who desire to do so would attend; and you, Mr. Speaker, have kindly arranged that such Members may write their names in a book to be placed in the Speaker's secretary's office, on or before Thursday, 10th June.

  Indian Deportations.
  Mr. MORRELLasked whether, in December last, when nine Indian gentlemen were deported from their homes without charge or trial by orders of the Government of India, the courts of justice were open; and whether any complaint was made to the Secretary of State before he sanctioned those deportations that the courts were not efficient or that the judges were not competent to try any charges brought before them?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE (in the absence of Mr. Buchanan): The answer to the first question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.
  Mr. MORRELL: Do I understand that these gentlemen have committed no offence for which they could be made amenable?

  Whitsuntide Adjournment.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Will the Prime Minister now inform the House of the final arrangements for the adjournment of the House for the Whitsuntide Recess?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I understand that it will be to the general convenience if the House meets at 12 o'clock on Thursday (27th May).

  Imperial Naval Conference.
  Sir GILBERT PARKERasked whether the German Government had made any communication to this Government regarding the Imperial Naval Conference presently to assemble; if so, what was its nature, and what reply was made?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The answer to the first question is in the negative. I am not aware of any communication of any kind.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. HORATIO MYERasked the Prime Minister whether the London Elections Bill would be first order for 4th June, as stated at question time, or whether the Report stage of the Money Resolutions of the Trade Boards Bill would be first order, as stated by the President of the Board of Trade?
The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that last evening an assurance was given by the Opposition through the Patronage Secretary that if the Report stage of the Money Resolution was placed before the London Elections Bill it would not occupy much time. I trust therefore it will not prejudice the House in regard to coming to a decision on the second reading of that Bill on that day.
Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, as regards the Report stage of this Resolution, there was an arrangement that the discussion should not be unduly prolonged; but I must safeguard myself by saying that there was no agreement on our side that the
1032
Motion for the London Elections Bill or any other Bill of the Government should be decided prematurely.
The PRIME MINISTER: I am quite sure everybody will accept that assurance. The Money Resolution will be put first, but it will not prejudice the Debate on the London Elections Bill.

PRESENTATION OF BILLS.
The following Bills were presented and read the first time:—
Mr. T. W. RUSSELL—Merchandise Marks (Ireland).—Bill to enable the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland to undertake prosecutions in certain cases under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887. (To be read a second time on 15th June.)
Mr. Bums—Milk and Dairies.—Bill to make better provision with respect to the sale of milk and the regulation of dairies. (To be read a second time on 10th June.)
Mr. Burs—County Councils Mortgages. —Bill to remove certain limitations on the borrowing by a county council by way of mortgage under the Local Government Act, 1888. (To be read a second time on 10th June.)

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went, and, having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—

1. Indian Councils Act, 199.

2. Kirkwall Water Order Act, 1909.

3. Land Drainage Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1909.

4. Land Drainage Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1909.

5. Hastings Harbour Act, 1909.

6. London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Act, 1909.

7. Anglo-Argentine Tramways Company, Limited, Act, 1909.

8. Wirral Railway (Extension of Time) Act, 1909.

9 Heckmondwike and Liversedge Gas Act, 1909.

10. Leyland Gas Act, 1909.

11. Littlehampton Gas Act, 1909.

12. Wandsworth Borough Council (Superannuation) Act, 1909.

13. United Kingdom Temperance and General Provident Institution Act, 1909.

1033

14. Conway Gas Act, 1909.

15. North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Act, 1909.

16. Great Western Railway, Liskeard and Looe, and Liskeard and Caradon Railways Act, 1909.

17. Wells Gas Act, 1909.

18. South Lincolnshire Water Act, 1909.

WAYS AND MEANS.— [29th April.]
  BUDGET RESOLUTIONS.

    REPORT.
    Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [24th May] to Resolution,
    4. "That in lieu of the duties of Excise now payable on tobacco grown in Ireland there shall, on and after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, be charged the following duties (that is to say):—

    Upon tobacco manufactured, viz:—

    s.

    d.

    Tobacco containing ten pounds or more of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof the lb.

    3

    6

    Tobacco containing less than ten pounds of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof the lb.

    3

    11

    Upon tobacco manufactured, viz.:—

    Cavendish or Negrohead manufactured in bond the lb.

    4

    8

    and that duties of Excise at the same rates shall be charged on tobacco grown in England or Scotland, and that there shall be charged on a licence to be taken out annually by every person growing, cultivating, or curing tobacco in England or Scotland an Excise duty of five shillings."
    Which Amendment was to leave out "3s. 6d.," and insert "2s. 10d."—[Mr. William Redmond]—instead thereof.
    Question again proposed: "That '3s. 6d.' stand part of the Resolution." Debate resumed.
    Mr. E. H. CARLILE: In rising to support the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for East Clare (Mr. William Redmond), supported last night by the hon. and learned Member for North Kildare (Mr. John O'Connor), I should like to point out the very moderate character of the change which the Amendment suggests. The Government proposal is
    1034
    for an Excise duty of 3s. 6d.; the Amendment is that the duty should be 2s. 10d. Personally, I would rather that the Amendment which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Mr. James Hope), and which amended the proposal so that the Excise duty should not have exceeded one-half, but as my hon. Friend withdrew his Amendment we advance a step in our endeavour to support to the best of our ability the hon. Member for Clare's Amendment for a duty of 2s. 10d. I venture to point out that it is not merely a Question which interests hon. Gentlemen from Ireland, great and important as the interests of that island in this matter are. We in England and our friends north of the Tweed are also interested in tobacco, and in adopting new cultivation and forwarding the application of new industries we look forward eventually to the time when this industry of tobacco growing shall have obtained a firm root and considerable dimensions both in Scotland and in England, but for the moment we are specially interested in the position of Ireland. The Government has made a grant towards Ireland, and I am sure the House was interested to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon, in reply to a question, assure Members north and south of the Tweed, who take an interest in this matter, that when the time was seasonable he would also be prepared to make a grant, doubtless somewhat in proportion to the population—at least we should hope so so far as England was concerned—to those parts of the United Kingdom. At present the grant is a very moderate and small one; £6,000 a year is all that is given to Ireland. One cannot kelp asking oneself, considering the way in which the Government propose to deal with this industry, whether they do not really desire to kill it. That seems to be their attitude, so absolutely devoid of anything like sympathy has been their action, for those who for years have been struggling to keep this industry upon its feet, that now they are proposing to put upon it an Excise duty which can have no other effect than to destroy its infant life. They put forward the suggestion that 2d. is a sufficiently large difference between the Excise and Customs duty which this industry will be called upon to pay. I venture to remind the Government that this industry is not carried on in Ireland as other industries are. It is carried on under Excise conditions, and any of us who know anything about industries carried on under

    1035
    such conditions can realise that it very much enhances the cost, and hampers the development, and to say that this very slight difference of 2d. between Customs and Excise would constitute in any sense a sufficient compensation for the increased cost of this industry is to entirely mistake the position which it occupies.
    One's mind goes back—one's experience of course does not go so far back—to the way in which industries were treated in the sister island in years gone by. Every effort had been made to destroy the industries there; the woollen industry was ruined because of the selfish policy which actuated the manufacturers of our own country at that time, and similar treatment has been meted out to other industries that were set going in Ireland. Does the Government propose to maintain this attitude at the present day? Surely the whole position with regard to Irish industries has changed since then, and now on other branches of their activity there has in recent years been a decided endeavour on the part of the British Government to forward and to foster the well-being of Ireland. At such a time the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes before us with this destructive proposition. Personally, I was surprised to find that it emanated from such a source, because the right hon. Gentleman has shown himself not altogether indifferent to the welfare of trade in this country. Many of us regret that the right hon. Gentleman is not still at the Board of Trade. The traders of this country owe some considerable debt to the right hon. Gentleman. We do not want on this side of the House to refuse to acknowledge that. The right hon. Gentleman set going the Patents Act, although, of course, it was a Unionist measure which the right hon. Gentleman found in the pigeon holes of the Board of Trade, yet he had the enterprise and the judgment to see that it was a right measure, notwithstanding its source which no doubt suggested to the right hon. Gentleman some misgiving, and undoubtedly the interest of this country benefited from it. There are other measures such as the Merchant Shipping Act, and other Acts which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for, which have benefited the trade of this country. These are all dry old Protectionist measures in which we recognise a grand form of enterprise of safeguard for the future. At such a time we did not expect the right hon. Gentle-
    1036
    man to get up in his place and to propose a measure of Excise destructive of industry in Ireland. I am sure that the very moderate nature of this Amendment should appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, and he should, at any rate, show no inclination to strangle this new undertaking. I am not quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman is not a little inclined that way. When we pass from this Resolution and come to the next—I should be out of order in referring to it, and I shall not do further so than to say that the next Resolution to be submitted to the House would be very destructive of very vigorous young industries—I am not quite sure the right hon. Gentleman is now sound upon the subject of our industries, or, at all events, on some of them. He has altered his attitude since he came into the larger surroundings of the Exchequer, which we all regret. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman disapproves of the cultivation of tobacco. I never heard him express that opinion. I do not know what his habits are with regard to tobacco, but there are a great many people in the country who really do object to tobacco being grown or smoked, or taken, or chewed, or in whatever other form it can be enjoyed. There are persons who really have set up a sort of principle about it, and I am sure we should very much respect their feelings, but we do not at the same time want industries to be destroyed. If the right hon. Gentleman is in principle opposed to the use of tobacco in any form I think it is really his duty to inform the House of his attitude about it and also to explain the attitude of the Government as a whole. Many of us look upon tobacco as almost a necessity, and in the last day or two in the Debates in reference to Ireland it has been shown, I believe, that people will forego almost anything for the small, humble quality of tobacco which the poor in many parts of Ireland enjoy, and which they have as much right to enjoy as Members of this House have to enjoy their tobacco. This cultivation is extremely important because of the employment it will give. Those of us who have visited the West of Ireland in the congested districts remember what they were like in 1879 and 1880 at the time of the famine, and what they were like a year or two ago. During the past 30 years the whole countryside has changed from being withered and blighted to blossoming almost like the rose. Those districts are now filled with signs of very

    1037
    great improvement, and yet on every hand we meet with many old men and women, but the young men and young women are not there. We want to develop a new cultivation like this in order to keep the young people in their own country instead of seeking employment in other lands. Instead of seeing a very large portion of the land—to use a farmer's expression—in a dirty condition, because the old people cannot properly clean it and the young people are not there to do it, we should have the land thoroughly well cleaned and placed under a new and profitable form of cultivation, and then we should have a greatly improved condition of things there. All these things cannot be brought about without very much sacrifice, and the stage of experiment involves great expense. Not only is there the experimental stage, but you must also employ a considerable number of experts in the industry, and all sorts of mistakes will be made and time lost. In order to compensate for all these things, the right hon. Gentleman suggests twopence as the difference between the Customs and the Excise. The thing is perfectly absurd, and we ought to be able to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman with some prospect of success to accept the modest suggestion made by the hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. William Redmond).
    The hon. Member for East Clare brought this Question before us in most modest and moderate terms. Why should this tobacco industry in Ireland be discouraged? What has the Government against this form of industry? In any foreign country the attitude of the Government would be totally different, for they would at once send down and examine the Question and encourage those who are already engaged in the industry, and they would endeavour to obtain the co-operation of others not at present engaged in the cultivation by adding bounty to bounty in order that it should not fail for want of funds, and in every sense they would nurse that industry, whereas under the present Administration everything seems to be done to discourage industry, and nothing new can be started. People will not invest their money in new undertakings and new cultivations such as this because they feel that the general arrangements of the Government are such that there is no sense of security. They see the treatment meted out on occasions like this. It is the simplest thing in the world for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make it easy for this cultivation to be
    1038
    increased, and instead of encouraging this industry we find that every step is taken which is likely to cripple, hamper, and destroy it. For these reasons I have much pleasure in supporting this Amendment.
    Viscount MORPETH: I support this Amendment on the grounds of its merits and also because of a singular argument put forward by the Financial Secretary last night, when he tried to discredit this Amendment by describing it as a preferential one. I am willing to admit that it does partake of the nature of preference, but I do not support it on that ground, because that would prejudice it with hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Ministerial side of the House. The hon. Member who moved and the hon. Member who seconded this Amendment studiously avoided any reference to that side of the Question—indeed, they went out of their way to state that they were opposed to a policy of preference. Therefore, although there is an excellent case to be made out from the preferential side, I shall not use that argument in a House of Commons where the majority returned are opposed to that principle. I urge this Amendment on the ground of common sense. The Government have given a grant to encourage this industry up to the year 1913, and large sums are to be expended in providing buildings to promote the Irish tobacco industry, so that considerable expenditure is taking place in regard to this infant industry in Ireland. It is a strange thing that, whereas the taxpayer is with one hand providing considerable sums of money to foster this industry, the officers of the Government, and the tax-gatherers, with the other hand are taking the money away and crippling that very industry which the grants already being made are intended to put upon its legs. This is a very extraordinary policy, and if this industry is to be dry-nursed until 1913, surely it might be relieved not only of a portion of this taxation, but from all taxation up to that date when it will presumably be sufficiently strong to stand by itself.
    It is quite conceivable that it might be cheaper to foster this industry by a remission of taxation than by a system of grants. I am sure that would be a more convenient method, because by a system of grants you have to pick out certain growers—I do not say they will be picked out unfairly and improperly, but one may be favoured more than another, and one district may get an advantage over another district by getting an unfair share of the development grant;

    1039
    whereas if relief were given by a remission of the duty every person who grew tobacco would be sure of receiving his share of the bounty for the special development of that industry. On this point I appeal to a very great authority, whose Free Trade doctrines will not be suspected by hon. Members opposite, although the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Harold Cox) went out of his way to say that he thought very little of this authority's works and opinions—I refer to Mr. John Stuart Mill. He said in a passage which is no doubt familiar to the Chancellor of the Exchequer:—
    "Protective duties for a period in young and rising countries are perfectly defensible on Free Trade doctrines."
    Therefore hon. Members opposite can support this Amendment with a perfectly clear conscience, without any fear that they are tampering with a dangerous political doctrine. Mr. Mill further stated that a protective duty for a reasonable time might sometimes be the least inconvenient mode by which a nation can give support to such an experiment. It is quite true that Mr. Mill applied this principle to young and rising countries, but I think we may class Ireland with regard to the development of the tobacco industry as a young and rising country. We have been told over and over again that all the old Irish industries have been ruined, and we have frequently been told also that this country would be wise if it turned its attention to colonising the territories within its own borders.
    But there is a stronger argument than this. We have been told by hon. Members from Ireland how this country crushed out industries in Ireland centuries ago and I am prepared to support this Amendment as a very small measure of justice, and as an expiation for the wrongs of the past. Hon. Members opposite would not sacrifice their principles and the withers of the Opposition will not be wrung by supporting this proposal, which will entail the sacrifice of a very trivial amount of revenue. By this small sacrifice we shall be able to help to build up an industry in Ireland which may have the greatest possible social and economic effect in the future. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hobhouse) rejected this proposal entirely—in fact, he would not look at it, and he said that it was quite unthinkable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should accept a proposal of this sort, however beneficial it might be to the local industries of Ireland. And why is it unthinkable? What is the great
    1040
    obstacle that stands between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the granting of this boon to the industries of Ireland? It is unthinkable simply on account of the views the right hon. Gentleman has so, often and so successfully stated in this House. This enormous benefit cannot be granted to Ireland, or even thought of or considered, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made speeches on the theory of Free Trade which stand in the way, although it can be proved up to the hilt that this small boon is in no sense contrary to the doctrines of Free Trade. When the Financial Secretary to the Treasury takes up an attitude of that kind it makes one despair of the common sense and practical statesmanship of the Treasury Bench.
    Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN: I desire to give to this Amendment all the support in my power, because there is nothing in connection with this Budget, so far as Ireland is concerned, in which I have more interest than in the question raised by this proposal. I will tell the House why. Many years ago—more years than I care to think of or remember—I spent a good many months in Ireland at the time immediately preceding the introduction of the Irish Land Bill of 1870, and I was then very desirous of making myself acquainted, as far as possible, with the land question, which was a matter of great urgency at that time in Ireland. When I travelled in the West of Ireland there was one thing which struck me more than anything else, and it was the old ruined mills formerly employed in manufactures, which I found in great numbers in many different parts of the country. I must say that a darker page in the history of the commercial treatment of one country by another it would be very difficult to find or imagine. That being so, I heard with the utmost interest the speech of the hon. Member for East Clare and his colleagues last night, and I rise to do my best to support this proposal. After hearing the speeches of hon. Members from Ireland, which seemed to me to be very reasonable, very natural, and very moderate, I am wore than ever surprised at the attitude which His Majesty's Government up to the present time, at all events, have maintained on this Question. It is not long ago since that memorable night when the right hon. Gentleman unfolded to us his great Budget. It is not more than two or three weeks ago, and the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion

    1041
    was apparently willing to do everything for the interests of agriculture in the United Kingdom. He said that his great anxiety was to make the country produce more than it produced at the present time. He descanted on the productive powers of this country compared with foreign countries, and he held out the hope that by development grants and other means great things would be done in the future both for Ireland and England at the hands of the Liberal Government. I remember that the Member for Waterford interposed in the Debate, and asked if Ireland was to share in all these good things. "Most certainly," said the Chancellor of the Exchequer. "I hope Ireland will share to a large extent in what I intend to do for the improvement of the agricultural interests of the United Kingdom." There is one passage in his speech which I should like to quote. It is as follows:—
    "It is no part of the functions of a Government to create work but it is an essential part of its business to, see that the people arc permitted to make the best of their own country, and if necessary it is the duty of the Government to help them to make the best of their own country."
    In reply to the earnest, the careful, and moderate statements from the Irish Benches, what is the Government going to do to help the Irish people to do their best in their own country? Last night the hon. Gentlemen from Ireland submitted a case in which they dealt with the records of the past. They referred to the old Committee on Tobacco, which sat in 1830. I have refreshed my memory by a perusal of the evidence taken by that Committee. I have done so within the last few days. Some of the evidence, I think, was excellent.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George): What date?
    Mr. CHAPLIN: 1830. The right hon. Gentleman will find the evidence in the library. Some of the evidence which I have had time to look at bears directly on the desire expressed by the right hon. Gentleman in his Budget speech to do something to meet the desire for labour in this country, and I ask hon. Members to look at the evidence on page 22. It is on the subject of employment with regard to which the members of the Committee were engaged in eliciting all the information they could get. What I read on this Question is as follows: "In England an acre may give employment to about six persons for six months." But a witness
    1042
    said that in the cultivation of tobacco he could on three acres employ as many as fifty men, or half that number, or on the average about thirty a year. If the right hon. Gentleman desires to provide employment for people in Ireland he should really do something practical for the interests of agriculture in that country, and therefore he should give a more favourable reply to the appeal which has been made to him by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland. The witness to whom I referred added: "The cultivation of tobacco, he thought, would improve the industrial habits of the people."That is not all, because I ventured to point out to the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of the Debate on the general question on his Budget, that there has been another committee sitting in Ireland since them. The Committee took a great deal of evidence on that subject also. I could quote a few important passages, but I do not care to do so, as I do not wish to detain the House. But in the speeches. last night one of the Irish Members quoted the evidence of Colonel Everard Nugent. The evidence given before the Commission of 1830 showed, in conjunction with the evidence of the Committee which sat in Dublin for some weeks, the possibilities of cultivating tobacco in Ireland. First of all, the soil and the climate are especially favourable to the cultivation of tobacco. What is wanted is moderate warmth, and, above all, a moist climate. They prevail in Ireland. I have no doubt tobacco could be cultivated in some parts. of England with success, and also in some parts of Scotland. On that subject, however, I cannot speak with experience or with any authority of my own. But this fact stares the right hon. Gentleman in the face, that in Ireland the cultivation of tobacco is possible and that its cultivation would result in the employment of an immense amount of labour, and that it would be exceedingly profitable. I do think we have some reason to complain of the attitude taken up by His Majesty's Government. They have had the case put before them by Irish Members. I very greatly regret myself that the Government have adopted the course which they have done. I think the right hon. Gentleman—if he will forgive me for saying so—has lost one of his greatest opportunities—he has lost an opportunity greater than any Government has had of doing something enormously for the benefit of Ireland without little or any loss to the revenue. I am one of those who agree with the statements made by two hon. Gentle-

    1043
    men from Ireland with reference to the treatment financially of Ireland by this country. In the past I believe that Ireland suffered much at the hands of England. I believe that the greatest injury you can do to the connection of Ireland with this country at the present moment is the attitude adopted on this question by the Government. It is a question absolutely trivial as regards revenue, while on the other hand it is of immense importance to Ireland herself. I believe that the greatest injury you could do Ireland is to teach her that the Liberal Government which poses as her friend will not help her in this industry and that the Government have made up their minds to take the course which they have done—that they will not do anything in response to the appeal of the Members for Ireland and that they will do nothing on behalf of an industry which was once prosperous and flourishing in Ireland.
    Mr. J. J. CLANCY: My belief is that the fear of Protection is the sole reason why the Government have taken up the attitude which they have on this Question. Let me say one or two words on this point. The principles of Free Trade have been set at nought by both parties. There has been a rebate and also a subsidy. The first man to violate the principles of Free Trade in regard to the industry of Irish tobacco was a Free Trader himself. I mean Lord Ritchie, who instituted the rebate of 1s. The next violation of this great principle of Free Trade was perpetrated by the right hon. Gentleman himself when he gave a grant. [Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE shook his head.] I understood that was the case. He may not have been the first to give it, but what I want to point out to him is that there is no consistency in raising the cry of Protection under the circumstances of the present moment. Surely there is something exceptional, not only in the sense which the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has mentioned, but also in this respect, that there is now being made an attempt to revive an Irish industry which was deliberately crushed by this House not more than 70 years ago. It is a most extraordinary thing that the Irish people should be told from time to time that their industries must be, one after another, crushed out. At one time the industry is crushed out, as this was, in the interests of the policy of Protection, and now, when it is being
    1044
    revived, it is being equally crushed out in the interests of the policy of Free Trade. How are we to get on? It appears that no matter whether the policy of Protection is imposed or whether the policy of Free Trade is imposed we are to be hit and crushed out, in so far as our industries are concerned in the interests of one or the other. Something must be due to Ireland, in view of the fact that this particular industry was crushed out in the year 1833, and for anyone to be afraid that he may be accused of initiating Protection or of introducing the policy of Protection by resisting the proposal of the hon. Member for East Clare, in view of the fact that the industry has been crushed out in the interests of the policy of Free Trade, would be nonsense.
    But there is a stronger argument, which might appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a Free Trader, for acceding to the Amendment of my hon. Friend. This is one of the clearest and one of the most significant cases, showing the nonsense of pretending that indiscriminate taxation bears with equal weight on every portion of the three kingdoms. Everyone knows that a tax on French wines hits one part of this country more than another. If you tax coffee you hit England more than you hit Ireland; if you tax tea you hit Ireland more than you hit England. Here is another case. When you are imposing this tax let it be clearly understood that you are imposing it on Ireland alone. I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer this point. I say that, in imposing this tax, the right hon. Gentleman is taxing Ireland as one portion of the United Kingdom. That is clearly shown, or at least clearly suggested, by the form of the Resolution itself, because if hon. Members will look at the Resolution they will see that Ireland is first dealt with by itself, and Scotland and England are dealt with afterwards, as if, which is the case, there were no industry such as tobacco growing in those two countries. It is dealt with as a contingent and not an actually existing state of things at all. The one thing treated as an actually existing state of things is tobacco growing in Ireland. I should have expected, seeing that it is no violation of the principle of Free Trade, the right hon. Gentleman would not have imposed any Excise duty whatever when seeking to treat all parts of the three Kingdoms on terms of equality, but we find, and it is

    1045
    really a most extraordinary state of things, that Ireland is alone growing tobacco, and the right hon. Gentleman picks out this industry for taxation, pretending at the same time that England and Scotland will be similarly taxed, when we know that neither of those countries grow any tobacco. I do not like to attribute, and I have not done so, any bad object to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I really think he ought to be able to give some answer to the charge which I make, that he is in this case taxing Ireland alone, out -of the United Kingdom, and that he knows that he is doing it.
    Mr. E. A. GOULDING: I desire to say a few words in support of the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Clare. I do not think a case can be brought before the House which would command greater consideration than this one of tobacco growing in Ireland, if only on account of the past treatment by this country of the Irish tobacco industry, and the almost stupid penal laws enacted in reference thereto, whereby tobacco was not only not allowed to be cultivated, but if any, by chance, grew it was to be burnt and uprooted and utterly destroyed. Are we to take no thought at all as regards the future of Ireland? It is only by the cultivation of the soil and the improvement of agriculture that there is any hopeful prospect opened up for the greater portion of Ireland. I am glad to think that the late Lord Ritchie was the first Member of the Unionist Party to throw over publicly the dogma of Free Trade, and to try to deal with this question on practical common-sense lines. He gave a rebate on the tobacco duty grown in Ireland, and I do not think the House is aware of the enormous benefit derived by Ireland even from that small rebate passed on the initiation of Lord Ritchie. He gave a shilling rebate in 1906, and in that year 7,000 pounds of tobacco was grown, the rebate amounting to £367. In the next year the rebate amounted to £912, while the production of tobacco was treble, and reached 20,000 pounds. In 1908 the rebate was over £3,000, while the actual amount of tobacco grown in Ireland rose to nearly 69,000 pounds. There are thus three years which show practically the advantage of this rebate. They show that the production of tobacco rose from 7,000 pounds to 69,000 pounds, and it had thus multiplied to an extraordinary extent. I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to name a single one of
    1046
    the remedies put forward by the different parties in this country for dealing with the Irish problem which shows anything like the same ratio of success as this rebate on tobacco. But now it has been withdrawn, and it can only have been withdrawn because this Government still adhere to the doctrine of Free Trade, and they would damage this industry rather than in the least cause any trouble to this idol of theirs. By insisting on this Excise duty they evidently are anxious to secure that any tax they impose on commodities coming from abroad shall not lead to any diminished return of income they hope to get from it, and so no regard at all is paid to the cultivation or to the development of this industry. The whole power of the Government is exerted in the direction of securing that the income to be obtained from the industry shall not be diminished. The industry itself is treated by the Government as an entirely secondary consideration. They do not think what can be done to help an industry or to promote a cultivation which must give employment to many men, and must add to the natural prosperity of the country. They have done nothing in that direction, but in order to save their dogma they come forward and say that, having taken away the rebate, they will give a bounty of £6,000 a year, which is to hold good until the year 1913, and having given us this bounty—only, I think, early last year was it promised—they now come forward and take away a part of the benefit of it by putting an additional tax of 8d. in the pound upon the industry. It is idle for any man to say that it is not an enormous tax. No native industry like this has ever been called upon to bear such a burden. It absolutely cripples it in more ways than one. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the people who conduct this industry in Ireland are not people who have the longest purse, and in their case, of course, a tax of 3s. 9d. is absolutely absurd. The right hon. Gentleman, I believe, has a great deal of sympathy with Ireland, and I would suggest to him that he should display the courage which he showed when at the Board of Trade and disregard the doctrine of Free Trade, and say he is willing to continue the subsidy of £6,000 a year to this industry, and at the same time will not impose this extra tax of 8d. in the pound upon tobacco grown in Ireland. In that way he will encourage this industry, he will help employment in Ireland,

    1047
    and he will help to carry on in his present post the name he earned at the Board of Trade for looking at these things not through purely party spectacles, but at the actual facts of the case as they present themselves to him. I would like to make a few comments with regard to tobacco grown in Ireland.
    Some people talk of it as if the cultivation were merely an experiment and not an actual industry. I had the pleasure of reading the evidence of one of the greatest expert authorities on tobacco as regards the Irish product, and certainly his view was very favourable towards it. He said of the plant as grown in Ireland that a cow can eat her fill of the leaf and not have a pain, while if the animal were to attempt to eat the American tobacco the result would be devastation to herself. American tobacco is so coarse and rank, but if only Irish tobacco were given a chance it would be found that, mild flavoured as it is, experts may be able by cultivation to get a little stronger flavour into it. At the same time, it is an excellent thing for blending with the more severe tobaccos which come from America and other places. So, on that ground also, I appeal again to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be sympathetic towards this request. Do let him feel it his duty to go a little further in regard to the industry, and give it a helping hand, and not to do what this Government is doing by this duty, hampering and crippling it by taxes of this kind. It is very seldom that here in this House we have the whole of the Irish representatives coming unanimously with a request, or with any demand, and here is a request, that all the Irish representatives come forward and unanimously ask should be granted, in order to deal with this Question, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will rise to the occasion, and, having a sympathetic heart, he will respond to the appeal from all sections of the Irish people.
    Mr. LOUGH: I feel that this Question has been put in a manner from the opposite Benches, which makes it extremely difficult for me to support the Amendment, because, from the Free Trade standpoint, if there is one doctrine more than another which we believe in, it is that the Excise duties must absolutely balance the Customs. I believe it is a matter of fact that these Excise duties do not absolutely balance the Customs as regards tobacco, but I do not approve of any
    1048
    breach of that principle, and, although my conscience is always elastic with regard to the taxation of anything connected with Ireland, yet I cannot find it in my heart to press the right hon. Gentleman to make a sacrifice of that sacred doctrine to which I have always been attached. I wish the Motion was one to the effect that we should have a different duty upon tobacco, whether imported or grown in Ireland, to that which is levied in the larger area of Great Britain. I believe that, although that proposal may be a shock to some hon. Gentlemen in this House, who are not so well acquainted with the conditions in Ireland as hon. Gentlemen opposite are, or a perhaps I am myself —I believe that that would be a proposal perfectly defensible. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will know, from his acquaintance with these matters, that when Ireland had an opportunity of fixing her own taxes on a product of this kind, it always fixed the duty about one-third as high on tobacco as was fixed in Great Britain. There was no compulsion, and both countries equally wanted to provide the necessary revenue, but the Irish Parliament knew the conditions of its own people and it never dreamed of putting a higher duty than 1s., or at the outside 1s. 6d. on tobacco, and in those days the duty was 3s. in England and Great Britain at large. In those days the people of Great Britain through this Parliament raised a duty of 3s. or 4s., and a much higher duty as they do to-day. When these small duties were levied there was a very flourishing industry in tobacco in Ireland, and very great relief was felt there in consequence of this cheap tobacco and of this low duty upon what I may call in that country one of the necessities of life. There is one point with regard to the difference in the social conditions between the people of Ireland and the people of Great Britain that we have always great difficulty in bringing home to this Parliament. This Parliament has got six-sevenths of its Members who are inhabitants of Great Britain, brought up here as their ancestors were, and accustomed to the particular ways of this country, and they cannot realise the different state of things prevailing here to those which exist in Ireland. They assume that Galway is the same as Kent, and that every Irish county and the whole of Ireland indeed is just the same as the counties which exist in England. That is a great mistake, and there is no product in which an illustration of this mistake can

    1049
    be brought home to an intelligent and sympathetic mind more easily than in regard to this matter of tobacco.
    The great, difference between the Irish and the English is, that the English are a meat-eating people and the Irish are a people who eat very little meat. I believe statistics show that the British every year consume 150 or 160 lbs. of meat per head, but the Irish only consume 50 lbs. a year each man. To a great meat-eating people like this tobacco is a luxury, but to people who do not eat meat it is almost a necessity. I have seen the case of a working man in Ireland, and I do not think it is extravagant of a man offered either a good smoke of tobacco or his dinner in the middle of the day, and preferring a smoke of tobacco. He goes away and has his pipe of tobacco, and works away vigorously all the rest of the day. No Englishman would do that. No Englishman could do it, and it illustrates the difference between the two peoples, and I think that on this point of tobacco therefore there is a very great and substantial difference between the two islands. Therefore if my hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Clare, whom I always like to support in his reforms, could boldly put forward a proposal that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should let tobacco pay in Ireland 1s. less than in Great Britain, whether imported or grown in the island, I would have been glad to have supported that proposal. There would not be any breach of Free Trade, and I think this House ought to consider, so long as it fixes the finance of the two countries the different social conditions and necessities of the two islands. The great failure that we make here is that it is impossible for this Parliament, chiefly elected from Great Britain, to strain a point in favour of Ireland. I am afraid that this is as far as I can go in support of the proposal, and I cannot do anything more except to press my right hon. Friend to consider a suggestion of the limited character I have made. It does not affect the better qualities of tobacco at 3s. 11d. and at 4s. 8d., although so far as the lower classes at 3s. 6d. are concerned there would be some breach of Free Trade. I think an Amendment like that might be accepted. I would ask my right hon. Friend to pay some attention to the appeals which have just been made to him to consider this question of restoring some part of the abatement, which was given to Ireland a year or two ago, or to meet the
    1050
    difficulty in some other way. I do feel that this additional 8d. on tobacco presses very hardly on the Irish people, and I wish the Amendment were framed in a way in which we Free Traders could support it, but I am afraid that in the crude form in which it is I cannot oppress my conscience, so far as to vote for it, but I am very glad to ask my right hon. Friend to take steps which would not imperil the Free Trade doctrine, and I am very glad to join in the appeal made to him from every part of the House, to consider whether this industry, which is developing in Ireland, could not be given some extra allowance, something like that which previous Chancellors of the Exchequer have given to get over that difficulty, and to meet the case of Ireland without infringing the doctrine of Free Trade.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: A few years ago, when the Unionist Government was in office, I used to be very familiar with the incursions of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken into discussions upon our financial system. For two or three years he was condemned to an official silence, and we missed him from these discussions, and I am sure the House will join with me in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman upon the fact that he is once again in the position of greater freedom and less responsibility, in which he may contribute to our consideration, and I may say enjoyment. In the speech which he has just delivered, we can see a most curious illustration of what he would himself describe, as the Free Trade mind, and it is really partly in order to examine the working of that peculiar intellectual instrument that I venture for a few moments to trespass upon the time of the House; I wish to examine it, whether it is in the case of the right hon. Gentleman, or of the still more distinguished right hon. Gentleman that I see opposite, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not often that I am led into the Lobby by the hon. Member for East Clare. I do not think it is very often that we find ourselves in the same Lobby, whoever is the Leader, but on this occasion, on this proposed Amendment, I am hound to support him, and that no less because of my general views on fiscal and commercial subjects, but because I take an interest, which I can hardly describe as fatherly, towards this industry, because it is not my child, but as step-fatherly, because when it was at a tender stage of its existence, in regard to a concession given by Lord Ripon,

    1051
    I had to decide whether that concession ought to be extended or not, and I extended it. I think as a practical question for the present and probably for the future, as far as it concerns tobacco alone, this is a much more Irish question than an English or a Scotch question. The experiment has been made in Ireland, on a sufficient scale to give great hope that tobacco growing may be extremely successful there, if you will have some patience with it, give it some assistance, and be tender to it in its early years. I do not think that that has been proved to be true of any districts in England or Scotland, though I think it is possible that there will be districts in both those countries in which it may subsequently be proved. For the moment, however, the question is an Irish question in its direct aspect, but I should have very much regretted if the hon. Member for Clare had drawn his Amendment, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury supposed, so as to exclude England and Scotland from similar benefit under its terms.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: That is not so.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is not so, and it is one more illustration, of which we have had so many, that the spokesmen of the Government do not know their own Resolution. The Resolution says that the duties on Irish tobacco shall be so and so in lieu of those already charged, and in future the same new duties shall be charged in England and Scotland. Hitherto there have been no duties in England and Scotland, because tobacco growing has been prohibited there. When that prohibition was removed in Ireland it became necessary earlier to impose Excise duties in Ireland than in England or Scotland, but here the hon. Member proposes a lower Excise duty for Ireland than the Customs duty, and a subsequent Resolution would apply that same lower duty to England and Scotland. The question of tobacco growing is not so much of immediate importance in England or Scotland, but I think the treatment which Irish Members are asking for an infant agricultural industry in Ireland is treatment which we ought to accord, given like circumstances and an equally strong case, to other agricultural industries in Ireland, and which might be suitable to industries in England, notably the growing of sugar beet. Having in view that pos-
    1052
    sible development throughout the United Kingdom, I think that this matter, which is for the moment fiscally very small, becomes one of very considerable importance.
    What has happened in Ireland? Throughout the agricultural districts of the whole of the United Kingdom there has been in recent years a great decrease in population, and a tendency prompted by all manners of circumstances to lessen the demand for agricultural labour, and we are accustomed from all sides of the House on every occasion where our sentiment can he expressed without any practical result to deplore this, and to urge that it should be reversed and that someway should be found for procuring more employment on the land for agricultural labour. The tobacco industry finds a great deal of employment, measured by the acreage which it covers. It has the further advantage that it not only finds a great deal of employment, but that it finds employment out of season. It finds winter employment as well as summer employment. There is the employment of the tillage of the land, of the tending of the crop while it is growing, and of gathering the crop. That does not exhaust its possibilities of usefulness to the district in which it is carried on, because you still have further stages of growing, handling, sorting, and stripping, if I may use that dangerous word, and treating up to its finished stage, which are found to be in agricultural districts where the tobacco is grown and handled a great blessing to the people, not merely in the spring and summer, but also in the winter months. What has it done for Ireland? We have had mentioned Colonel Nugent Everard, who, I think, more than any single man, is the inventor of this industry for Ireland, because, really, to show a prospect of its commercial success in these days is as good as to have invented a new thing, though it may be only restoring an old industry. As to his experience and confidence no man who knows anything about him would question that. He speaks of himself as having had 25 years' farming experience, he is a member of the Irish Board of Agriculture, of the council of the Royal Dublin Society, and of the county council; chairman of the County Committee of Agriculture and Technical Instruction and the executive committee of the Irish Agricultural Organisation, and president of the county Meath and other agricultural societies. He owns and occupies 1,400 acres, and it was stated by

    1053
    an hon. Gentleman from Ireland that he is the only landlord in county Meath whose cattle have not been driven during the last twelve months.
    I think what has protected Colonel Everard's character is the fact that he is recognised to be a blessing to the district in which he lives. What does he say about it? This is evidence given either in 1905 or 1906:—
    "For seven years I have experimented in growing tobacco…. Professor Harper, of the University of Agriculture, Kentucky, who came over to superintend the curing, said the soil was perfect and the climate more suitable than that of Kentucky. It requires much labour, especially during the winter, for the processes of stripping and sorting…. The crop requires much moisture either in soil or climate, but is less precarious than any crop except grass. We have had a drier se son this year, but we have a finer crop than elsewhere, even in Kentucky."
    £50 an acre, he says, is the net profit, including the refund.
    Mr. HAROLD COX: How much is the refund?
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I must refer the hon. Member to the Report of the Agricultural Committee of the Tariff Commission, which forms very instructive reading. There is an account of it—an industry which, on the testimony of a Kentucky expert, can be established in Ireland with better natural advantages than those which attend its wonderful growth in Kentucky itself. Being in its infancy, it labours under great disadvantages, because it is very difficult, while the industry is on such a small scale, to provide for all the different processes which are necessary in an economical way. If you are handling a large mass of the product you can provide at each stage conveniently and economically for buildings, labour, machinery or whatever else it is necessary to deal with, but if you are handling a very small portion of it these processes become expensive out of all proportion. Here you have, if ever you had, a case which falls within that definition of infant industry which even the sternest of Free Traders have admitted might legitimately receive some protection. Why do the Government and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington (Mr. Lough) object? On this point I expect the full support of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Harold Cox), who is nothing if he is not a supporter through thick and thin of the old economic doctrine on these points. Why do right hon. Gentlemen object, and what is it that they object to? I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will thank the right hon. Gentle-
    1054
    man the Member for West Islington for the support which he gave him in opposing the Amendment or for the alternative suggestion which he made. The right hon. Gentleman will not hear of a preference on Irish industries. That he says is contrary to all his Free Trade principles and, elastic as his conscience is in Irish matters, it will not stretch enough to cover that. But he is perfectly willing to give a preference to the Irish smoker—not to an Irish industry, but to the Irish smoker. Tobacco grown in Ireland is to have no favour, but the man who smokes tobacco in Ireland is to be preferentially treated over the man of the same class, or any other class, who smokes tobacco elsewhere. Why is that?
    Mr. LOUGH: That does not necessarily amount to a preference. My case is that the social conditions of a nation like Ireland may be different from those of Great. Britain, and it might suit them to get their revenue in a different way from what it might suit us. But I press it no further. I would be a stern upholder of Free Trade in England.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It is a: little difficult to follow the right hon. Gentleman exactly in his rapid transition from one side of the Channel to the other. I do not think I seriously misrepresented him. He thinks, for reasons in which there is a good deal of force, if there were not other countervailing objections, that there is reason in the abstract for taxing tobacco more in Ireland than in England. Of course, that means that the smoker in Ireland will have a preference over the smoker in England. That is all I say I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer-noted the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman gave. I made some observations the other day about the application of the phrase "necessaries of life" to articles which either are dutiable or which might become dutiable, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer very good humouredly chaffed me about it. What does his supporter say about tobacco for the Irishman? He says "tobacco to the beef-eating Englishman is a luxury. Tax it by all means." I suppose beef to the Englishman is a necessity, and therefore to him you must leave it free; but he says to the Irishman, who is not benefited by your leaving meat untaxed, tobacco is a necessity of life, more important to him and more valued by him even than his dinner. There is something in what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I am glad to enrol

    1055
    him on my side against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At any rate, he has given the Chancellor of the Exchequer something to think about on that subject.
    What is the meaning of the attitude of the Government on this subject? The Financial Secretary to the Treasury referred to an observation made in an earlier Debate that the man who made two blades of grass grow where one had grown before was a benefactor to humanity. He said it is not a question of making two blades of grass grow—it is not a question of production, but of selling. That is a very profound observation. I hope the Government will see the full force of it, and that they will apply it to other portions of the fiscal controversy, and not overlook the interests of the producer in getting a market in their extreme anxiety to secure to the consumer what he buys at the cheapest possible price. Does the Financial Secretary mean that if you reduce the price of the article by levying a lower duty that will not advantage the sale? It is a very extraordinary doctrine for the Government to lay down that the price is immaterial, and that the sale will be the same whether the price is 8d. a pound higher or 8d. a pound lower. It is quite true that with a new article, and especially a new article which is a matter of taste, your first difficulty is to make a sale for it. You have to create the taste for the new article, to advertise it, and to get over the prejudice which regards any tobacco grown in the United Kingdom as being an impossible article for human consumption. We used to be told by people assumed to be authorities that it might be fit for use in sheep dips or for fumigating greenhouses, but that it would never be fit for anything else. But it is not so. That kind of prejudice which makes itself felt in the House naturally might be expected to prevail more largely among the less intelligent and less educated people outside. You have got to do it with every new industry, and in order to do that you have to put up in the initial stages with a price which does not represent the real commercial value. When you have made a market and got a reputation equal to the reputation of other goods in the market, then you can get the same price for your article. All these circumstances add to the force of the plea put forward that you should deal tenderly with this promising industry in its infancy. What is the attitude which
    1056
    the Government took up? They were horrified by the rebate on tobacco grown in Ireland. That was contrary, in their opinion, to the principles of Free Trade, and they without hesitation abolished it. It was nothing to them that it had been introduced by an eminent Free Trader, the late Lord Ritchie. The source from which it came did not save it. I hope it was not abolished because it passed through my polluted hands in the interval. They did not do away with the rebate at once. They could not afford to show themselves less sympathetic than their predecessors had been with the industry, and accordingly what they took away with one hand they professed to give back with the other. They would not allow a rebate of one-third of the duty. They collected the whole of it, but they did not return the whole of it. They voted a grant of £6,000 a year as a bounty to those engaged in the industry. I do not know—and perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer can tell us—how the bonus is administered—whether it is as a poundage on the tobacco to the people interested, and whether, therefore, the relief per acre or per pound on the tobacco grown will be less to the people interested. That is an interesting question; but, after all, what I want to know is on what principle can the Government say that it is unthinkable that they should allow a rebate of the duty or a lower duty as proposed by the hon. Member, while they are perfectly ready to vote a bounty to those who produce the tobacco. Preference in the shape of lower duties for articles produced at home may have demerits. Protection may have demerits. No doubt most things have demerits, but surely there is no demerit which can be alleged against preference or protection which is not true with tenfold force of a system of bounties or of a single bounty. You may apply a general system of protection, but the general principle of bounties is that they are always arbitrary in their application and uncertain in their effect, and that they lay you much more open to those charges of corruption, and those charges of demoralisation which are sometimes alleged against protective duties. I am afraid I have occupied the time of the House much longer than I meant to do, but I shall not have spoken in vain if I induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give us a reasoned explanation of the attitude of the Government and of their defence of the principle of establishing a system of bounties whilst denouncing a system of rebates.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is rather remarkable that the only Protectionist Debate we have had on the Budget has been on the question of Irish tobacco, although we are raising about £13,000,000 or £14,000,000 by Free Trade expedients. There has been no alternative suggested at all to the proposals of the Budget except in respect of Irish tobacco. The Protectionist Members of the House have taken little part in the Debates beyond raising the question in which they are interested on this very narrow issue. There is very general sympathy with the experiments made in Ireland for the protection of the tobacco industry, and that is by no means confined to one side of the House. It is not merely an academic interest which we on this side of the House take in the question. We have given very substantial proof of our real interest in the development of this very interesting experiment. It is a question really of the best method of assisting the industry. I agree that it is an exceptional case, and I think no Free Trader can challenge that position. What makes it exceptional is that it was an industry which was crushed, deliberately crushed, by Act of Parliament. I have here the Report of the Committee which was the beginning of the destruction of the Irish tobacco industry, which up to that date was a fairly flourishing—I would not say it was a very flourishing—industry, but it did provide a good deal of comfortable employment in Ireland. There was a Committee, presided over by Sir Henry Parnell, which sat on this question in 1830. We have heard a good deal about the Report of that Committee. Hon. Members from Ireland overlooked one fact, and that is that the British Government which crushed the tobacco industry in Ireland had already crushed it in Great Britain. The result was that the Report of that Committee extended the destruction of the tobacco-growing industry to Ireland. But that is no part of my argument to-day. It was an industry, as I have said, which was deliberately crushed by Act of Parliament, and, therefore, it is on a different footing from other industries.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: It was stronger in Ireland.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Undoubtedly it was an existing industry there. The same reasons which are put forward with regard to Ireland would also apply, if put forward on the part of England. It was
    1058
    an industry deliberately destroyed by Act of Parliament, and not by the setting up of tariffs. The Act of Parliament absolutely forbade the planting of tobacco in the whole of Ireland. Therefore, I think Ireland has a special claim for consideration at the hands of Parliament, for these reasons: This industry is more or less in the same position as afforestation. I only mention this by way of illustration. We might spend money on afforestation, but we have no forestry industry there. The same thing applies to the growing of tobacco. You cannot pass an Act of Parliament and say: "In future the prohibition which, up to the present, has prevented the growing of tobacco in Ireland, will be withdrawn, and you can go on planting tobacco as much as you like." That is not enough. The Committee will realise that it takes years in order to train a body of people expert enough for the purpose of conducting an industry of this kind. You, first of all, have to make experiments with regard to the soil and the methods of drying, and the people who start under these conditions make many mistakes, and they cannot possibly make a commercial success of the industry for years for that simple reason. Very well, I think, under these conditions, Ire-lend deserves special consideration. The right hon. Gentleman asked me why I draw a distinction between giving a rebate and making a grant for the encouragement of an industry. My answer is that in the initial stages of an industry of this kind, which has been killed deliberately by Act of Parliament, it has to be put more or less into the position it was in before Parliament interfered. That is the position you have got to assist, either in the way of experiments or by assisting the people with a view of getting experts there. It is more or less an educative process. That is a totally different position from the one submitted to the House by the right hon. Gentleman, and that is why I draw a distinction between a rebate and a grant. Once you say that the duty is to be 3s. 6d. on foreign tobacco and only 2s. 10d. for tobacco grown in this country, that is establishing a tariff, and you can never withdraw it. That is really the reason why I draw a distinction between a rebate and a grant. The grant we make is £6,000 a year. Hon. Members on the other side of the House said that we had done absolutely nothing for this industry. What do they propose to do? I think the was the Noble Lord the

    1059
    Member for South Birmingham (Viscount Morpeth) who said that we had done nothing.
    Viscount MORPETH: I said you had given a grant.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am glad to get that admission from the Noble Lord. Some Members asked, "What have you done?" My answer is that we have given £6,000 for the purpose of making these experiments, and experts have been brought over from Virginia. My hon. Friend who represents the Agricultural Department of Ireland will give a full account of what he has done.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is not that in addition to the £6,000?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: There was a little doubt about that. The grant of £6,000 is to the actual growers, and there is, in addition, the assistance given by the loan of experts. My hon. Friend will give a full account of how the money is expended. He is in charge of that money, and he will tell the House what is done with it. What is the proposition which the hon. Member has submitted to the House? He submitted a proposal for a rebate which would involve a loss to the Exchequer of £1,600. Do hon. Members who denounce us and say that we are doing nothing for the. tobacco industry in Ireland realise that this proposal only involves a sum of £1,600? We are giving four times as much as this proposition would give, and I want hon. Members to bear this in mind. Is that the expiation which is due to Ireland for the wrong which has been inflicted upon her in the past when we destroyed her industries one after the other? The Noble Lord said that we ought to make sacrifices in order to do penance for the past. The sacrifice he is prepared to make is to sacrifice other people's principles. That is a very easy sacrifice to make. He says, "Why do not you sacrifice Free Trade which I do not believe in?" Really, after all, we have got to do something for Ireland more than the 8d. penance he would inflict on this country. We are doing very much more for the tobacco industry in Ireland than we would do by adopting his proposition. I agree that Parliament really owes something to Ireland for having, in spite of the protests of Irish Members at the time, deliberately killed a fairly prosperous industry.
    1060
    As regards the work of Colonel Everard, I have every sympathy for the trouble and the great expense he put himself to in order to open up this new field of industry in Ireland. I am very glad to hear that the industry is a very considerable success, and am also very glad to hear that he is making a profit of £50 15s. an acre, but the hon. Member for East Clare, with his shrewd Parliamentary instinct, at once saw the danger of that—
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I put it that he anticipated that that profit might be made when the industry might be established.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I agree it is a very important distinction. The right hon. Gentleman did not say he was making the profit. He only said that the Tariff Reform Commission said so.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I referred to the evidence of Colonel Nugent Everard. I put it as given to the Tariff Commission. I did not quote any observations of the Tariff Commission.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I thought it was the red book of the Tariff Commission. I agree that one ought to receive those things with a good deal of caution. I cast no doubt at all upon it, but I am merely adopting the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member last night made several very helpful suggestions. One very helpful suggestion was that there should be a number of Members of Parliament to go round visiting the tobacco plantations. He might make a very good selection during the present summer months. For instance, the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London might visit the tobacco fields and examine them very thoroughly, and bring back a report upon it about the month of September, and, let us say, in reference not merely to the tobacco fields, but the other industries interested in these fiscal proposals. But I agree, on the whole, that there is a case made out for special treatment of this new industry; but I do deprecate this method of doing it, and I do so for the simple reason that one should begin with what is after all a tariff of 20 per cent—a higher tariff than hon. Gentlemen on the other side have proposed for any industry. That is one of the evils of tariff. Five per cent. goes on to 10 per cent. In this Debate it has already reached the proportion of 10 per cent. Once you set up a tariff of, say, 20 per cent. for an industry—that is

    1061
    what it means—you can never withdraw it—it will still go on extending. In the very short time I have had to look at the Reports of the Committee which destroyed the Irish tobacco industry it is very interesting to note that one of the reasons why they destroyed it was that they said that the difference between a duty of 1s. 8d. per lb. and a duty of 3s. a lb. was not enough to keep the industry alive, though that is a difference of 70 or 80 per cent. That was the evidence given by tobacco growers in Ireland. That shows that once you begin to bolster up an industry by means of tariffs you simply go on from percentage to percentage until at last the industry begins to live not on its own skill, not on its own industry, not on its own management, but purely on these grants, on these tariffs which come from the Imperial Parliament. It is a bad thing for the industry, and the hon. Member has only got to read the evidence to see that that is so. When I read the evidence of the first witness it was perfectly clear that they were driven into growing the very poorest kind and the worst kind of tobacco. The industry was suffering more from that than from anything else. What is the result of the present system? The result of the present system is they have been driven to cultivate the best tobacco, and I believe with success. I think Colonel Everard was kind enough to send a sample the other day and with no ill result. I believe it was excellent tobacco, and my hon. Friend experimented upon it the other evening, and it was smoked, and I was told it was very good tobacco. And I am still friendly. So that, therefore, think the present system is a better one. The present system is the system of spending money on improving the industry and improving the quality of the tobacco and improving the method of curing and getting expert advice—much better advice than was available under the system which ended in evidence such as was given before the Committee which showed that the Irish tobacco industry, in spite of the difference between 1s. 8d. and 3s.—
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Who was the witness?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Mr. Thomas Brodigan, who was cultivating tobacco in Ireland and was supporting the industry.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I say this: From what the right hon. Gentle-
    1062
    man has quoted from the Report of the evidence at that Committee he would lead us to believe that the reasons for prohibiting the growth of tobacco in Ireland was because the industry could not live on account of the difference in the duty charged. I am sure if he reads the Committee Report carefully he will come to the conclusion that no such reason as that was alleged for suppressing the industry, as the industry was going on fairly well.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will read the exact passage. This is the Report:—
    "That it is the opinion of the Committee that it appears from the evidence that the tobacco at present grown in Ireland is to a great degree inferior to that of American growth, though the hope is entertained by the growers that its quality might be much improved; and from this, and from the disadvantages attending the cultivation of tobacco arising from humidity and uncertainty of climate, the proposed duty of 1s. 8d. per lb. would be higher this than they could afford to pay in competition with the Customs duty of 3s. per lb. on foreign tobacco."
    Then in the last paragraph of all they say that in their opinion it should be prohibited, and it was, as a matter of fact, prohibited. I think we are going on the right lines, and I am certain that that is the most businesslike way of doing it. I do not think the hon. Member would serve the interests of Irish tobacco if he substituted for the premium method the one which he has indicated in the course of this Debate.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I wish to continue the examination which was begun by my right hon. Friend into the working of the Free Trade mind. We have had some curious examples as to the way in which that mind works in the short speech to which we have just listened. The right hon. Gentleman really only got into his stride at the end, when he told us about the evils of protection, and how everything evil in this world comes from it. But before that he laid down what seemed to Toe this extraordinary doctrine, extraordinary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had to consider a question like the fostering of the tobacco industry, not on the ground whether it is a wise thing to foster under present conditions, whether it is something that will pay the country to foster, or something that it will pay the Treasury to foster, but on the simple ground that nearly a century ago it was taken away from Ireland by injustice, and, rightly or wrongly, we have got to re-establish it now. I felt while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking his feeling was that this Amendment was contrary to the whole

    1063
    principle of his Budget, and he could not possibly support it. I can quite sympathise with him in that. The principle of the Budget is inevitably, and I believe in some cases deliberately to destroy industry. The object of this Amendment is to try to improve the home industry, and naturally of course he could not accept it. I was much struck by the working of the mind of the hon. Member the Financial Secretary. His argument was on these lines, "How can we set up this distinction? We are a Free Trade party. We were returned to keep Free Trade. How could you expect it?" They are more Royalists than the King; they are more Free Trade a great deal than the expert exponents of Free Trade; and everybody knows, even His Majesty's Government, that men like John Stuart Mill, who are Free Trade enough even to satisfy the present Chancellor of the Exchequer I hope, laid down as an undoubted rule that it, was not only justifiable to use protection as a means of establishing the growth of an infant industry, but that it was sometimes necessary. Was there ever a case where that rule applied with greater force than the case which we are discussing just now? Of course, it might be said, and if acquiesced in, I would say it was a sufficient answer that this is an industry which will never pay standing against foreign competition. But if that be so you are doing an injustice to Ireland by establishing it with the knowledge that it will only wither and decay later on. That might be said, but the Government cannot say it, for they are themselves spending money now in other ways in order to foster this industry. Therefore, according to the strictest dogma of Free Trade there is nothing whatever in this Amendment which they could upset. But there is this strong fact that in any creed you like—and this is a creed—the readiness with which you adhere to particular dogmas about it is in direct proportion to the ignorance of the system on which those dogmas lie. That is the explanation why they cannot permit any diversion, however small, from what they consider erroneously to be the principles of their own doctrine.
    My hon. Friend the Member for East Clare asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain this curious phenomenon. How can it be wrong, and in every way vicious to help to enable an industry of this kind to grow up by one method, that of giving a lower basis
    1064
    of taxation, and right and proper to do your best to foster it by a system of bounties? What was his answer? His answer was a fear of Free Trade: "If you once establish this you will never be able to go back." There, again, is another evidence of the weakness of their own faith. When people are strong about their own creeds they do not worry about these trifles; they believe in their own creeds. They are not afraid to adopt what they believe in, because somebody else may apply it to what they believe to be wrong. If you admit that this is an industry which is worth trying to improve and to foster, then whether or not you do it by means of a duty or by means of bounty is entirely immaterial. The only thing you have got to consider is which is the way that will do it best. Can anyone doubt which is the best method here? A system of difference of taxation enabling this industry to grow would have at least this great merit in my mind, that it would put all parts of the country and all individuals engaged in the industry on precisely the same footing. There is the fullest degree of competition amongst themselves, and more than that, from the Treasury point of view, if there is no result there will be no payment. The payment is given in proportion to the result achieved, and in proportion to nothing else, and I am perfectly certain if you went to any ordinary body of agricultural or business men and said to them:" Here are the two alternatives, one a system of doles, to be handed out at the will of a Government Department, and the other a system which will for the time give a preference to those engaged in developing this industry in the home country free to all, to be competed for by all," I do not believe that there is any sane man among them who would not say that the system recommended in this Amendment is the better system of the two. I am not myself sufficiently acquainted with this industry to urge that a grant should be allowed, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester has sufficiently shown, the growth of this tobacco industry is sufficient to justify us in saying that we ought to do everything we can, in the best way we can, to enable this industry to flourish, and possibly to flourish in England and Scotland too. But my interest in this question is based on other grounds than that which relates merely to the Tobacco Duty. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech made the statement, which I think was very instructive, that no industry

    1065
    of this kind can at first compete, because there are no experts to carry it out. That is perfectly true. In connection with his Budget the right hon. Gentleman has adopted as his principle, for which I give him all credit, a principle which he has put at the head of the Development Grant, that his object is in that way to develop the resources of our own country, and to get the most out of it. That applies to England as well as to Ireland, and it applies in a great many ways that the right hon. Gentleman does not consider now, but he will find that there are many methods by which it can be carried out of which he does not approve at present. However, once he embarks on that very dangerous ground, once he abandons what has been hitherto the root principle of Free Trade, once he abandons the principle laid down by Adam Smith, in words which I do not remember, though I recall their substance, that "as regards trade the less you have to do with those insidious and crafty animals called statement the better"—[Cheers]— understand that principle, but I do not understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer cheering it after proposing the Development Grant—then the two things do not go together, and all I want to say in this connection is this, that once you begin really try to develop your own resources you will find that there are many better and easier ways than the scheme of afforestation. There is one way, for instance, to which I cannot refer except as an illustration, namely, the development, in the way this Amendment proposes, of the beet sugar industry in this country, which would do infinitely more to get the people hack to the land and to keep them there than all the fancy proposals that are being submitted.
    Mr. HAROLD COX: As I understand the proposal made by hon. Members opposite, it is that the growers of tobacco in Ireland should be endowed with an extra 8d. per pound at the expense of the smoker and buyer of tobacco. It must be that, because the Irish Members all agree that this proposed addition to the tax is going to fall on Ireland, and clearly the added price of the tobacco would be the amount of the tax; and if they are going to raise the price of tobacco by the amount of the tax, then there is no injury whatever to the industry. I think that is obvious. Therefore Irish Members are asking for an extra subsidy of 8d. per lb., and I submit, therefore, that there is no grievance, and that they should not have the extra sub-
    1066
    sidy, even if it is to be paid only by the people who buy the tobacco. To their main argument it seems to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave almost too much sympathy. It was that this industry had been crushed out in 1831. But there is the much stronger argument—if you are giving a subsidy to people who are wanting to plant tobacco—that in England also the tobacco industry was crushed out two centuries earlier than it was crushed out in Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: "By your own Parliament."] But when this discussion took place it was your Parliament; you did us the honour to come here. It was in the seventeenth century, and again in the eighteenth century, that the industry was crushed out in this country by Act of Parliament, and that gave a practical meaning to Colonial preference; the industry was destroyed here solely to give a preference to the Colonies. If any one will examine the State documents at that time they will see a very interesting light thrown upon the way in which this preference was procured. The full facts are not revealed, but there are private letters which have since been published by an Agent of the Government, who wrote that somebody had brought pressure to bear on the Lord Protector and other highly placed persons, with the result that the forces of the Commonwealth had been used to destroy the national industry of tobacco growing in England. And there was actually a rebellion against this Act, and they had to employ the forces of the Commonwealth, with a great deal of bloodshed, in order to destroy tobacco growing in England. That was in the seventeenth century. Again in the eighteenth century a succession of Acts of Parliament were passed calling on the constables of the parish and the bailiffs to root up and destroy and wipe out tobacco planting. Therefore, after we have suffered this loss for centuries surely we, too, have a right to come to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and ask that he will subsidise tobacco industry in this country.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Why do not you dig up Oliver Cromwell's bones?
    Mr. HAROLD COX: I do not ask for any subsidy, and I think Ireland would be a wealthier country if she was less prone to ask for subsidies.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Humbug.
    Mr. COX: Hon. Gentlemen opposite also suggested that the Irish climate and

    1067
    Irish soil were nearly perfect for tobacco glowing. How is it, then, that it wants all this assistance? It has been started for several years, why is it not independent of the subsidy? The right hon. Gentleman opposite quoted some figures with reference to home-grown tobacco. I wish he had quoted more, for my impression is that the whole profit of the industry is derived from the Imperial Grant, and that this tobacco industry in Ireland, this brilliant Irish industry, has simply been spoon-fed by the right hon. Gentleman. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is Free Trade."] I do not think it is Free Trade; I am utterly opposed to it.
    Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: I am glad you are opposed to it, because it shows we are right.
    Mr. COX: It is quite easy to quote the amount of labour in the winter, in the spring, in the summer, and in autumn, and you can point to any industry if you only pour enough money into it from the Exchequer. I remember a foreigner describing to me a small colony in the East, where the soil and the climate were arid and unkindly. Then he showed me some photographs of some very beautiful public gardens at that place. I said: "You told me about the arid climate; how did they get such beautiful gardens there?" "Oh," he said, "you can make anything grow if you water it with British gold."
    Mr. W. REDMOND: Is it not our own money?
    Mr. COX: I am quite willing, on any occasion when in order, to meet the hon. Gentlemen opposite on the question of their own money. I contend that Ireland is under-taxed as compared with the rest of the Kingdom. The Irish pay no police rate and no education rate—fairly heavy items in this country. If there be any national grievance, it is we who have it, because our money is being used for purposes in Ireland for which it would not be used in England. I am rather sorry the hon. Gentleman's speech led to the conclusion that it is right that the Exchequer should encourage infant industries out of national money. I am still more surprised that he based his argument on the authority of John Stuart Mill. I thought that he and his Friends cheered me when I said the other day that the authority of Mill had been greatly overrated. I still think so. I think you will find that John Stuart Mill is almost the only economist of repu-
    1068
    tation who has put forward this doctrine of subsidising industries, I am reminded very much in regard to this infant industry theory of a story once told me by a gentleman who went to America and propounded that theory to the Americans. He said that there was something to be said on the subject of the protection of these infant industries, and that it was supported by John Stuart Mill. "But you Americans," he added, "you have been going on for a hundred years protecting your industries, and now you want more protection." The Yankee replied, "Well, I guess we can better afford to pay for it." It was a very impressive contrast in the utterance of the Member for Dulwich, which he made between subsidising industry out of the Exchequer and assisting it by means of a duty. The hon. Gentleman certainly made a very interesting comparison, and one would admit that there are certain advantages in the method he proposes. But what is the essential disadvantage? To my mind the conclusive objection to his method is that there is no limitation to the cost, whereas in the case of a subsidy there is a limitation. If you give, say, £5,000 a year, you know that is all there is to get. We shall hear presently, I hope, whether that is all. At any rate, it has some advantages, one being that you know exactly where you are. You know the extent to which you may make sacrifices for the purposes of local industry, and that seems to me a conclusive argument for a subsidy rather than a duty, if you are going to adopt that policy at all. Personally, I object to the whole thing, and I think it is utterly unwise from the point of view of the future development of the country. Let me take another industry. The motor industry in this country was killed largely by bad legislation, but since the removal of that bad legislation the motor industry did not come to Parliament asking for a subsidy; they did not ask for a protective duty, but by their own energy they have built up their industry and can compete with the foreigners to-day. I maintain that this is the only way in which a nation can compete industrially. I wish Irishmen would appreciate that as much as Englishmen do, and they would ultimately bring much more prosperity to their country, which depends for its future, not on subsidies which they can extract from the British Exchequer, but on the industry, intelligence, and enterprise of its own people.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston should have

    1069
    attacked his own Government, and not us. We are not his Government. He has been lecturing Ireland. We do not come here to be lectured; we come here to teach, and not to receive lessons from him. We come here to teach on the only subject we understand, namely, the affairs of our own country, and his Free Trade and Protection policies we believe to be both false. They are both concerned with taxation, and everything in connection with taxation, in my opinion, is a curse. Free Trade is a curse, Protection is a curse, and the notion that there is some sort of theory called Free Trade which is right, and some sort of theory called Protection which is wrong, is only worthy, in my opinion, of Gentleman of the mind of the hon. Member opposite. There is nothing either right or wrong about Protection; there is nothing either right or wrong about Free Trade. Whatever suits you is best. Now there is one thing that does not suit Ireland, and that is to be robbed, and there is one thing that does not suit Irishmen, and that is when they are robbed to come here and to be told by those who have stolen our till and who are keeping it for themselves, to be told when we ask for 4½d. that you cannot have 4½d., because it is against the principles of Free Trade. You are taking two millions out of us by this Budget, and what does my hon. Friend (Mr. William Redmond) ask? Is be asking on a question of principle? Nothing of the kind. He is only asking as a palliation against your rascality. I do not care whether the principle is right or wrong. He is trying to do something for Ireland, and that is good enough for me.
    What is this great business we have the great audacity to ask? By every engine this country could possess you destroyed our wretched country. You turned our perfumed garden into a blackened potato patch. You hunted our miserable people across the ocean, where they are your deadly enemies, where they are now allying themselves with the Germans against you in every city of the United States, and then when my hon. Friend (Mr. W. Redmond) tries to keep up some little industry at home he gives us chunks of John Stuart Mill every time we make a protest on this business. It is not a question with us of principle; it is trying to get back something of our own, and what do we find? You destroyed our Parliament. What was Ireland paying at that time? One million of money was the total amount of tax upon Ireland when you robbed us of our Parliament. What
    1070
    does it pay to-day? Under this Budget it will pay something like 13 millions of money, and yet the hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Harold Cox) tells us he will go upon a platform, I suppose before an Irish audience at Preston, and that he can convince us that it was we who had the advantage of this partnership. Yes, but where is the tribunal that is going to decide it? Is it a British jury will decide it, or is it this House that is going to decide it, where you are 600 to 80?
    Who is going to decide it? Will you have a Hague Tribunal on it? Will you refer it to any of the 48 States of America? Will you refer it to little Holland or little Belgium? Will you refer it to Spain or to Portugal? No, the gentlemen who will decide it, whether we are well treated or not, are gentlemen of the category of the Member for Preston. We are the judges whether we are well treated or not. We have to wear the shoe, and all we know is this, the proof of the pudding is in the eating of it. All we know is this, that after 109 years of connection with you, after 109 years of your splendid system, after 109 years of coming to this Parliament, the Irish to-day are more hostile, more disaffected, more determined against your rule than ever they were before. That is the system which the hon. Member for Preston asks us to be proud of, and asks us to accept. No, Sir. Why, take those two millions that you are extracting from us under this Budget. Capitalise it at 20 years' purchase, which would come to 40 millions, a sum which would buy up the whole of the Irish railways. If we got those two millions ourselves we could go on the market, and we could raise 40 millions of money to buy up the whole of the Irish railways. I suppose that would be against the principles of John Stuart Mill.
    Mr. HAROLD COX: You do not pay for your police and education.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Are we asking anything from England except to be let go? We will not only pay for our education, but we will pay for anything if you let us. But what do you do? You insist on bringing in this Budget, you insist upon taxing our country, you insist upon keeping the whole thing in your own hands. Take this Cabinet. Is there one man who is connected with this Cabinet who has any Irish interest? Is there any man connected with this Cabinet who has ever spent one month of his whole existence in Ireland? [An HON. MEMBER: "Morley."] Well, of course, we quite agree, the Irish

    1071
    Secretaries have to live in Ireland, but they do not seem to be very fond of it. Accordingly, all your system is settled and determined upon without the smallest reference to our country, and then the hon. Gentleman gets up and argues this as a question of high policy as between Free Trade and Protection. It is nothing of the kind. All we ask from you is this. You will not give us Home Rule. Give us control of our own finances. Give us liberty as in the Isle of Man, as in the Channel Islands. You call on them for nothing. Why should Ireland, which admittedly is the poorest of the three Kingdoms, be compelled to pay all these abominable imposts because you need Protection of your coasts against a foreign enemy? No foreign enemy is troubling us. There are no airships flying over Ireland. You have taken very good care that there is nothing for anybody to steal in Ireland.
    I think we are entitled to know after bringing in a Budget which admittedly will put on a large measure of taxation upon our country, are you going to give us something in exchange besides battleships, arsenals, dockyards, and soldiers? What are we going to get for it? [HON. MEMBLES: "Old age pensions."] Old age pensions. I thought we had those last year, because the Budget came in. [An HON. MEMBER: "Pay for them."] Supposing, when the right hon. Gentleman was bringing in the Old Age Pensions he offered us this suggestion—we will largely increase your taxation, and we will make you pay for the old age pensions. Do you think if we had known that we would have taken up the attitude which we did, and which, remember, was a very passive attitude. We said nothing on the subject. I suspected the Government. I never spoke on the question. I was amazed at the so-called generosity of England. I suspected something. Of course, you suspect Greeks when they are giving you presents. We did not ask for the system which you gave us, and now I put this before the Government to-day, when you propose to carry on this great fiscal system, do you not think it would be fair to give Ireland something in exchange for the large amount of money that you are going to get out of her?
    The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) said he is giving four thousand per year, and even when he is giving four thousand per year the hon. Member for Preston objects to the giving of that sum. Then in what way are we to be recompensed? I ask any
    1072
    English Member to consider this. Supposing we had two millions per year in Ireland, which this Budget will raise, to play with in an Irish Parliament or in an Irish Council or anywhere. What could we not do with it in the way of developing our harbours and helping our industries, instead of spending it in the funnel smoke of your cruisers, because that is what will happen to it. I did not intend to take part in this Debate, but though I do not certainly take much interest in the question of bounty or of subsidy, nor am I very attached to the principle, I cordially agree with my hon. Friend, not that I believe that this system of bounty is the best system that could be invented, but it is the only way that I see under this Budget by which we will be able to get back even an insignificant amount in consideration of the taxation you levy upon us.
    Mr. A. C. MORTON: Although I am always very pleased to support hon. Members from Ireland in any way I possibly can, I wish to refer on this occasion to the subject as it affects Scotland. The same wrong was committed against Scotland, and I hope, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the proper time comes, will be as willing to do justice to Scotland as he is now to do justice to Ireland. Previous to about 1780 tobacco growing was a flourishing trade in Scotland. That was before it was entirely prohibited under very heavy penalty, and so much was it a flourishing trade that Parliament allowed the growers a certain number of months to get rid of the large stocks they had in hand. I want the Government to remember there is a place called Scotland and that, although the passage of the little tobacco Bill was not opposed last year, still Scotland must not be forgotten. In the way of taxation they have more to complain of even than Ireland, and they do not get so much as Ireland does in many ways. When the time comes, therefore, for considering the question of tobacco growing in Scotland I hope we shall have equal justice compared to what is proposed for Ireland.
    I am in favour of Free Trade and against Protection, and, therefore, I sympathise with the Government when they say that they cannot lower the duty for any part of the United Kingdom. If the difficulty can be got over by a subsidy for a certain number of years for the encouragement of the growth of tobacco that may he more useful even than the reduction of duty as far as

    1073
    Ireland or Scotland is concerned. There is no doubt at all that the Government owe something to Ireland; but they also owe something to Scotland. I do not know how the Liberal Government could get on without Scotland at all, and I do not know how that Front Bench could be kept up without it. They may in the future have to depend more on Scotland than in the past. I ask them to bear that in mind when the question comes forward again with regard to the growth of tobacco in Scotland. It was once a flourishing industry, but it was killed out of existence There is no doubt at all that a great amount of labour has to be employed in the cultivation of tobacco; consequently in a country like this, with its unemployment, it might assist the people greatly to keep in the country instead of coming into the towns. Therefore the Government, especially a Liberal Government, should consider whether, for the sake of finding work for the unemployed, and keeping the people on the land, it should not do something to encourage an industry of this sort. I see no objection at all to the Government's giving a subsidy as proposed instead of reducing the duty, because it is notorious that all over the world, and especially in our own Colonies, that they have made it their duty to do something to assist the people to get on. In every Colony that I could mention the Government have always granted subsidies to give the people an opportunity of making a living and of bringing the land into cultivation. Especially in the Western States of America, the States Governments have always worked to give assistance to the people to cultivate the land and to get on. It is not for me at this moment to make any special proposal with regard to Scotland. But it must be borne in mind that. Scotland is the most important part of the United Kingdom. ["Of the world."] An hon. Member says the most important part of the world, and I am not sure that he is not right, because, go where you like, you will find that the Scotsman gets there.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member kindly confine himself to the question?
    Mr. MORTON: I beg your pardon. I was led into the digression. In the course of these discussions it cannot be said that I have attempted to occupy the time of the House unduly, and I am sorry to have got out of order. I wanted, however, to say a word for Scotland, and to tell the Government that Scotland must be
    1074
    thought of both in regard to the question of tobacco-growing and many other questions, so that justice may be done to all people alike.
    Mr. P. FFRENCH: I wish to support the protest against the increased taxation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to place upon Irish tobacco. The growing of tobacco in Ireland cannot be successful unless the small farmers are induced to take it up. That is what is happening in my Constituency, where the small farmers have taken up tobacco-growing, and made it a success. It is admitted even by Members of this House that good tobacco has been produced in Wexford. It will be in the recollection of the House that the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. W. Redmond) a year or two ago brought over some tobacco grown in Wexford, and it seemed to be admired by many hon. Members. The growing of tobacco was beginning to be looked upon in my Constituency as a godsend; there has been a great reduction of farmers' crops, and tobacco growing was looked upon as something to relieve them from the difficulties of low prices and increased expenditure. I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his proposal is regarded with feelings of dismay by my Constituents, and I would appeal to him, if he must put on this tax, at least to increase the subsidy.
    Mr J. D. REES: The hon. Member for North Louth (Mr. T. Healy) poured a great deal of scorn but very little argument on the devoted head of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Harold Cox). He poured seven vials of vitriolic criticism upon him, but he never met his logical arguments. It seemed to me that the hon. Member's mind was as mixed as his metaphors. We have heard, in the writings of the German fairy-tale teller, of soup on a sausage peg; but whoever heard before of pudding in a pinching shoe? My hon. Friend the Member for Preston is well able to take care of himself, but as he has already spoken I feel greatly moved to say a. word in his defence. The speech of the hon. Member for Louth seemed to be a mere statement that Ireland was to be placed upon an entirely different footing in regard to taxation and all other matters from any other part of the United Kingdom. That is a statement which might equally well be made in regard to any other part of the United Kingdom. Any Member for Wales might equally well

    1075
    get up and put forward a similar plea on behalf of the Principality. Ireland already gets a subsidy; now she asks for a preference. I can understand the policy of Imperial Preference. There is something large about that which is certainly entitled to the utmost respect; but what can be said for a principle of preference such as is now asked for for Ireland? Does the Channel separate Ireland from England? It simply provides a better road than can be found in any other part of the United Kingdom. It is traversed by innumerable ships. There is no greater barrier between Ireland and Great Britain than between England and Wales. I submit that the hon. Member for Louth offered no argument whatever to meet the arguments of my hon. Friend. The sea unites these islands and does not divide them.
    The right hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) also intervened in the Debate. I should surmise from internal evidence afforded by his speeches that the right hon. Gentleman himself is an Irishman— and for this reason, that on every occasion he is against the Government. Yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an indisputable statement with regard to the taxation on tea, showing how heavily it presses on the poorest of the poor, and the right hon. Member for Islington objected. To-day, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is preaching the undiluted doctrine of Free Trade, the right hon. Member for Islington objects to the policy of the Government, which I understand to be on this occasion, at any rate as far as half of it is concerned, in strict accordance with the principles of Free Trade. I never heard such an extraordinary argument put forward as that of the right hon. Gentleman to the effect that tobacco was a greater need to Irishmen than to Englishmen, because Englishmen eat more meat. He seriously contended that the more meat you ate the
    less need you had for tobacco. I could understand the exact contrary being argued, because it is the case that after a good meal of meat or any other animal food tobacco is grateful and comforting, whilst a vegetarian on his thinner diet hardly stands in need of that digestive luxury. But for the contention put forward I think there can be absolutely no reason of any kind suggested. I do not know whether it is supposed that in Russia and other countries where people eat more meat they smoke less. I should have said that the contrary might have been argued. For instance, take a country where you have vegetarians and meat-eating people side by side, like India, where you have Mahomedans and caste Hindus. The caste Hindu, at any rate, is not a meat-eater; the Mahomedan meat-eater, however, does not smoke less, but probably smokes more than the Hindu. If there is to be a preference for Ireland in respect of tobacco, why not for Wales in respect of beet cultivation and flannel? Absolutely every reason that can be argued on behalf of Ireland in this respect would be equally good in regard to Wales. I will not weary the House with any arguments based upon political economy, but I was rather astonished to hear the hon. Member for Preston, who recently disestablished and demolished Mill, bring his defeated friend into the argument to-day. Whilst I thought the hon. Member for Louth made a most violent attack on my hon. Friend, I most heartily agreed with him when he said that we do not want a logical system of either Free Trade or Protection, but that each country wants what is good for its own particular needs. I maintain that that is a good doctrine for England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland.
    Question put: "That '3s. 6d.' stand part of the Resolution."
    The House divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 131.

    Division No. 131.]

    AYES.

    [6.43 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Agnew, George William

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Bytes, William Pollard

    Alden, Percy

    Bennett, E. N.

    Cameron, Robert

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Carr. Gomm, H. W.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Betheil, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Betheil, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Chance, Frederick William

    Barker, Sir John

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Branch, James

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Barnard, E. B.

    Brigg. John

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Brodie, H. C.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Brooke, Stopford

    Cleland, J. W.

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Clough, William

    Beale, W. P.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Jackson, R. S.

    Richardson, A.

    Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)

    Jenkins, J.

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Cox, Harold

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Robinson, S.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Crossley, William J.

    Kekewich Sir George

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Curran Peter Francis

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Rose, Charles Day

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Rowlands, J.

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

    Lambert, George

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

    Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirrall)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

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

    Levy, Sir Maurice

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

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sears, J. E.

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Shackleton, David James

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Erskine, David C.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Essex, R. W.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Esslemont, George Birnie

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

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.)

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Maddison, Frederick

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Faber, G. H. (Boston)

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Steadman, W. C.

    Falconer, J.

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

    Findlay, Alexander

    Marnham, F. J.

    Summerbell, T.

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Gibson, J. P.

    Menzies, Walter

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    Gill, A. H.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Molteno. Percy Alport

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Glover, Thomas

    Mond, A.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Montgomery, H. G.

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Tomkinson, James

    Gulland, John W.

    Morrell, Philip

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Morse, L. L.

    Ure Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Villiars, Ernest Amherst

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

    Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.)

    Walton, Joseph

    Hart-Davies, T.

    Myer, Horatio

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Napier. T. B.

    Wardle, George J.

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

    Nicholls, George

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Harwood, George

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Weir, James Galloway

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Nuttall, Harry

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Partington, Oswald

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Paulton, lames Mellor

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

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

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Wiles, Thomas

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

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Pointer, J.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

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

    Hodge, John

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

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

    Holt, Richard Durning

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

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hooper, A. G.

    Radford, G. H.

    Winfrey, R.

    Hope. W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Horridge, Thomas Gardner

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Hudson, Walter

    Rees, J. D.

    Hyde, Clarendon G.

    Rendall. Athelstan

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    NOES.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

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

    Castlereagh, Viscount

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

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Cave, George

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Ashley, W. W.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Balcarres, Lord

    Burdett Coutts, W.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Clark, George Smith

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Clive, Percy Arthur

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H

    Clyde, J. Avon

    1078

    1079

    Clynes, J. R.

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antolm, E.)

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Pretyman, E. G.

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Handles, Sir John Scurrah

    Craik, Sir Henry

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Renwick, George

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon

    Law, Andrew Honor (Dulwich)

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lee. Arthur H. (Hants Farenham)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Faber, George Denison (York)

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

    Horner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

    Long. Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Rutherford, W. W (Liverpool)

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Lyttelton, Rt Hon. Alfred

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Fell, Arthur

    MacCaw, Wm, J. MacGeagh

    Sandys, Col. Thos. Myles

    Ffrench, Peter

    MacNeili, John Gordon Swift

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Seddon, J.

    Forster, Henry William

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Gardner, Ernest

    M'Arthur, Charles

    Starkey, John R.

    Ginnell, L.

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Staveley-Hill. Henry (Staffordshire)

    Gordon, J.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Mason. James F. (Windsor)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Gretton, John

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Mooney, J. J.

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Haddock, George B.

    Morrrson-Bell, Captain

    Valentia, Viscount

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Hazleton, Richard

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

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

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Nolan, Joseph

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Helmsley, Viscount

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George

    Hill, Sir Clement

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Younger, George

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Oddy, John James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Boland

    Hunt, Rowland

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Joyce, Michael.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Motion made and Question put: "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    The House divided: Ayes, 253, Noes, 128.

    Division No. 132.]

    AYES.

    [6.52 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Cheetham John Frederick

    Gibb, James, (Harrow)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Gill, A. H.

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John

    Agnew. George William

    Cleland, J. W.

    Glover, Thomas

    Alden, Percy

    Clough, William

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Collins, Sir Wm J. (St. Pancras, W.)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Cotton, Sir H. J S.

    Harcourt. Robert V. (Montrose)

    Barnard, E. B

    Cowan, W. H.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvill)

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Cox, Harold

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-sh.)

    Barran, Sir John Nicholson

    Craig. Herbert J. (Tynernouth)

    Hart-Davies. T.

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Crossley, William J.

    Harvey, A. G C. (Rochdale)

    Beale, W. P.

    Curran, Peter Francis

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

    Beauchamp, E

    Dalziel, Sir James Henry

    Harwood, George

    Beaumont, Hon. Hubert

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Bennett, E. N.

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Berridge, T H. D.

    Davies. Timothy (Fulham)

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford)

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Bowerman, C. W.

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

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

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Branch, James

    Duckworth. Sir James

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

    Brigg, John

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Brodie, H. C.

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Brooke, Stanford

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Hobart, Sir Robert

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Erskine, David C.

    Hodge, John

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Essex, R. W.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Byles, William Pollard

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Hooper, A. G.

    Cameron, Robert

    Evans, Sir S. T.

    Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Horridge, Thomas Gardner

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Faber, G. H. (Boston)

    Hudson, Walter

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Falconer, J.

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    Chance, Frederick W

    Fenwick, Charles

    Hyde, Clarendon G

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Findlay, Alexander

    Illingworth, Percy M.

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Napier, T. B.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Jackson, R. S.

    Nicholls, George

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Jenkins, J.

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Norton, Captain Cecil William

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Steadman, W. C.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Summerbell, T.

    Kearley, Sir Hudson E.

    Partington, Oswald

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury)

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Pointer, J.

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Lambert, George

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Tomkinson, James

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

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

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Radford, G. H.

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Lloyd George, Rt. Hon. David

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Walton, Joseph

    Luttrell Hugh Fownes

    Rees, J. D,

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Rendall, Atheistan

    Wardle, George J.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Richardson, A.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Weir, James Galloway

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    White, J Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

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

    Robinson, S.

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Maddison, Frederick

    Roch, Waiter F. (Pembroke)

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Wiles, Thomas

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Rose, Charles Day

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Marnham, F. J.

    Rowlands, J.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

    Menzles, Walter

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

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

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

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

    Mond, A.

    Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Montgomery, H. G.

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

    Winfrey, R.

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Sears, J. E.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Morrell, Philip

    Shackleton, David James

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and the Master of Eli-bank.

    Murray, James (Aberdeen. E.)

    Simon, John Allesbrook

    Myer, Horatio

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    NOES.

    Abraham, W. (Cork. N.E.)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott-

    Kennedy, Vincent Paul

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

    Kerry, Earl of

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Ashley, W. W.

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Balcarres, Lord

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

    Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Fell, Arthur

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

    Baring, Capt. Hon. G. (Winchester)

    Ffrench, Peter

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

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

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Forster, Henry William

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Gardner, Ernest

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Boland, John

    Ginnell, L.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Gordon, J.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    M'Arthur, Charles

    Butcher, Samuel Henry

    Gretton, John

    M'Calmont, Col. James

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Haddock, George B.

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Cave, George

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Harrison-Broadley, M. B.

    Mooney, J. J.

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Clark, George Smith

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Nannettl, Joseph P.

    Clive, Percy Archer

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Newdegate, F. A. N.

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Hill, Sir Clement

    Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

    Clynes, J. R.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E.

    Hunt, Rowland

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Cralk, Sir Henry

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

    Oddy, John James

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    1082

    1083

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Walker, Col W. H.(Lancashire)

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

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

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Sandys, Col. Thos. Myles

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

    Pretyman, E. G

    Seddon, J.

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Redmond, William(Clare)

    Starkey, John R.

    Younger, George

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Renwick, George

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    TELLER FOR THE NOES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia

    Robert, S. (Sheffield, Eccleasall)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichoster)

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Robert

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Order read for further consideration of Resolution.

    MOTOR SPIRIT.
    5. "That there shall be charged on motor spirit on and after the thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, a Customs import duty of threepence per gallon, and on and after the first day of June, nineteen hundred and nine, an Excise duty of the like amount; and that there shall be charged, on and after the last-mentioned date, on a licence to be taken out annually by a manufacturer of motor spirit, an Excise duty of one pound, and on a licence to be taken out annually by a dealer in motor spirit an Excise duty of five shillings."—[Mr. Lloyd-George.]
    Resolution read a second time.
    Motion made and Question proposed: "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSmoved to add at the end of the Resolution: "Provided that a rebate of the amount of such duty shall be allowed in respect of all motor spirit used in public service and commercial vehicles and in all arts and manufactures." Various parts of the Budget show exactly the political lines upon which the right hon. Gentleman is going in the development of his scheme of taxation, and the duty upon petrol proposed in this Resolution is one which politically seems to me to be bad in principle. The right hon. Gentleman has chosen one article to place an import duty upon that will have an effect upon more growing trades than any other. If he had specially looked out for such an article he could not have been more successful. In a great many kinds of trade petrol is now used. I quite agree in speaking of taxation on petrol that from the tone of the Debate in the House last week with regard to the taxation of pleasure motor cars, I cannot expect much sympathy in reference to any tax with regard to such cars, but it must be remembered that petrol is used in other things
    1084
    and quite apart from motors or for propulsion. It is used for the making of paints and varnishes, dry cleaning, solvent for indiarubber, illuminating, gas, removing, extracting fats, and so forth, and various other commercial purposes. The right hon. Gentleman has told us, in reply to questions, that he does not propose to place a tax of 3d. on petrol used in arts or commerce apart from that used in propulsion, but such rebates are not included in the Resolution before the House. The whole Question, so far as arts is concerned, is mixed up with the very serious question of the trouble that will be forced upon manufacturers, and that will be given in commerce with regard to the question of rebates which these manufacturers who are now in the habit of using petrol will have to go to before they get their petrol; duty free. I submit, in the first place, that; it is exceedingly unwise to put a tax upon what, is absolutely a raw material. The right hon. Gentleman has challenged us in the course of this Debate as to how we should raise this taxation, and it is suggested that we should be forced to put a tax on the raw food of the people. We on this side do not admit in any sense or way that that is a definition of a Tariff Reform Budget. The right hon. Gentleman has selected for the purpose of this tax an article which is in no sense, or certainly is only in a very limited sense, a manufactured article. It cannot be used when it enters this country except as raw material for propulsion or manufacturing purposes. The Excise which the right hon. Gentleman proposes would be exceedingly difficult. I understand that petrol is produced from coke. It is produced not in many instances in England. It is a by-product of the manufacture of coke. It is increasingly used, but the right hon. Gentleman will have to establish a system of Excise officers all over the country in order to examine into and catch the manufacturers of minute amounts of petrol. Very large expenses will be incurred by the taxpayers in connection with this Excise precaution.

    1085
    In addition to the 3d. tax, it is already known the importers are putting on ld., and manufacturers and other users of petrol will have to pay more than the tax produces to the Exchequer. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman agreed that it was unwise to raise by any import duty or any fiscal duty more money than is necessary to go into the Exchequer. I took the trouble to refer the other day to the founder of the Free Trade doctrine, Mr. Adam Smith, and he lays down as one of his four canons that every tax should be contrived so as to take out of the pockets of the people as little as possible more than was absolutely necessary for the purposes of the Exchequer. It is clear to-day that more will be charged for petrol as a result of this new tax than the Exchequer will get. I do not propose to discuss the question of pleasure motors. I agree that the Debate in the House the other night showed a pretty strong feeling that pleasure motor cars Should be more largely taxed than they have been, and all the objection I propose to raise is not so much with regard to the taxation of motor cars but to the taxation of petrol which is used for used other purposes than for pleasure motor At the same time, I cannot help feeling that the taxation on petrol, in addition to the taxation on motor cars, will undoubtedly tend to restrict output, and, therefore, to limit the construction of pleasure motor cars in that way, and then I think also we shall have another effect of this taxation upon petrol, namely, we shall have carburreters made for the purpose of using a heavier and cruder spirit. That will involve heavier and more disagreeable smells in the streets. Perhaps that does not count for a great deal, but it must be admitted that motor cars have improved in the last few years, and have become much less disagreeable from smells than before, and that it was due to the increasing use of petrol, and it is almost a certainty that carburetters will be discovered which will enable the use of stronger and heavier spirit. We have been asked many times in the course of these Debates to suggest an alternative tax. Well, there is an alternative tax which, without any desire to lead to the Debate on fiscal lines, I would like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman. That is a tax of 10 per cent. on all imported foreign cars and accessories, which would produce fully as much as can produced by this tax on petrol. Why should not the right hon. Gentleman, I will not say stretch his Free Trade conscience a little further, but
    1086
    why should he not place this tax upon foreign motor cars?
    We have been accused in the last three weeks of suggesting no alternative taxation on luxuries, but foreign motor cars are undoubtedly luxuries, and stand on the same basis as champagne or any other extreme luxuries, and, instead of placing a tax on locomotives and upon commerce, if the right hon. Gentleman would depart — even by a little degree— from his Free-Trade conscience, and place a tax of 10 per cent. on foreign motor cars and accessories, he would get a sum of money quite as large as that which he will get from his proposed taxation of petrol. At all events, instead of restricting the manufacture of English cars, as the tax on petrol will, this tax would tend to restrict importation of foreign cars and tend to increase the employment of English working men in this country in making English cars. I was much struck by the speech delivered last week by an hon. Member for one of the divisions of Glasgow, speaking in opposition to the tax on motor cars. He told us this was a highly organised trade, a highly specialised industry, employing an increasing number of mechanics and the very highest form of labour, and it is undoubtedly a pity that the right hon. Gentleman should place any kind of taxation that would tend to destroy the amount of labour which is being engaged in the production of high-class motor cars. I have taken some trouble to ascertain that, and I found, with the assistance of one of the editors of a motor car paper, that the enormous amount of labour that goes to the making of a motor car— I do not mean the labour that is employed in the rough work such as the production of the iron or wood, but I mean in the building of the car— a man who buys a £ 250 motor car keeps one second-class mechanic going and pays his whole wages for a year; a man who buys a £ 300 car keeps one first-class mechanic going and pays his wages for a year; and a man who buys a £ 500 car provides full employment for one first-class and one second-class mechanic for a whole twelve months.
    I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he ought to do something to increase the employment of these first and second-class mechanics instead of placing a taxation upon motor cars, which will undoubtedly have a tendency to decrease the use of such motor cars in the future and to decrease the manufacture of motor cars in this country. But the principal point

    1087
    I wanted to raise upon this Resolution is with regard to commercial spirit. This taxation will undoubtedly be a serious tax upon the commercial enterprise of this country. Again, I got the aid of an editor of a motor car journal, and with him investigated the additional cost which the different forms of commercial vehicles will have placed upon them by the right hon. Gentleman's taxation, even with the rebate of 1½d A motor cab running an average of 60 miles a day would cost nearly £ 6 more per annum in petrol. Whether that extra cost comes from the driver's pocket or the proprietor's I am not now going to discuss. A motor' bus— and I shall have more to say in a few minutes about motor' buses— running an average of 112 miles a day will actually cost £ 50 per year more owing to the tax upon petrol. A motor van, of course, uses a very heavy amount of petrol and the cost on such a vehicle will be 3d. per mile extra. A 1-ton motor van running 66 miles a day will cost £ 9 12s. more per year; a 2-ton van running 60 miles will cost£ 11 5s. more per year; a 3-ton van running 50 miles will cost £ 15 7s. a year extra owing to the taxation of the right hon. Gentleman. Now, obviously, motor vans and wagons are only used because they are economic, either in the saving of time or in the saving of money. People do not buy expensive machines like this purely for the purpose of pleasure. They are used by our manufacturers and shopkeepers either because they are cheaper from the point of view of labour and time or of money. There is a very grave fear that the Liberal Government are placing a tax directly upon the Commerce of the country by putting a tax upon petrol. The use of Motor vans is increasing, and as it increases so the tax placed on commerce will increase. I want to see the roads of our country used more than they are. The other night in Debate it was rather suggested that motor cars should pay more in proportion for the use of the roads but that is not my idea in regard to the roads of a great commercial country like England. My idea is the more the roads are used the better it is for the commerce of the country. From various causes the use of Canals has died out very largely, and we have now a finer system of roads than any country in Europe. I do not say they are better built, but they are more in proportion than the roads of France or Germany. In a very remarkable article in the
    1088
    "Times" this morning it was stated that there are 150,000 miles of roads in England and Wales, and that in England, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland there are 37,000 miles- of main roads, all of which are to-day open free to any commercial man or any manufacturer who likes to send his goods by petrol wagons rather than by canal or railway. I speak from my own absolute knowledge when I say that there are certain articles which no railway in England can take which are manufactured in Great Britain— I refer to those huge boilers manufactured in the Midlands, which are increasingly growing in size owing to the needs of electric lighting stations. They are so large that our railways are unable to take them because. they cannot get them under certain bridges. The time is coming when far more use will be made of the roads of our country by petrol vans. I have an extraordinary series of figures from one of our great London firms — Shoolbred's — who have a fleet of motor vans, and last year it was calculated that they saved on each van as against horse traction £ 85 a year. This represents to them a saving of £3,000 a year.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Hear, hear.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman seems pleased at. that. He seems pleased that a firm have been energetic and enterprising enough to develop a new system of traction and commerce, and because they have effected an economy the right hon. Gentleman must jump down upon them and take a portion of the profit they have made by their industry. That is not my idea of taxation. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be pleased at any commercial enterprise which develops economy in traction, and incidentally uses the roads which I always thought were constructed for, and intended for the benefit of, all the people in this country.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: We are going to spend it on the roads.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman says he is going to spend it on the roads, but what benefit does a Shoolbred van, or a motor omnibus, in London get out of this fund. The proposals have heard in regard to the allocation of this money are to make tar roads, construct loops round villages, to round off corners, and hedges, but those are not in London, but in the distant parts of the

    1089
    country. This petrol tax is going to fall almost entirely upon the commercial undertakings who use petrol vehicles in our towns, where they will not benefit by the allocation of this fund. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Why not?"] I have not heard any suggestion that the improvement of London roads is going to be paid for out of this fund. I venture to suggest that in towns the motor vehicle, shorn of its rubber tyres, does an infinitesimal amount of harm to the streets of London. [Cries of "Oh, oh."] I should like to ask any hon. Member opposite if he can prove that a motor omnibus— which appears to be the most unpopular vehicle to Members of this House, although it is not unpopular outside — shorn of its rubber tyres and running on asphalte and wooden pavements, does in any degree the same amount of harm to the streets of London as would be done by a similar number of vehicles carrying a smaller number of passengers shod, by iron tyres and drawn by horses The Chancellor of the Exchequer on previous occasions has gone to Germany for his advice. Is he aware that Germany, far from placing a tax on petrol and hampering the commercial industry in petrol vehicles, is actually paying a large subsidy for the manufacture of petrol vehicles, and Germany is paying a subsidy of £ 50 for petrol wagons registered for military purposes in time of need. The right hon. Gentleman ought to consult his colleague at the War Office, and instead of placing a penalty on petrol vehicles he should try and induce the Government to pay a premium to encourage them to provide means of locomotion which would prove exceedingly useful on the approach of the invader on the Eastern side of our country.
    What is the Chancellor of the Exchequer going to get out of this petrol tax, even for the roads? I supplied him with same figures, which I think overstated the case, but I want to give him the benefit of the largest amount of petrol used in commercial vehicles, and I suggested 12,000,000 gallons. The best information I can obtain places the amount at the outside at 10,250,000 gallons used every year in commercial vehicles. He is taxing petrol per gallon and not per ton, and a tax of one halfpenny per gallon amounts to 30s. or 35s. a ton on fuel used in commerce. How would hon. Gentlemen opposite like 30s. a ton placed upon the coal used on our railways, and in commerce of various sorts, and used by our steam motor traffic. That is the nature of
    1090
    the tax which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is imposing on commerce, and what will it produce? At the outset not more than £ 50,000 or £ 55,000, and that is putting it as high as I possibly can. This means that one single firm or company will have to pay £ 37,000 at least.
    Here I should like to make it perfectly clear that in saying a word on behalf of the motor omnibuses of London I am speaking of a matter in which I am personally interested. I would not say a word to lead hon. Members to think I was not speaking without some knowledge or without some interest. I have shares in them, and I have been the professional adviser to the London omnibus companies. The motor omnibuses of London, much as they are disliked by hon. Members of this House, are not disliked by working men. The motor omnibuses of London carry 4,000,000 people every year, and they enable those people to have more time at home with their families, more time for recreation, and they are able to get away from the congested parts of London. It does not look as if they were so very unpopular. I am glad that in this matter I am not met with the same hostility as I was in the case of motor cars. Motor omnibuses pay a tax of £ 6 18s. for the first year, and for succeeding years £ 5 18s., but the position of motor omnibus companies will-be rendered exceedingly difficult if this tax passes in its present form. For some years past motor omnibuses have been making heavy losses, owing to the insensate competition between the different companies, but that has now ceased, and I am in a position to say that at the present moment the combination is making progress. The losses have ceased by vigorous economy and adaptation which could only be made by amalgamation. At the present time no profits are being made.
    How, then, can this industry stand a tax of £ 37,500 a year, which will increase as the number of petrol motors grow? Is it fair to put a tax of £ 37,000 out of a possible total of £ 50,000 upon one commercial company which caters for all these millions of people, and which employs 15,000 workmen? I am speaking not merely on behalf of the shareholders but also on behalf of 15,000 workpeople who are employed by this company, because there is a very grave possibility, if this tax is insisted upon, that the companies will close their doors. I am told by the directors that it

    1091
    is impossible to raise their fares in competition with the tube railways and the London County Council tramways. I am not saying anything against the tramway system, which has the purse of the ratepayers behind it, but in view of these facts it is impossible to raise omnibus fares. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says he does not want to injure any trade, or inflict any hardship upon any individual, but in this case he will more than injure, because he will go very near destroying this particular industry, and inflict a hardship upon the individuals who are carrying on this trade if he persists in this tax.
    There are other questions affecting doctors' motor cars and those belonging to veterinary surgeons, but I will leave them to other speakers. This is not a political question, and I do not put it forward as such. It is simply a question whether the right hon. Gentleman is really wise in seeking to raise such a flea-bite as £ 50,000 by a tax upon the commerce of this country, more particularly when £ 37,000 of that sum comes from one particular firm. It is a tax on raw material, on locomotion, and upon a growing industry, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to be merciful on these occasions. So far he has not given us any concession in his Budget, but I hope he will be able to say that so far as commercial vehicles are concerned some relief should be given to an industry which has done so much not only for London, but for the community at large.
    Mr. JAMES F. MASON: I beg to second the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend. It does appear to me that there are very special objections to a tax on petrol. To begin with, Mr. Speaker, there is a car which does more damage to the roads than the motor car, but it will not come under this taxation, and that is the steam car.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he is not now discussing the Resolution. He is not entitled to discuss the tax as a whole.
    Mr. MASON: I will come to the Amendment. The tax deals with petrol, and has reference not only to public service, but also to the use of petrol in manufactures. My hon. Friend has referred to the hardship which this taxation must necessarily inflict on persons when petrol is used in manufactures. I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will meet our objections by a rebate on petrol when used
    1092
    in other ways than those which he contemplated, but it is quite obvious that in many cases a rebate will be open to the greatest objection. Now, Sir, the users of petrol who are included in the Amendment relate to the commercial motor cars, and especially to omnibuses. My hon. Friend stated that he was interested in an omnibus company, and I may say that I am personally interested in tube railways, but at the same time I should be sorry indeed to see an industry like that of motor omnibuses hampered by a tax of this kind. I understand that the petrol used by motor omnibus companies and by cabs and other motor vehicles will be subject to a rebate of one-half of the tax. I have seen that stated, but I do not know whether it is true.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I stated that in my Budget speech.
    Mr. MASON: Then I understand that there will be a rebate of one-half— that is to say, 1½ d. a gallon, instead of 3d— but it must be borne in mind that the petrol used by the companies is bought on different terms from the petrol bought by private individuals. I believe that the wholesale price of the petrol used by the omnibus companies is 5½ d., but taking the petrol used by a private individual at Is., the increase would be 25 per cent., instead of 27 per cent. The difference between the petrol used by the omnibus companies and commercial vehicles and by private individuals is not favourable to commercial cars. I understand that the object of the right hon. Gentleman in proposing this taxation on cars is that it should bear some proportion to the damage done to the roads. With all that I quite agree, but I venture to think that he would better attain his object if he taxed the tyre instead of the petrol. The wear and tear of tyres does bear a direct ratio to pace, and pace bears a direct ratio to the damage done to the road. A tax on petrol is, therefore, not the best way to attain the object which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in view. So far as the Amendment goes I do not hesitate to say that the proposal to allow a recovery of half of the tax will operate somewhat unfavourably on the use of commercial cars, which have a just claim to that rebate.
    Amendment proposed at the end to add: "Provided that a rebate of the amount of such duty shall be allowed in respect of all motor spirit used in public service and commercial vehicles, and in all arts and manufactures."
    Question pat: "That those words be added."
    Mr. RENWICK: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, when he conceived the idea of putting a tax on motor cars and motor vehicles did not realise what the result would be. The result is likely to be— and I have consulted practical men on the subject— that vehicles such as steam cars will be built, as well as vehicles which use coal, and which are more injurious to the roads than motor cars with indiarubber tyres. The hon. Gentleman suggests that a tax should be put upon tyres, but the cars to which I refer have no tyres, and they do an enormous amount of injury to the roads. When the right hon. Gentleman introduced the Budget he said, with reference to this tax, that he proposed to put a tax of 3d. per gallon, but that there would be a rebate of one half. He also said that the amount of petrol used for other purposes was comparatively small. I think that he has not given sufficient consideration to this important matter. So far from petrol and its products being used to a small extent their use is of a very considerable character, and the tax is causing a large amount of unrest in maim facturing circles. It will have the effect of putting money into the pocket of those who direct trusts. It is an extraordinary thing that in all the three principal Resolutions which we have been discussing during the last two nights— that is to say, the Resolution affecting tobacco, spirits, and petrol— this tax will probably put a large amount of money into the hands of people already wealthy.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Caldwell): This has no special reference to the matters in the Amendment, but relates to the general question of the tax.
    Mr. RENWICK: May I point out that the Amendment at the end refers to all commercial vehicles and to spirits used in manufactures?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member was referring to the general propriety of the tax rather than the specific Amendment under discussion.
    Mr. RENWICK: I was referring to the tax as it would affect particular articles used in commerce, but I will try, as far as possible, to keep within your ruling. I want to call particular attention to what the right hon. Gentleman said in his Budget speech with regard to a rebate. He distinctly told us that there would be
    1094
    a rebate for all petrol used for commercial purposes, but there is nothing in the Resolution with regard to that rebate. I should like to call attention to a circular issued by a large firm. It distinctly bears out the statement that some firms are taking advantage of this tax to collect from those who use motor spirits something to which they are not entitled, and to which the right hon. Gentleman did not refer when he introduced his Budget. In another circular it is stated, "As you are already aware the Government propose a tax of 3d. a gallon on petroleum, naphtha, and petrol." Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean to include all those? If he does, his proposal will have a more far reaching effect than he ever anticipated.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: These remarks would be more appropriate after the Amendment is disposed of and the main Question is set up.
    Mr. RENWICK: I will conclude with the remark which I rose to make, by asking the right hon. Gentleman carefully to consider the effect which this tax will have. Manufacturers of commercial vehicles are already turning their attention to vehicles other than motor vehicles. The mover of the Amendment said that different sorts of spirits will be used for vehicles, and I maintain that the tax proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a great mistake, and that it will defeat the object which he has in view. It will have the effect of doing away with rubber tyres and substituting for vehicles which use rubber tyres vehicles that do not use them, such as traction engines. I do sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman, before he finally commits himself to it, will give this particular view of the subject his most careful consideration, because I venture to say that the object he has in view is praiseworthy, for he wants, if possible, to reimburse the road authority for the damage done.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order. That is not the Amendment.
    Mr. RENWICK: T will conclude by saying that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give particular attention to the remarks which I have made.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I thought I detected some little difference of opinion between the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment as to the method on which each thought that the tax upon motors and motor vehicles should be applied. As I

    1095
    understood the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, his view was that it would be much better to put a direct tax upon the foreign motor cars and motor vehicles of all sorts, whereas the hon. Gentleman who seconded took particular care to point out he was not himself opposed to attaining the object aimed at by means of indirect taxation. Dealing with the argument advanced by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, I should like to point out with regard to the proposed tax on foreign motor cars, that he would be losing revenue by the proposal both immediately and in the future, because he would be taxing a declining trade. It must be a matter of satisfaction to hon. Gentlemen to know that the value of motor cars imported into this country is annually declining, and that the trade, which in 1906 was worth about 4½ millions sterling, is to-day worth barely 4 millions. A 10 per cent. revenue derived from that source would therefore diminish year by year, and remembering the objects to which the proceeds of this tax are to be applied, it must be remembered that if there is a 10 per cent. duty applied to this particular trade, and these vehicles do not come into the country, the roads which are to benefit by the tax will do so by a less proportion to the extent of the difference between the amount realised under the method suggested by the hon. Gentleman and that realised under the proposals of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. HARMOOD-BANNER: On the point of order I wish to ask if this discussion is on the Amendment or on the general Question?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is on the Amendment.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I only referred to this point because the hon. Member in his opening remarks dealt with it, and I thought it only just to him that I should point out what I thought were the difficulties attending his proposal. But, coming to the tax which my right hon. Friend proposes to apply to commercial vehicles, he pointed out that the London General Omnibus Company— with whose affairs he has a more particular acquaintance than any other Member of this House— he pointed out that this company, which carries four hundred millions of passengers every year, would have to pay £ 37,000 extra duty by reason of this additional taxation unless his proposal for a rebate were adopted. I wonder whether he has taken the trouble
    1096
    to apply the other point of view, and whether he is aware that it will cost each traveller carried by the Motor Omnibus Company one-fifth of a penny per year to meet a tax which, he says, is going to. make that great company close its doors and to push thousands of people out of employment? I do not think that if one-fifth of a penny were added to the fares paid annually by each of the persons carried by this company they would ever grumble at the tax, nor would the omnibus company find it impossible to add that sum to the amount they collect.
    The hon. Gentleman who seconded this Amendment applied himself more particularly to the question which the Amendment raised, and he undoubtedly pointed out what were the difficulties in connection, with the distribution of the rebate upon the tax. Everybody who is acquainted with this subject knows that the word "petrol" or motor spirit covers a large number of articles, such as gasolene, benzoline, motor spirit, benzine, and so on. Undoubtedly there will be at first some difficulty in actually defining what motor spirit is in such a way as to include within the limits of the definition all possible substitutes for, or adjuncts to, that particular kind of spirit. But then that is a difficulty which has arisen in a. great many other trades and in other branches of commerce which are subject to Customs duties. The ingenuity of the importer is always at work to avoid, where he possibly can legitimately do so, the efforts of the Customs officer to bring him within the net of the duty. It is his business, if he can, to avoid that, hut at the same. time it is the business of the Customs officer to see that evasion is impossible. I do not anticipate for a single moment that there will be any greater difficulty in dealing with petrol spirit than there now is in dealing with dozens or even hundreds of other articles which in every country but our own are subject, with the approval of hon. and right hon.. Gentlemen opposite, to Customs' duties.. There is, I think, only just one other point which I need notice in passing, and that is the allusion which was made by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment to the fact that one of the great London companies— Shoolbred's— will have to pay no less than £ 85 per year on every motor-driven vehicle as against the same vehicle. conveyed by horse traffic.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Not the same vehicle, but on the same amount of traffic conveyed by horse carriage.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I understand that every motor vehicle this firm employs saves them £ 85 a year in the carriage of goods. The vehicles which they employ in this motor traffic are of a particularly large, heavy and destructive character. They are nearly all employed, as I gather, in taking traffic out of London over country roads. Are these vehicles not to contribute anything to the maintenance of the roads over which they pass? Are they to contribute nothing to the expenses of the parishes and the unions through which they pass, and whose expenditure, as I have often seen in my own particular part of the country, they quadruple? Are they not to contribute to the increased cost imposed on the locality by the destruction of the excellent roads the locality provides for them? The hon. Gentleman went on to say, "Why do not you tax railways? "But is he aware that at the present moment, towards the upkeep of the roads over which the motor vehicle passes scot free, the railways contribute nearly one-half? It is the railway companies who are complaining that their contribution to local expenditure is enormously over-assessed, and greatly out of proportion to the nett revenue which they enjoy. It is not the railways which escape taxation for the purpose of locomotion; at the present moment they provide locomotion for persons who employ motor vehicles of a very heavy character, at very great expense to themselves. I think my right hon. Friend, in adjusting an inequality very detrimental to the railway companies, is doing not only a right but a fair thing. The Motion proposes that "a rebate of the amount of such duty shall be allowed in respect of all motor spirits used in public service and commercial vehicles, and in all arts and manufactures." I have endeavoured to deal with the case of the rebate on motor spirits so far as regards commercial vehicles, but I confess I do not understand what my hon. Friend means by a rebate in the case of public service vehicles.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: "Public service vehicles" is the technical description of cabs and omnibuses.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I see. There is no doubt that the public companies which are engaged in the duty of placing cabs on the London streets have taken great advantage of the drivers of those vehicles by laying upon them the cost of this taxation, they have escaped the burden themselves by charging upon the drivers on the petrol
    1098
    used by them, a sum corresponding to the amount of the duty which they are supposed to have paid, but which they have not in fact paid at all. So far as this particular tax is concerned, it is not the company, it is the individual employed by the company who is affected by this tax. It is the servant and not the master who at the present moment, as I think, is unfortunately paying this tax. At this moment there is no person, I think, employed in the service of these public service car companies who need have paid one single penny duty on the petrol imported into this country. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment used a very curious argument. He said it was a grievance that the kind of petrol used in public service cars and commercial vehicles generally was much cheaper than that used in motor cars for pleasure, and that the rebate on it, being only 1½ bore a much higher relation to the value of petrol than was the case with petrol used in pleasure cars, therefore the person paying the tax had a much greater grievance than the person who paid 3d. on petrol which cost ls. Id., or whatever the figure may be. I confess I do not see that grievance. No doubt the proportion is much higher, but the sum paid at the same time is much less, as a matter of fact, than would have to be paid on any other motor vehicle, and it would be better judged by the total sum paid than by the ratio one bears to the other. It is confessed, I think, that this tax is to go to the benefit of the roads, and it is not unjust that it should he laid upon those who use the roads. It is not unjust, moreover, in the case of commercial vehicles, that a rebate should be made, because, after all, these are employed not in pleasure but in commerce, but looking at the incidence of the tax, whether as to the capacity of the person who owns the pleasure car or the amount of traffic propelled by motors generally, I do not think this tax is unjust or inconvenient to the public at large.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman has made a speech, as he always does, which must have interested everybody who followed it; but I cannot say that he has answered the points which my hon. Friend has laid before the House. The hon. Gentleman and the Government know that when this tax was first mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech, I by no means took

    1099
    up a hostile attitude to it. I and my hon. Friends on this side of the House, on the first blush, were rather inclined to approve of the tax, provided that it went to the, upkeep of the road, and we did not divide against the Resolution when it was moved in Committee on the first night of the Budget Debate. But I confess the short discussion which we have already had has given me a good deal of cause for reflection, and whilst I reserve for the general discussion my opinion on the tax generally, I do wish to make some observations on what is strictly the subject of the Amendment, the position in which this tax will be, in regard to vehicles used for commercial purposes, or what are called public services, such as omnibuses and cabs. But, before I do that, I must note one or two curious statements made by the hon. Gentleman in defiance of all that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing in this Budget. He gave it as a conclusive reason, against the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), that he might get the money by taxing imported foreign cars, that he said, it would be to levy a charge upon a declining trade. Why, the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not hesitate to levy a charge upon a declining trade.
    Mr. HOBHOUSEdissented.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Gentleman said it would be taxing a declining trade.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I objected that it was a declining trade, but I also pointed out that it would not do what the Chancellor of the Exchequer required.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has a remedy for that. He claps on a higher duty still. He is not troubled by that. He only says if one sum will not do double it, and, if that will not do, quadruple it, and that is the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget. I only note that to show how inconsistent Ministers are, and how the arguments by which they defend one tax are inconsistent with the proposals which they make in regard to other parts of the Budget. Take another observation of the hon. Gentleman's referring to what my hon. Friend has said as to the cost of this tax to one great London company, meaning the London General Omnibus Company. He says it only works out at one-fifth of a penny per passenger per year, and he
    1100
    asked: "Is it impossible for the company to recover that one-fifth of a penny from that passenger?" I must really leave the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain how a halfpenny is the least practical amount that we have in regard to the imposition of duties, and how it is bad finance to put a charge upon somebody which they can get out of the consumer unless you take out enough to justify them in increasing their charge by a halfpenny. It is mocking the company, whose present misery has been described by my hon. Friend, to suggest that they can recover these taxes in that sort of way from their passengers. The last general observation I have to make is as to a canon of finance laid down by the hon. Gentleman, which I confess, amazed me, and as to which I should like to ask whether he is prepared to apply it to other taxes as well. He told us that the argument used on this side of the House that the half tax proposed by the Government for the spirit consumed in commercial vehicles and omnibuses was a heavier percentum in a case of that sort than the heavier tax on motor cars used in pleasure was wrong That seemed to him to be a very wrong way of looking at the matter, and he said that one considered not the percentage of the tax, but the cost of the article— the total cost, plus tax to the consumer— and with that observation he waved aside my hon. Friend's criticism. Apply that illustration to the Tea Duty. Certain tea is sold tax free at, say, 6d. a pound. Other tea costs, tax free, perhaps, 2s. a pound. Does the hon. Gentleman really mean that you are to look at the total cost to the consumer of the tax, plus tea, and have no regard to the proportion of tax. If you put a tax of 6d. on 2s. tea and a 2s. tax on 6d. tea, then, according to the hon. Gentleman's canon, good finance would be amply satisfied. Hitherto everybody is ready. both critics and defenders of the Tea Duty. to acknowledge that it was a disadvantage that it did have that effect, the taxing of a cheap article out of all proportion to a dear one, because you could not make an ad valorem tax. But that has always been recognised as an evil, inherent to the duty.Now the hon. Gentleman looks upon it as a virtue.
    So much I will say about the hon. Gentleman's general observations, and now I want to come to the remarks which he addressed to the Amendment itself. It is, in the first place, a direct tax on industry, and many manufacturers interested in the

    1101
    production of motor vehicles are afraid that you may check the growth of that manufacturing industry; but, apart from that, you are taxing the industry as a whole, and you are taxing locomotion. Hitherto the House has rather boasted that it has steered clear of taxes on locomotion in our desire to facilitate the transfer of products about the country as freely as possible. Now the Government say that those products are carried over the roads and must contribute to the upkeep and the cost of the roads, but their proposal is that only a particular class of motor traffic shall contribute to the cost of upkeep, and I want to know how they justify that distinction? It was put by my hon. Friend, but it was not even referred to by the Financial Secretary. What is the answer of the hon. Gentleman, and what is his justification in fact, or in logic, for distinguishing between a motor van which uses petrol, or spirit, and a motor van propelled in every other way? It is not the damage they do to the roads, because everyone will admit that there are certain forms of steam vans, hauling great trucks like railway trucks behind them, which move along the road and do more destruction to them in once passing over them than even one of these heavy petrol vans or omnibuses would do in a hundred times by making the journey. How is it fair, how is it logical, to tax this particular method of generating power and securing compulsion and leaving others to go free; and may you not end by producing very far-reaching results on the development of the industry which you yourselves would probably regret, and which in any case you have no desire to do, and which, I venture to say, you have no right to do? Are you not handicapping the petrol car? Is not the manufacturer and the inventor of the petrol car handicapped in his competition with other people who are developing steam cars or other forms of oars? That is, I admit, a point made by my hon. Friend to which we have had no answer indicated from the Government, and it does seem to me to render their particular proposal not as fair and just, and not as expedient, as at first sight I was inclined to think it was. There was another observation made by my hon. Friend. He had taken some pains to get an estimate of what the actual yield would be of the tax which the commercial world is going to pay. The Government must have figures upon that subject, but my hon. Friend says that at the outside
    1102
    they are going to get £ 55,000 at the present time, and, if the traffic develops, of course they may get a great deal more; but at the present time at the outside they are going to get £ 55,000, and of that £ 55,000 they are going to take £ 37,000 from the omnibus companies of London. My hon. Friend said it was not fair to spend money got from these London omnibuses, who do not wear the roads very much, in order to make improvements for the motors, which run at great speed over country roads and in village streets and other places where omnibuses never entered. How can you justify a tax, which falls O heavily upon one particular body, when you find so large a proportion of the damage done by others? I will not detain the House any longer, but I do hope that the Government will elucidate these points.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: I wish to say one or two words upon the subject of the discussion, because I think there is at least a misapprehension as to the amount of damage that these motor' buses do to the streets which they pass over. I admit, so far as these 'buses are concerned, that if they are on wood paving, or a car road is laid down for this particular class of traffic, then the soft, double-tyred wheel of the motor omnibus does not do much damage. But it is a moral certainty that on the roads through which these 'buses have now taken to travel the local authorities have discovered that the ordinary macadam is sucked up to such an extent by the double tyre of soft rubber on the motor-omnibus wheels, that they have been obliged in almost every district in London where these' buses travel to spend enormous sums of money, and, therefore, the statement that has been made here this evening that they do practically no damage, that they cannot derive any benefit, and that, generally, they are the most harmless kind of locomotion, as far as London is concerned, is not borne out by the facts, as anyone who inquires will find out. Consequently, I wanted at least to give an illustration or two which any Member can see for himself if he will take the trouble to go along some of the roads where these' buses travel. There is a new line of motor' buses to Wandsworth along an old macadam road which was quite satisfactory to the ordinary traffic, and which will even take a traction engine with heavy flat iron wheels without the slightest damage. It is a great mistake to imagine that these heavy broad wheels do any particular damage to good roads. To thin

    1103
    macadam roads in the country immense heavy traffic of that description at certain times of the year, after rain or during a thaw when puddles are about, may do immense damage, but to a good macadamised road it does none at all. The greatest damage to an ordinary macadam road is the sucking out process of the double soft tyred omnibus wheel taking out the small particulars which bind the macadam together, and you can see illustrations of that to-day on East Hill, where the borough council have had to put down a first-class road twice in a year. They are most damaging to ordinary macadam roads, but to properly prepared tarred macadam which can resist the sucking process they do scarcely any damage at all.
    Whether that will alter the views of hon. Members with reference to this Amendment I do not know, but at any rate, as one who has made roads, who has for years repaired roads, who has even been consulted occasionally about roads, I make these observations so that there may be no mistake that unless the roads are prepared for them these are very damaging methods of locomotion. The flat metal studs do not interfere with macadam roads if they are fairly well distributed over the face of a wheel, and are not pointed, but flat. The flat iron surface goes on to the road, and the ordinary macadam road is not damaged at all. I do not think taxi-cabs are heavy enough to have any effect on the roads, and they probably damage them less than the older form of locomotion. I should like to ask what justification there is for excluding motor omnibuses, which derive the whole of their revenue from plying for hire on the public roads. I can quite understand that there would be good justification for exonerating the ordinary commercial vehicles, used for carrying merchandise, from this petrol tax altogether It is an interference with industry in that case, but when it comes to a motor omnibus which plies for hire, and does enormous damage and occasions inconvenience to everyone, the case is different Any assessment committee will tell you that in some of the main streets where motor omnibuses go the assessments have been obliged to be lowered. No one will live in them. A different kind of tenant has had to be put into some houses along the streets in my own locality, which I daresay is no exception to the rule. I
    1104
    have heard no justification so far for even a rebate on this kind. of locomotion. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. F. Maddison) one morning started to come to the House, and met one of these motor' buses and they all three just happened to get together— a heap of mud, the motor' bus, and the hon. Member for Burnley— and he was a picture when I saw him. Motor' buses are a positive nuisance to anyone travelling along the streets, and there is no reason for exonerating them from taxation.
    Mr. E. C. MEYSEY -THOMPSON: I shall support the Amendment for many reasons, but I shall touch only on one which I believe has not yet been mentioned. It is the case of a hard working and very deserving class of men— the drivers of taxi-cabs. It is allowed that they do very little damage to our roads, and it is no doubt in the knowledge of every Member of the House that taxi-cab drivers have to pay for their own petrol. I have taken the trouble to go into the figures, and I have discovered that the amount of petrol used daily is between four and five gallons. This tax will entail an extra cost of some 3s. or 4s. a week, or from £ 7 to £ 10 a year. That is a very serious burden upon a poor man who has a family to support. I do not quite see how he is to get it back from the public, and if this very reasonable remission is not made in the case of the taxi-cab it will be the driver who will be the sufferer to a very large extent. On that ground alone I should certainly support the Amendment and advocate the remission of the whole extra tax upon petrol in the case of taxi-cabs. In regard to motor' buses I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward) that they are in many ways a nuisance. I. think, however, that if we put a heavier tax upon them we shall make it more unlikely that the owners will spend a great deal of money in improving their machinery and in lessening the noise and the nuisance. It is quite clear that if the motor' bus companies have to spend £ 37,500 a year on account of this tax, either they must get it out of the pockets of their passengers or they must suffer the whole loss themselves. It is quite impossible for them to suffer the loss themselves, for I do not believe they earn a sufficient sum to do so, and they will make it up, therefore, out of the pockets of the passangers. The passengers are to a very great extent

    1105
    working men, and it seems to me a very strange thing for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to advocate the putting of a higher rate on working men who are conveyed from the central parts of our towns to sleep amidst healthier surroundings at a distance. I did expect that a Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Liberal side would be the last person to make that suggestion. It seems to me that the present Government by their Budget proposals are not so much attempting to help true working men, or what I would call the working bees of the hive, but that they are rather taxing the working bee for the sake of the wasp. We have heard of wasps robbing honey from the hive. That is the position the present Government take up. The wasp is more noisy and fussy, and it has a sharper sting in its tail. The bee is the taxi-cab driver, and he is to be sacrificed to the faddist wasps. The money is to be extracted from the working bee to carry out the fads of everybody on the other side. For these reasons I support the Amendment, and I hope the Government will see their way to support the taxi-cabs.
    Sir HENRY NORMAN: The Hon. Member, who moved the Amendment, touched upon one or two topics which, I think, would probably be more in order at a later stage, and, therefore, I defer my remarks on them until then. I listened to the hon. Member's remarks with great interest, and with a great deal of sympathy. There is no doubt that a hard case can be made out with respect to commercial vehicles. Any sympathetic person, therefore, would naturally feel inclined at first sight to request the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal very gently with them in this Budget, even to the extent of allowing a rebate of the whole sum, but, after all, there are other qualities as valuable, in their way, as sympathy. There is justice, for instance, and I venture to think that in looking more carefully into the matter one will see that this tax, however one's feelings may be hurt by it, is one that should appeal to our reason. There are three classes of commercial vehicles with which we are chiefly concerned. There are, in the first place, taxi-cabs— a new, admirable and most popular method of locomotion. That is an industry in which, I may say, I have myself a certain interest. These cabs, it is true, at present are paying very well indeed. The number of them on the street is being added to very rapidly, and as competition increases in that way their
    1106
    earnings will be proportionately decreased. We are concerned with these cabs for the coming financial year. The taxi-cab driver was sympathetically alluded to by the hon. Member for Stoke. He is mostly a hardworking, intelligent, well-trained and thoroughly respectable man, of whom this also might be said— that at the present moment he is earning a very good living indeed. I do not say that he does not in every way deserve it, but he is making a larger income than the majority of men of his own class, and, therefore, any little excess he has to pay will not press so hardly on him as upon others in similar spheres.
    In this Debate, so far as it has gone, it has been assumed that the whole of this tax will be passed along to the consumer. That may or may not be, but supposing it did, it will not press, after the rebate, so much as 1½ d per gallon. Putting that reason very briefly, there are a number of great importers of spirit, and they will not be able to raise the price to the whole extent of the tax, unless they are enabled to form a complete trust. There are now potential producers of very large quantities of motor spirit, apparently a very excellent quality, who have to fight their way into this retail market, the most important market in the world, and I think it very unlikely that a trust will be formed. Therefore, it is quite unlikely that the whole of this amount, after the rebate has been deducted, namely, 1½ d which we are discussing on this Amendment, will fall on the commercial vehicle. In the second place, there is the case of the motor omnibus. The position of the motor omnibus at present is one to call for our sympathy, but we must at the same time ask why the motor' bus has got into that position. The original motor' buses put on the streets were placed there very hastily by enterprising financiers, who bought up anything which they thought it would pay them to run on the streets of London. These dreadful vehicles in a few months were found to be a public nuisance in every way, on account of dropping oil on the streets and the smell which they caused. There are many motor' buses on the streets to-day which, in my opinion, have no right to be running in a civilised capital. The desire to get rich in a hurry, to use an American phrase, of the original promoters of the motor' bus industry led them into the very difficult financial position in which they now find themselves. As these vehicles disappear from the streets in the natural process of tear and wear they will

    1107
    be replaced by other vehicles correctly designed, well, economically, and efficiently constructed for the work they have to do, and under those circumstances the working expenses will not be nearly so high. Therefore the profit they will be able to pay the shareholders will be larger, and this tax w ill not press upon them so heavily. I desire to associate myself most strongly with what was said by the hon. Member for Stoke. It is an extraordinary fact that it is open to any one of us with sufficient capital to place a whole fleet of motor' buses on the streets of London absolutely at his own sweet will. That seems to be an extraordinary state of things, and, pending some municipal bye-laws which shall prescribe certain restrictions in regard to the roads to be used by such vehicles, I think the least the owners can be called upon to do is to make some general contribution for the upkeep of the roads of the country. In the third place there are the motor lorries. That is an industry which is just establishing itself at the present moment. There is at the present moment not a very large number of these. Many of them keep themselves going from an earning point of view with considerable difficulty. Again, here invention and design are making rapid progress, and we must not judge the motor lorries of the immediate future by the motor lorry of the present.
    My sympathy with the motor lorry in its present condition was, I confess, much greater until the hon. Gentleman who moved this Resolution gave us the figures of Messrs. Shoolbred's vehicles. As the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, it is perfectly well known that that enterprising firm delivers goods over a very wide district all around the metropolis. Therefore, if any commercial vehicles of any kind ought to make a contribution to the upkeep of the roads in the country it is certainly such vehicles as those. And the figures he gave, which are no doubt correct, that the owners save on each one of the fleet. of vehicles they employ £ 85, completely knocked the bottom out of any mercy for these vehicles. If we do not tax those commercial vehicles we may get a situation in which the motor car will practically have to pay for the road which the commercial vehicle destroys. I think the tendency would be in that direction. Certainly, in view of the destruction of the roads, once granting the principle— false as I think it— but granting it as we do here, that the users of the roads should pay
    1108
    for them, I do not see how it is possible, in justice and in practice, from the figures I have given, to exempt these three classes of vehicles. With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire said as to traction engines,. and the use of practically railway trucks. that they draw, it is within the knowledge of anyone who has ridden in motor cars in the country, and is a matter of observation, that the damage which they do to the roads on many occasions is almost incalculable. I have myself occasionally been stopped on the road by one of those vehicles in front, and have had to follow it a great distance, going slowly, and watching its great wheels chopping up the surface and destroying the roads. I was told some time ago by a road surveyor that after he had constructed a new road one of those vehicles went over it. I forget what exactly in pounds was the amount of damage done by the one passage of this vehicle, but it was very large indeed. Certainly, I think, although they pay a substantial sum, some means should be found to make them pay more in taxes, and it occurred to me that something like the old toll-gate system might be established simply for the benefit of these vehicles, and they might be called on at certain fixed points to pay something for going on further. Finally, one general point has either not been mentioned or not been emphasised as I think it ought. That is in order to introduce that great benefit, as it is allowed by all speakers on both sides of the House to be, the central road authority, it was absolutely essential to raise a very large sum of money. There is no other method, so far as I can see, besides this taxation of petrol, by which the necessary additional sum can be raised to make the central road authority a serious and real and permanent enterprise. While it is true in a way, as several speakers have said, that this tax upon commercial vehicles will be a handicap to them, yet in the first place it will be a constantly decreasing handicap, because of their own greater efficiency, and, in the second place, it is also a help because, as time passes by, the road system of the country will be much improved, and their own progress in the use of the roads will improve and be much facilitated; so that, as well as being a handicap, it is to-day, and will be, in rapidly increasing measure, also a help.
    Sir WILLIAM BULL: I hold -very strongly that no country has ever suc-

    1109
    ceeded which has deliberately taxed power, that is, any power that has come into its possession naturally or otherwise, whether waterfall, electricity, steam, or what not; and I, for one, therefore, am strongly against this tax on petrol altogether; and, as previous speakers mentioned, I have also worked out the figures with regard to the difference between taxation on coal and taxation on petrol. I will not touch further on that, as I see you, Sir, shaking your head, but it has a bearing, I consider, on the question of commercial vehicles. With regard to the rebates that are suggested on commercial and other vehicles, I should very much like to hear from the Government how these rebates are going to be arranged. How are these earned monies going to be accomplished in the case of the large firms, commercial companies like Ball of Brixton and Tilling?
    Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: This Amendment is not as to how rebates are to be worked out. The Question is whether certain rebates mentioned here ought to be given.
    Sir WILLIAM BULL: There is also the commercial Question of the dyers and the cleaners. A very large sum will be charged to the dyers. Petrol is used to a very large extent for these commercial purposes— to an almost incredible extent— and although they are promised that the rebate shall take place, yet for a certain time it is quite clear that a very large sum of money will be locked up for one or two months before they get their money back. That is a question that agitates me a great deal, inasmuch as I represent a Constituency in which there is a large number of laundries and dyers and cleaners, and they have been seeing me on the subject. With regard to the question of the use of petrol as a lighting power, there are men in the country who use petrol for their pleasure vehicles and their commercial vehicles. I have now in mind an ironmonger I know, who also uses petrol in connection with this new light called "Petrolite." How is the Government going to arrange as to that rebate?
    Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Question is not how is the Government going to arrange the rebate, but whether there ought to be a rebate in respect of the matters in the Amendment.
    Sir WILLIAM BULL: I venture to submit the question is whether they are justified in making this tax on motor
    1110
    spirit when there is such a tremendous amount of rebate that you have to go back in various directions to the users of petrol and the users of motor spirit. I trust I am in order in advancing the theory which I should be very glad indeed to hear considered by the right hon. Member on the Front Bench when he comes to make his reply. I welcome very much what the Government have proposed in regard to using this money for making up the roads of the country. In that I think they are doing a very great work.
    Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The purpose for which the money is to be devoted is not involved in this Amendment.
    Sir W. BULL: Then I will sit down. I am sorry I have been so often out of order.
    Mr. A. C. MORTON: Though I sympathise with this Amendment, believing that these matters would be better settled from a business point of view, yet unfortunately they are regarded from a party point of view, and therefore it is difficult sometimes: to vote for proposals with which one may be in sympathy. So far as the tax on commercial vehicles, motor cars, omnibuses or cabs is concerned, I think it is a bad tax altogether, because it is a tax on industry, and it is a tax that we do not put on anything else in a similar direction. We did away with the tollgates in order to remove charges from commercial vehicles, and we swept them away in the interests of Free Trade and Liberalism generally. But now it appears we have to begin again, and we are to impose on a certain industry a charge which we have done away with in other directions. I do not so much mind how large the tax is on pleasure motor cars, because the owners can afford to pay, and no doubt ought to pay something. The total sum mentioned with regard to one London company is that the tax would cost them £ 37,000 per annum. That company at present only just pays its way, and the tax would come as an absolute loss to the shareholders of £ 37,000 per annum. We are told that all the railway companies ought to be allowed to charge enough to pay interest on the capital, and so on. Is not that equally true with regard to cabs, omnibuses, and other commercial vehicles generally? I cannot understand the reference as to motor omnibus companies increasing the charges; anybody who knows anything about London, is aware that they cannot increase the

    1111
    fares of motor omnibuses. The competition of other omnibuses, of railways, tube railways, and tramways does not permit 'of motor omnibus companies raising their fares to enable such a company as that to which reference has been made recouping the sum of £ 37,000. This tax upon omnibuses and other vehicles does not apply to omnibuses propelled by electricity— the latter omnibuses are not to pay. If you arc going to tax all vehicles— although I should not like to see such a tax— for the upkeep of these roads, I can quite understand that it might be fair all round. But I do not think you would be able to carry it through this House or anywhere else, because we know the agitation there would be with regard to putting a heavy tax on public vehicles.
    I quite understand that we are in a difficulty, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got us into somewhat of a cleft stick in this respect. He said that if he did not raise this money by charges on motor omnibuses, cabs, and commercial vehicles, then there would be no money for the upkeep or improvement of the roads of the country, except the ordinary sums obtained from the rates. The Mover of the Amendment stated that, as far as London was concerned, he thought these motor omnibuses did not do any harm to the roads. Sufficient time has not elapsed to enable us to come to any conclusion as to how far they injure the roads in places like London, where the thoroughfares are mainly asphalt or wood paving. My own opinion is that these motor omnibuses do damage the asphalt roads, but not so much the wooden pavements. They wear Out the asphalt, and expenses are incurred in renewing it, though we have not to do anything to the concrete foundation. I think these motor vehicles will cause extra expenditure in London and other big cities, and they undoubtedly do cut up the roads in other places, but to what extent we cannot say at the present moment. The electric omnibuses, as I said, are being allowed to go free. There are many of them in London now, and they do, not make so much noise as the motor omnibuses, nor are they so offensive. Undoubtedly it is possible through bad management of a motor omnibus to damage the road and sometimes leave it in a very unpleasant condition. I am glad to say that in some parts of London we find the law is strong enough to put an end to that nuisance, because we are now prosecuting anybody who causes any nuisance of that
    1112
    sort in any way whatever. The hon. Member opposite referred to using the money for the upkeep of roads. But this proposal is only making a portion of the community pay. Some of your motor omnibuses are a nuisance, but whether they are or not I think they have come to stay, and they are exceedingly useful, especially in those parts of the country where you cannot have railways. I think we should encourage the motor traffic, subject to regulations.
    I freely admit, on the other hand, as this is a new industry and may be of great use in this country, not only for commercial purposes, but in the better working of the land, it is rather hard that you should tax them and not tax other vehicles, whether railways, or tramways, or anything else, and so make them pay in like manner. Above all, it would be exceedingly unfortunate if the tax were so high that it should be prohibitive of the vehicles altogether. I admitted at the beginning I am not in a position to vote against the Government on this Amendment to-night. [An HON. MEMBER:" Oh, oh."] My hon. Friend knows as well as I do, in the first place that it is unusual to Vote against the Government on Resolutions of this kind in the Committee or the Report stage. I was going to add when the interruption occurred that there is another stage when we may be a little more independent and in a little better position to discuss this question of charge or rebate, or whatever you like to call it, on either motor-buses, cabs or commercial vehicles of any sort. In regard to the Amendment before us, I hope that before the Bill comes to be discussed that the Government will take a serious and, if necessary, a friendly attitude with regard to this matter, and inquire into it in any way it affects trade. I think I may fairly assure the Government we fully recognise that the money must come from somewhere, and the only question in imposing these taxes is to do so so as to place the least difficulty in the way of the trade and commerce of the country. If this tax would interfere with the use of the vehicle and with their use for the country generally, then we ought to allow the full rebate.
    Mr. G. D. FABER: I have listened to this discussion throughout and it seems to me although the Question lies within a narrow compass to raise questions of far-reaching importance. It. has been the fashion to make either confessions or disclaimers of personal interest in this matter, and I suppose I ought to begin by

    1113
    saying that I am not interested in the motor omnibus companies and that I have no interest in taxi-cabs. I have a certain amount of shares in the District Railway, which is in direct competition with the omnibus companies. On the night when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Budget speech I certainly felt in complete sympathy with the idea that the motor users of the roads of this country should pay in the two directions of a motor duty and a duty on petrol. As to the duty upon petrol the Question becomes much more important when one finds it is necessary to differentiate between the private owner and user of motor cars and the owners and users of commercial cars, because many difficulties at once arise. First of all, this tax upon petrol is distinctly in restraint of trade, and the rebate proposed by this Amendment, if the House should think fit to grant it, would exempt that particular trade from what seems to me at the first glance a particular injustice. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to grant a rebate with regard to 1½d. of the tax, and to let the other 1½d. stand. Therefore, to that extent, it is directly in restraint of trade, and in restraint of a very important trade, in this country. Not only is it that, but when you come to look at the matter closely it does seem to work out hardly, at any rate—I will not say unjustly—to a particular class of vehicles engaged in propulsion by petrol-driven motor buses.
    I was very much struck indeed by the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Manchester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) in regard to the London General Omnibus Company. My hon. Friend brought out the fact that the total expected to be gained by the Revenue out of this tax upon petrol in respect of commercial vehicles was a sum of £55,000. He then proceeded to bring out the vital fact, as far as the omnibus company is concerned, that out of that sum of £55,000 no less than £37,000 will be found from that particular company. This is not a political question, and I am glad it is not. It is a commercial question, and one in which we should judge what is fair under all circumstances, and even if we have a prejudice against motor omnibuses we ought to consider whether a fine of this enormous amount ought to be imposed upon this particular company of £37,000 out of a total of £55,000. It does seem a strong order. If motor omnibuses are a nuisance, do not have them; let the police deal with them; but once you allow they are a
    1114
    public convenience, then do not shoot a bolt from the blue down upon them, and such a serious bolt from the blue, going to the financial centre of their existence. I think we ought to pause many times before we consent to have that effected. I was very much struck by the most valuable observations, if he will allow me to say so, of the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. John Ward) with regard to the damage which motor omnibuses under certain circumstances do to the roads.. In certain circumstances only, I understood him to say—where the road is. Macadam—the effect of the rubber tyre is to pull up the component matter which forms the macadam road and to do serious damage. That is a factor in the case which ought, to a certain extent, to influence our judgment.
    Then passing to the motor cab, I should like again to quote the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. John Ward). According to the hon. Member, the motor cab does no damage at all. It plies for hire as a rule—at any rate, largely—within the metropolitan area, and it does not use the roads of the country. It is a commercial vehicle plying for profit. Is it fair, since it does no damage to the road, confines itself to a restricted area, and is a commercial vehicle, that it should pay this special tax? We, cannot lose sight of the consideration that here it is in direct competition with other classes of vehicles which pay no tax of this kind at all. The result of the imposition of this duty upon petrol, even in the restricted shape we are now discussing, will be seriously to affect that particular class of vehicle. The Secretary to the Treasury, I think, tried to meet this point by saying that the driver of the taxi-cab—because it is upon him that this tax falls—is doing well and making a good living. I do not know that that ought to be our guiding consideration in arriving at a conclusion, or that, if the incidence of a tax is. unjust, the fact that a man has a certain amount of money in his pocket lessens the injustice. From both these points of view my mind is in doubt whether on the whole we are doing right by having a tax of this, kind at all. The original idea, no doubt, was that all the roads in the country would benefit by it, but it is clear from the course of the Debate that thousands of vehicles would pay the tax that will not use the roads of the country, generally speaking, at all. My mind is rather torn by doubt. I want the roads of the country to be kept up, and I think it is fair that pleasure motor cars should pay this tax; but

    1115
    looking at it from the commercial point of view I very much doubt whether it does not carry us further than we desire to go; whether in our desire to sweep into the net pleasure cars, we are not also subjecting commercial vehicles to great injustice; and whether, in the case of the omnibus company of which the hon. Member for North-West Manchester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) is such a powerful advocate, it is not going to do injustice beyond repair. For these reasons, although my mind is not quite clear on the whole matter, if my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall record my vote in his favour.
    Mr. C. D. ROSE: The hon. Member for North-West Manchester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) in moving this Amendment made a case of special pleading almost entirely for the London General Omnibus Company, of which no one knows more about the internal working. As a small shareholder in the London General Omnibus Company, I doubt whether my co-shareholders will welcome his remark that if this tax is imposed that company may as well close its doors. With regard to the proposed tax on other commercial vehicles, I should like to associate myself fully with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Sir Henry Norman) and the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. John Ward). This tax on petrol, although there are many objections to it, is part of a, general scheme the proceeds of which are to be devoted to the general upkeep of roads used by all classes of vehicles propelled by internal combustion engines. If such a tax is to be imposed, I agree that commercial vehicles should bear their proportion of it. It has been said that they do not use the country roads to any great extent, but I think that evidence has been brought forward showing that they use them to a considerable extent. Tradesmen now go distances of 30 or 40 miles from London by means of these vehicles. In November in the year before last an important series of trials of commercial vehicles was inaugurated, when about 1,000 vehicles, built entirely for the purpose of carrying merchandise over country roads, started on a thousand miles journey, and certainly the evidence brought before those who sat as judges in regard to those trials showed that the damage to the roads was very considerable indeed. Therefore, if a tax is to be imposed at all, I think it is only right that commercial vehicles should bear their proportion of it. I do not believe that the
    1116
    tax will really act in restraint of trade, because the class of engine now being constructed is being rapidly made so that a much smaller amount of fuel is necessary, and the tax will be practically very little felt. With regard to electrically driven vehicles being let off, as far as I understand they are really confined almost entirely to cities and towns, as no system of batteries has yet been found whereby electrically driven vehicles can go through the country. Therefore, they can be entirely eliminated. I can only repeat with regard to this tax on petrol, that I think in actual practice it will be found that a considerable part of the tax will be made up to those who pay it by the improved. condition of the roads of the country.
    Mr. JOHN GRETTON: I propose to do little more than associate myself with the objection which has been made to the tax that is proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon commercial vehicles. I want to refer particularly to the last part of the Amendment. This tax is to be imposed for the purpose of improving the roads. It appears to me, and I think it will to every other Member of this House who considers the matter, that it is a grave injustice to impose a tax upon petrol for commercial purposes, and to apply it for the improvements of the road or for any other purposes.
    I may point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he can very well make this rebate; that he can be generous in this matter, because this petrol tax does not in any way affect the general scheme of Imperial taxation. I should like to remind him of another class of employment for which petrol is used, and that is for motors for pumping on farms, for threshing, for the separation of milk, and for the making of cider. For these purposes petrol is being used more and more largely, and if he does not make a rebate in these eases he will be inflicting another injustice.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: There is a rebate in these cases.
    Mr. GRETTON: The right hon. Gentleman does not intend to tax them at all? He has not made any statement to that effect. A tax placed upon motors for these purposes will be another grievance to these classes of agriculturists.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I thought I had made it perfectly clear that I do not propose at all that the tax should fall upon motors used for anything except propulsion.
    Mr. GRETTON: Am I to understand "except propulsion on the roads?"
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEassented.
    Mr. GRETTON: That clears up a very grave anxiety that exists. I think that statement will probably relieve considerably an amount of anxiety which is felt elsewhere. If only I have obtained that statement, I have not risen in vain.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: I have only one or two points to make. My main point is that I oppose this tax from a standpoint, which is, perhaps, an unusual one. Nevertheless, I do hold that a tax upon industry which is to be applied for one particular purpose only is a new principle engrafted upon our system of taxation. What is the position? The motor industry, which, of course, can only thrive if it has capital behind it, is the product of ordinary, legitimate, scientific developments. It is the outcome of general progress in applied science, which makes for the betterment of the conditions of life generally in the country. It cannot be said that the motor industry as it exists exists only for the benefit of people who drive motors or who have capital invested in it. It cannot be said that the tax on petrol as applied to this motor industry is a tax which places, as it were, a duty upon a particular industry that is getting an especial benefit out of the community. There is no person who can reasonably say that the motor industry stands apart from the general community, and that the advantage which ensues from the spread of that industry is an advantage which accrues only to the people who drive or manufacture motors. This tax presents an absolutely new principle in our system of taxation.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is now discussing the tax as a whole. That is not the Question now before the House. The only question now is as to whether there should be an extra rebate for commercial vehicles.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I have entered upon the larger question. I must confine myself to the rebate on petrol for commercial vehicles. I think that the rebate should be made, because the commercial vehicles do not represent, as I said, a commercial activity which is confined to the interests of those who are behind the industry. Have commercial vehicles, as the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has said, that go to different
    1118
    parts of the country in the ordinary pursuit of commerce, therefore, to be taxed? I do not obpect to that taxation so much so long as it is part of the general scheme, and is applied to the general taxation of the country. But I believe that this rebate should be granted because these commercial vehicles are only in pursuit of their commercial enterprise beyond the limits of the metropolis or in any particular area where the commercial enterprise exists; that these commercial vehicles are only working in the general interest of the commercial development of the country. Therefore the rebate which my hon. Friend (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) asks for is a perfectly just claim and appeal. These commercial vehicles represent exactly what the old van system represented in the country. No one can say that the wheels of the very heavy vans which left the Metropolis from Shoolbred's or Maple's to go down into the suburbs did not produce injury to the roads. Yet no one ever thought of putting an especial tax upon these vehicles for the benefit of the districts outside London. And you are applying this tax only to vehicles which are propelled by petrol, upon the assumption that they are the only vehicles which injure the road; whereas the cost that can be said—I think if I appealed to the President of the Local Government Board that he would agree with me—with regard to the petrol vehicles is that it may be at the present moment producing a little more injury to the road than the old iron-wheeled van. What you are doing is this: you are taking the difference between the injury done by the motor vehicle and the old iron-wheeled van, and you are establishing a principle of differentiation in taxation which I consider extremely dangerous. And because of that I think my hon. Friend is well justified in asking for a rebate upon those commercial vehicles which have followed on the old horse-drawn vehicles in carrying out the enterprise which they represent. I support my hon. Friend in the Amendment which he has moved.
    Mr. J. D. REES: The point which I wish to bring before the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already very lightly been put in my absence, so that I will not dwell upon it only just for a moment. I have been asked to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot see his way to differentiate between petrol spirit of a high specific gravity and petrol spirit of a low specific gravity. I do not pretend to be an expert on the question of the gravity

    1119
    of spirits, but I believe this difference is the difference between 700 and 730. As there would be a very great difference in distinguishing where this commercial rebate would come in, it would, if feasible, very much facilitate the matter if the spirit of the heaviest specific gravity was, so to speak, at the source, granted exemption from taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will no doubt understand this, and be able to explain what, I dare say, I have very imperfectly upon certain instructions received tried to explain to the Committee.
    Mr. T. F. RICHARDS: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question in relation to a phrase which has been very often occurring in this Debate, that is: What is the meaning of the phrase "commercial vehicles," and what does that come to? It has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South (Sir Henry Norman) that it covers the taxation of motor 'buses and motor lorries. I desire to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is another commercial vehicle which is used for certain purposes, and when drawn by horses was exempt from license duty, and which now, as a motor car, ought to come under this head. That is the motor car used by commercial travellers when collecting orders. The only question I desire to ask is whether "commercial vehicles" cover the motor cars used by commercial travellers in the manner I have described?
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I am loth to enter into this discussion, because 1 have not very much interest in motor traction. My motor car has not yet arrived, but I should like to say a word or two from the point of view of the man in the street who is obliged to use traction of any kind without distinction now and again. I am one of those who are obliged to use motor omnibuses now and again, especially as the weather changes, whether it be too hot or too wet for ordinary progress through the streets; I am then obliged to take a motor omnibus. Therefore I am very much concerned whether I should travel in the motor omnibuses which ply for hire on the roads I traverse every day in the week. I am very well served by a certain company of omnibus proprietors that pursue their calling for hire in the direction in which I live and have my being, and I have inquired into the condition of this company.
    1120
    I find that this company carries one hundred thousand passengers every week upon an average. I am told that last year they made a small profit upon their trade which would have enabled them to pay a dividend to their shareholders—which, I believe, would have been the first dividend paid in London by such a company—if it had not been that they had a loss on previous years' trade, and that they devoted their dividend of last year to paying off the loss of the year before. That is sound business. I believe this small company, the smallest in all London, do endeavour to conduct their business in an honest and fair manner.
    I listened to the speech of the hon. Member who moved this Motion with very great interest. I find that he stated that the effect of the tax on petrol will be to deprive his combined companies of a certain: amount of profit, amounting to something like £37,000 per annum, and that the computation is that the loss per mile of these combined companies, having a capital, I believe, of something over £2,000,000, is something like 3d. per mile. I asked the accountant of this small company what their loss per mile would be owing to the increased tax, and the accountant told me it would be one-third of a 1d. per mile, which almost exactly corresponds with the computation of the companies that carry, I believe, four hundred million passengers per year. I am here to-night speaking as the representative of the four hundred million passengers. Why do they travel by these motor omnibuses? They travel, of course, because they suit them and because they select that mode of travelling. The motor omnibus is not the nuisance that some people make it out to, be. These motor omnibuses travel in competition with the vast development of underground railway that we have all experienced and benefited by in London for the past few years; they travel in competition with a vast and commodious system which has been established by the London County Council. The. motor omnibuses are patronised by four hundred millions of people in the year. It must be these people find the advantage of availing themselves of that system. What is going to be the result of this tax? The result of the tax is going to be that these four hundred millions of people are going to be deprived of the mode of conveyance that they select as most convenient for themselves. What is going to happen to it? It is going

    1121
    to be crushed out of existence. It is absolutely impossible that they can exist if the right hon. Gentleman is going to insist upon this tax on petrol. I see and hear some audible smiles on the other side of the House, but when I make a statement of that kind I do not make it recklessly, but I make it on good foundation. I make it because I have inquired. I know that the publican can shift his burden on to the public, because they are tained that it is a fact that the London omnibus proprietors cannot shift their burden on to the public because they are in competition with those who already compete with them, and who are not going to be taxed. There is no direction in which these motor omnibuses travel where they are not in competition with a tube line, a tramway line, or with both. Therefore they cannot raise their fares, they cannot place the burden upon the shoulders of the public, and I know that the small company to which I have referred—which was shaping very well for the dividend this year, having no debts to clear off—have been deprived of all hope of a dividend upon their small capital, and they have not only abandoned all hope of paying a dividend, but they have abandoned all hope of being able to renew their plant, which must in the course of time be worn out. What is the result of that? Not only will the people in the street who use these omnibuses be deprived of the comfort and convenience of travelling by this means, but the unfortunate shareholders will be deprived of their property. They will not be able to renew their plant as it gets worn out, and therefore the company must come to an end when the present plant is exhausted. I thought I would mention these humble views to the House, which are based upon experience and inquiry, and I suggest to the. Chancellor of the Exchequer that I feel quite sure when he chose this tax he did not intend it should have the effect of depriving a considerable number of people of the convenience of travelling by a mode which they prefer, and he did not intend that persons who invested their money in this industry, which has not been prosperous up to the present, to crush it out entirely. I very humbly submit these views to the House, although I do not suppose they will go very far. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must take them for what they are worth. At any rate, they are sincerely offered, and I hope this great convenience to the people of London will not be interfered with.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think there is a general desire to get on to the discussion of the tax as a whole, and to bring to a termination the very useful Debate we have had on this extremely narrow issue. I need hardly say that I want the Committee to bear in mind why this tax has been imposed. It has been imposed purely for the benefit of the roads of the country, and it is no part of the general scheme of the Government for raising revenue. It is purely a tax raised to enable us to set aside a fund for the purpose of improving the roads of the country. When we come to the general discussion I will give my reasons why we have chosen a tax on petrol as part of our method for raising this sum of money out of the motor industry of the country. I think it is very important in relation to this particular Amendment that the Committee should bear in mind the object of the tax, namely, that it is for the benefit of the roads.
    The point is, should the commercial vehicles and the omnibuses of the country contribute to this fund? Already they are let off one part of the tax. They are not charged as motors, and the question is, should they therefore make any contribution at all? The contention of the hon. Member who opened the Debate in a very able speech was that they should not. I can well understand that they should not be called upon to contribute as such; but if there is to be a special contribution to be levied on motors at all I really do not see why commercial vehicles and omnibuses, which do more damage to the roads, should not contribute. We have heard a great deal about tubes and underground railways and tramways, and these have been cited as a reason why we should not tax the omnibuses because there is competition between them. What happens? Take the tubes and the underground railways. They do not use the roads. On the contrary, they relieve the roads. But although they do not use the roads, and although they relieve the traffic of the roads, they are compelled to pay high rates; in fact, they are rated very heavily. The London railways do contribute a very considerable amount of money, and it is a very heavy burden upon them. The same applies to the whole of the railways in the kingdom, because they are called upon to pay a heavy contribution towards improving the roads, whereas the vehicles running in competition with the railways are not paying anything at all by way of a special contribution. I could not defend it. Really you have

    1123
    either got to let off the motors altogether, or if you do not you cannot possibly defend putting the whole of the charge on the lighter vehicles and letting off the heavy vehicles which tear up the roads.

    We have heard a good deal about Shoolbred's, and I think that is as good an illustration as any other firm. The hon. Member for North-West Manchester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) says Shoolbred's have 36 of these very heavy vans, and what happens? Those vans are used in the country. They are used for the purpose of the heavy trade of Shoolbred's not in the town but in the country.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Partly in the town.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, but it is only a very small part, and they are used mainly for the purpose of carrying furniture from Shoolbred's 20, 30, and probably 50 miles into the country. Let the Committee bear in mind how Shoolbred's carried that traffic before the invention of the mechanical traction. They used the railways. Because you have this improvement in mechanical traction, which has saved Shoolbred's £3,000 a year, according to the hon. Member for North-West Manchester, they are enabled to save the charges of the railways. Therefore, the railway companies have got a grievance, and they have got a case. In all these country villages and parishes they are charged heavy highway rates for the purpose of improving the roads which are used in competition with the railways by Shoolbred's and others. They save the railway charges and the railways have to pay heavier rates than before; in fact, they have gone up within the last four or five years, and that is very largely due to mechanical traction. The highway rates have gone up, and the burden of the rates has increased year by year chiefly because of mechanical traction. Yet towards these higher rates those who use the roads are not contributing a single penny. That is not justice. It is said that the omnibus companies do not pay; they are running at a loss this year, but now they are able to make both ends meet. What is the real reason for this? It is purely owing to the stupid and cut-throat competition between these various companies. The Metropolitain pays 1½ per cent. and the District Railway does not pay at all. The omnibus companies do not pay, and they will never pay until they come to some sort
    1124
    of understanding between them, but that has nothing to do with petrol. It is not to the interest of the community that any public undertaking should be run at a loss, because in the long run the public do not get the same service. I said that when I was at the Board of Trade, and I say it now. The hon. Gentleman should do his best to introduce common-sense into the heads of the various companies.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Will he help us with the county council tramways?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: They pay for the roads. The hon. Member's company will not pay anything. He wants to put all the burden on the ratepayers for the benefit of the London Omnibus Company. That is the real reason. I do not think there is anything in the demand which has been made. The tax is not an expedient for raising revenue but for improving the roads and for relieving the gowing burden on the ratepayers. The hon. Gentleman has not pointed out how the price of petrol has gone down within the last few years. Petrol two or three years ago was 1s. 2d. a gallon. Probably the wholesale price was less. An hon. Member has said that the wholesale price is now 5½d. If 1s. 2d. was paid for an inferior article—for petrol has improved in quality—and now only 5½d. is paid, my case is all the stronger. Motor spirits, like political spirits, ought to improve. There are means of perfecting the mechanism, and petrol is getting cheaper. The users of petrol will pay something like one-half what they have been paying—that 1s, 5½d., instead of 1s. 2d.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The wholesale price was 1s. 2d. some years ago, and now it is 9d.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The price has gone down from 9d. to 5½d. They will save more than 3d. for the improvement of the roads. In addition to that, the users of the cars will get the guarantee of improved roads. You must take into account the number of punctures that will be abolished. Think of the wear and tear that will be saved. Think of the amount of compensation for accidents that will be saved by having the roads a little better and a little wider. The hon. Member should take a broader view of this Question than he does. The hon. Member was very eloquent about the military use of these cars. He seemed to think that we could drive the Germans away not with "Dreadnoughts" but with

    1125
    Vanguard omnibuses. When the time comes we shall be very glad to get off so cheaply, and I am sure the hon. Member and his friends will then be very glad to pay the petrol tax. It will be a very cheap bargain for the War Office. Everybody wants improved roads, but everybody wants somebody else to pay for them. I hope that the Committee will stand by the tax as a whole.
    Mr. JAMES TOMKINSON: I wish to give the results of a little calculation I have made. We have been told that a certain omnibus company carries 400,000,000 passengers yearly, and that this extra tax will cost it £37,000. Roughly speaking that represents nine million pennies, and dividing them up between the 400 million
    passengers it gives for each 1-45th of a penny, or the eleventh part of a single farthing. It is not the tax that hurts, it is the ruinous competition, and if the companies would only carry their passengers a little shorter distance for their money I think they would have no reason to complain of not making a profit.
    Question put: "That at the end of the Resolution the following words be added:' Provided that a rebate of the amount of such duty shall be allowed in respect of all motor spirit used in public service and commercial vehicles, and in all arts and manufactures.' "
    The House divided: Ayes, 60; Noes, 238.

    Division No. 133.]

    AYES.

    [10.0 p.m.

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

    Ffrench, Peter

    Nolan, Joseph

    Balcarres, Lord

    Fletcher, J. S.

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Forster, Henry William

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gardner, Ernest

    Oddy, John James

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Gordon, J.

    Parker. Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Gretton, John

    Remnant. James Farquharson

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Renwick, George

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Kavanagh, Walter M.

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

    Clark, George Smith

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

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

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    M'Arthur, Charles

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

    Crossley, William J.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Younger, George

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Nannetti; Joseph P.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Fell, Arthur

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Joynson-Hicks and Sir W. Bull.

    NOES.

    Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.)

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Dewar Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

    Agnew, George William

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Cameron, Robert

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Armitage, R.

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Astbury, John Meir

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Channing, Sir Francis Allston

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Baring. Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Essex, R. W.

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Esslemont, George Birnle

    Barnes, G. N.

    Cleland, J. W.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Clough, William

    Falconer, James

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Clynes, J. R.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Beauchamp, E.

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Ferens, T. R.

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Findlay, Alexander

    Bell, Richard

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Bellairs, Carlyon

    Cooper, G. J.

    Gill, A. H.

    Been, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Glover, Thomas

    Bennett, E. N.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Bertram, Julius

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Betheil, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Bowerman, C W.

    Cox, Harold

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Branch, James

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Brigg, John

    Crooks William

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Brodie, H. C.

    Curran, Peter Francis

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

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

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Harwood, George

    Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Hazel, Dr A. E. W.

    Moltene, Percy Alpert

    Shackleton, David James

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Mond, A.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Montgomery, H. G

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Simon, John Allsebrook

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

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

    Henry, Charles S.

    Morrell, Philip

    Snowden, P.

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

    Morse, L. L.

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Napier, T. B.

    Steadman, W. C.

    Hodge, John

    Nicholls, George

    Summerbell, T.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Sutherland J. E.

    Hooper, A. G.

    Norton, Captain Cecil William

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Tennant. H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Hudson, Walter

    Nuttall, Harry

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Jenkins, J.

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Tomkinson, James

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Partington, Oswald

    Vivian, Henry

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    Walters, John Tudor

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Walton, Joseph

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Wardle, George J.

    Joyce, Michael

    Pointer, J.

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Lambert, George

    Radford, G. H.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rees, J. D.

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Wiles, Thomas

    Luttrell. H ugh Fownes

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Richardson, A.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Williams, W. Liewelyn (Car'th'n)

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Wilson; Hon. G. G.(Hull, W.)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

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

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

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

    Robinson, S.

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

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

    Maddison, Frederick

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Rose, Charles Day

    Winfrey, R.

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Rowlands, J.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Massie, J.

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

    Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank

    Menzies, Walter

    Sears, J. E.

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Seddon, J.

    Motion made and Question proposed: "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The duty which we are now considering is, in my opinion, one of the most interesting of the new duties proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is interesting, because it seems to me to combine in really a remarkable manner all the vices in a single tax, which, as a rule, can only be found in a number of taxes. In the first place this is a duty which will be undoubtedly injurious to trade, and in the second place it is a discriminating tax—that is to say, it is imposed upon one kind of industry without imposing corresponding duties upon competing industries of the same kind. Thirdly, it is a duty which will be found extremely difficult of collection, and will inflict an enormous amount of inconvenience upon the people who pay the tax in proportion to the amount derived from
    1128
    it, and the final vice, about which I will speak at greater length, is one which ought to appeal to Ministers on that Bench opposite, and that is the very complicated nature of this proposal for raising revenue. All this has nothing to do with the object of the tax; against that I have nothing to say. I should like to point out at a little greater length what these different disadvantages are. In the first place it is a discriminating tax. In the previous discussion the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked over and over again to point out why he proposed to levy this class of duty on one class of vehicles using the road and not to levy it on another crass using the road for the same purpose, and he gave absolutely no reason of any kind. Everybody knows that this industry in petrol motors is comparatively new in this country, that it is competing with other forms of locomotion, that it is competing regularly with the gas

    1129
    engine, the steam engine, and with the electrical engine, and none of these modes of locomotion is to be taxed in any way, but the petrol motor is to be singled out, and the fact that this particular duty is to be used against a particular industry is the strongest possible argument against a tax of this kind. Let me point out to what extent this discrimination really exists. The right hon. Gentleman, just before we had a Division, spoke with tremendous force about the absurdity of letting commercial vehicles off altogether. As is usual with him, and as I have been told of myself also, he proved too much, and if the case is so strong as he made out, then, instead of giving them half the tax, they ought to have it doubled, because they are the vehicles which, according to him, inflict the largest injury upon the road. But look at the different kinds of vehicles which compete with these motor vehicles; everybody who goes about the country knows that it is those great traction engines which inflict far more injury upon the road than could possibly be inflicted by the motor industry. They are not taxed, how ever, because they are driven by an old-fashioned industry, and the motors are driven by a new-fashioned industry.
    In London here petrol motor cabs are competing with electric cabs. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer realises to what extent he is discriminating against the motor industry as compared with electric cabs. I find that for ordinary London use, no touring at all, these taxes will amount to the equivalent of a licence duty of something like £10 a year—that is to say, that in competition with the electric motor the Chancellor of the Exchequer is doing precisely the same thing as if he said the holder of a petrol motor should pay £10 more than an electric motor. I could give many other illustrations, but I think I have said enough to justify my first point, that this is a discriminating tax against one form of industry, without imposing a corresponding burden upon another. The second vice which I said applied to this tax was that it would be extremely difficult to collect. I do not think anyone can doubt that, because the right hon. Gentleman told us that the duty is not to be imposed on stationary petrol engines or motor boats. How is it to be worked? Are the people who use this motor spirit for ordinary industrial purposes to pay the tax first and got a drawback afterwards? If so, it is inflicting an intolerable injury
    1130
    upon them in comparison with the man of money. The difficulties of collection will really be out of all proportion to the amount of revenue the Chancellor of the Exchequer will obtain.
    What is the difference between the motor spirit used for industrial purposes and that used for other purposes? How are you going to draw the line Take an illustration given to me by a friend of mine, the managing director of a shipbuilding line, who has a motor car, the petrol to drive which is taken from the ordinary stock of petrol used in the shipbuilding yard. This car is used by him to go on his commercial travels in the City of Glasgow and to take him to and from work. Is that an ordinary commercial purpose or is it not? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that doctors are not to have the benefit of the lowered rate of taxation in regard to petrol. How in the world can anyone defend that if a reduction is to be given for commercial purposes? Everyone knows that all over the country the doctors have motor cars simply to carry on their profession, and to them a motor car is just as much stock-in-trade as any other implement used in trade. The reason I say that should be interesting to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that one of the favourite arguments that everyone who sits there uses against the taxation that we advocate is to say it will not work in practice. Look how complicated it is ! The Financial Secretary, who has been very kind to us in these Debates in many ways, in his speech before dinner, dealing with this point, said "You talk about its complications, but after all it is no worse than you find in other countries, and you are in favour of these complications in other countries." I think it is worse than any I ever heard of, and yet we know that Gentlemen on the Bench opposite—I do not think it applies to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—but the Prime Minister never makes a speech on the Fiscal question without saying you cannot draw a distinction between raw material and manufactured articles. After this that difficulty disappears. The difference between raw materials and manufactures is nothing like the difference between what is used for industrial and for ordinary purposes in this tax. I am bound to say for the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we have had reasons to be grateful to him on many occasions. He has done a great deal to help us, but if he succeeds, and on the whole I think he is very likely to succeed, in finding that this tax will work

    1131
    and will be collected, it is perfectly certain that the argument about the difficulty of collecting any import duty must absolutely fall to the ground.
    The only other point of importance to which I referred is that this is a tax which is injurious to trade. I do not think anyone will doubt that. It is injurious to it not in the indirect sense of the words used by Mr. Gladstone., and quoted the other day by the Solicitor-General, that money is taken away from fructifying in the pockets of the taxpayers. It is not merely injurious in that respect. It is directly injurious to a particular trade. We have had proof of it in the remonstrance which has been raised by the owner of taxicabs. We have had further proofs of it in regard to motor omnibuses. No one doubts that, to some extent, it must injure trade. It must injure it even, to some extent, in regard to the ordinary pleasure motor car. If you add to the cost of running there is a tendency at least to diminish the use of it. All I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to admit in regard to that is that this duty will inevitably do an injury to this new industry which has sprung up in this country, either by diminishing the amount of employment which the industry gives now or at the best by preventing the expansion which might otherwise be expected in the industry. There is one side of the picture. That is the effect of this method of raising taxation. It is going to injure a particular trade which has sprung up.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to suggest another method of raising the same amount of Revenue which would not be open to these disadvantages. We brought into this country last year somewhere between four and five millions worth of foreign motor cars. A duty of 10 per cent. on that amount would have given us a larger amount of revenue than the right hon. Gentleman is going to get from petrol. I am going to indulge in some of the fiscal fallacies of which hon. Members know I am guilty. We should have got that amount of Revenue, and I want the House to consider the two alternative methods of raising it from the same source. What are the objections to raising it by the method I propose? In the first place, and this is a distinction which hon. Gentlemen opposite will be very unwilling, I think, to make, but it is a fact that the strongest argument against Tariff Reform does not apply to this pro-
    1132
    posal at all. The strongest argument, indeed in my honest opinion the only intelligible arument, that is ever put forward is that while by this method we will undoubtedly get a larger share of the home market—no one will deny that—it is selfevident—they all tell us that you will so raise the cost of everything that you will lose a larger proportion of your foreign market than you gain in your home market. That may or may not be true. I have argued it often, and shall be willing to argue it again, but it is not relevant here. Does anyone contend that because a man prefers to buy a foreign motor car our exports of anything else will be prevented by his having done so? Obviously that argument has no bearing whatever on the putting on of this particular tax. Of course, it may be said that a. certain quantity of the parts of motor cars are imported from abroad. I am told that practically none of these so-called parts are used in ears which are being exported. I wish to make every admission in connection with this matter. Suppose that they were used for cars which were exported, then there would be no difficulty whatever in doing what is done in other countries in similar circumstances in the way of giving a drawback to the exporter for the full amount of the duty in the case of motor cars exported abroad. I say, therefore, that that argument—and I think it is the only argument that can be advanced in favour of free imports—is one which does not hold. What other arguments are made in favour of free imports? I am trying to put the case as an ardent supporter of Free Trade would do. It will be said that by this method you will raise the price of cars, that it will cost a man more to buy one, and that there will be less money to spend on the purchase of cars. That is the common argument. I would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to bear in mind when they speak so freely on public platforms of consumers invariably paying the duty, that no economist of any school has ever made a statement of that kind. No economist has ever said it or believed it. It altogether depends on circumstances, and the circumstances on which it depends are in regard to the amount of competition. When anyone realises the extent of the motor industry in this country at the present time, and realises how much possibility there is as regards supply and demand, then, I think, it is perfectly evident that the effect of putting on an import duty would he not to raise

    1133
    the price of cars, but that foreign producers would have to take off the amount of the duty if they wished to make sales in this country. Let us assume that this is a disadvantage to place on cars imported here. It applies equally to the tax which the right lion. Gentleman proposes to impose. If you add to the cost of running, it is precisely the same thing as if you added to the initial cost. The spending power is increased as much in the one case as the other. There are other arguments I have heard used frequently on the platform, and I am ashamed to say by Members of this House who ought to know better. They say Tariff Reformers talk about revenue for Protection, in the same way as Protection for Revenue. They ask: Is it not evident that when you get revenue you cannot get Protection, and if you get Protection you cannot get Revenue? What a simple conundrum that is, and how unanswerable until you think over the matter! Everyone knows that if you take any country—America, Germany, or any other country —in spite of having a system of protection they do get revenue from this form of taxation, and they get it taking one period of five years with another in steadily increasing amounts. There is no doubt that they get revenue. Why do the hon. Gentlemen opposite object to our putting on duties on the ground that they are going to be protective? That argument obviously is absurd.
    What happens in all these cases is precisely what would happen in regard to motor cars. They perhaps would come in in small quantities; perhaps they would not. Perhaps the general expansion of the industry would mean that the total number imported would remain the same. It would be time enough to hunt for another method of raising revenue when you discovered that the method you applied had failed. Some hon. Gentlemen think that is absurd. Last year, as I said, over four millions worth were imported. That would have given us more than £400,000. Suppose next year only three and a half millions were imported, that would still give us £350,000. What is the objection to raising the revenue in that way? Obviously it is simply one of these catch cries which may be used by people who have not taken the trouble to consider what would be the effect. I do not put the case from the point of view of Gentlemen opposite as fully as they would do, but I am trying to put it from their point
    1134
    with regard to this tax that I can now think of is the one derived from the consoling doctrine that imports must be paid for by exports. (Cries of "Question.") I do not think that that can be considered outside the question when I say that I am not going into it at length. It seems that some hon. Gentlemen do not like that. But we hear a lot about imports being paid for by exports, and I thought perhaps they might be interested in hearing a little more of it from their point of view. All I say is that the thing in itself has no bearing on the Question whatever, for this reason—and I think it is sufficient in the first place that doctrine to Members on this side is a commonplace belonging to every school of economics. It would be accepted just as readily by a German economist as by an English one; and in the second place, if it is true of one country it is true of another. If it is true of Belgium, which pays for its imports of raw materials by its exports of manufactures it is true of Spain which pays for its imports of manufactures by its exports of raw materials by its exports of manufacturers, it bearing on this question one way or another. The point is not whether you pay your debts. There is no doubt of that. There is no doubt that imports are paid for by exports just as two and two make four. But it does not follow that two and two pence are equal to two and two sovereigns. That is the deduction which hon. Gentlemen opposite are so fond of deriving from it. I have as far as I could examined the objections which might be raised against this tax from the Free Trade point of view, and the point of view of hon. Gentlemen that a case of this kind is largely self-contained, and that if you put a tax on a luxury like motor cars it does not affect our general export trade, and that the general argument about the whole system of tariffs does not apply. Then here is the alternative, which I present to the right hon. Gentlemen—and I have spoken on this subject at considerable length, because, I think, this is a good working model, which we might use to advantage in illustrating our case all over the country. Here are the alternatives: On the one hand, a method of raising the money which admittedly is going to improve a particular trade, and on the other hand a method of raising an equal amount of money which would undoubtedly have the effect of benefiting a home industry at the same time as you raise the money.
    Mr. A. MOND: The hon Gentleman who has just sat down argued the question of Free Trade from another point of view, but he always treats Free Traders and Free Trade economists as if they were entirely lacking in intelligence, as if they had never studied elementary economics, and as if they were entirely incapable of appreciating any form of argument. Yet, after all, he showed himself so completely at sea in putting the elementary point of his case, he put it in such a grotesque shape as to render it extraordinarily difficult to any Free Trader to recognise any argument he ever heard before. The hon. Gentleman referred to taxation of motor cars, and he has accused us of having made the remarkable statement that you cannot have revenue and Protection at the same moment. But he put on the word "Protection" a double meaning. He says the countries that have Protection also obtain revenue from goods entering their country. Certainly, so far as your Protection fails, you obtain revenue; but, if your Protection succeeds, you will not get the revenue. One would have thought that even that very elementary problem a Tariff Reformer could have understood. But what do these hon. Gentlemen tell us all over the country. They wish to exclude foreign goods. Yes; "The Daily Express," your great organ, is conducting an inquiry every day, and what does that inquiry mean? It means that the home manufacturer is to make goods which are now coming here, and if he is to do that, you must exclude these goods, and those goods cannot give you revenue. You cannot have it both ways. Take the example of motor cars. He estimates that if you put on a 10 per cent. duty on motor cars there would be no diminution of the importation whatever; and he bases his estimate on this remarkable idea that if you put a 10 per cent. duty on foreign motor cars the same amount of motor cars would come in as come in now under free imports. By saying that he begs the whole question. I venture to say that you would see an enormous reduction in the imports of foreign motor cars if he had his 10 per cent. duty. The estimated revenue of £500,000 would soon become £250,000. He says that when this happens we can begin again. We can conceive what would be state of this country when the hon. Gentleman and his party came into office, if every year we had new taxation, and every other year a new deficit.
    1136
    The whole trade of the country would be dislocated by a hunt for new taxes. It is possible, I agree, that this tax on petrol is open to a good many objections. The hon. Gentleman has candidly admitted that the whole of his Tariff Reform system would be open to objections to the same extent. He has singled out one tax which he says is open to all the vices, according to his own argument. He has admitted, as he usually does, a number of extremely valuable points in our favour. He says: "If you increase cost you diminish consumption." We have said that on many platforms, but you have always denied it. You are always going to give more employment. Now he admits that they are going to give less employment. The hon. Gentleman also says that exports balance imports, and he spoke of that as a discovery of ours. No, it is not. It is very elementary. I wish we could convert the Tariff Reform League and their speakers, who are trying to persuade the people that all imports are loss and all exports gain. That is the fundamental argument of the mercantile school to which the hon. Member belongs, of the pre-Adam Smith days—the school of Louis Quatorze, whose disciple he is, the old argument on which the whole system of Protection is based. Then he gave us some remarkable arithmetic. He says exports balance imports. I suppose he means the value of exports balances the value of imports. He says two and two make four. We all knew that before, but it is very pleasant to hear a Tariff Reformer who does not say that two and two make five. What is his argument—one penny and one penny make twopence and one shilling and one shilling make two shillings, but how can you pay for two shillings of imports with twopence of exports? It seems to have no relevance whatever. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bonar Law), in his elaborate disquisition, stated it was for the benefit of his party on platforms.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Hear, hear.
    Mr. MOND: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman is going to use it, but I thought the instructions on platforms might have been given somewhere else in the privacy of the Tariff Reform League offices to young speakers. I must say I think the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bonar Law) has admitted to-night every one of our arguments. Although I cannot say T admire the petrol tax very much myself, I still would prefer it, because at any rate

    1137
    it will raise revenue on some sound and necessary basis and on a basis you can estimate. I would prefer it to the experimental attempt of the hon. Member for Dulwich to make his first effort in the great tariff, for which we have been waiting for seven years, and of which the schedule seems to be decided to-day as 10 per cent. on foreign motor cars.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: The only sentence which struck me in the oration of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mond) as bearing even in the most distant way upon the matter now under discussion is that in which he spoke of the petrol tax. The hon. Member in that single relevant sentence declared he was no friend of the petrol tax. I come to the matter immediately in hand, and I am going to make an appeal in all reason and with all moderation to the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), and an appeal which I do not think he will listen to with altogether unheeding ears. I am not going to advocate or champion the claims of those who, as we were told in the earlier part of the evening, have a fleet of motor cars on which they make a profit of £85 each per year. I am not going to appeal for a great company which at all events deal with thousands of pounds. I am going to speak for one class, and a class which I think deserves the sympathy of all parts of the community, and that is a class which will suffer, and suffer very considerably, by this motor tax. I mean the doctors throughout the country. I am sure hon. Members when they hear of some points about their case will feel that they do deserve some sort of consideration on the part of the right hon. Gentlemen. I speak with a knowledge of it myself, because there is no constituency that contains more doctors than mine. This of all classes is the one most deserving of consideration for the good it does to the community in general, and I think that, in proportion to the good it does, it earns less of reward than any other professional class. I have gone with some care into the effect of this tax upon doctors. ["Divide."] Hon Members opposite listened to appeals made on behalf of capitalists; can they not listen to an appeal on behalf of a professional class which is very far from being composed of capitalists? If the appeal meets with no consideration from Members opposite, it will, I am sure, meet with consideration from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Doctors have been obliged to take to the use of motor cars
    1138
    not from motives of ease, not with social objects, not as a luxury, but to meet the exigencies of clients scattered throughout these wide country districts. Nowadays, when this method of quick travelling has come in vogue, it is impossible for doctors to feel that they are doing their duty to their clients unless they are fn possession of the means of securing access in cases of sickness with the utmost speed possible. The horse and gig which they formerly used cost about £100, whereas these motors cost from £180 to £200. They are small cars, and do very little harm to the roads, but they will have to pay like other cars. It is true there is to be a certain rebate, but that will not make up for the heavy burden which this tax on petrol will impose. At a very moderate computation, a doctor in a country district will use about 800 gallons of oil in a year, which represents a tax of £12 or £13. Taking the average income at £500, after careful inquiry, it will be equivalent to doubling the income tax, allowing for the rebate on the first £140 on income. Doctors are bound to pay this duty, not in their own interests, but in the interest of their clients; they cannot avoid it; not merely will it impose a super-tax greater than that to be imposed upon the very wealthy, but it will actually double the tax upon the very moderate incomes which these people enjoy. In olden days you did not tax the hay and corn of the doctor's horse, but you now place a tax upon the doctor's car just as you do upon the carriage of the wealthy. I think my appeal is an exceedingly moderate one on behalf of a very deserving class, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way, at any rate, to treat it with sympathy.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I would like to add a very few words to the appeal which has been made by my hon. Friend who has just sat down on behalf of the doctors, who have a very strong case for the consideration of the House. I do not myself intend to be an admirer at all of this tax. It appears to me to be an excrescence on the Budget; to be admittedly unnecessary, either for the purposes of social reform or for the defence of the kingdom. Whatever might be said in favour of such a financial experiment if we were in a time of abounding prosperity, it does seem to me to he altogether indefensible in launching out on a fresh scheme of taxation when you have to raise for the first necessities of the State

    1139
    so large a sum as £16,000,000. There are other objections to the tax which I will not at this late hour embark upon. But I do desire to press the case of the doctors very seriously upon the right hon. Gentleman.
    In the first place I do not want to add to what my hon. Friend has said about a doctor's car being an absolute necessity, and in no sense a luxury. It is quite as much a necessity as any commercial vehicle. Far more, for the doctor's necessities are the necessities also of his patients. Apart from that there are several special circumstances about the doctor's car which really entitle it to special consideration when you are considering the amount of petrol used in that car. Being a necessity of his profession he has to use more petrol per mile than any other car user in the world. The ordinary car user uses his car during the summer. The doctor has to use his car mainly during the winter. Therefore he has to use, because of the additional heaviness of the roads, snore petrol per mile. More than that, the ordinary private car user drives only long distances at a time, and only starts and restarts occasionally. For the necessities of the employment of the doctor he has to be perpetually stopping and restarting, and that causes an additional consumption per mile. The result is that the doctor gets less out of his petrol than any other user. The above seems to me to be some ground for asking for remission. But when you come to take the actual amount which he will have to pay in respect of the tax then the case is even stronger. My hon. Friend has given a calculation. There have been a great many in the medical papers in the last two or three weeks. One I happened to notice showed that the ordinary country doctor uses from 200 to 400 gallons of petrol yearly. Three hundred gallons is a moderate estimate. That means at an increased price of 4d., not 3d.—it will he 4d., because the dealers will have to put something on the tax for the increased difficulties of bookkeeping, and so on. Therefore, if you take 300 gallons at 4d. it is £5. To put that addition on to the incomes of the country doctors of this country, I think, is a hardship that this House will consider very seriously before they sanction it.
    There is another point about it. This tax will fall not on the rich doctors, but on the poor doctors. It will fall on the poorer doctor more heavier, broadly
    1140
    speaking; not only because it will be larger proportionately to his income, but because in point of fact he has to drive very long distances in order to earn his scanty fee. The doctor in the sparsely populated districts who has to drive great distances in order to earn such fees as he can necessarily uses a larger amount of petrol than another man who earns a smaller income in the same way. The higher-power cars which are used by very-wealthy people do not use proportionately a larger quantity of petrol, though they do use a greater quantity.
    This tax will fall disproportionately more heavily upon the man who uses the lower power car and has to go to different places in order to earn his money. You treat the doctor who has to look after his car himself worse than the owner of the high power car. The doctor has not a highly-paid chauffeur who can keep his car up to the latest pitch of mechanical perfection, and every mechanical defect means more than petrol as every Member who has ever used a car will agree. Therefore in every way this tax is going to press heavier upon the doctor. If the admission is made that on certain commercial vehicles a rebate ought to be made then the case of the doctor is perfectly overwhelming. The user of the commercial vehicle will always have a chance of putting some portion of the extra tax upon his customer; but in the case of the country doctor is it suggested for a moment that he can recover the additional cost of petrol by charging additional fees upon the patients? I read a letter from a doctor stating that he had often to go long distances into the country, knowing perfectly well the fee he would receive would barely pay the cost of the journey, and very often it is exceedingly doubtful whether he would get any fee at all. The real effect of this tax will be one of two things. It either means an additional income tax upon an exceedingly poorly-paid portion of the community, or else it will be a tax upon the medical necessities of the poor. One of these two things it must be: It must either fall upon the doctor or upon the patients, and I really think it is difficult to decide upon which of these two classes this House should be least anxious to impose fresh taxation. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether before we come to the Committee stage of the Finance he cannot see his way to meet the views put forward from this side of the House in regard to this tax.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: No one appreciates the arguments in favour of the country doctor more than I do, but I do not think the case can be met in the manner suggested by the hon. Member who has just sat down. The only way the small country doctor could get relief would be by granting exemption to the low-power cars, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do well to consider whether be would not be well advised in this tax to do away with abatement, and to put what is known as a flat-tax upon all petrol that comes into the country. If he does that he will find more support than he does at the present time. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bonar Law), in his very interesting speech, especially the first part of it, with which every Member of the House cordially agreed, used the argument that this tax upon petrol was differential taxation, and in the circumstances in which it is imposed, namely, for the benefit of the roads, it gives exemption to cars driven by other means than petrol, such as cars driven by steam and electric power. If my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich had stuck to that instead of getting on to his favourite subject of Tariff Reform he would have carried the whole House with him. I do ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the arguments used by the hon. Member for Dulwich, which are generally held in the country, namely, that this tax will operate unjustly upon the users of motor cars as against those cars driven by steam or electricity. The damage done to our roads is the only reason which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward, but I appeal to him, before this Bill gets into Committee, to consider whether, in the interests of the country roads, it is not possible to devise some means by which not only horse-power can be taxed, but in some way also the weight of the car. It is not only the car of high velocity but the car of great weight, competing with our railways, which tear up our roads to an almost intolerable extent. In every country district in England and Scotland we have great traction engines going over the roads, carrying enormous weights, and carrying loads which the roads were never adapted to carry and were never intended to be carried on the roads. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might impose some countervailing duty upon those heavy vehicles. The grievance is that we have these heavy vehicles on the roads, and we have no means of taxing them, and they
    1142
    contribute nothing at all to the upkeep of the roads.
    Mr. GEORGE RENWICK: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not do-what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Cathcart Wason) has suggested, namely, put a tax without rebate on all motor spirit. I wish to ask the. right hon. Gentleman if he adheres to the statement he made in his Budget speech, to give a rebate upon all motor spirit used for purposes other than for motor vehicles? There is nothing in this Resolution to that effect. I wish to remind him of what he said in his Budget speech upon that point.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly I propose standing by the proposals made in my Budget speech, but in the Resolutions rebates never occur. They are always left to the Bill itself. The Resolution simply covers the maximum charge.
    Mr. RENWICK: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how they are going to recover the rebate in the case of the tax already paid, because no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the importation of motor spirit is in the hands of two, or three, or four large trusts or syndicates, and they have all issued circulars putting up the price of petrol fourpence per gallon, not only fur motor vehicles, but for all purposes. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that those who have already paid can apply for a rebate, but they will have no locus standi at all, and they are absolutely at the mercy of the merchants. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to assist a very deserving industry like dyers, who use motor spirit largely for cleaning, and so on. I sincerely hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take care that these powerful and wealthy syndicates do riot benefit as they are doing now by this tax. If they have large stocks they must now be getting a clear extra profit of fourpence a gallon, and I hope some steps will be taken to secure that those manufacturers who have already paid the tax will be able to get a return of the whole of the duty they have paid to which the importers of motor spirit are in no way entitled.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I wish to avoid altogether the more exciting topics which were raised earlier in the Debate. Questions have been put to me with reference to doctors. With regard to some points which have been raised I should like to

    1143
    wait until the Committee stage has been reached before giving a distinct answer to the Noble Lord. There are some practical difficulties to be overcome, but I take a favourable view of the suggestion. The amount that will be raised is comparatively small, and it is not so much in the interest of the doctors but of the whole community that favourable consideration should be given to the suggestion. I am very willing to give my favourable consideration to the point. With reference to the question raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle, I answered him by an interruption. I propose to stand by the proposals in my Budget speech. The tax will be confined exclusively to petrol used for propelling motor cars, and not petrol used for industrial purposes. The difficulty about rebate is this: Although the charge is fourpence a gallon, the Revenue will receive nothing, and we cannot give a rebate on nothing. I believe the British Petroleum Company and the Anglo-American Company have intimated that they will not impose the duty.
    An HON. MEMBER: What date?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: After the 15th inst.
    Mr. RENWICK: Have they made any offer to refund what they have already charged?
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I can only quote the circular they have sent to their customers, in which they state they do not propose to make the extra charge prior to the 15th inst., but, after that date, it will have to be paid. We certainly cannot give a rebate on sums of money which we have not received, and that is our difficulty in regard to this matter. I desire to say one word with regard to the whole tax. The reason why we divided our revenue into a direct charge upon motors and another charge upon petrol is this: One man may have a car of very considerable horsepower, for which he has but a limited use —he may only use it one day a week. Another man, with a smaller car, may use it every day and travel thousands of miles every year. The man with the smaller car does far more damage to the roads than the man with the heavy one, and, under the circumstances, this we considered to be a happy combination for catching the two. The man whose heavy car tears the roads up pays the higher duty on the car, while he who uses the roads more pays propor-
    1144
    tionately in the shape of petrol duty. On the whole, I think this is a fairer method of taxing the motorists of the country than by confining the tax to horse power. Possibly, at the beginning, there may be difficulty in arranging for the collection of the tax, but in the long run I believe it will be got in with the greatest ease in the world, and that there will be a great and growing revenue for the improvement of the roads.
    Mr. JOHN GORDON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will, when considering this Question of rebate to medical men, also consider if he cannot extend it to veterinary surgeons, who stand very much in the same position.
    Mr. A. C. MORTON: I desire to make a personal appeal to the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the medical men of Sutherlandshire, who have to travel long distances to places, sometimes 20 miles or more, far from a telegraph station, and who find motors of the greatest possible use. I make this appeal not only on their behalf, but also on behalf of their patients.
    Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: The hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Mond) has advocated a tax on petrol as the raw material in preference to a tax on the manufactured article like a motor car, which is practically an article of luxury for the rich. That is a very curious thing for a member belonging to the Liberal party, which is supposed, I believe, to be the great friend of the poor in this country to advocate. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that he overlooked the fact that he has got a form of protection in his own industry. I think it is a great pity he does not go hack to his own country, Germany, to preach Free Trade there. [Cries of "Withdraw."]
    Mr. W. R. ADKINS: Is an hon. Member in order, Sir, in referring to another hon. Member of this House as belonging to another country and not to this?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The expression is not an un-Parliamentary one, although it is distinctly offensive.
    Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: I was not aware that it was offensive. Of course, Sir, I withdraw it. The hon. Member for Chester said—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think it will be better if the hon. Member will approach the Amendment, and leave the hon. Member for Chester alone.
    Mr. HUNT: Is it your ruling that I am not to reply to what the hon. Member said to the hon. Member for Dulwich?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think in the interest of the House generally it would be better for the hon. Member to confine himself to the matter now before the House. A duel took place between the two hon. Members, and I think the House is content to leave it there.
    Mr. HUNT: I hope I may put it in this way, that I understood the hon. Member for Chester said you could not have a duty on motor cars working two ways, both for revenue and for protection. I beg to say the hon. Member is quite wrong. If a sufficient duty is put on motor cars, so that half of the £4,000,000 worth imported yearly into this country were made in
    this country, most of the £2,000,000 would go in wages to our working people, and we should get revenue for the other £2,000,000 worth which were imported, and therefore we should have it both ways. The hon. Gentleman will not allow us to put any import tax on motor cars because we can make them in this country. That is the real reason, and this is the principle we have gone on for 60 years. And after that the President of the Board of Trade was kind enough to tell us at Birmingham the other day that millions of our people were more miserable than those of other countries in the world.
    Question put: "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    The House divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 76.

    Division No. 134.]

    AYES.

    [11.20 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

    Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Cowan, W. H.

    Hodge, John

    Agnew, George William

    Craig. Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Alden, Percy

    Crooks, William

    Hooper, A. G.

    Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

    Crossley, William J.

    Hope, W. H. B. (Somerset, N.)

    Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Armitage, R.

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Hudson, Walter

    Armstrong, W. C. Heaton

    Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

    Hutton, Alfred Eddison

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Astbury, John Meir

    Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)

    Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Duckworth, Sir James

    Jenkins, J.

    Baring, Godfrey (isle of Wight)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in Furness)

    Johnson, John (Gateshead)

    Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

    Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otiey)

    Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

    Barnes, G. N.

    Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Beale, W. P.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Kekewich, Sir George

    Beauchamp, E.

    Erskine, David C.

    King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

    Beck, A. Cecil

    Essex, R. W.

    Laidlaw, Robert

    Bell, Richard

    Esslemont, George Birnie

    Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster)

    Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

    Evans, Sir Samuel T.

    Lambert, George

    Bennett, E. N.

    Everett, R. Lacey

    Lamont, Norman

    Berridge, T. H. D.

    Falconer, James

    Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis

    Bertram, Julius

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Ferens, T. R.

    Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)

    Bramsdon, T. A.

    Findlay, Alexander

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Branch, James

    Gibb, James (Harrow)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Gill, A. H.

    Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

    Brigg, John

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

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Brodie, H. C.

    Glover, Thomas

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

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

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Mackarness, Frederic C.

    Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire)

    Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

    Maclean, Donald

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Buckmaster, Stanley O.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Macpherson, J. T.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    M'Callum, John M.

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

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

    Cameron, Robert

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcester)

    M'Micking, Major G.

    Causton, Rt. Hon. Richard Knight

    Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

    Maddison, Frederick

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Channing, Sir Francis Aliston

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

    Manfield, Harry (Northants)

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Harwood, George

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Marnham, F. J.

    Cleland, J. W.

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Massie, J.

    Clough, William

    Hazel, Dr. A. E. W.

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Clynes, J. R.

    Hedges, A. Paget

    Micklem, Nathaniel

    Cobbold, Felix Thornley

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Molteno Percy Alport

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Mond, A.

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Henry, Charles S.

    Montgomery, H. G.

    Cooper, G. J.

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

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead)

    Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Morrell, Philip

    Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Morse, L. L.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Vivian, Henry

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Robinson, S.

    Walters, Joke Tudor

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.)

    Robson, Sir William Snowdon

    Walton, Joseph

    Myer, Horatio

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Ward, John (Stoke-on-Trent)

    Napier, T. B.

    Rogers, F. E. Newman

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Newnes, F (Notts, Bassetlaw)

    Rose, Charles Day

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Nicholls, George

    Rowlands, J.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Runciman, tit. Hon. Walter

    Waterlow, D. S.

    Norton, Captain Cecil William

    Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Hussey, Thomas Willans

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Nuttali, Harry

    Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

    White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

    O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

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

    White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Sears, J. E

    Whitehead, Rowland

    Partington, Oswald

    Seaverns, J. H.

    Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Seddon, J.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Shackleton, David James

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Shaw, Sir Charles E. (Stafford)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Williams, W. Liewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Pointer, J.

    Simon, John Allsebrook

    Williamson, A.

    Pollard, Dr. G. H.

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Wills, Arthur Walters

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    Price, Sir Robert J (Norfolk, E.)

    Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire)

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

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

    Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

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

    Radford, G. H.

    Summerbell, T.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Raphael, Herbert H.

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Winfrey, R.

    Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Richardson, A.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Joseph Pease and the Master of Elibank.

    Ridsdale, E. A.

    Tomkinson, James

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    NOES.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Gordon, J.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gretton, John

    Nolan, Joseph

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston)

    Oddy, John James

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Haddock, George B.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hamilton, Marquess of

    Pretyman, E. G.

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

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Hazleton, Richard

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Bottomley, Horatio

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Renwick, George

    Bull, Sir William James

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Ronaidshay, Earl of

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Hunt, Rowland

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

    Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

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

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

    Keswick, William

    Starkey, John R.

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Staveley-Hill Henry (Staffordshire)

    Clark. George Smith

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Clyde, J. Avon

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

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham)

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lyttelton. Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

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

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)

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

    Dickson, Fit. Hon. C. Scott

    M'Arthur, Charles

    Younger, George

    Douglas, Rt. Hon, A. Akers-

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Fell, Arthur

    Mooney, J. J.

    A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Forster, Henry William

    Morrison-Bell, Captain

    And, it being half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, in pursuance of the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at half after Eleven o'clock.