Commons Sitting of 25 July 1910

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): I beg to move, "That Standing Orders 220 and 246, relating to Private Bills, be suspended for the remainder of the Session:
"That, as regards Private Bills returned by the House of Lords with Amendments, such Amendments shall be considered on the day on which the House shall next sit.
"That, when it is intended to propose any Amendments thereto, notice of such Amendments shall be given at the Private Bill Office on the day on which the Bill shall have been returned from the Lords."
Question put, and agreed to.
Provisional Order Bills (no Standing Orders applicable)—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
Severn Fisheries Provisional Order Bill.
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time to-morrow.
Glasgow Gas Consolidation Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Gas Companies (Standard Burner) (No. 1) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Gas Companies (Standard Burner) (No. 2) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Gas Companies (Standard Burner) (No. 3) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till to-morrow.
Paisley Gas Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed without Amendment.
Falkirk Corporation Gas Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.
Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Read a second time, and committed.
Fraserburgh Water Order Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Fraserburgh Water," presented by the Lord Advocate; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered to-morrow.
Message from the Lords,—That they have agreed to—
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment,
Small Holdings (No. 3) Bill, with an Amendment,
Little Hulton Urban District Council Bill,
Yorkshire Registries and Driffield Navigation Bill,
Middlesbrough Corporation Bill,
Pontypridd and Rhondda Joint Water Board Bill,
Rhondda Urban District Council (Tramways Extension, etc.) Bill,
Bradford Corporation Bill,
Fylde Water Board Bill,
Eastbourne Corporation Bill,
Southampton Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Wheat Land under Cultivation (Canada).
  Mr. CROFTasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies what was the total amount of wheat land at present under cultivation in the Dominion of Canada, and what percentage of the whole cultivable land this represents?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The area under wheat this year in Canada is officially given as 9,294,800 acres. From a

  1729
  new Government map of the Dominion, it would appear that the total area under crop is about one-twelfth of the total area surveyed, but I cannot say what proportion of the whole cultivable land this would represent.

  Exports from Great Britain to Canada.
  Mr. CROFTasked the Under Secretary for the Colonies if he could state the total value of exports from Great Britain to Canada in the year preceding the granting of preference and the total value of exports to the Dominion in the last completed year?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): A Customs preference was first accorded by the Dominion Government to British goods in 1897. The exports to Canada of the produce and manufacture of the United Kingdam in 1896 were of a declared value of £5,352,000. In 1909 their declared value was £15,688,000—an increase of 193 per cent. Meanwhile the total imports of merchandise into Canada from all sources have, of course, very largely increased.
  Mr. CROFT: May we take it that that represents, as a result of the preference, an increase of £5,000,000 per annum in wages to the British working classes?
  Mr. BUXTON: I should like to have notice of that question.
  Mr. BOLAND: Do those figures include exports from Ireland as Great Britain only is mentioned?
  Mr. BUXTON: The United Kingdom.

  West Coast Colonies (Ashanti Tribal Lands).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to pages 17 and 18 of the Colonial Report for Ashanti for 1909, reciting the disputes and fighting that has arisen over the boundaries of the old tribal lands because of the European demand for land and mineral concessions, which the chiefs are at present able to grant; and whether he will instruct the Governor and the High Court to refuse to ratify any further concessions by chiefs to whites pending general inquiry into the land system in the West Coàst Colonies?
  Colonel SEELY: The attention of the Secretary of State has been drawn to the passage in the Annual Report on Ashanti to which my hon. Friend refers. He has
  1730
  no power to issue instructions to the Supreme Court controlling the power, vested in it by the existing law, of ratifying concessions, but he has asked the Governor to report whether any change in the law is required.
  Sir J. D. REES: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the contemptuous description in the question of Europeans as "whites," and allows the implication that their colour is the only thing white about them?

  Colonial Law Library, London.
  Mr. G. J. SANDYSasked what progress has been made in the establishment of a Colonial Law Library in London; and whether any other Dominion Governments, in addition to the Canadian Government and the Government of New South Wales, have intimated their readiness to contribute to the library?
  Colonel SEELY: The Governments of New Zealand, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, and Tasmania, in addition to the Governments of Canada and New South Wales, have intimated their readines to supply copies of their Statutes, etc., to the proposed Law Library. The Canadian Law Library has been transfered to the Privy Council Office. Corespondence as to the detailed arrangements is proceeding.

  Privy Council (Appeals from the Dominions).
  Mr. G. J. SANDYSasked whether the new rules drafted by the Privy Council relative to appeals to the Privy Council from the Supreme Courts of the Dominions have now been accepted by the Dominion Governments?
  Colonel SEELY: The new rules have so far been accepted in substance by the Governments of the Dominion of New Zealand, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, Newfoundland, the Transvaal—prior to the inauguration of the Union of South Africa—and the Province of Alberta.

  Great Britain, Russia, and Persia.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Chief Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether existing arrangements between Great Britain, Russia, and Persia preclude other foreign Powers from obtaining concessions for railways in the latter country; whether he can give the House any information regarding the progress of the Baghdad

  1731
  Railway; and whether His Majesty's Government has under consideration the necessity for the construction of the Gulf section by or with the participation of Great Britain?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): As regards the first part of the hon. Member's question, I am not at present in a position to make any statement respecting confidential communications which have recently passed between the British and Russian Governments and the Persian Government on the subject of concessions for the construction of railways in Persia. As regards the Baghdad Railway, preliminary work of construction is being carried out at various points between Boulgourlu and Missis, and financial provision is believed to have been made for continuing the line as far as El Helif. With regard to the last part of the hon. Member's question, I cannot make any further statement.

  Imperial Chinese Government Railway Contracts.
  Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if the British interests in the Imperial Chinese Government railway contracts have yet been settled; and, if so, will he take an early opportunity of making a statement on the matter?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am unaware of what contracts the hon. Member refers to, but if he is alluding to the Hankow-Szechuan and Hankow-Canton Railway Loan, an arrangement was come to in Paris in May last between the four financial groups concerned, representing British, American, French, and German interests in regard to this matter, on the basis of an equal division of the line among the four groups. The question has been submitted to the Chinese Government, and is now under their consideration.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the decision of the Local Government Board in the case of Mrs. Jane Rooney, of Aughalative, Kinlough, county Leitrim, an old age pensioner, who had attained the statutory age according to the Census of 1841, and having regard to previous decisions on similar appeals, he will direct the pension officer to return her book and pay the amount stopped on account of pension received?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): Mrs. Rooney's pension has been restored as from 29th April, in accordance with the concession which I announced in the House of Commons on 28th April last.
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state upon what grounds James M'Garraghy, of Larkfield, Manorhamilton, county Leitrim, has been deprived of his old age pension; and whether such evidence as certificates from people of over eighty years of age, or his own hoary and worn personal appearance, will be taken by the pension officer who visited him?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: James M'Garraghy's pension was withdrawn by the Local Government Board as the result of a question raised by the pension officer on the ground that he is recorded as six years old in the Census Returns of 1851, and therefore apparently he is only sixty-five. I have no authority to intervene in the matter.
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he would state upon what grounds Thomas M'Loughlin, of Cloonmore, Drumkeerin, county Leitrim, was deprived of the old age pension; whether he is aware that M'Loughlin produced a certificate of his age received from the Reverend Patrick M'Morrow, P.P., V.F., and that the registry clerk produced the baptismal registry to the pension officer; and, having regard to such facts, will an inquiry be ordered with a view of granting M'Loughlin the pension and paying him the amount due since it became due?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Thomas M'Loughlin's claim to a pension was disallowed on appeal by a decision of the Local Government Board. I have no authority to review this decision, or to question the sufficiency of the evidence on which it is based.
  Mr. CULLINAN: Was not the certificate the same as the baptismal registry?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Apparently the Local Government Board did not think so.
  Mr. HOGANasked whether Mrs. Catherine Bourke, of Foilnadrough, Kilcommon, near Thurles, county Tipperary, was granted an old age pension on 2nd February last by the Birdhill subcommittee, and that, on appeal by the pension officer, the Local Government Board

  1733
  decided that the applicant was not entitled to a pension; upon what grounds this decision was arrived at, seeing that the applicant produced evidence to show that she was seventy years of age in November last; and whether the Local Government Board will be requested to again reconsider the matter with a view to restoring the pension to this person?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Local Government Board disallowed Mrs. Bourke's claim because she was unable to satisfy them that she had attained the statutory age. It is not open to the Board to reconsider their decision.

  Widow of Government Servant (Claim to Bonus).
  Major ADAMasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether Mrs. A. Bryant, of 23, Neathfield Terrace, Plumstead Common, may receive a bonus due to her late husband, who died in Government service?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: In the absence of details I cannot say whether Mrs. Bryant is entitled to any Grant from public funds. If she is, her case will doubtless be put forward by the Department in which Mr. Bryant was employed. In this connection I may perhaps refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for South Islington on the 20th ultimo.
  Major ADAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries in this case?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir. It is not my business to make inquiries. The Department concerned dealt with the matter.

  Ordnance College, Woolwich (Pension Scheme, 1902).
  Major ADAMasked whether the foremen of the military artificers undergoing instruction in the saddlery school of the chief inspector of general stores and the foremen of the Ordnance College, Woolwich, are included in the pension scheme of 1902 for ordnance factories foremen?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): The foremen employed under the Chief Inspector of Equipment and Stores are included in the Foremen's Pension Scheme of 1902. There are no foremen at the Ordnance College.

  Medical Degrees and Diplomas.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the disparity in the value of medical degrees and
  1734
  diplomas which entitle their possessors to practise medicine in this country; and whether he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, towards establishing a fair standard of examination qualifying for medical practice?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): It is the statutory duty of the General Council of Medical Education to inspect and report on all qualifying examinations, and if it appears to them that the standard of proficiency required at the qualifying examinations held by any of the licensing bodies is insufficient, to make a representation to that effect to the Privy Council, who are empowered, if they think fit, after due inquiry, to order the withdrawal from medical authorities of the right to hold qualifying examinations.

  Death at Brompton Hospital (Mrs. Keane).
  Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the circumstances attending the death of Mrs. Keane in the Brompton Hospital, London, on 26th June last, whereby knowledge of her death was kept from her husband for twenty-eight hours; if he is aware that a post mortem was performed without the husband's knowledge and consent; and whether he will order a public inquiry?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My attention has been drawn to this case, and I have made inquiry of the hospital authorities. They inform me that Mrs. Keane died early on the morning of 26th June, and a telegram was sent to her husband at Mexborough the same morning; but, the day being Sunday, it was not delivered to him till early on Monday. They have already written to him expressing extreme regret that a post mortem examination was held under the mistaken belief that he had given his consent, it being their rule not to make such examinations without the consent of the relatives. I do not think that any further action is called for on my part.

  Ludgate Hill Station.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Trade, if he is aware that workpeople travelling to Ludgate Hill station by the early morning trains are not permitted to return from that station, but have to make their way to Holborn Viaduct station, the reason assigned for such inconvenience being the narrowness of the

  1735
  platforms and the consequent risk of overcrowding; and, as the platforms have now been reconstructed and widened whether the question of allowing workpeople to return from Ludgate Hill station has been considered by the joint committee as promised in May of last year; and, if so, with what result?
  Mr. BUXTON: The managing committee inform me that the new staircases leading to and from the widened platforms are not yet completed, and will not be finished for some little time, but that, subject to the completion of these works, it is proposed that, from 1st October next, workmen's tickets shall be available for the return journey from Ludgate Hill station.

  Harwich Harbour.
  Mr. NEWTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, and, if so, when, the Abstract of Accounts together with a Report of the Conservancy Board on their proceedings and on the works executed by them, and on the state of Harwich Harbour furnished by the Harwich Harbour Conservancy Board under the Harwich Harbours Act, 1863, Section 6, has been laid before both Houses of Parliament?
  Mr. BUXTON: The Abstract of Accounts and Report of the Harwich Harbour Conservancy Board for the year ended 31st March last will be laid before Parliament in the course of the present week.

  British Imports and Exports.
  Mr. BURGOYNE (for Major ArcherShee)asked what was the average value of the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom consigned to the United States during the decades 1889–1898 and 1899–1908, respectively, and the average value of the produce and manufactures of the United States consigned to the United Kingdom during the same decades?
  Mr. BUXTON: The average declared value of the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom exported annually from this country to the United States during the decade 1889–1898 was £24,330,000, and during the decade 1899–1908 was £22,676,000. The average declared value of the produce and manufactures of the United States exported annually from that country to the United Kingdom during the decade 1888–9–1897–8 was £90,384,000, and during the decade 1898–9–1907–8 was £113,471,000.
  Mr. BURGOYNE (for Major ArcherShee)asked what was the value of the produce and manufacture of the United Kingdom consigned to Canada and Holland, respectively, in the year 1909, and the estimated population of each country at the end of that year?
  Mr. BUXTON: The declared value of the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom consigned from this country during 1909 to the Dominion of Canada was £15,688,000, and to the Netherlands £11,718,000. At the end of the year 1909 the estimated population of Canada was about 7,490,000, and of the Netherlands about 5,910,000.
  Mr. BURGOYNE (for Major ArcherShee)asked what was the value of the produce and manufacture of the United Kingdom consigned to Belgium and New Zealand, respectively, in the year 1909, and the estimated population of each country at the end of that year?
  Mr. BUXTON: The declared value of the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom consigned from this country during 1909 to the Dominion of New Zealand was £7,351,000 and to Belgium £10,607,000. At the end of 1909 the estimated population of New Zealand, excluding Maoris, was about 987,000 and of Belgium about 7,452,000.

  Labour Exchanges (Employment in South Africa).
  Mr. GEORGE D. FABERasked why no answers have been sent to any of the written applications, accompanied by testimonials, made many weeks ago, at considerable trouble and expense, by masons in this country for employment in South Africa, in response to advertisements, inviting such applications, issued by the Labour Exchanges in London; and whether such employment is now required?
  Mr. BUXTON: The applications received from masons in this country for employment in South Africa have been submitted to the employer notifying the vacancies, and are at present under consideration by him. Applicants will be informed of the result by the Labour Exchanges as soon as they are in a position to do so. A sufficient number of applications have now been received, and no more are required.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it open to any employer in the Colonies to apply at

  1737
  the Labour Exchanges or in London or elsewhere in the country?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: It is open to them certainly, and the application will be considered.

  Law Guarantee Trust and Accident Society.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLESasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the reports of the meetings held on the 20th July with reference to the Law Guarantee Trust and Accident Society, and the statement then made by the chairman, Mr. William Harris, that the President of the Board of Trade had stated that they could not get a public inquiry; if he has also considered the refusal of the chairman to answer Mr. Arthur Lawton's question as to the transactions introduced by each director or their firms to the society and his refusal to accept an amendment calling for a full and independent inquiry; if, in view of the statement made at that meeting of the widespread loss caused by the transactions of this company and of the consequent scandal and impaired confidence thereby caused in the members of the legal profession responsible, he now considers that there is sufficient ground to justify him in moving in the matter, so as to secure full and adequate public inquiry in order to ascertain the facts; and, if he is still advised by the Law Officers of the Crown that his powers do not enable him to order such an inquiry, will he introduce a short Bill giving such extra power as may be necessary for ascertaining the truth of this matter?
  Mr. BUXTON: I have read the report in the press of the meetings held on the 20th July with reference to the Law Guarantee Trust and Accident Society. I have carefully considered the question of an inquiry in all its bearings. With regard to the powers of the Board of Trade in the matter, I would refer my hon. Friend to the carefully considered answer which I gave on the 18th July to my hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney, of which I am sending him a copy. I then invited, with a view to action by the Official Receiver, statements of definite facts to be laid before me with the names of the persons who are willing, if necessary, to substantiate them on oath. No such statements have yet reached me, and probably no sufficient time has yet elapsed for their preparation. As to the suggestion that a short Bill should be introduced, I think that before I even consider so heroic a
  1738
  remedy, I must first be satisfied that the machinery provided by Statute cannot be applied in the present case, and that the cerditors and shareholders for some special reason are debarred from helping themselves by an application to the court. I have already endeavoured to point out that they have, apparently, got full power to petition the court for an order that the company may be wound up compulsorily, on which a full inquiry by the Official Receiver would follow as a matter of course. No doubt my hon. Friend is also aware that the court has power, under Section 174 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act at the instance of the liquidator, or at the instance of a creditor or of a shareholder of the company, to summon before it for the purpose of examination any person whom the court deems capable of giving information as to the affairs of the company, and I am informed that though these examinations are usually held in private, the court has, on due course shown, with the consent of the persons examined, from time to time ordered them to be held in open court.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: In reference to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask him whether he has given attention to the definite statement which appeared in "The Economist" that the balance sheet showed a surplus when there was in fact a deficit, and that a dividend was paid when the assets fell far short of the liabilities, and when the society was therefore really in a state of insolvency?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: There were various statements in the newspaper in reference to this matter, but before I take action I must have information from those who are prepared to make a statement and, if necessary, substantiate it on oath. If some of the statements in the newspapers are correct, and if someone will bring them to me and is prepared to substantiate them, then, of course, I will give them attention. If not, I am unable to go further.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has also seen a definite statement made in a much more important publication than "The Economist"; but apart from that, whether there would have been the same reluctance to interfere officially if, instead of judges and members of the legal profession, this company had been under the control, say, of Mr. Hooley?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: There is absolutely no foundation for such an insinuation against the Board of Trade. The question is not in the least judged by the character of the persons in control; we have to act under Statute and cannot go beyond the powers of the Statute, and under the Statute we must have information which will be substantiated by the persons giving it before we can move. If my hon. Friend has got information which would be useful in considering this matter I have already told him I will be glad to consider it and lay it before the law officers with a view, if possible, of taking action.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever before known, in the history of the Department, that they required sworn statements before instituting an inquiry? If so, he shall have them.
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: I did not say they must be sworn statements. I said more than once what I want is a definite statement by responsible persons who, if necessary, will substantiate them on oath. I am not asking for statements on oath. What I want is bona fide statements that can be substantiated on oath. I am extremely anxious if such information comes before me that full inquiry shall be made into the matter. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House there is no desire to shield anybody or hush anything up, but quite the contrary.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the statement that a false balance-sheet was issued to the public, and a dividend was paid when the society was in a state of insolvency is a definite statement, and sufficient foundation for inquiry?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have not seen the statement. If anyone is prepared to substantiate it I shall be prepared to consider it.

  Board of Agriculture (Persons Employed).
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture what is the total number of persons, not at the time of appointment in permanent Government employment, who have been appointed since January, 1906, to positions in his Department with salaries exceeding £100 a year, and who did not previously to their appointment pass an examination by the Civil Service Commissioners; and what is the total amount of their salaries?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): Fifteen such appointments have been made to the Board's permanent staff since January, 1906, at initial salaries amounting in the aggregate to £7,360. Of these eight had held office previously under the Marine Biological Association, and four were appointed for work under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, and two for work under the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts.

  Small Holdings (Rent).
  Mr. OLIVER LOCKER -LAMPSONasked whether the rent charged by the county council for small holdings is exacted immediately it falls due, or whether the tenant is allowed some weeks' grace within which to pay, as is usual when he hires from a private landlord?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: It is a matter for the discretion of the county council.

  Severn Fisheries Provisional Order Bill.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Severn Fisheries Provisional Order Bill arouses considerable opposition in Montgomeryshire; and whether, for this reason and because of the complicated nature of the Bill and the many Amendments necessary, he will consider the propriety of dropping it, at any rate for the present Session?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Yes, Sir. But the preparation of the Order now submitted has entailed a great deal of labour, and the Board would be sorry that the Bill should be abandoned until it has been considered by a Parliamentary Committee.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is the hon. Baronet aware that Montgomeryshire folk entertain strong objection to being forced to eat their salmon with Worcester sauce and will he note that fact in his Department?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: That is a question which should be brought before the Committee at the proper time.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether, having regard to the fact that all the riparian counties, with the exception of Worcestershire, have, through their county council representatives, criticised adversely the provisions of the Severn Fisheries Provisional Order Bill, the Government propose to proceed with the further stages of this Bill on the footing that it is a non-contentious measure?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): No, Sir, according to my information this Bill cannot be regarded as a non-contentious measure.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: Is it not a fact that all the counties except Worcestershire are unanimously opposed to the Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That shows it is contentious.

  Outbreak of Foot-and-Mouth Disease near Ripon.
  Sir WILLIAM COLLINSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he would at once issue an Order against the importation of biological products liable to propagate foot-and-mouth disease in this country, so as to prevent the spread of the disease here, in the manner in which recent outbreaks have been proved to have been initiated and extended in the United States?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: We are in communication with the other Departments concerned in the matter.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH (for Mr. Stanier)asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he can now state the number of animals slaughtered on the Northclose Farm, near Ripon; if these are the whole number which have been in contact with those affected with foot-and-mouth disease; and if there has been any further outbreak?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Twenty-six cattle, ninety-four sheep, and three swine have been slaughtered at Northclose Farm. Three cows and three calves which had been in contact with the animals on the farm have been slaughtered on other premises, and found healthy. There has been no further outbreak.
  Mr. EDWARD WOOD: Can the hon. Baronet state on what scale compensation will be paid for these animals?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Full compensation will be paid on the usual scale.
  Lord BALCARRES (for Mr. Charles Bathurst)asked whether, in view of the gravity of the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in an important cattle-breeding district at some distance from the coast, the Board will consider the advisability of placing an embargo upon all feeding stuffs and straw and other litter imported from countries in which the dis-
  1742
  ease has been known to exist during the last six months, pending the discovery by the Board of the source of the present outbreak?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: In view of the enormous imports of feeding stuffs (88,000,000 cwt.) the Board cannot impose an embargo on them pending the discovery of the source of the disease. Straw and hay for bedding and feeding are now dealt with by the Foreign Hay and Straw Order.
  Lord BALCARRES (for Mr. C. Bathurst)asked whether the eight animals at Northclose Farm, Kirkby Malzeard, originally found to be affected with foot-and-mouth disease had been fed on cattle cake or other food which had been imported from abroad; whether they had been bedded upon straw or other litter purchased from outside the district; whether in either case it has been ascertained from what source such food or litter had been derived; and whether, and to what extent, similar food or litter from the same source had been supplied to other cattle owners?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: Local straw and litter only have been used on the infected place. A mixed consignment of feeding cake of various brands was delivered there on the 7th instant. Inquiries as to its origin and the destination of the remainder of the consignment are being made.
  Mr. EDWARD WOOD: Can the hon. Baronet say, in the absence of any further outbreak, when those concerned may expect the Regulations to be relaxed?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: They will be released at the earliest possible moment consistent with absolute safety.
  Lord BALCARRES (for Mr. C. Bathurst)asked whether, until sufficient time has elapsed to gauge the gravity and extent of the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Yorkshire, the Board will consider the advisability of closing any cattle market in which during the last few weeks any of the affected animals had been exposed, and all cattle markets within a radius of twenty miles from the farm where the outbreak has occurred?
  Sir E. STRACHEY: None of the affected animals have been exposed in a market, but, as a matter of precaution, all markets (fourteen in number) within fifteen miles radius of the infected place were closed on Thursday last.

  Sydney Herbert Statue.
  Mr. VERNEYasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he can find some position for the statue of the late Right Hon. Sydney Herbert more suitable to the great public services that he rendered to this country than the courtyard of the War Office; and whether he will have the statue removed from its present position, where it is concealed from the public, to a more appropriate site, so that the memory of a great statesman may be kept green?
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): I have not at present in mind any more suitable position in which the statue could be placed.

  King Edward VII. (Lying-in-State).
  Mr. OLIVER LOCKER - LAMPSONasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he can cause a brass plate to be let into the floor of Westminster Hall to mark the spot where His Majesty the late King lay in state?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have already arranged for such a plate.

  St. James's Park (Motor Speed Limit).
  Mr. BURGOYNE (for Major ArcherShee)asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the fact that the roads in St. James's Park are among the widest and least congested in London, and that they are thoroughfares to all the main stations, as well as to the Houses of Parliament, he will consider the possibility of raising the speed limit in that park to fifteen miles an hour instead of ten miles, whilst still maintaining the present strict observance of the regulated speed?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have to consider the convenience of pedestrians as well as that of those who use motors, and the faster motors travel on the roads in question the less will be the enjoyment of the park by the majority. I will, however, consider if the limit can be raised to twelve miles per hour.

  New Zealand's Battleships.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether names have yet been allotted to the cruiser-battleships building for the Commonwealth and the Dominion of New Zealand; when it is proposed to call for tenders for the construction of the destroyers to he utilised for service in New Zealand waters; and to what general type this unit will belong?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The vessels will be named "Australia" and "New Zealand" respectively. The reply to the second part of the question is October next, and to the third part, the same type as the 1910–11 British torpedo-boat destroyers.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me what name it is proposed to give the battleship of the King Edward Class at the present named "New Zealand"?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. It would be premature at the present moment to discuss the question?

  Battleships (Launching).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether prospective dates have yet been decided for the launch of the "Monarch," "Thunderer," "Conqueror," and "Princess Royal"?
  Mr. McKENNA: Dates for the launch of these ships have not yet been decided.

  Destroyers (1910–1911 Programme).
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state in what months it is anticipated the destroyers of this year's programme, for which orders have provisionally been given, will be delivered by the contractors?
  Mr. McKENNA: Orders have been provisionally placed with deliveries as follows:—
  3 boats by 31st August, 1911.
  6 boats by 30th September, 1911.
  3 boats by 30th November, 1911.
  8 boats by 1st January, 1912.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: How does that compare with the right hon. Gentleman's statement that nine of these boats would be built in fifteen months?
  Mr. McKENNA: Three by the 31st of August, 1911, and six by the 30th September, 1911.

  Petty Officers (Navy 2nd Class).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that an undertaking was given to petty officers, 2nd class, in the Royal Navy, when that rating was abolished some three years ago, to the effect that seamen holding the rating of petty officer, 2nd class, would be given preference for promotion according to

  1745
  seniority until that rating became non-existent in the service; that this undertaking has not been strictly observed; that cases have occurred of individuals holding the rank of leading seamen, a grade below that of petty officer, 2nd class, being promoted to the rating of petty officer, 1st class, over the heads of men holding the rating of petty officer, 2nd class; and that cases have also occurred of petty officers, 2nd class, who have passed for warrant rank, being excluded from promotion to petty officer, 1st class, in favour of leading seamen; and whether he will see that the undertaking above referred to is more stringently observed?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware of any such undertaking as that referred to in the first part of the question; on the contrary, in circular letter No. 96 of 1907 introducing the new scheme for naval ratings, it was distinctly specified that advancement to higher rating should continue to be by selection from petty officers and men possessing the necessary qualifications.

  Naval Engineering College (Devonport).
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the closing of the Royal Naval Engineering College at Devonport has involved notice being given to some sixteen employés now borne on the dockyard books; that these men have been in the service of the college for periods ranging from three to eight years; and whether, in the circumstances, he can see his way to transfer these employés to some other department in His Majesty's dockyard?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is assumed that the men referred to are labourers and servants who entered the service of the college from outside, and have not been borne on dockyard books. It has already been decided to send their names to the Admiral Superintendent of His Majesty's dockyard at Devonport, with a view to their employment, if suitable, in the dockyard after the college closes, and it may be necessary to retain some of the labourers at the college as caretakers.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Do I understand that their names are not borne on the dockyard books?
  Mr. McKENNA: I assume the question refers to those who are not on the dockyard books. Those whose names are borne on the dockyard books will remain on.

  Veto Resolutions Conference.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether the Conference on the relations between the two Houses of Parliament will conclude its sittings before the House adjourns for its Autumn Recess; whether the Conference will sit when the House is in Recess; and whether any statement as to the results achieved by the Conference can be made before the House adjourns for the Autumn Recess?
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he is able to make any statement as to the probable duration of the Conference on the relations between the two Houses of Parliament; and whether any statement as to the result of such Conference will be made before the House rises for the Autumn Recess?
  Mr. BYLESasked the Prime Minister whether he expects to be able to make any statement before the House adjourns at the end of the month as to the progress or result of the Conference now sitting on the relations of the two Houses of Parliament?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I hope to be able to make a statement on the subject referred to in these questions during the course of this week.
  Mr. GINNELLhad the following question on the Paper: To ask the Prime Minister if he will, in the interest of parties, resist all attempts of unauthorised Members to obtain information regarding the party Conference, pending discussion of the Motion on the subject of which notice stands on the Order Paper, and postpone discussion of that Motion to the last day of the Autumn Sittings?
  Mr. GINNELL: I congratulate the Prime Minister upon acting on this question.

  Accession Declaration.
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a protest from 14,000,000 Catholics in the United States of America against the Accession Declaration in its present form, as an insult to the Catholics of the world, has been forwarded to the proper quarter in London by the Catholic Federation of the United States of America; whether he can say if it has been yet received; and what reply has been given, or is intended to be given, to the representations of this body of people living under the flag of the most important Power in the world friendly to Great Britain?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have no information as to the petition mentioned by the hon. Member. No such petition has reached either my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or myself.
  Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the questions raised by the Accession Declaration were, in some constituencies, not discussed at the recent election, he will defer the further stages of the Bill until the Autumn Session so as to afford an opportunity to Members of conferring with their constituents?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I see no sufficient reason for deferring the further stages of this Bill.

  Supply.
  Mr. PEELasked the Prime Minister why, in view of the fact that there is no precedent for the granting of the whole of the supplies for the year by the House of Commons before the introduction of the Finance Bill, he has seen fit in this Session to depart from the usual constitutional practice?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Resolutions on which the Budget is founded were discussed in Committee and passed before the final Votes in Supply were taken in Supply. Last year the whole supplies were granted at a comparatively early stage in the Committee on the Finance Bill. In both cases there were exceptional Parliamentary conditions which necessitated some departure from the usual practice.
  Mr. PEEL: Does the Prime Minister not think it, I will not say unconstitutional, but somewhat absurd that the House of Commons should Vote and Appropriate the whole of the Supplies for the year before it decides in the Finance Bill how those services are to be raised?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. That depends on circumstances.

  Woman Suffrage (Referendum).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether, having regard to the fact that the question of woman suffrage is a clear-cut issue which cannot be confused with other political issues, that a serious, prolonged, and acrimonious conflict seems probable throughout the country between the exponents of opposite views on the matter, and that there is a widespraed
  1748
  desire to learn what are the views of the majority of the electorate before giving legislative expression to those of one section only, the Government will consider the advisability of taking at an early date the opinion of the country through the medium of a referendum?
  The PRIME MINISTER: This is a novel proposal, and all I can say at present is that the Government have not yet considered it.

  "Dreadnoughts."
  Mr. CLOUGHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the present revival of trade and of the consequent increase of employment, he can see his way to advise His Majesty's Government to postpone the placing of the contracts for the contingent "Dreadnoughts" until the shipbuilding industry has become somewhat depressed with the object of sustaining the labour market during that periol of depression?
  Mr. McKENNA: As has already been explained in the Debate on Vote 8, the ships of the present year's programme will not be laid down till the months of January and March next. The ships of last year's programme were all laid down some months ago.

  Imperial Defence Committee.
  Mr. LLOYDasked the Prime Minister if he will state the names of all persons who have served on the Imperial Defence Committee since October last, and of those who have served on the sub-committees of that body?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It would take up some time if I were to read the names in the answer, so, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the reply with the Votes. [See Written Answers this date.]

  Imperial College of Science and Technology.
  Mr. CARLILEasked the President of the Board of Education how many students attended courses of instruction in zoology and in mine surveying, respectively, when studying for their associate-ships at the Imperial College of Science and Technology during the session of
  1909–10?
  Mr. CARLILEalso asked what was the sum expended in salaries upon the teaching staff of the Imperial College of Science and Technology for the following subjects, separately, zoology and mine surveying in 1909 and in 1910?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): Mine surveying is an integral part of the work of the mining department of the Imperial College. No separate statement of salary expenditure in respect of any particular portion of the mining department, such as is suggested in the question, can properly be made. I am informed that the salary expenditure of that department of the college for the session 1909–10 is some £1,900. The students in the mining department for the session 1909–10 numbered sixty-six, and those in the department of zoology twenty-eight, inclusive in both cases of occasional and research students. The salaries of the staff of the department of zoology for that session amount to some £2,700.

  St. Joseph's School, Southowram, Halifax.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has considered the representations made by the managers of St. Joseph's School, Southowram, Halifax, with reference to the position of the head teacher of the school; and can he state what action, if any, he has taken in the matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have heard the statements of a deputation from the managers, and am waiting for a further statement from the local education authority. I will decide the matter as soon as I am in a position to do so.

  London Rating (Quinquennial Revaluation).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the total cost to local authorities in London of the quinquennial revaluation for rating purposes?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. John Burns): The cost of the quinquennial valuation is not shown separately from the ordinary expenses in the Annual Returns furnished to the Local Government Board, but it is estimated that the ordinary annual expenditure has been about £10,000, and that the additional expenditure on each of the last two quinquennial valuations amounted to about £130,000, this expenditure being spread over a period or two to three years.

  Rating Valuations and Revaluations (Cost).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can give an estimate of the annual cost
  1750
  to local authorities and Poor Law unions in England and Wales in respect of valuations and revaluations for rating purposes and also in respect of legal expenses in connection with appeals against the same?
  Mr. BURNS: From the particulars furnished for the last ten years for which the Returns are complete, it is estimated that the average annual expenditure of local authorities in England and Wales, including London, in respect of valuation for local rates is about £170,000. This includes legal expenses in connection with appeals. I am not in a position to state the amount of these expenses separately.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what percentage of the local authorities have an up-to-date valuation, and how far this expenditure of £170,000 a year covers the complete revaluation of the country?
  Mr. BURNS: No; but I shall be pleased to do my best to ascertain what the hon. Member wants to know.

  Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act (1908) Amendment Bill.
  Lord BALCARRES (for Mr. Charles Bathurst)asked the Lord Advocate why it is proposed, by the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act (1908) Amendment Bill, to differentiate as regards contracting out in reference to waygoing valuations between Scottish and English agricultural tenancies?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): It is not so proposed.

  Oath of Allegiance (Justices of the Peace, Scotland).
  Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Lord Advocate whether his attention had been drawn to the fact that certain clerks of the peace in Scotland have issued intimations to justices of the peace that they would be required to reaffirm the Oath of Allegiance before the end of this month; whether he sanctioned this action; and whether, in view of the inconvenience and expense to those justices living in large counties, he proposes to take any further steps in the matter?
  Mr. URE: My attention has been drawn to the action taken by certain Clerks of the Peace in Scotland referred to in my hon. Friend's question. I have no power either to sanction or to withhold my sanction from that action. Steps have been

  1751
  taken under the Act 3 and 4, W. IV., ch. 41 to obtain an authoritative decision by the Judicial Committee of His Majesty's Privy Council on the question whether or not it is obligatory on (amongst others) justices of the peace to take again the Oath of Allegiance and Judicial Oath on the demise a the Crown. I understand the question is being considered by the Judicial Committee to-day.
  Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who has the power to give instructions to these clerks of the peace in Scotland, if anyone?
  Mr. URE: I have not the power.

  Post Office Mail Cart Contractors.
  Mr. PICKERSGILLasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that on the day of the King's funeral Messrs. M'Namara and Company, London mail-cart contractors, paid only those of their men who worked, whereas another London mail-cart contractor paid all his men, whether employed or not; and whether he will bring the action of the latter firm under the notice of Messrs. M'Namara and Company?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am aware of the facts described by the hon. Member. The action of the firm referred to has already been brought under the notice of Messrs. M'Namara and Company.

  Brighton Postal and Telegraph Staff.
  Captain TRYONasked the Postmaster-General whether he can see his way to increase the postal and telegraph staff at Brighton so as to reduce excessive overtime, without having recourse to curtailing the summer leave formerly granted to the employés?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A revision of the Brighton staff is now under consideration, and special attention has been given to the question of minimising the amount of overtime thrown upon the staff by the incidence of season pressure. The leave arrangements of the large majority of the staff will not be adversely affected, although in a small number of cases it is necessary to withdraw the privilege of leave confined to the four summer months which did not exist at other offices.
  Mr. RICE: Would the right hon. Gentleman say if he considers a reduction in the summer leave of the clerks at
  1752
  Brighton a good way of promoting contentment among the staff?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is no reduction in the amount of leave given, but it is necessary to consider all classes of the staff in the allocation of leave during the better months of the year.

  Licence Duty (Scotland).
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to state the amount of licence duty demanded in Scotland on 28th May last, as compared with the amount that would have been exigible under the old scale, or, if the complete figures are not yet available, whether he can give typical instances in any localities?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I regret that I cannot give the information asked for by the hon. Member. I cannot give complete figures for Scotland or any part of the United Kingdom until the annual licence values of hotels and restaurants and of public-houses and beerhouses of an annual value exceeding £500 have been determined in cases where the licence-holders exercise the option of being charged by reference to annual licence value. To give incomplete figures for the whole area or complete figures in selected cases would, I think, be misleading.
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGER: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to let us have those figures both for England and Scotland before the House reassembles in November?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will consider that.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, arising out of that, whether he has it in contemplation to make any concession to licence-holders in England and Scotland similar to that he has made by Order in Council to licence-holders in Ireland?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have already answered that question in reply to the hon. Members for Ayr Burghs. I am proceeding with a revaluation in this country, but the method of valuation is totally different in Ireland. I have got to await the result of that revaluation.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to have a revaluation in Ireland in connection with the concession he has made to the licence holders there by Order in Council?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No. In Ireland, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, there is a national valuation, and there is not here. It is a totally different thing.
  Mr. EUGENE WASON: When he speaks of this country, does the right hon. Gentleman include Scotland as well?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would not dare to do otherwise.
  Mr. G. YOUNGER: In the event of his discovering that the £2,100,000 which he expected to get out of those licences will be exceeded, will he consider the particular point raised by my right hon. Friend?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is a hypothetical question which involves very serious consequences, and I shall have to consider it very seriously.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Are we to have an opportunity before the House adjourns for the Recess of discussing the alteration he has made by Order in Council for the valuation settled by this House in the case of the public-houses in Ireland?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly; the right hon. Gentleman can discuss it this very day if he wants.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: On the Appropriation Bill?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly, on the Appropriation Bill, and I shall be quite willing to meet him.

  Register of Annual Licence Values.
  Mr. GEORGE YOUNGERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can say when Shedules requiring particulars of trading will be issued to all licence holders under £500 of annual rental in connection with the preparation of the register of annual licence values; and whether, having regard to the anomalies in the existing system of charging on annual rental, he can give an assurance that the register will be completed in time for the purposes of the Finance Bill of 1911?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As I informed the hon. Member in my reply of the 4th July, the issue of Schedules in the case of houses under £500 of annual value has so far been confined to licensed premises, which, it is expected, will be entitled as hotels or restaurants, under Section 45 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, to have the
  1754
  benefit of the reduced charge of duty by reference to the "annual licence value" of the premises. It is expected that the Schedules in the case of houses under £500 of annual value will be issued in the autumn. As regards the second part of the question, I am not in a position at the present time to give the assurance suggested by the hon. Member, but it will depend to a large extent upon the attitude of the licensed trade in the matter.
  Mr. G. YOUNGER: Will the right hon. Gentleman do everything he possibly can to ensure that the register shall be completed in time for the Finance Bill of 1911 owing to the anomalies which he knows perfectly well exists?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As I pointed out, it depends very largely on the attitude of the trade. There will be no difficulty at all in getting it if we have the assistance of the trade.

  Undeveloped Land Duty (Lancs.).
  Lord BALCARRESasked how many acres of land in Lancashire have now been valued for purposes of Undeveloped Land Duty?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Pending the expiration of the time provided in the recent Finance Act for notices of objections, appeals, etc., no such valuations have as yet been completed in Lancashire or elsewhere.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. SANDERSasked whether, in cases where relief paid by the guardians to aged persons is recoverable from the relatives of such persons, that liability on the relatives will still remain when the aged person receives a pension but the guardians have to pay to the Exchequer what they are now disbursing for relief?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to this question will depend upon the terms of the clause determining the conditions upon which the contribution by the guardians to the Exchequer is to be made, and the point can be discussed when the Bill is before the House.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Inland Revenue authorities have in some cases altered pension officers' districts without consulting or informing the local authorities concerned; whether he

  1755
  will make representations to that body of the inconvenience thus caused to the pension committees; and whether he will suggest to it the desirability of consulting the committees concerned before altering areas of pension officers' work?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The limits of a pension officer's area have to be determined by reference, not only to the pension work of the locality, but to the ordinary Excise work also; and the Board of Customs and Excise cannot undertake to consult pension committees as to any alteration of areas which may be found necessary from time to time. They will, however, take steps to ensure that committees are informed of any alterations which affect them.

  Scheme of Unemployment and Invalidity Insurance.
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now say what will approximately be the total amount of contributions paid by employés during the first year of full working of the scheme adumbrated by the Government for unemployment and invalidity insurance?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on the 14th instant.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Did not the right hon. Gentleman tell the House on the evening of his Budget statement that the scheme was ready?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have certainly got a scheme, but I think it ought at any rate to be introduced to the House of Commons before it is discussed by way of question and answer.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: How can the right hon. Gentleman say the scheme is ready when the particular figures cannot be given?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We can hardly debate by way of question and answer a Bill which has never been introduced.

  Supplementary Estimates (Margin for Contingencies).
  Mr. GOLDMANasked what is the total amount of Supplementary Estimates issued to date since the introduction of the Budget; and what is the estimated surplus for contingencies still left after these Estimates have been voted?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The account of the Supplementary Estimates presented since the Budget statement was £368,982, and the margin allowed in the Budget for contingencies was £309,000.
  Mr. GOLDMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that margin sufficient under the present system?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is premature to answer that question. I am dependent on Departmental savings.

  Petrol Duty.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked whether the proprietor of a motor vehicle which is duly licensed as a public carriage for hire, but which of necessity stands in the hotel yard, there being often no other place where such vehicle could stand, is entitled to rebate of the Petrol Duty?
  Mr. PETOalso asked whether the owner of a motor car which, in the terms of Section 3 of the Fifth Schedule of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, is constructed or adapted for use or is used partly for the conveyance of goods is precluded from claiming the rebate of 1½d. a gallon on motor spirit used if, owing to there being no public stand on which it can stand, he is unable to comply with the condition that it should stand for hire, although it is used exclusively for the conveyance of passengers and goods in connection with his trade?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Rebate of Motor Spirit Duty is only allowed in respect of spirit used in a vehicle of the description referred to in Section 3 of Part I of the Fifth Schedule to the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, if it complies with the condition as to standing or plying for hire contained in the Section. If my hon. Friend and the hon. Member will give me particulars of any special cases they may have in mind, showing that the owner is prevented by causes outside his own control from complying with this condition, I will be glad to consider them.

  Land Valuation.
  Lord BALCARRES (for Mr. Pretyman)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the valuation forms now being issued under Section 26 of The Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, are to be immediately served upon all owners of land, or whether they are, in the first instance, to be served

  1757
  on certain selected owners; and whether, in the latter event, he can state by whom and on what principle the selection will be made?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The forms of return now being issued are confined to cases in which an occasion has arisen for the collection of Increment Value Duty, and in which, therefore, it is necessary to value the land affected in advance of the general valuation. As regards the forms which will be issued next month in respect of the general valuation, no selection is contemplated of the owners on whom they are to be served, and the forms will be issued to all owners with as little delay as possible.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May we understand that they will be issued simultaneously in all three parts of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.
  Mr. G. YOUNGER: Does it include the feuars in Scotland?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope so.
  Mr. G. YOUNGER: So do I.
  Lord BALCARRES (for Mr. Pretyman)asked whether an owner who does not, on Schedule II. (v.) of the valuation return required from owners of land, state his intention to claim site value deductions, will be debarred from or prejudiced in afterwards claiming those deductions; and whether the form referred to in the last paragraph of Schedule II. (v.) of the return will be required to be completed before or after the gross value of the land has been estimated by the Government valuers and communicated to the owners?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: All owners of land will receive a copy of the provisional valuation when made, and they will then have an opportunity of claiming any deductions which they omitted to claim when making their returns. It is intended that the form referred to should be completed before the provisional valuation is made.
  Lord BALCARRES: Will copies of the form in question be placed in the Vote Office for the inspection of Members?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the Noble Lord wishes, I shall be happy to have that done.

  Wireless Telegraph Stations (Great Britain and India).
  Mr. LLOYDasked the Under Secretary of State for India how many British wireless telegraph stations are there for the use of British ships plying on the direct route from Great Britain to India; and where are they situated?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have been asked to answer this question. The following stations in the United Kingdom might be useful to ships sailing to or from India:—
  North Foreland (Kent),
  Niton (Isle of Wight),
  Bolt Head (Devonshire),
  Lizard (Cornwall),
  Seaforth (Liverpool),
  Rosslare (Wexford),
  Crookhaven (Kerry).
  In India, a station at Bombay was recently opened for general communication with ships. Apart from these, two stations. in Egypt (namely, at Port Said and Port Tewfik) belonging to Lloyd's are open for communication with ships on matters relating to navigation. There are also Government stations at Gibraltar, Malta, and Aden, which, though not open for general purposes, would communicate with ships in case of distress. The question of opening stations at Gibraltar, Malta, Aden, and other places, for general communication with ships is under consideration.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Is there any wireless station at present working east of Aden?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I cannot say. Stations west of Aden would be under the control of the Admiralty; east of Aden under the Indian Government.

  Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application from Patrick Campbell, of Knockaraven, Garrison, county Fermanagh, for reinstatement in the farm from which he was evicted eighteen years ago on the Ely estate; and whether, having regard to the fact that Campbell has returned from America to claim his farm, which is being occupied by one George Elliott, who has been compensated for giving up possession of other evicted farms in county Meath, they will take steps to have Campbell reinstated?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The application referred to has been received by the Estates Commissioners. Campbell's case is at present under consideration, but the Commissioners are unable to say what action can be taken in the matter.
  Mr. BOLANDasked whether in the event of the Drummond estate being purchased through the Congested Districts Board or the Estates Commissioners, as the case may be, what steps, if any, will be taken to secure the reinstatement of Jeremiah Sullivan in his evicted farm at Glencuttane, in Maum Electoral Division of the Cahirciveen Union?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Purchase agreements under the Irish Land Act, 1903, have been lodged with the Estates Commissioners in the case of this estate. The Commissioners have inquired into the application of Jeremiah Sullivan for reinstatement in a holding now in the occupation of his brother, and have decided not to take any action in the matter.

  Kildress Polling District, Dunamore.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked why the revision court for the polling district of Kildress, near Cookstown, has been fixed for the townland of Dunamore, having regard to the fact that the polling station is at Corvanaghan, which both parties are agreed is most convenient for voters and claimants; and why the representations from residents in the district have been ignored in fixing the place for the revision court?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Previous to the Order in Council, dated 15th April, 1910, the revision of the voters for the polling district referred to took place at Cookstown. Representations were made to the Privy Council in favour of holding two new courts, one at Corvanagahan, and the other at Dunamore; but on examination of the facts and after inquiry from the local police and officials, it was decided that it would be inexpedient to hold two courts, and that Dunamore was the more convenient place to select.

  United Irish League Meeting (Killashee).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Irish Secretary if he has received the Report of the police shorthand writer who was present at the United Irish League meeting near Killashee, county Longford, on Sunday, 10th July, which was held for the purpose of denouncing Mr. Michael Magan; is he
  1760
  aware that speeches were made and a resolution passed at that meeting calling upon the people to boycott Mr. Magan; and is it intended to take proceedings against those who took part in this meeting?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The report of the shorthand writer has been received in this case, and the question of taking proceedings with reference to it is being considered.

  New School Houses (Ireland).
  Mr. CULLINANasked whether many school managers have made repeated applications for Grants towards the erection of new schools, and have been recently informed that there are no funds at the disposal of the Commissioners, and feared that it may be some time before any are available for admittedly urgent applications; and whether steps will be taken to have the necessary funds made available for pressing claims?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have nothing at present to add to my reply to the similar question of the hon. Member for West Belfast on the 4th instant.

  Land Purchase (Penefather-Hare Estate, County Tipperary).
  Mr. HACKETTasked whether the agricultural tenants on the Penefather-Hare estate, situated near Ballingarry, county Tipperary, have agreed to purchase their holdings; whether the agent, Mr. Taylor, refused to include the village of Ballingarry in the sale; and, as the houses in the village were built by the present occupiers or their predecessors in title, and as many of them are also tenants of agricultural land in the vicinity of the village, whether the Estates Commissioners will investigate this case with a view to having the village included in the sale?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Agreements for the direct sale to the tenants of the agricultural portion of this estate have been lodged with the Estates Commissioners under the Irish Land Act, 1903. When the estate is being dealt with in order of priority the Commissioners will consider the question of the inclusion of the holdings situate in the village of Ballingarry.

  Kinvarra Cattle-drives, County Galway.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked how many cattle-drives have taken place in the Kinvarra district of county Galway; how many persons are boycotted; and how many are under police protection?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that in all nine cattle-drives have taken place in the sub-district of Kinvarra. There are four cases of minor boycotting in the sub-district. The persons concerned and also one other are receiving protection by patrol.

  Surrendered Firearms (Ireland).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the number of firearms surrendered to the police under the provisions of the Peace Preservation Acts, 1881 to 1886, which are at present stored in the Royal Irish Constabulary depot or in the custody of the police?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is not at present possible to give the information asked for. The preparation of an accurate Return would take a considerable time.

  Acetone.
  Mr. BURGOYNEasked the Secretary of State for War whether acetone can be stocked for any length of time without redistillation; and what percentage would be lost in the event of redistillation?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): Present experience shows that good acetone can be stored for about ten years without redistillation. On redistillation the loss varies from 3 per cent. to 5 per cent., but is generally nearer the lower figure.

  Army Horse Contracts (London Omnibus Companies).
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Secretary for War whether the Military authorities are contracting with the London omnibus companies for the supply of some hundreds of horses for the purposes of the Territorial autumn manœuvres, and that, as a consequence, a large number of men, drivers, conductors, and stable men will be put out of employment and their wages stopped for several weeks to come; and whether, in view of the hardships this enforced idleness and loss of pay entails to those men and their families, he will see that at least some remuneration shall be made to them, either by the omnibus companies or the Military authorities, before the contract is closed?
  Mr. HALDANE: I can only repeat what I have said in answer to previous questions on this subject, that the omnibus companies are free agents in any contract
  1762
  they may enter into with the Military authorities, and the possible consequences of their action are not within my control.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these drivers and conductors are weekly wage-earners, and that, in consequence of this contract for the horses, they will be thrown out of employment? As they will be called upon to provide the necessaries of life for their wives and families, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to find some kind of employment for them during the manœuvres?
  Mr. HALDANE: Obviously I cannot reply to that question. Any inquiry as to employment for the men should be addressed to the companies.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the amount of money which is to be paid for the hire of these horses?

  Territorial Force (Volunteer Corps Funds and Properties).
  Major ARCHER-SHEEasked what was the amount of the vested and other funds, and what was the value of the freehold, leasehold, and other properties, belonging to the old Volunteer corps and taken over by the Government on the formation of the new Territorial Forces; and in what official Papers these amounts are entered?
  Mr. HALDANE: The hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension in thinking that the property and funds of Volunteer corps were taken over by the Government. Broadly speaking, they were transferred to the county associations by Order in Council of 19th March, 1908, under Section 29 (3) of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act. If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to the Act he will see that there was nothing in the transaction to cause any entry in Army Estimates. I regret I am not able to give the total figures.

  Aerial Navigation.
  Mr. FELLasked if the Advisory Committee under Lord Rayleigh on aerial navigation is still sitting; if it has made any Report which can be laid before the House; if any additional members have been added to the Committee, and if it will continue to sit during next year; and what is the cost of the Committee to date?
  The PRIME MINISTER: This Committee is still sitting, and will continue to

  1763
  sit next year. An interim Report was issued by them in July, 1909, and a further Report will be laid before Parliament within a few days. Captain Murray Sueter, R.N., representing the Admiralty, and Mr. Mervyn O'Gorman, superintendent of the balloon factory, have been appointed additional members of the Committee. The total approximate cost to the present date is £10,000.
  Mr. FELL: Shall we receive the Report before the House adjourns?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My information is that it will be ready in a few days. I can say no more.
  Mr. FELLfurther asked if experiments in aerial navigation are still being conducted at the National Physical Laboratory at Kew; and if these experiments or any of them are of a practical nature?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to both parts of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative.

  Duke of York's School, Guston, near Dover.
  Mr. MITCHELL - THOMSONasked whether the cost of building the new Duke of York's school at Guston was provided for by loans advanced in contemplation of the immediate sale of the site of the old school; and, if so, what Parliamentary provision is proposed to be made for the cost of the new school, seeing that it has now been decided that the old site shall not at present be sold?
  Mr. HALDANE: The cost of the Guston school has been charged finally, year by year, against the Military Works Loan, and, therefore, no question of further Parliamentary provision arises.
  Mr. MITCHELL - THOMSON: Were these loans raised on the security of the site?
  Mr. HALDANE: No. They were raised by the authority of Parliament on the security of the Government, and had nothing to do with the site.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, if the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill
1764
is not reached till a late hour, he will make arrangements for taking it at another time, and, perhaps, I may be permitted to explain that it only appears on the Notice Paper second, and there is a good deal of private business which will come on at 8.15 which might delay the taking of it? I do not know how long that private business may take, but on the face of it it appears contentious put down "by Order." May I say further that my reason for making this appeal is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just pointed to the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill as our opportunity for discussing a matter of great importance to the licensed trade, and also the control of this House over taxation?
The PRIME MINISTER: I was not aware that there was any private business of importance to-night and I do not know how long the private business may take. It may be a very short time, and it is set down for a quarter-past eight o'clock. The Royal Assent to the Appropriation Bill must be obtained not later than Wednesday, but if the right hon. Gentleman will allow us we will consult with his side of the House, and see whether arrangements convenient to all parties can be made.
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: If arrangements are made, will the convenience of other Members besides those on the Front Benches be consulted?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes; the convenience of other hon. Members will certainly be consulted.
NEW MEMBER SWORN-Colonel Kyffin Taylor, for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool, in the room of Mr. Charles M'Arthur, deceased.

BILLS PRESENTED.
  POLICE (WEEKLY REST-DAY) SCOTLAND BILL.
  "To facilitate the Grant to members of the Constabulary in Scotland of one day's rest off duty in every seven," presented by Mr. REMNANT; supported by Mr. Clyde, Sir Mark M'Taggart Stewart, Mr. Mackinder, Mr. Goulding, Mr. Wiles, Sir Henry Dalziel, Mr. Mitchell-Thomson, Viscount Duncannon, Mr. Bottomley, Major Archer-Shee, and Mr. George Roberts; to be read a second time upon Thursday next (28th July).
  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  "To continue various Expiring Laws," presented by Mr. HOBHOUSE; to be read a second time to-morrow (Tuesday).
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  REPORT OF WAYS AND MEANS AND CIVIL LIST REPORT,
  The PRIME MINISTERmoved, "That the Proceedings upon the Reports of Ways
  and Means (30th June and 8th July) and upon the Report of the Civil List Resolutions, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon and proceeded with at any hour, though opposed."
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 189; Noes, 115.

  Division No. 128.]

  AYES.

  [3.48 p.m.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  O'Malley, William

  Agnew, George William

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hayward, Evan

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Alden, Percy

  Hazleton, Richard

  Pearce, William

  Allen, Charles Peter

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Henry, Charles S.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

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

  Pointer, Joseph

  Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Barnes, George N.

  Hindle, Frederick George

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

  Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Beale, William Phipson

  Hogan, Michael

  Rainy, Adam Rolland

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

  Hooper, Arthur George

  Reddy, Michael

  Bethell, Sir John Henry

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Boland, John Pius

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradford)

  Bowles, Thomas Gibson

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

  Brace, William

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Robinson, Sidney

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Johnson, William

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Bryce, John Annan

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

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

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

  Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

  Joyce, Michael

  Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

  King, Joseph (Somerset, N.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Byles, William Pollard

  Lambert, George

  Soares, Ernest Joseph

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Channing, Sir Francis Allston

  Leach, Charles

  Sutherland, John E.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Lehmann, Rudolf C.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Clough, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tennant, Harold John

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Thomas, David Alfred (Cardiff)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lynch. Arthur Alfred

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Toulmin, George

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Crosfield, Arthur H.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Cullinan, John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Verney, Frederick William

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Vivian, Henry

  Dawes, James Arthur

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Wadsworth, John

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  M'Laren, F. W. S. (Linc., Spalding)

  Walker, H. de R. (Leicester)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Mallet, Charles Edward

  Walton, Sir Joseph

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

  Manfield, Harry

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Marks, George Croydon

  Wardle, George J.

  Dillon, John

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Doris, William

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Millar, James Duncan

  Waterlow, David Sydney

  Elverston, Harold

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Watt, Henry A.

  Falconer, James

  Mooney, John J.

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)

  Ferens, Thomas Robinson

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Munro

  Munro, Robert

  Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

  Furness, Stephen

  Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C.

  Williams Penry (Middlesbrough)

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Muspratt, Max

  Williamson, Sir Archibald

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Nellson, Francis

  Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

  Glanville, Harold James

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Winfrey, Richard

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Nolan, Joseph

  Wing, Thomas

  Greenwood, Granville George

  Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Guest, Major

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Hackett, John

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  O'Dowd, John

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  Oden, Fred

  NOES.

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

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Adam, Major William A.

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Arbuthnot, Gerald A.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Grant, James Augustus

  Peel, Hon. Wm. R. W. (Taunton)

  Bagot, Captain Josceline

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Randles, Sir John Scurrah

  Baker, Sir Rondolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

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

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Ridley, Samuel Forde

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

  Heath, Col. Arthur Howard

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glou., E.)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire)

  Rothschild, Lionel de

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Brackenbury, Henry Langton

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Sanders, Robert Arthur

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Horne, William E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Sandys, G. J.(Somerset, Wells)

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Carlile, Edward Hildred

  Hunt, Rowland

  Steel-Maitland, A. D.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hunter, Sir Chas. Rodk. (Bath)

  Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkcudbrightsh.)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

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

  Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

  Taylor, Col.

  Clyde, James Avon

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

  Lawson, Hon. Harry

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Thynne, Lord Alexander

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Tryon, Capt. George Clement

  Croft, Henry Page

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Dairymple, Viscount

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

  Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

  Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Dixon, Charles Harvey (Boston)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hn. A. (S. Geo., Han. Sq.)

  Wood, John(Stalybridge)

  Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)

  Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

  Magnus, Sir Philip

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

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Mitchell, William Foot

  Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)

  Fell, Arthur

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Fleming, Valentine

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Newdegate, F. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir F. Banbury and Mr. J. F. Mason.

  Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft)

  Newman, John R. P.

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

WAYS AND MEANS [30th June].—REPORT.
  BUDGET RESOLUTIONS.
  Resolution reported,
  BUDGET RESOLUTIONS.

    CUSTOMS DUTY ON TEA.
    "That the Customs Duty now charged on Tea shall continue to be charged until the first day of July, nineteen hundred and eleven, that is to say:—
    "Tea, the pound … fivepence."
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I beg to move to insert, after the word "pound," the words, "if grown within the British Empire four-pence, or if grown without the British Empire."
    The effect of this Amendment is to give a preference of 1d., or 20 per cent., to Colonial tea, and I move it for two reasons. In the first place, I think the whole duty on tea is excessive. It amounts to a tax on the average value of tea of no less than 62 per cent., taking the average value at 8d., as it appears from last year's Returns; but with cheaper sorts of tea, since the tax is on weight, and not ad valorem, it amounts in some cases to something very nearly 100 per cent. That is a tax which cannot be justified on any rational scheme
    1768
    of taxation, and certainly under no scheme of fiscal reform would it be possible to adhere to such a tax; nor if the Government of this country had to construct a fiscal system de novo would they propose any such tax. My Amendment is not directed to the whole bulk of the tea coming into this country, and I may be reminded of the old maxim that if you put a partial tax on an article coming into the country you raise the value of the whole commodity. That is a dogma which ought to be too much for anyone's credulity in the present day. Take this particular instance of tea. The whole bulk of the tea coming into this country on last year's Returns is 290,000,000 lbs. Of that 262,000,000 lbs. comes from the Colonies, and only 27,000,000 lbs. comes from foreign countries, and I suggest that if you levy the extra 1d. on the 27,000,000 lbs., while taking it off the 262,000,000 lbs., it is beyond conception that the price can remain where it is. Those who assert that it will must postulate two things—first of all, that the area of production cannot be extended, and, secondly, that there is no competition among the other producers. But, of course, in a case like this the area of production

    1769
    in the Colonies has not reached its full development yet, and, of course, there would be competition among the producers. But if that argument was not sufficient I would add another, that the tax would not be on the same article, because the tea coming from China is, as a matter of fact, a different article, and suited to different customers from that which comes from the Colonies. I think it may fairly be alleged that to take off this 1d., although only on Colonial tea, would, as a matter of fact, bring the price down, if indeed a reduction of 1d. in the pound will ever bring the price down. It certainly would if only applied to Colonial tea, just as much as if it were applied to the whole volume of the 290,000,000 lbs., as against the 27,000,000 lbs.
    4.0 P.M.
    My second object is to establish the principle of Colonial Preference. I quite admit that in the present instance the effect of the proposal would be limited. It would be limited because it does not apply to self-governing Colonies. Except for 500,000 lbs., which come from I do not know where, the whole of the 262,000,000 lbs. come either from India or Ceylon, from whom we can only expect to obtain, from the nature of their existing tariffs, limited advantages. Of course, I am quite aware that apart from this question there is not the same problem in dealing with Dependencies that there is in dealing with self-governing Colonies, because, of course, we can in the end enforce a lower tariff on those countries, just as we very unfairly, many years ago, enforced an Excise upon India against the consent of the Indian Government. But I think no Government in this country would wish, except in the last resort, to enforce a reduction of tariffs upon either the Government of India or the Government of Ceylon, so that I think, as far as the present argument goes, I am fairly treating the Home Government, the Indian Government, and the Ceylon Government as separate bargaining powers. I do not think that in a matter like this we can, or ought, in the present stage, at any rate, to rely upon the reserve power of the Crown. I think that on examining the Indian tariff and the Ceylon tariff we should be able to find that there are many items in both which could be reduced with advantage to this country, and which the Governments concerned would reduce if they were safe in believing that they would obtain some return from us. I think that would be especially the
    1770
    case with Ceylon. Ceylon has a protective tariff, and the duties are very high for various classes of goods. I think that certainly on cotton goods we could get a substantial preference from Ceylon. Speaking about Ceylon, I wonder if the House realises what the tariff is on certain articles of prime necessity in that Crown Colony. There is really a protective tariff on articles which she produces. First of all, there is the duty, for instance, on tea itself. China tea coming into Ceylon pays a duty of 25 cents, or 4d., which is equal to 50 per cent. on the average price of that commodity. There is a duty on flour of one rupee, which, I am informed, works out at 3s. 4d. per sack on the English denomination. Then wheat and rice also pay an import duty of 50 cents, which works out at 2s. 8d. a quarter. I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not present, for I was going to ask him how he can reconcile these duties with his conscience, but in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, I ask the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, and I have reason to suppose that he has got a conscience.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We are not now concerned with the tariffs imposed by the Colonies. The question we are now discussing is our own tariff in respect of tea.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I was arguing that rebates might be obtained on various articles which we send to Ceylon. Taking the whole of the Ceylon tariff, I think we would undoubtedly obtain rebates. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman opposite how can he, in his conscience, sustain a system like that when they talk as they do about all these things being ruinous to people at home? In the case of manufactured goods we should be able to negotiate with Ceylon for rebates. Hon. Members talk about Free Trade in this country, but at the same time they seem to approve of imposing these burdens upon the Cingalese and Tamil peasants of Ceylon.
    I make this proposal as an experimental proposal. No doubt it does not go very far, but it gives a response to the Colonial demand. At the last Colonial Conference a resolution was passed asking for preference not merely in accordance with a general scheme to be adopted in the future but on all taxes imposed at the present time. Although this would not apply to the self-governing Dominions, I am sure they would welcome in the spirit of the demand they have made this preference

    1771
    to Ceylon as a token of goodwill on the part of the Home Government. I venture to say this would not be and ought not to be regarded as opposed to the principles of the present Government. First of all, it is absolutely and solely on the existing basis. Nothing new need be imposed at all. I know that the Prime Minister the other day said in the course of his argument that he could not entertain this idea of preference until a scheme had been worked out applying to all the Colonies and Dependencies of the Crown. He further said that we had no right to press forward this matter unless we were prepared with a scheme. I think, although that was rhetorically adroit, it was really an unfair demand, for this reason, that to carry out proposals further than those relating to existing taxation would of course mean the construction of a new Budget, and no one can now forecast a Budget of the future. It is absolutely impossible for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to do so. He cannot state the Budget he may have to bring in next year. If he attempted to forecast next year's Budget he might find that circumstances were so very adverse that he could not bring it in. Therefore, from that point of view I think the Prime Minister's demand is unfair. It is quite impossible for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to commit himself and others to put on particular taxes or to give any preference unless he knows whether he will get any return. In suggesting this penny reduction on tea I am only asking for it as an experiment, and I am willing that it should be withdrawn if no corresponding advantages accrue next year. To ask for this penny to be taken off tea is very different from asking the Government to pledge itself to any vast fiscal scheme which could only be carried after negotiation with all the different parties concerned. The Prime Minister suggested that anything of the kind must extend uniformly through all the Colonies. That I absolutely deny. A Zollverein is a grand political ideal, but I do not think we need wait for that before negotiating in respect of certain specified articles with the different Governments of the Empire.
    I would add another consideration why this proposal of mine might be assented to without any departure from the principles of the Government. Very often when new import duties are proposed the Government and hon. Members who sit. behind
    1772
    them reject them because they may possibly do some home producer some benefit. That seems to be the test applied. You may suggest a duty, but if it can be shown that one little producer in this country is benefited by it then it becomes heretical and cannot be passed—[An HON. MEMBER: "Cocoa"]—with one solitary exception which is within the knowledge of the House. I do not make my proposal in hostility to the principles of the Government. If it is accepted it will be an indulgence to Colonial sentiment and Imperial sentiment, but it will not do the slightest good to any home producer. Therefore I think the Under-Secretary for the Colonies (Colonel Seely) and the Treasury may take it upon themselves to accept my proposal. After all, it will be an earnest on the part of the Government of a desire to help them in this matter. It will be an earnest that they can yield something to Colonial sentiment, and that they are willing to do it; it will not invalidate or prejudice Free Trade, and so far from increasing the burden of undue taxation, it will tend to reduce it. If the tax on tea from India and Ceylon is reduced it will be a benefit to both the home consumers and the Colonial producers. I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here, for I was going to make an appeal to his genial and expansive nature. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not like other Chancellors of the Exchequer. I do not think I should have cared to make this appeal to Lord St. Aldwyn or even to have approached him privately in the Lobby on the subject. I think I know the kind of answer I would have received. But the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is not troubled by the traditions of his predecessors. He is not bound down by those old, hard, parsimonious considerations as to limiting expenditure and reducing debt. He takes quite a different position. Someone says "Roads," and he replies, "Let them have half a million." Another says "Development," and again he says, "Let them have half a million, too," and he ladles the money out like the generous soul that he is. My proposal is a modest one. I only ask a penny—only a copper. It is really a matter of disappointment to me that I cannot say these things to the right hon. Gentleman in his presence. If he says that these coppers will mount up to a large sum, which he cannot afford, then I offer an alternative—namely, that he should put an extra penny on China tea. If it should be said that

    1773
    that would impose a new burden on the consumer, I would ask the Secretary to the Treasury to consider whether he could not put an extra duty on China tea, accompanied by a scale for an ad valorem duty? It may be said that it is not easy to apply an ad valorem duty. I do not think it would be impossible. It was said that it would be difficult to apply graduation of the Income Tax, but it has been done to a large degree. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would adopt the principle of giving a penny preference on Colonial tea, with a penny extra on foreign tea, and a graduated scale, I believe he would be able to work out a result which would give a substantial Colonial Preference and also an advantage to the consumers. Surely the best way of raising money is to impose taxation on imported luxuries. If you put on direct taxes, these will find their way down to the poor; but if you impose taxes on imported luxuries, they will fall either on the rich consumers or the foreign producer. If an Income Tax of an undue amount is imposed, those who are called upon to pay think of economies, and they discharge a servant so as to reduce the amount they spend on labour. The same considerations do not weigh with regard to luxuries got in from abroad. I do not say luxuries which are manufactured at home, but those which come in from abroad. In that case the rich, if they continue to consume the luxuries, would pay for them, and if they did not, then it would not be the labour of those at home, but the labour of those abroad which would suffer. Though it is a comparatively small matter, I ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot accept the principle of a preferential tax accompanied by an ad valorem duty on tea? There are enormous differences in the quality of tea. I know an old lady who never drinks tea at under 8s. per pound. These are the people who ought to be taxed. I am sure the demand which I make will not in any way conflict with the principles of the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot adopt the proposal as it appears on the Paper I would ask him to adopt the alternative proposal which will bring in a great amount of revenue, do something to meet the aspirations of the Colonies, and draw revenue from the luxuries of the well-to-do.
    EARL of RONALDSHAY: I beg to second the Amendment. I think my hon. Friend has made out a case for his pro-
    1774
    posal on the ground that it is one which is not open to the objection which is sometimes brought against proposals of taxation, namely, that they will impose taxes on the food of the people. It is a proposal which would have the opposite effect, and therefore no doubt would appeal to the warm hearts of hon. Gentlemen opposite. There is a fairly wide margin for giving a preference to our Colonies and especially to our dependencies on this particular commodity. During the five years ended 1908–9 the amount of tea which we imported from foreign countries aggregated 180,000,000 lbs. in weight, which produced £5,750,000 sterling, that is an average of 36,000,000 lbs. in weight per annum, and an average of £1,156,000 in money. That shows that after all we can give a preference of considerable value to various parts of our Empire. But I confess for my own part that I think the political advantages which would accrue from the adoption of this proposal would be enormously greater than the actual economic advantages.
    Everybody knows that India to-day is the source from which we draw the great bulk of the tea which we consume in this country, and in India Free Trade has long been dead. The high priests of Free Trade in that country mumble their somewhat musty incantations at wholly discredited shrines. Perhaps I might sum up the views of the people of India on that question in the words of one of their own representatives. These words were spoken by a Member of the Viceroy's Council as recently as this year, and he was voicing the sentiments of his fellow representatives. He said, "My Lord, nowadays we heard a great deal of Tariff Reform. This is a swinging back of the pendulum in Free Trade England. Why could not the people of this country hope for a share in that reform when it comes? There is a general feeling in favour of Protection in this country—a judicious protective tariff dominated by an intelligent public opinion in the interests of our undeveloped industries. Can the Government disregard this opinion any longer without injustice and without disadvantage?" I have quoted that expression of opinion on the part of a representative of the Indian Government, for this reason: that only so recently as last year the Government at that time proposed an Act which had for its object the giving to the natives of India a greater share in the government of the country; and what I ask the Government is, having done that, are they or are

    1775
    they not prepared to listen to the representations which are made by the natives of India? Obviously, if they are not prepared to do so the whole Act passed last year becomes a pure farce and becomes valueless. Obviously the policy of the Government of the country ought to be, if they are indeed prepared to listen to the representations made by the natives of India, to endeavour to turn what is at present I am afraid a purely national protective movement—that is to say, the movement in favour of protection of Indian industries only—into an Imperial movement, that is to say, a movement for the protection of the whole of the Empire against foreign countries. I know it is sometimes argued that a Memorandum issued by the Government of India upon this particular question is wholly unfavourable to a system of Imperial Preference between India and this country. It was admitted in that Memorandum that we in this country certainly could give a preference to India on certain commodities, among which, of course, was tea, as well as tobacco and various other commodities, which I shall not mention because they might be outside the particular Motion under discussion, but as a matter of fact the conclusions of the Government of India contained in that Memorandum were not wholly hostile to a system of Imperial Preference between the Dominion and this country. All that the Government of India were really afraid of was this, that if a hard and fast scheme of Imperial Preference was going to be hastily adopted in this country, the representations of Indian opinion would not receive adequate or proper consideration from the other parts of the Empire, and in this connection the House will remember that the interests of India have invariably been subordinated in the matter of tariff policy to the interests of particular sections of trade in this country. The hon. Member who moved this Motion referred to the fact that some years ago we insisted upon the Indians imposing an Excise duty upon the cotton industry——
    Mr. SPEAKER: This speech will be more suitable for delivery to-morrow if the Noble Lord wishes to refer to cotton. This Motion relates to the duty to be imposed upon tea.
    EARL of RONALDSHAY: I entirely bow to your ruling, only I would like to ask, on a point of Order, am I not entitled to develop my argument? My argument is
    1776
    that for political reasons it is most necessary we should do what we can at the present time to grant some concession to Indians in the matter of tariff. One of my main reasons for wishing to give such concessions is that in the past we have treated India very badly in the matter of tariff. Am I not entitled to refer to the way in which we have overridden Indian sentiment in the past in order to show how necessary it is that we should do something to make up for it in the present?
    Mr. SPEAKER: To-morrow the position of India as regards this country will be considered. The Noble Lord must not expect to repeat his speech to-morrow.
    EARL of RONALDSHAY: Then I understand that I may refer to my main reason for establishing this principle of preference for India? Everybody knows who is in touch with Indian opinion that the Excise imposed by Lancashire opinion on India was greatly resented, and very largely caused that strong development of Indian sentiment in favour of national protection which exists at the present time. What I want to urge is that if the Government will only accept the Motion which is before the House they will be accepting the principle that they are prepared to treat the Dominions with some consideration on these questions of tariff. My hon. Friend may say, "It is not possible for us to accept this Motion to-day. If we were to do so we would be upsetting the whole of our Budget for the present year." If that is the answer I would like the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Colonies to say, is that the sole reason for refusing this Motion, or are we to understand that in addition to the fact that it might slightly alter the Budget they are so hide-bound by the chains of an economic dogma that they cannot even concede the principle of granting the smallest preference between one part of the Empire and another.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): The proposal which has been moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope), and seconded by the Noble Lord opposite, is not new to this House. It has been made on several previous occasions, and has been supported on various grounds, from various quarters in this House. I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot be present, as he would have been glad to hear the encomiums passed upon him by

    1777
    the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, but he regrets he cannot be here owing to a public engagement of much importance. In any case, he would have asked me to reply, as the Debate has assumed a Colonial aspect, and it is on that aspect that both the hon. Gentleman and the Noble Lord worked. The first observation made by the hon. Gentleman opposite was in opposition to the whole of the tea tax. He said that if we started a system of taxation de novo no such heavy tax would be imposed upon tea. I think that is very likely so, but if we started our system of taxation de novo I think he would agree that there would be very divergent propositions put forward. For one thing, he and his friends would propose to revert to an entirely novel system, so far as we are concerned nowadays, the system of protective duties.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: No.
    Colonel SEELY: I understand that the hon. Gentleman would. I have always understood so.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Certainly not. I always draw the line at protective duties except for the purpose of fiscal retaliation.
    Colonel SEELY: I am sorry I misinterpreted the hon. Gentleman. Hitherto I understood he belonged to what are termed the "whole-hoggers," but now I understand he belongs to what I may call the denomination of "little-piggers."
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I cannot let that pass. The whole point of those who are associated with this Amendment is not to put on protective duties at all.
    Colonel SEELY: Then I am to understand that it is not proposed that this is in any sense to be a protective duty?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: That is a matter of definition.
    Colonel SEELY: I think we had better not pursue the subject. I think the hon. Gentleman has not seen the full effect of his proposal. On the question of the tea tariff, it is quite true there is a very heavy impost upon tea, amounting to a very large percentage of its value; but, on the other hand, the amount which is levied by the Tea Tax has been very greatly reduced. In 1904, if I am rightly informed the duty was 8d. It is now reduced to 5d. That is a very great reduction. So on the general question of the Tea Tax I think that the
    1778
    Government can claim to have made a great step forward towards meeting the wishes of the hon. Gentleman and the Noble Lord for the reduction of the Tea Duty as a whole. But now we come to the proposal to go further, and take a penny off Colonial tea, while retaining the whole 5d. upon teas from foreign countries. I do not know that the hon. Gentleman realises how small a percentage of the tea that we get comes from foreign countries and especially from China. The figures that he gave do not tally with the figures with which I have been furnished by the Treasury and the Colonial Office. So far as I have been able to ascertain our total imports of tea for last year amounted to something over 341,000,000 lbs.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: That includes the re-exports.
    Colonel SEELY: I am not quite certain. In any case, that is the total. Our total altogether from foreign countries comes to about 40,000,000 lbs. Of that, roughly, 17,000,000 comes from China. So that the tea from China is almost, but not quite, one-twentieth of our total import of tea.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As a matter of information, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much comes from Java and what it has been in the last few years?
    Colonel SEELY: Yes; I have all the figures here, and shall be glad to give them to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to have them. From Java itself, exported direct here, the imports in 1909 were 14,000,000 lbs. They have risen by slow degrees from 11,000,000 in 1905. There was a considerable increase of 12,000,000 in 1906, and a drop in 1907, since which it has risen to 14,300,000. I notice that there is nearly 7,500,000 from the Netherlands, but how much comes from Java and how much from other sources I do not know exactly. The House will see that the total of our imports from British possessions is enormously greater than from foreign countries. There were 341,000,000 altogether, of which 301,000,000 are from British possessions and only 40,000,000 from other sources. Therefore it will be seen that if we were to adopt this proposal there would be a loss of over £1,000,000 to the Treasury. What steps does the hon. Gentleman propose to take in order to make good that loss? We estimate to receive, I think, about £6,000,000 from the duty this year. The loss from this proposal would be between

    1779
    £1,000,000 to £1,250,000 to the Treasury. That is a loss which we cannot possibly face even if we thought by so doing we should placate that feeling in India and our Crown Colonies which the Noble Lord opposite seems to think it is desirable we should placate. Even if it were so we could not face this loss unless we could find the money. How is that to be done? The hon. Gentleman suggested that we should put a penny on China tea. But China tea only forms one-twentieth of the total imports.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I said as an alternative that we might put 1d. on China tea; but my suggestion was to leave the duty as it is, and that a system of graduation should be adopted for the dearer classes of tea.
    Colonel SEELY: A penny on China tea would, of course, be of no use to raise £1,250,000. I have said we collect altogether £6,000,000 from the duty, and as China tea only represents one-twentieth of the £6,000,000, the hon. Gentleman will see that 1d. is not a very large proportion of the total amount, and would not amount to one-sixth of the loss his proposal would entail. The calculation I have made, I think, is approximately accurate. This proposal to put extra taxation on China tea, unless it were adopted on a very large scale, would not meet the case. Really these two teas are quite different. People who drink China tea would not consider a penny or so in the price. It is not like Colonial and foreign corn, in which there is practically no difference. China tea and Indian tea are quite different things, as every hon. Member of this House, I am sure, appreciates. I believe, so far as the Members of this House are concerned, they prefer China tea—so I am informed in the Refreshment Department—and it is apparently in very great vogue. But it is not a proposal which we can accept on financial grounds. How is it proposed to raise the £1,250,000 which would be lost? Where is it to come from? Are we to put another halfpenny on tobacco, are we to put more taxation on whisky, or another halfpenny on the Income Tax, which would about provide the necessary sum? No such proposition would meet with approval in this House, for hon. Gentlemen opposite state that taxation is very high. If that be so, if taxation has already reached the limit, as we are told it has, how could the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopt the
    1780
    suggestion of the hon. Member and the Noble Lord opposite and make this remission, causing so important a loss of revenue? The only possible justification would be that it would be the first step towards Colonial Preference. But this proposal would not have, it appears to me, any relation whatever to the proposal for Colonial Preference, which was debated the other day.
    Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: The right hon. Gentleman seems to misunderstand my right hon. Friend behind me, who proposed that the existing taxation on Ceylon tea should remain the same and an extra penny put on China tea.
    Colonel SEELY: It does not matter very much which way you do it. The proposal on the Paper is what I am discussing: that the existing taxation should remain the same, and a penny taken off Ceylon and Indian tea. The hon. Member submits the alternative now. The proposal on the Paper is what I have stated, but I repeat that it bears no relation to the ordinary proposal with which we have become familiar, that of cementing the Empire by giving Colonial Preference. That proposal is one to which the Government, of course, do not agree. It has been urged with great effect by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that we should get a certain trade advantage from semi-independent communities, though wholly independent as regards their fiscal system, by making concessions to them. That is not the proposal here, however, because, after all, Ceylon is not in any sense an independent fiscal community. The Estimates of Ceylon are submitted to the Secretary of State each year. We review them, and where it is thought necessary for the safety of the Empire that some alteration in the fiscal system should be made, we can effect that alteration. If right hon. Gentlemen opposite ask why we do not do it, we could not answer by saying we have not the power, for we have the power. We are not, therefore, dealing here with a proposition such as that with which we are familiar. I do not myself see what possible advantage can accrue from giving this preference to Ceylon and India. It seems to have been assumed by the Noble Lord that it would give universal satisfaction. I am not at all sure that this would be so. It is very dangerous to assume that any fiscal proposition will be received with gratitude by the Dominions across the sea unless you are quite sure

    1781
    of your ground. Only the other day we had a discussion on this system of giving preference to our great self-governing Colonies, which are more accurately described as "Dominions." At the very moment we were discussing the subject here, and every hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite was assuming that the proposal which they put forward was one which would commend itself to Canada there was, as we read in the newspapers, an official deputation of farmers which waited upon the Prime Minister in Canada urging him to have nothing whatever to do with the scheme. Anything more dramatic than that coincidence I myself have never seen. Is it not a warning against attempting to secure greater loyalty from any part of the Empire, whether self-governing or not, by any of these systems of taxation? Every hon. Gentleman opposite thought that what he was proposing the other day, whether fiscally wise or unwise, was at least popular in the Dominion of Canada. In the next morning's paper we saw that the very people whom you wished to benefit were against it. The same thing would happen again and again if you attempt, by tariff-mongering, to add to the stability of the Empire. There seems to be a theory that you cannot get co-operation unless you buy it under a system of tariffs—"If you will not give us a preference on our beef we will not fight your battles." We are supposed to imagine that not a single contingent would advance unless we put a penny on foreign beef. His Majesty's Government reject this proposal first of all as financially inxpedient, and, secondly, because we would lose so much money. We take up the challenge which has been thrown down, and we do not believe that we would be cementing the Empire by means of tariffs. For these reasons we cannot accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman and of the Noble Lord opposite, though they brought it forward with great moderation and fairness, and we listened to them with much interest.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: We have had a short and I must say a remarkable speech, considering it proceeds from the right hon. Gentleman who sits on the Liberal Benches. He argues that because we have the power of remitting and putting on taxation in Ceylon that this has no relevance to the matter. Surely any Liberal will admit that even if we have the power—as we have undoubtedly over each of the Crown Colonies—either to impose or
    1782
    remit taxation, we should not exercise that power without considering the wishes and sentiments of the inhabitants.
    Colonel SEELY: I did not say it had no relevance to the Amendment. I said it was a totally different proposition. In the one case we have no power at all and in the other case we have absolute power, although we exercise it as far as we can in accordance with the wishes of the Crown Colonies.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: I am afraid I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, but, after his correction, I do not see the object of his observations at all. I do not suppose there is any Member of the House who is not aware that there is a substantial difference between the self-governing Dominions and the Crown Colonies. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Debate which took place last week, and said that on that very day there was a deputation in Canada to the Prime Minister, and he represented that there were some people in the West of the Dominion who were opposed to Colonial Preference. Has the right hon. Gentleman the boldness seriously to place that deputation against the opinion of representatives of Canada expressed, I think, at five different Conferences, and which only repeated representations which have been made, as shown on former occasions, for more than sixty years? This proposal was brought forward by my hon. Friend and by the Noble Lord, to whom I am very grateful for having done it, and as the right hon. Gentleman says, they submitted it with great moderation. Neither of them pretended that the financial aspect of this particular case was a very pressing one, and both of them admitted—my Noble Friend behind me especially—that the object was political. It is perfectly true that a large proportion of tea which is imported into this country comes from our Colonies, a very large proportion, but there is no less than forty million pounds coming from foreign sources. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that it came directly or indirectly from Java.
    Colonel SEELY: And China.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: But chiefly Java. The amount imported from Java is increasing, and I may go so far as to say that the competition from China, which has been increasing in a very serious measure already during the last few years, will still continue to increase and become

    1783
    a formidable rival to Ceylon and India. We are confronted, as the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, and as we usually are on these occasions, not upon the arguments, or upon the merits of the particular case, but upon general considerations which right hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think preclude them altogether from entertaining any of these applications. The very mention of Colonial Preference seems, if I may put it without offence, to lead to a suspension of their intellectual faculties. It produces at once from the Prime Minister, and I must add, though in a less degree, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a thought-saving apparatus which grinds out, rather like a gramophone, familiar sounds and inevitable formula, with scarcely, as these various occasions arise, a change of inflection in the voice.
    It would not be in order to go into any details in this matter, but we have had the same thing on Thursday last as the right hon. Gentleman has given to-day. We have the same old formulas from the Prime Minister: "We cannot tax food," "Will you tax food? If we have to give preference we must act equally all round." Equipped with those two formulas the Government deems itself absolved from all consideration whatever of the changing circumstances of occasions and of time, and consider that those two formulas justify them in their stolid immobility. I venture to say that that is a deplorable attitude. We must not go into details, but it is deplorable when, as was shown only a few days ago, Canada, and in fact all the Colonies, have now asserted, and asserted by the consent of this country, the right to make independent treaties—it surely is deplorable that the Government never even refer to this revolution in our relations with the self-governing Dominions, and continue to treat this question precisely as if it was unchanged from former occasions. Those two formulas, and I put this to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are supposed to cover, and that is what makes them relevant to this Debate, the case of the Crown Colonies as well as of the Dominion, and it is worth while therefore very briefly to examine it. The food tax is always put forward as an absolute objection. Although it does not behove me to say necessarily that food taxes would be imposed under Colonial Preference, I fully admit, and always have admitted to the
    1784
    Chancellor of the Exchequer on several occasions, that it is highly probable that it would be necessary, and the whole of this party have absolutely faced the situation that it may be necessary. Any way, I think right hon. Gentlemen are entitled to this admission from me, that for the purpose of this Debate, at any rate, I will assume that a small food tax is necessary. Why should that not be compensated for by something given to the class which is to be, as they say, burdened by such a food tax?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself in many Debates in my own hearing this Session and last Session justified putting heavy burdens upon Irish peasants by saying, "Though I have done this with one hand, yet have I given you old age pensions with the other." The Chancellor of the Exchequer cheers that, but why in the world if that is so, and if you can compensate the Irish peasant for putting a burden upon him by giving a fiscal advantage elsewhere, what is to prevent us for great and Imperial objects if a small tax be placed on food, making that good to the persons who have to pay that tax by some other means? What is the objection? I believe that cannot possibly be answered. There can be no objection to doing it when the whole faith of this party, and the good faith of this party, is staked if food taxes were put on, upon redressing the balance by some advantage to the class who have to pay it. Not merely is our good faith embarked on that, but there is the most vital motive of self-interests not to impose such a tax without some compensation. The most terrible retribution would inevitably fall on any party that would put a duty on wheat, however small, accompanying the expression of that intention with the promise to make some compensating grant in exchange—the most tremendous retribution would fall on any party which did not speedily and immediately fulfil such a promise when it was made. There is the question of discrimination to which the Prime Minister referred again and again, and, of course, if his argument is sound with regard to the Dominions it is sound with regard to the Crown Colonies. He has said again and again that you cannot possibly give Colonial Preference without discriminating as between one Colony and another. He really seems to think, and hon. Gentlemen opposite, that that is a formidable, or indeed a conclusive, objection, and I see by their cheers they agree. I really find it difficult to speak very

    1785
    respectfully of such an argument. Hon. Gentlemen must know perfectly well that there is no scientific tariff that is made in any country in the world which does not recognise that raw materials must not be taxed. That is the basis, of course, of every scientific tariff which exists.
    If commodities which exist in one Colony and which are imported here are entirely raw materials how could you propose to tax them against our own declaration, and against the practice of everyone who makes a scientific tariff. What is the difficulty? Why should this uncertainty be imputed to our Colonial friends? Why should it not be competent for any Englishman to say, supposing representations were made by Australia that Canada was getting some preference on wheat, and were to ask themselves for such preference on wool, what is the difficulty of explaining to the Australian that that is a tax upon raw material, and that every statesman in this country has always exempted that from taxation, just as it is exempted by the scientific tariff of every nation in the world? If that is so, surely Australia would recognise with regard to wool or any other raw material as outside the case for Colonial Preference, because we are éstopped by our own principles, and by the necessities of the case from granting preference in such cases. If that is so, what possible grievance would their be. The Crown Colonies have two distinguishing characteristics which, I think, entitle them in principle to some preference. It requires no fresh taxation to be put on, and the existing tariff and the existing taxes may be so modelled and so arranged so as to give the preference which we now ask, and which my hon. Friends behind me ask. Here again we are up against principles which have been laid down by the Government—or supposed principles—which prevent them even entertaining such a demand. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will remember that at the last Colonial Conference Dr. Jameson brought forward the case of Cape Colony, and and asked that there should be some preference shown where taxes were actually existing, and that where no new taxes would be involved some preference should be shown to our own friends as distinguished from others. What position was taken up by the now Prime Minister? He said:—
    "This is as to preference on present dutiable articles. I am not going to take up any time. You understand our position in the matter. We think it would concede the principle without doing any substantial good."
    1786
    When he is pressed and questioned further, he goes on:—
    "But it means that we are to consider the question whether we shall treat the foreigners and the Colonies, as it were, differently, and that, we conceive, we are not able to do."
    Was there ever such a humiliating conclusion to come to, that you could not treat foreigners and your own people differently in fiscal matters? That is the position taken up every time we press them on this matter. It is, I must say, not unnatural that when this saddening conclusion and, as I would say, humiliating conclusion was given, namely, that the Government cannot treat foreigners differently from their own Colonies, that Dr. Jameson said:—
    "I would like to put it to the Conference.
    "Sir Joseph Ward: I will support that.
    "Mr. F. R. Moor: I support it.
    "Sir Robert Bond: Yes, I support it."
    And the chairman, Lord Elgin, said:—
    "We do not; we dissent from it."
    Therefore you have the position taken up, no matter what political object may be in view, no matter what the demands may be from the Colonies, no matter how pressing or how urgent the situation may be on many other grounds than fiscal, that this great country is unable to treat our own Colonies any differently than they are able in the treatment they accord to foreigners. I say that that is a lamentable state of things. It can only be justified, apart from so-called principles, if the situation was as described by the Prime Minister. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are really ignorant of the principle which they imagine they are defending.
    5.0 P.M.
    Colonial Preference has long ago been accorded in principle to the Crown Colonies. What is the commercial system which exists now between this country and the Crown Colonies? The Crown Agents are the bankers of all the Crown Colonies. They raise loans for them upon infinitely more advantageous terms than the Crown Colonies could possibly do on their own behalf. That is the service performed by us for them. What reciprocating advantage do they give us? The system for years has been that all commodities which they cannot grow within their own shores and which they cannot provide for themselves must be contracted for by the Crown Agents here. The result is that you have a system by which, on the one side, the Colonies have the advantage of the financial credit of this country, while on the other our manufacturers have the

    1787
    immense advantage of a preferential opportunity of contracting for or making many articles which the Crown Colonies require.
    Colonel SEELY Colonel SEELY dissented.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: The right hon. Gentleman says it is not so. I know perfectly well that it is so. I say without fear of contradiction that a preference is given to the manufacturers of this country as regards the supply to the Crown Colonies of commodities which they themselves cannot produce. I say that, in the first place, it is the practice for Crown Colony loans to be issued here, by which the Crown Colonies get a great advantage; and, in the second place, it is the practice, and has been for many years, the Crown Agents to indent or contract in this country for all articles required by the Crown Colonies which they themselves cannot produce. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to deny that that has been the practice for many years.
    Colonel SEELY: The system is very much altered now.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: In what way?
    Colonel SEELY: The right hon. Gentleman assumes that I know nothing about it. I may be very ignorant; but it so happens that I was Chairman of a Committee which sat for a great many months considering this question. The system is not as the right hon. Gentleman has described it.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: What is it? The right hon. Gentleman knows all about it, and thinks that I am wrong. Will he tell me in what respect I have erred?
    Colonel SEELY: If the right hon. Gentleman will read the Report of the Committee on this subject he will find that the system does not really bear the aspect at all which he has put to the House. It has no relation to it. As a matter of fact, there is no preference whatsoever to this country.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: The right hon. Gentleman, having been Chairman of a Committee which inquired into this subject, and being unable to point out in what respect I have erred, I think I may assume that I have not erred. Once more I assert, notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that when a Crown Agent finds that a Crown Colony
    1788
    cannot produce a commodity itself, it is the duty of the Crown Agent first to endeavour to obtain tenders from manufacturers in this country, and to give our manufacturers the preference. If that is so, and I believe it to be so, we have already, most happily, notwithstanding the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman, a system in which the foreigner is placed at some disadvantage as regards the Crown Colonies. That being so, what objection is there to somewhat enlarging, in the cautious and tentative manner suggested by my hon. Friends, for a political object by no means unimportant, a system which has already a definite basis? I shall be glad for this House and the country to know that the Government, not only decline to make any change whatever in favour of the Dominions—that is bad enough indeed—but that, notwithstanding new facts of greatly increasing importance which have been established, they have again assumed that attitude of total inability to alter or vary their system, no matter how strong the case adduced for it.
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: As to the question of fact which has arisen at the end of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I believe him to be wrong in the suggestion that there is a bargain or anything resembling a bargain that the Crown Agents should buy all they want in England. As far as I know, there is no system of bargaining binding the Crown Agents to buy in England what they want for the Crown Colonies. I go further, and I say that they constantly buy in other countries articles which could be produced in England.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: I never said there was a bargain; I said a system which had existed for many years.
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: If there is no bargain the argument falls to the ground; there is nothing in it. No doubt what they can get best in England they buy here; but what they can get better elsewhere they buy there. There is no bargain and no preference; that is the point. If there is no bargain certainly there is no preference. This proposal, coming from distinguished Tariff Reformers, is a most remarkable departure from the original faith as preached in Birmingham. It is either a departure from it or a great development of it, because in the original faith the principal point was a total and complete neglect of everything except the self-governing Colonies. It was one of the

    1789
    reproaches addressed to the Tariff Reform policy as it was then elaborated and stated, not only in principle, but in every detail, by its great prophet, that while it pretended to bind together the whole of the Empire, it left totally out of account that nine-tenths of the Empire which is represented by India.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: Are we to learn nothing?
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I do not think you have learned much—not even the original faith as preached by the original prophet. When the great scheme of a scientific tariff was first put forward one of the first occurrences was that Sir M. Bhownaggree, who was then a Member of this House, wrote to the Member for West Birmingham asking how it was he had left India out of account, to which the right hon. Gentleman replied, "I have left India aside purposely and advisedly." I think he had done so inevitably, for the sole reason that whatever advantage you got from your Crown Colonies in return for a preference which you gave to them it would be an increased export of your goods to them through a diminution of their existing duties. You could get no such advantage from India. India does not levy any heavy duties; she does not levy 30 per cent. on your woollens, as Canada does; she does not levy high duties, nor does she exclude your citizens, as Australia does. There are none of the—I would call them "oppressions" that the self-governing Colonies constantly place upon our trade to be got rid of in the case of India. India is practically a Free Trade country; her duties are extraordinarily small and light; her duties on manufactured and other articles sent from this country are insignificant. Therefore, whatever preference you give to India in the way of remission of duty on her tea, she has nothing to give you in return. That was why the original prophet of this crazy faith left India out of account purposely and advisedly, and it has never been brought in until to-day. It has been brought in, I think, upon an entire misapprehension of the situation. As for the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment (Mr. James Hope), I think he has misconceived the situation altogether. He reminds me of what Dryden said: "The second son shall be a false prophet, with wit enough to found a new religion, but too much wit to die a martyr to it." Do hon. Gentlemen opposite really mean
    1790
    to abandon the faith originally preached from Birmingham, stated in detail in Glasgow in 1903, and subsequently explained to Sir M. Bhownaggree, who was almost Member for India, so as to take in what the original prophet left out, and to pretend to give to India the sort of preference which was originally entirely denied to her? If they do, they will have to reconsider the whole position. Above all, they will have to ask themselves what we are to get from India in return. There is something to be said for Colonial Preference in the case of the Crown Colonies when they impose heavy duties upon our manufactured and other articles; because, if you could impose a duty on food—I believe you never will be able to—but if you could, those Colonies which produce food might perfectly well in return diminish something of their 20 or 30 per cent. duties which they now impose. But what are you going to get from India? I ask for a reply to that. Will hon. Gentlemen opposite apply their great minds to this question, and tell me simply: If we are going to give Indian tea a preference in this country by a diminution of the duty, what are we going to get from India in return? What you could get from the self-governing Colonies I understand; but what you could get from India for the life of me I cannot see.
    As to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's argument, which was used by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, I confess I have no sympathy with it. He says that he would lose a great deal of money. It would be a great deal of money. Since nine-tenths of our tea comes from India you would, by giving up one-fifth of the duty, give up one-fifth of nine-tenths of the revenue from tea. Broadly speaking, I suppose it would amount to £1,000,000. That is serious, but it is not so serious to the minds of hon. Members on this side as to the minds of hon. Members opposite, who are always pressing for more "Dreadnoughts." By giving up this revenue of £1,000,000 a year you would be giving up half a "Dreadnought." That is a very strong argument; but if the case were a good one I would pay no attention at all to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's argument, especially when used by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, because I think in that respect the right hon. Gentleman was travelling somewhat outside his Department, and I should not be surprised if the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, with more knowledge of finance

    1791
    and perhaps a larger imagination, if he thought it worth while, were able to replace even this £1,000,000 of revenue. Why should we remit duty on tea? Our principle is always to levy duties not because we love them nor for political purposes, but because we want revenue. Why, then, are you to forego £1,000,000 of revenue because it falls upon the Colonies instead of upon the foreigner. Here let me take notice of what the hon. Gentleman opposite says. He says, "If you remit this duty it will bring the price down." Oh, then the foreigner does not pay that part of the duty?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: He does not pay the duty at first.
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Oh, if you take some of the duty off, the price falls thereafter, and he does not pay that part of the duty. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I am very glad to get that. It will help to clear the ground for future Debates on Tariff Reform. I congratulate, in passing, the hon. Gentleman as a very unfaithful follower of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, because he does not think that. He thinks the foreigner will pay the duty. He says so.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Of course, when you have a very high duty the consumer does pay the greater part of it, but our contention, by figures which have been calculated, is that at the beginning anything between 6 and 12 per cent. will fall upon the producer.
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: What! Then there is a duty which will be paid by the consumer, and there is another duty which will not? The line is 12 per cent. levy 5 per cent., 6, 7, 8, and it is the wicked foreigner that pays. When once you reach the magical line of 12 per cent. it is the unfortunate British consumer who is the victim!
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: The producer will pay at first. As to where the exact line will be drawn will depend upon the amount of competition. Probably when you get to 12 per cent. Everything over that probably will fall—of course, nobody can give a general rule to apply always, or specify the exact line.
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I am extremely obliged to my hon. Friend for his
    1792
    explanation, for it is exactly the way I myself have explained it, though, of course, I did not use language of such clearness. But I think it is very notable that in the first place there has been a complete departure from the original doctrine of Preference and Tariff Reform as laid down, for that doctrine did not include India. It expressly excluded India, and it excluded India upon consideration and for adequate reasons. Secondly there is an admission that up till 12 per cent. the foreigner pays the duty, and it is suggested that over 12 per cent, or some such figure—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I will not quarrel about the figure—it can be 2 or 3 per cent. either way—we will call it up to 15 if you like, but above a certain figure the consumer pays. It is a very considerable admission from one of the great advocates of Tariff Reform. I shall take note of it, and dwell upon it in any further Debate that may come on this most afflicting subject. One other remark. My right hon. Friend who sits opposite, and who has just sat down, has told us that it is a capital doctrine even among Tariff Reformers, that raw materials shall not be taxed.
    Mr. LYTTELTON Mr. LYTTELTON assented.
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman assents to it. Is wood a raw material? What does he say?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is going a long way from tea.
    Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I admit, Sir, that tea is only a shrub. I will depart from it. Let me say this: If this proposal was carried, the whole result would be that the revenue would lose cash, the Indian would not be encouraged, and there would be no Colonial Preference, for we should get nothing for it. You would have lost a good deal of revenue, without producing any effect—political or material. One last word. The right hon. Gentleman says you may perfectly Well assume a fiscal burden in order to produce a political effect. I entirely agree with that. I think it might be conceivable, if you were certain of a very considerable political result—say if there was a further strengthening of the Empire—that you might impose upon yourselves a certain fiscal burden. As a general doctrine there is nothing to be said against that, but I have never yet seen anything to show that for the very great burdens that Tariff Reform will impose any corresponding political result will be achieved. I

    1793
    believe, on the contrary, that, so far as the self-governing Colonies are concerned—and I will include India if you like—it is not the small profit on trade that binds the Empire together, it is the remembrance of a common history, a common faith, of common glories. It is sentiment that binds the Colonies to the Mother Country, and not the small profits that we should gain from any system of preference.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: The discussion on the Amendment has turned on the question of preference. The right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Colonies has told us that the import of foreign teas is of so small a character that the only tea we have to deal with for the moment was Colonial and Crown Colony tea. The object of my Amendment a little lower down on the Paper is a reduction in the tax. The object of my hon. Friends who proposed and seconded the Resolution appeared to be purely political. The question of the tax is one which, I think, is of vital importance. I think that it is perhaps a tax which of all others calls for a reduction. The history of the tax in recent years has been that it was raised in 1900. It was raised again in 1904. It was reduced by 2d. in 1905, and by a further 1d. by the Prime Minister in 1906. We are asking that the Government should again reduce it by 1d. The proposition that 1d. should be taken off Colonial tea is, I think, a Resolution which most hon. Members of all sections of this House can willingly subscribe to. I am only sorry that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) has moved his Amendment instead of mine, because there is an excuse for hon. Members opposite to introduce the "shibboleth" of preference, which will frighten a great many Members in various parts of the House. They will be able by that excuse to get out of the pledges given to their constituents during those strenuous times of election, when it was a requisite for them to offer something to gain the assistance of their supporters. That is the reason I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman moved this Amendment, because when the Division is taken hon. Gentlemen who sit behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and those who sit on the Labour Benches, and possibly hon. Gentlemen too who come from Ireland, will all say, "This savours of preference; it is a most dangerous principle, and we cannot redeem those pledges which we have given at election
    1794
    times with regard to the Tea Duty." The Tea Duty is a subject which has been made use of many times in the past for the purpose of belabouring a tottering Ministry. That is not my object this afternoon. My object is to urge a reduction in the Tea Duty because I think it is a matter of vital importance to this country. If I had probed deeply into "Hansard" I have no doubt I could find utterances from most right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite giving forth pious opinions as to how and why they believe that the Tea Duty has been deleterious,
    and must certainly be taken off. The right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Colonies in his interesting speech told us that there is very little hope, in fact no hope at all, that this Tea Duty will be taken off. After the manner of his colleagues he appealed to this side of the House to give him suggestions as to how the money likely to be lost by the revision of the Tea Duty shall be replaced. It is the duty of the Government to make suggestions of this sort, and not that of the Opposition. They receive, perhaps, a not insignificant remuneration for doing so. But they do receive gratuitous suggestions from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Mr. Bottomley), by which the money which will be lost by the remission of the Tea Duty will be amply replaced.
    Let me quote from a speech by the Prime Minister made in 1909. The right hon. Gentleman then said:—
    "It was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to set to work at once to effect, as I believe he might very well effect, such reductions in the expenditure of the country as will enable him to withdraw, with the shortest possible delay, one-third of the Tea Duty, which was always intended to be of a temporary character."
    Nineteen hundred and ten has arrived. There is no reduction of the Tea Duty. The reason I put forward as to why the Tea Duty should be reduced is that in its present larger proportion it is the remnant of the war tax. I should like to see it reduced a great deal more than at present; indeed to its proportions previous to the war. There is another reason why a penny should be taken off the Tea Duty at the present moment. It is that a penny was taken off in the year 1906, and that it is a necessary corrollary of the Tea Duty with the altered price in this country that the tax should be reduced 2d., because it is impossible to alter the price if it is only reduced by 1d. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down

    1795
    has spoken of the consumer paying the tax. Although my Tariff Reform sentiments are not so violently in the direction of Protection as are those of some hon. Gentlemen in this House, still I have always understood that when a commodity has a monopoly and comes into a country without any competition and is to be consumed by the people of this country that the tax falls entirely on the consumer. In the face of such an efficient student of trade as the hon. Gentleman, I, however, will not enter into discussion on that point at present. There are, of course, advantages in the Tea Duty. There is one advantage that I do not think hon. Gentlemen on the Labour Benches will, perhaps, subscribe to. That advantage is that it is a tax which falls on almost every individual in the community. We are told nowadays that the rich should be taxed, and that the poor should escape altogether. That is not quite my view. I should like to see an entirely graduated system of taxation, so that the poorest of the poor should contribute something. I do certainly agree with what was said by my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment—that if we had a graduated Tea Duty it would partly answer the purposes of taxation from a fiscal standpoint.
    I should really like to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity, if possible, of reducing the Tea Duty by 1d. That would really be a redemption of the pledge which it is incumbent on the Government to redeem. We are told that there is no money forthcoming. If there is a surplus it is, to my mind, the duty of the Government to use it in the way I suggest before they begin schemes which they have told us of, but the objects of which we are uncertain. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to go down to posterity as an efficient Chancellor, as one who had the interests of his country and all sections of it at heart, I say that the Tea Duty is one that he will reduce at the present time. The Tea Duty was levied ostensibly for the purposes of war. That is the case with the Tea Duty. I do not know whether I shall be able to move my Amendment which is on the Paper when I come to it. I should like to move it if I have an opportunity, if it was only for the purpose of giving hon. Gentlemen in all quarters of this House, who talk a great deal about the Tea Duty at electioneering time, but who when they come into this House subserviently follow the
    1796
    Government. I shall vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend, which combines the question of preference, which I desire to see given effect to.
    Mr. LOUGH: The Noble Lord, who has just sat down, has delivered a most interesting speech, and has in the most polite language possible thrown over his friend behind him. Instead of defending the principle of Colonial Preference, the Noble Lord has made a general speech upon the reduction of the Tea Duty. I, speaking from the opposite side of the House, often advocated the same principle, and if anyone can suggest a practical method by which the Tea Duty could be reduced, I think that appeal would not fall upon deaf ears so far as the Treasury Bench is concerned. But, in order that we may appreciate the difficulties of such a step at the present moment, we ought to examine the arguments submitted by the Noble Lord in his very interesting speech. He said the tax was a War Tax, and for that reason the extra penny on tea which was put on for war purposes should now be removed. Many of us thought that was so, but what is the reason the Government are not in a position to reduce that tax? It is because of the huge extravagant war expenditure pressed upon them from the other side of the House. Millions extra are demanded for the Navy, and, therefore, the revenue which is expended on these kind of things has to be supplied by taxes which cannot, therefore, be taken up. The Noble Lord spoke of the desirability of a graduated Tea Tax in order that it might fall more equitably upon the poor. I do not believe that any principle of graduation can be carried into effect, and certainly it could not be made beneficial to the poor. The suggestion of graduation of the Tea Tax is based upon the assumption that the poor buy cheap and bad tea and that the rich buy dear and good tea. That is not true at all. An immense number of rich people buy the poorest qualities of tea, while the poor, to whom tea is an article of food, especially in Ireland and other places also, look most carefully to the quality of the tea they purchase. The whole principle of graduation is impracticable. I do not think the Noble Lord is serious in putting forward his suggestions for the reduction of the Tea Tax. If he is anxious on that score, and if he really wishes to see the Tea Tax reduced, there is a very convenient course open to him, and that is to keep the Front

    1797
    Bench opposite from pressing for more expenditure upon armaments. In any happy moment of that kind he will find me a strong advocate of such principles.
    The real question we have to discuss is the question of Colonial Preference, and it is highly interesting, because when we get a precise case submitted to us the House should try and look at it upon its merits and see if such a form of finance were put into operation what effect it would have upon our commercial and friendly relations with other Powers. The figures were given in a very interesting speech by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. The first place we would hit in regard to tea would be China. Why should we endeavour to hit China? Has she not been a very good friend of this country? I know this country in past years spent a vast sum of money in keeping the Free Trade door open in China. Why should we now for some paltry consideration strike a blow at China? Let us look at the case from the broad point of view. There was a time when this country depended upon China for the tea we consumed. We got as much as 200,000,000 lbs. of tea from China; that consumption has fallen to 17,000,000 lbs. How did that come about? It came about under Free Trade. We copied China; she taught us to grow tea, and we grew it ourselves in our own country, with the terrible result, that we took away a vast portion of her trade. Might not the Noble Lord feel satisfied with that. Is it not a mean thing to say, "Let us now stab her in the back, and for the purpose of cutting a trifle off these 17,000,000 lbs. let us give a preferential duty to Colonial tea"? I think it would be a mean and cowardly thing to do that. Its effect would be to reduce our exports to China; to shut that door, and to that extent to do a great deal of harm to our own commerce.
    There is another country to which we might do harm, and that is Holland, which has developed a splendid trade in tea in Java, that most fertile island. A great deal of tea comes to us from Java and from Amsterdam. Are not the Dutch good friends of ours? They sent us a king once, and they send us large quantities of interesting things now. The Dutch are the most nearly Free Trade people of any of the countries of Europe, and here we are asked to strike at these friendly countries—China abroad and Holland amongst the neighbouring countries—to carry out this mean and paltry policy, which would
    1798
    be of no advantage to anybody. I believe from the financial point of view there would be an immense loss to the revenue of nearly £1,000,000 a year. Look at the convulsion of trade that would occur; the blow that would be given to friendly countries in Europe and abroad; and if looked at from that standpoint Colonial Preference in this instance would be found to be totally impracticable. It would bring no advantage, but it would impose burdens that would fall upon the backs of our countrymen, and I cannot see the slightest advantage to be derived.
    Mr. MACKINDER: I should like to refer for a moment to an argument advanced by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies. It was an argument upon general grounds referring only indirectly, I take it, to this question of granting a preference on tea, but it was an argument which ought to be dealt with, because the Under-Secretary when he used it was repeating an argument advanced in journalistic haste the other day by one of his chief supporters in the Press. It was the argument of that dramatic coincidence with reference to the deputation to Sir Wilfrid Laurier from certain farmers in Manitoba. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters in the Press are grasping at a straw in their anxiety by taking a mere telegraphic account of what must have been a meeting of considerable length, and twisting that into an argument in favour of their case. I find that the short account in "The Times" newspaper included these two sentences:—
    "The farmers said they looked with disfavour on any fiscal or preferential tariff tending to enhance the cost of living to British artisans and labourers."
    If hon. Members opposite accept that as equivalent to a free trade statement by the meeting they beg the whole question, because we deny that a preferential duty would have that effect. Let us take the next sentence:—
    "They desired every possible facility for the free exchange of their food products, for products of the congested factory districts of Great Britain."
    I suggest that when the report of that meeting is examined at length it will be found that these farmers do not assume that these preferential duties would put any burden upon the artisans and labourers of this country. I submit that a telegraphic epitome does not entitle you to assume that these farmers were demanding that there should be no preferential duties given to this country. But that is a side issue, and I only refer to it because the

    1799
    right hon. Gentleman, following an influential organ in the Press, had been assuming a little too much. If he wanted a dramatic coincidence he might have referred at the same time to Count Komura, who said:—
    "As Great Britain is pursuing a Free Trade policy there is no room for a convention with that country."
    I would ask hon. Gentlemen to remember that only two or three days before the telegram from Canada there was another telegram in which Sir Wilfrid Laurier said emphatically to the farmers that the preferential policy with Great Britain could not be departed from. The right hon. Gentleman brought forward his case in order to show that Canadian opinion was not with us. Sir Wilfrid Laurier practically stated that the deputation only represented a minority, and that Canada on the whole differed from them.
    In reference to what was said just now by the Noble Lord (Viscount Castlereagh) that the effect of lowering the duty on tea produced in the Empire would to a certain extent be to give a graduated Tea Duty. I should like to say, though I have not examined the case of the Java tea, I have that of the China tea, and I find on the average of prices on the declared valuation of tea imported into this country China tea is ½d. per lb. dearer than Indian tea. My experience would show that tea, contrary to the assertion made by another hon. Member (Mr. Lough), of the cheaper class is consumed by the poorer people. I doubt whether any very large amount of China tea, which is notoriously the dearer tea, is consumed by the poor. The evidence which the figures published afford is that China teas are dearer than teas that come from India and Ceylon, and therefore it would be on cheaper tea you would be granting a Preference. I have not gone into all the figures, but in the case of Chinese tea that is so. We have been told that the sole effect of this proposal will be to damage our trade with China. I do not believe it would have that effect, because those who demand China teas will have them, no matter whether they are a little dearer or not. China tea is a speciality, and is used to meet the taste of certain people, and I do not think because there is a slight increase in its cost those people will cease to demand that particular kind of tea from China. China tea is a luxury, and it will be paid for by those who demand it,
    1800
    even if the price is a little higher. But even if I grant the case made out by the hon. Member that you would damage the China tea trade, it should not be forgotten that the result would be that you would take more tea from India. You would increase in that way your Indian trade, and if there is any philanthrophy, it ought to be for our fellow-subjects. I believe the total trade done by this country will not be diminished, and will only be slightly altered in its character by the proposal suggested. We heard the hon. Member opposite criticise the case originally put forward by what he called "the great prophet of the preferential idea." He said it had reference only to the free governing communities within the Empire, and not to India, and he stated that only in this Debate had the case of India been put forward. I would remind the hon. Member that so seriously has the Indian side of the question been put forward that the Indian Government found it necessary to send a despatch to the Home Government at the time of the last Imperial Conference in order to deal with that idea. Consequently it is clear that four years ago, in a despatch sent in anticipation of the Conference, this question of India sharing a preferential system was distinctly before the country. I would also remind the hon. Member that there is a most curious history connected with that despatch. It was a Free Trade despatch, based upon a memorandum written by the Financial Member of the Council, and there was much more Free Trade in the despatch than in the original memorandum. The opinion of this responsible Financial Adviser of the Viceroy's Council was very much more in our direction than is assumed. Of course his opinions were watered down in the epitome that was made of them for consumption in this country, and they were watered and biassed by the direction of the Government in power in the despatch that was sent over to this country. If the hon. Member requires a basis on which preference could be arranged he will find it more fairly stated in the original document, and not in the diluted document circulated here for election purposes. The hon. Member for King's Lynn said that the policy of holding the Empire together was to be found in our common history. May I point out that the United States had a common history with us, and it was the imposition of a duty that first began the diversion of that national sentiment which was as strong as is the sentiment

    1801
    now in the case of our Colonies. We want to remit a duty. I am content to leave that historical fact to speak for itself. I venture to say that historically we are far more accurate in our view than the hon. Member opposite.
    Mr. F. G. HINDLE: The right hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House from the Front Opposition Bench admitted very frankly that if, in pursuance of the policy of Colonial Preference, preferential duties were imposed which operated very harshly on certain classes, it would be necessary for some compensation to be given to those classes either by remission of taxation or in some other way. But not only will certain classes who use goods be affected, but certain industries will be more heavily hit if a preferential system is introduced. I should like to know what compensation is to be given to those industries? I am speaking on behalf of a Lancashire constituency which depends for its existence upon the cotton trade, and I should like to know in what way it is proposed that some compensation should be given to that trade in the event of a policy being adopted which would undoubtedly necessitate the taxing of a great deal of the raw materials of that industry. I know perfectly well that it is said that it is not proposed to tax the raw materials of any industry, but the very article which was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman happens to be actually one of the raw materials largely used in Lancashire. It would be impossible to set up any system of taxation to give Colonial Preference which would not hit many of the raw materials of this industry. It must be remembered that the cotton industry is one of the greatest industries in the country. Its exports amount to £100,000,000, and it employs several hundred thousand workpeople. The distinction I draw in this matter is that the cotton industry needs no protection——
    Mr. SPEAKER: We are not talking about cotton. I must ask the hon. Member to come back to tea.
    Mr. HINDLE: It would be impossible to grant compensation not only to the cotton trade but to many important industries in this country if duties are placed upon the articles which they largely use. That is the real difficulty which lies in the way of those who advocate Colonial Preference. The gentlemen who waited upon the Prime Minister of Canada, and
    1802
    the farmers of Canada themselves pointed out that they were sufferers from the taxation of articles which they used in their industries, and they emphatically stated that they did not wish in any way to be compensated for that disadvantage by the taxation of corn in their favour. Until an answer is given to the question as to how Colonial Preference will provide compensation for the industries it will injure, I cannot see how this House can fairly be asked to adopt such a policy.
    Mr. R. A. COOPER: The hon. Member for King's Lynn put a question to us to-day in regard to this policy, and insisted upon having an answer. The hon. Member asks if this tax is remitted especially in favour of India as is intended, what are we going to get from India? I think this question marks the different spectacles through which we on these benches, together with the Colonial Premiers, look at this question of preference as compared with hon. Members opposite. We do not look at it from the point of view of the sordid question: "What are we going to get out of it?" [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] At any rate, the speeches and writings of prominent advocates of preference will show that first and foremost we are desirous of housing both our people at home and our Colonial kinsmen across the seas. I would also like to point out as an answer to this question that when Canada gave a preference to this country she did not send over a Commission to confer with the Government or the traders of this country to ask, "What are we going to get out of you?" She readily and freely gave us that preference because she recognised that she was doing a service to the manufacturers of Great Britain. The hon. Member for King's Lynn tried to get from those sitting on these benches something definite in the way of showing how the foreigner will pay the tax. The hon. Member must be perfectly well aware that it is not a question of what the size of the tax may be. It does not matter whether it be one or 50 or 80 per cent. The point to be considered is, if you impose a tax what competition the articles taxed are subjected to. Upon that depends whether the foreigner pays the whole of the tax, or whether it is shared between the consumer and the foreigner, or whether the consumer pays the whole of the tax, as in the case of tea. It has been admitted that if this Amendment is accepted the Treasury would lose something like £1,250,000

    1803
    sterling, and we are asked, "Where are you going to get this money from?" We are asked, "Are you going to put an additional tax on tobacco or whisky or another halfpenny on the Income Tax?" May I point out that there are thousands of articles besides tea, whisky and tobacco which are not taxed at the present time. We imported into this country £12,000,000 worth of silk, which comes in absolutely free.
    6.0 P.M.
    The Colonial Secretary asks whether, if you lose this £1,500,000, you are going to put it on whisky or tobacco, both of which are consumed comparatively more by the poor people of the country than by the rich. He also asks whether you are going to put a halfpenny on the Income Tax, because, if not, as he told us quite frankly, the Government must maintain this tax of 5d. on Colonial as well as on foreign produced tea. What does that amount to? Simply that their policy requires that the tax which the Amendment asks should be remitted in the case of the Colonies shall be kept on an article of first importance to the poor people of this country. Hon. Members opposite have learnt to-night from the Colonial Secretary that Colonial Preference does not of necessity mean a tax on the food of the people, as they have placarded it all over Great Britain. Here is a case where it means a tax off the food of the people. Surely, from that point of view it should have appealed to the best instincts of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Those of us who are sincere in desiring to do what is for the ultimate good of the country would take pleasure in seeing a test of this description so that we might not either on these benches or on the benches opposite be continually hoodwinking the people as to whether Tariff Reform or Free Trade is good for the country. I should think it would be of enormous advantage to the House and to the country for that, if no other, reason if the Government could see their way to accept the Amendment before the House.
    Mr. OGDEN: A few of the speeches which have been delivered from the other side of the House appear to me to be most illuminating to those of us who hold rather strong views on the subject of Colonial Preference. The right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench condemned the attitude which we take on all questions affecting Colonial Preference because of what he called two formulas, but,
    1804
    whilst he poured ridicule on those two formulas, he carefully abstained from any attempt to deal with them or to disprove them. The right hon. Gentleman said that in scientific taxation, which appears to me as much a formula in the mouths of hon. Members opposite as any phrase which is in the mouths of hon. Members on this side of the House—and nobody has yet accurately defined scientific taxation—nobody would for a moment propose to tax raw materials coming into the country. Why not? I should like the right hon. Gentleman to answer that question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that he is travelling rather far from the subject before the House, and I hope he will see his way to confine himself to the Tea Duty.
    Mr. OGDEN: I am a new Member and not quite familiar with all the Rules of the House, but I did understand it was competent for one hon. Member to deal with a statement made by another hon. Member.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That altogether depends upon how the first statement was introduced. If it was simply introduced as a matter of illustration, and if every hon. Member who subsequently spoke insisted on following it up, we should never approach the real question. The Amendment is that moved by the hon. Member for Sheffield, and, if the hon. Member had listened to the Debate, he would have heard that I have been endeavouring very hard to get hon. Members to confine themselves to that topic, and not to go back to the Debate we had last week. I hope the hon. Member will not follow the bad example set him by his predecessor.
    Mr. OGDEN: It appears to me, whether it is adopted piecemeal, as is suggested by the Amendment, or whether it becomes part of a more comprehensive plan of the fiscal system of this country, Colonial Preference involves, not the harmony of the Empire, but discord and a very great deal of friction between the different parts of the Empire. The illustration the right hon. Gentleman himself employed shows how liable you would be under a system of Colonial Preference to promote discord between the different parts of the Empire. He asked in the event of preference having been given to Canada what would prevent Australia complaining that we did not give them a preference on their raw material. It appears to me if you are

    1805
    going to have one great self-governing Colony in the Empire complaining that they are not fairly and equally treated with other self-governing Colonies, you are not by that means going to promote that harmony and peace which are the vital elements in the endurance and prosperity of the British Empire. The right hon. Gentleman said he had himself heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer over and over again, when the Irish Members complained of the taxation upon Ireland, justify the taxes he was imposing by saying that, although he was putting an additional tax upon them in one direction, he was at least giving them a compensating advantage in the way of old age pensions and other concessions embodied in the Government's proposals. The right hon. Gentleman opposite could not for the life of him see why, applying the same principle, we could not give an equivalent to people who would suffer by the taxation of food in this country. How could an equivalent possibly be given to working men in receipt of about 25s. per week to compensate them for what they would suffer by having the necessities of life taxed under a system of Colonial Preference? Would you propose a remission of the tax on tobacco, or beer, or whisky, as in any way compensating for a burden like that? Is that to be argued and seriously put forward as an alternative to food taxes? Even if it were put forward, it appears to me it would be perfectly reasonable for working men to say, "We cannot accept social reform at the price of food taxes, because social reform is already due to us. We ought to have social reform, and we ought not to be burdened with food taxes as the price for it." Therefore, it seems to me, notwithstanding the ridicule which has been poured upon the formulas, which, after all, are the great bulwarks of Free Trade and which must be maintained until they can be disproved by the advocates of the other system, we cannot afford to introduce the principle of Colonial Preference at such a cost.
    Mr. HENRY TERRELL: This Debate has disclosed in a very remarkable way the peculiar feature of what I may call the Free Trade mind. We are endeavouring to reduce a tax upon a necessary article of food; a tax, moreover, which is paid in very great measure by the poor classes of the country, and hon. Members opposite oppose that remission. The hon. Member for Islington said that, if you reduced the
    1806
    tax on Indian tea and left the tax on the China and Java tea, you would injure the Chinaman and the Dutchman. That may be true, but what concern have we with the Chinaman and the Dutchman as compared with the interests of the Englishman? We are not going to maintain taxes upon the people of this country for the benefit of the Chinaman and the Dutchman. Why should the poor people in this country pay a tax upon their food simply because it will benefit the foreigner? That is one of the principles on which Tariff Reformers go. Our first concern is the benefit of our people and not the benefit of the foreigner; whilst hon. gentlemen opposite, whenever this question is introduced, seem to consider, "How will you injure the foreigner?" and not "How will you benefit the Englishman?"
    During the course of the Debate an hon. Member on the other side has asked what benefit India and Lancashire would get out of it. If that hon. Member had read the speeches of the High Priest of Free Trade, Mr. Richard Cobden, he would have seen the answer to that question. If we reduce our tariff on the tea coming from India and leave the high tariff on the tea coming from China, the result must be that more tea will be imported from India and less will come from China and other foreign countries. That must increase the prosperity of India, and, if you increase the growth of tea in India—that important industry in India—you increase the purchasing capacity of India, and therefore the amount purchased from Lancashire. You thus increase the prosperity of Lancashire. If you work out the problem, it is simple enough. It will be seen that the more you increase, by means of taxation, the purchasing power of those countries which are connected with us, either as Dominions or Colonies, or Crown possessions, the more you increase the prosperity of those countries which desire to deal with England rather than with a foreign country. This is essentially part and parcel of the principle advocated throughout the country by Tariff Reformers. Take off the taxes upon those articles which we do not produce ourselves and reduce the taxes, so far as we can, on all articles of food. If you do that, and, at the same time, put taxes on other articles which we can manufacture at home, you will thereby increase our prosperity, increase the prosperity of our Colonies, and do that which we have always preached—i.e., minimise as far as possible, the evils of unemployment in this country.
    Mr. BARNES: I am not in the least concerned as to the chances of favouritism for Dutchmen or Chinese, as compared with men within the Empire. It seems to me that this particular proposition lies within a very small compass. I want to put the two little points before this House which induce me to give my vote against this particular proposal. Unlike the hon. Member who spoke a little while ago from the other side of the House, I look at this matter entirely from the view of how it will affect the working people of this country, and all these other considerations about Empire building, preference, unemployment, and so on, are matters, to my mind, more or less in the air. If I thought that the working people of this country would get the full benefit of this remission of taxation, I should vote for it. I should not be concerned very much about the millions this duty gives to the Government. It is the duty of the Government to find the money, but, if I thought the working people would get the full benefit of the remission, I should vote for it. It appeared to me at first sight that inasmuch as the great bulk of the tea comes from within the Empire, the remission of the tax upon that part of the tea imported might determine the price to the whole of the nation, and that the working people would get the benefit of it, but a little consideration has rather knocked the bottom out of that idea. If you remit that taxation upon tea coming from within the Empire, and leave the taxes on tea coming from China and elsewhere, you will prevent the free trade in that commodity now going on with various foreign countries, and by that means you might increase the price to a far greater extent. The abolition of free competition between the countries who now supply us with tea would act to our disadvantage, and prices might be sent up again to their original level. I would suggest to hon. Members opposite that this point might be met by Tariff Reformers in this matter. The other argument, to my mind, is equally strong. I want to abolish the Tea Duty. I want to take off the duty of one penny so far as tea that comes from within the Empire is concerned; in fact, I want to abolish the duty altogether. But I do not want to do anything that will stand in the way of the abolition of the whole duty. If you once begin to differentiate between the tea of one country and another you will, in my opinion, be doing something to perpetuate the tax. If you were to pass this Motion
    1808
    now, you would impose a tax in future of 4d. or 5d. upon tea coming into this country. You will also be setting up vested interests. You will have to make arrangements with foreign Powers. The difficulty of knocking off this 2d. would be much accentuated by the complication that would be introduced into the trade by this differential basis. I am, therefore, in favour of retaining the tax of 5d. all round. I notice there is another Motion on the Notice Paper in favour of knocking a penny off altogether on the tea coming from India, and if anyone can persuade me that the consumer in this country is going to get the benefit of that penny. I shall be prepared to vote for it, irrespective of the Government in power. But I am going to vote against this proposal because I believe it will lead to the creation of vested interests, and make more difficult the eventual total abolition of the Tea Duty.
    Mr. A. St. G. HAMERSLEY: One finds it difficult to see why he should not vote for this penny reduction all round, as a step in the direction we wish—the total abolition of the Tea Duty. I presume, if financial arrangements could be made, both sides of the House would be prepared to abolish the whole duty, and the real reason why it is not abolished is because the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot find the money elsewhere. But surely the right hon. Gentleman knows that a reduction of one penny this year would help towards a reduction of one penny next year, so that, in a few years, it would be possible to abolish the duty altogether, and it would give the Chancellor of the Exchequer time to provide the money from other sources. It surely would be better for him to agree to the penny reduction now in the hope that he will be able to do better another year. I listened with great interest to the remarks of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, in opposition to the Motion of my hon. Friend. The financial side of the question which he raised has, of course, been dealt with over and over again. I think we have fairly shown that if the duty was taken off Colonial or Empire produce other articles on which duty could be put could be found to make good the loss to the Exchequer. The one point I wish to make a few remarks upon was that raised last Thursday which was put forward as one of the chief objections by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, who said that if we granted Colonial Preference to one portion of the Empire we

    1809
    should very likely find other portions of the Empire demanding it, and that would create dissension in the future. That was the burden of his song last Thursday as well as to-day. But I would remind the hon. Gentleman that in different parts of the Empire this process has already been gone through to a very large extent. A beginning has been made in the cases of Canada, Australia, and Africa, where each province and each State has entirely different financial arrangements and an entirely different fiscal policy. All these different fiscal policies have had to be subordinated to the general interest. Both in the case of Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia this has been done. So we say that in this case of Empire for the sake of forming one fiscal policy for the whole Empire we can sink our differences. The Dominions are willing to sink their differences in order to secure the benefit of the whole. Is it likely that for one moment Africa will be offended by any preference given to Canada, or that Canada will be offended by any preference given to Africa? If this Motion is passed to-day does the right hon. Gentleman think for a moment we shall hear tomorrow or at any other time complaints from any one of our Dominions over the sea that we have taken off the 1d. duty on Empire-produced tea? I think they would only welcome it; they would not say a word about it. They would welcome it as the beginning of what they have asked for over and over again. I have taken part in deputations to Sir Wilfrid Laurier on questions of this kind, and I think when the Under-Secretary sees the full report of those deputations he will find they were very different to what was represented by the short extracts that were sent over to this country by cable. One of those deputations to the Premier of Canada (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) asked him to take off the duty on lumber coming from Canada for the sake of the Canadian trade, and the reply was that with a scientific tariff in this country they would not put any duty on lumber coming in from America. I have no doubt, when the full report of the deputation is received, it will be found what they applied for and what they wished to prevent was not any question of Colonial Preference or duty upon wood, but preventing any duty being put on lumber coming into the country. The whole burden of the arguments on the opposite side have been, as far as I have been able to understand, to the effect, Why should we help our people in our own
    1810
    Empire rather than the foreigners, and why should we do anything that would create any disturbance in the Empire? I hope and trust in the few remarks I have made I have shown that this is not a question of creating distrust or trouble in the Empire, and as far as the foreigner is concerned, we on this side of the House wish to do everything under our policy of Tariff Reform or Colonial Preference to build up as far as we possibly can the industries and the manufactures which exist in our own Empire, and to let the foreigner look after himself. That is the sole object of our policy as far as that is concerned, and my earnest hope is that before long this House will agree with it on both sides of the House, and will see that it is the true policy for this Empire to follow, because we look to the rest of our Empire for our markets in the future, and we cannot maintain those markets unless we support them by this policy of Colonial Preference.
    Mr. TOULMIN: We have been several times requested by Mr. Speaker to come back to tea, and I will not go deeply into the speech which has been delivered by the hon. Member who has just sat down. But I would point out to him that many of his arguments rather go to support a system of Imperial Free Trade and not one of preference. If tariffs can be absolutely removed, as they were in the interior of Canada, or in the interior of Australia, that is quite a different proposition to the system of modified hostile tariffs which the system of preference would still leave. Lancashire cottons would still be subject to the 25 per cent. duty of Canada, and the payment for that would be that we should pay rather more for our corn—not a very good bargain for Lancashire. But I wish to take the House to the effect of this proposal to give a preference against China and Java in connection with this Tea Duty. China and Java are, both of them, great customers of Lancashire. From China we take a considerable amount of tea, and China has taken and still takes a great deal of cotton. The amount of tea which we have been able to take from China has, as has been pointed out by previous speakers, considerably decreased. America takes more China tea, and America is one of our great rivals in China in the cotton trade. Wherever you have a preference you have a victim, and it has been pointed out you are going to make your victims in this case China and Java. Victims sometimes retort, and suppose

    1811
    China says, "You are victimising our tea; where can we strike back?" Why, the easiest thing in the world for China, if she wishes to strike back, is to strike at our cotton trade—to tax Lancashire cottons and not American cottons. She now imports Lancashire cotton instead of American cotton. You have there a very simple answer to this preference, to which, as far as I can see, we should have no argument to give in reply. It very frequently happens that the persons who argue in favour of policies of this kind look only at one side. They look only at its possible action without looking to the possible reaction. It is said, "You will have your reward in India." We have at present a vast share of the Indian cotton trade, but, in my opinion, more harm will be done to our trade in China than we can possibly receive benefit in India. And there is another aspect. There is a certain amount of demand on the part of the capitalists engaged in the Indian cotton trade that the equality which Lancashire now has should be removed, and that India should be permitted to take off the internal duties on cotton, and thereby the Indian producers of cotton goods should have a preference against Lancashire. If you are going to adopt a policy of preference, how can you say that if the producers of tea in India are favoured, the producers of cotton shall not be favoured. If once you break down the line of equality in India I think your position will be much less strong than it is at present with regard to the cotton industry.
    If preference is to be begun, where is it to be begun? One speaker said that we were not to look at the sordid question of what we are to get out of it, but it is one bundle of sordid questions, and you would have the whole of the Dominions considering the sordid question of how they should levy a tariff so that they should have some little pull, and we should be considering how we should get some little pull in some line of trade to give to one part of our traders or the other. But here you are suggesting that you should begin, not with somewhere where there is a preference, such as Canada, but with another part of the Empire. The hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. R. A. Cooper) laid down a proposition which I do not think he can prove exactly, and that is that whether the consumer pays the tax or not varies according to the amount of competition. I do
    1812
    not think that is a mathematical proposition at all. It does not vary according to the amount of the competition. A very small amount of competition may bring prices down much more than a corresponding or proportionate amount. That is well known in an instance which is familiar to the whole of the House in regard to the French corn trade, where there is extremely little introduced. But because there is a duty, the price of the whole of the corn in France is very greatly raised, and in this case I feel very much inclined to believe that, suppose the House were to adopt this preference, the shutting out of a certain amount of competition would mean that, while the revenue would lose the whole of the £1,000,000 which is suggested, the consumer would not get that £1,000,000, but it would go as a bonus to the producers of Indian teas, and the price would not be reduced. My main reason for objecting to this, while I do hope the House will reject it by an overwhelming majority, is its effect upon China, where it would induce the Chinamen to show themselves very hostile to the Lancashire cotton trade.
    Mr. PAGE CROFT: With regard to the remarks of the last hon. Member we are used on this side of the House to hearing arguments in favour of the foreigner. The argument is now in favour of the Chinaman, fear being expressed whether he may not retaliate upon some particular industry in the constituency which is represented by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I venture to think that there is a vaster and bigger outlook in regard to this question than has perhaps been considered by hon. Gentlemen on the other side, as we have here a possibility, without violating any one of the strongly held principles of His Majesty's Government, of showing an act of friendship to our own people in the British Empire. An hon. Gentleman who addressed the House from those benches told us that they could not accept social reform at the price of food taxation, but I would remark that at the present time the food taxation and other taxation of the working classes is practically the mainstay of what small attempts at social reforms the Government have introduced hitherto. But what specially interested me were the remarks of the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes), who said, quite frankly, that he did not care for Empire building.
    Mr. BARNES: I said nothing of the kind. I said that this particular proposal, in my view, had no connection with Empire building, unemployment, and many other subjects.
    Mr. PAGE CROFT: I am quite prepared to accept what the hon. Gentleman says with regard to that, but I think he said all these questions were in the air. It is quite a sufficient explanation which he has given, and what I would point out is that preference is the means of more employment. Once you establish the principle of preference in this country you have the chance of doing something which the hon. Gentleman is unable to understand at the present moment—something for his fellow-workmen. In this connection perhaps he was not in the House when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in reply to my question, told us that in the case of the preference in Canada British trade in Canada had increased from five odd millions to fifteen odd millions. (An HON. MEMBER: "Increase of population."] Increase of population has nothing whatever to do with it, because the trade was going down year by year until preference was introduced, and the hon. Member for Blackfriars was not aware that in that particular case the preference in Canada, amounted to five millions of wages to the workers in this country in consequence of it. In the case of the Tea Duty he gives us the interesting information that we shall increase the price of tea by taking part of the duty off. I am connected with a business of a somewhat similar character under the same kind of competition, and I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. It seems to me, if you take part of the duty off an article the tendency must be in the other direction if it moves at all, but I am willing to assume in some cases the price may not move. I should like, however, to know how you can prevent competition by lowering the price of one part of the commodity on the market. That was the interesting problem put by the hon. Gentleman. I do not see how this is possible as a business argument. If you lower the duty on a certain commodity, I think that everybody who has been connected with business will agree that the lowest-priced commodity, if it is of the same quality, will in future rule the price of the article in the world market. In my business I may buy one kind of article, and I find in consequence of some natural advantage that I can offer
    1814
    my goods at a cheaper rate, and in consequence my competitors have all to come down to that price. It is the cheaper article which always dictates the price with regard to these kinds of commodities. Then my hon. Friend said it was difficult to take off the 2d. Of course it is; it always is difficult. All Free Traders are going to take off the whole of the duty, but up to the present it had never been possible, but it is said it is difficult to take off the 2d., and if we give this advantage or preference to one, you must give a preference all round.
    My hon. Friend pointed out, however, that at least hon. Members would have a real opportunity of taking duty off the working man's tea and putting it on articles which are not produced by labour in this country and which are luxuries. So they will be able to do it that way, even though they hesitate to put the duty on articles which we can produce, and which will give more employment to those whom they are supposed to represent. China tea is a luxury, so that every part of this remission of duty would go to the workers of this country, and those who desire to have the luxury of China tea can afford to pay the extra penny. There is no real question of competition at all. It simply means that you are going to put a slight imposition on tea which is more of a luxury than Indian tea, and therefore the rich will have to pay a little more than the working man does. But here you have a remission of duty, and the whole advantage would go to the working classes. It will have nothing to do with how the hon. Member will vote on the next Amendment, because he is perfectly well aware that that cannot be considered. Here is a chance of taking a penny off nine-tenths of the taxed tea, and I cannot understand their reluctance to do something in the direction of bringing down this food tax, which they are always so ready to condemn on the platform but which they do nothing to reduce in this House. But I think there is a bigger question than any of those which have been considered sordid bonds on the other side. I believe the other parts of the Empire would rejoice to see that we, for the first time, have really done something to show that we prefer to give better terms to our own people within the British Empire than to those outside, and I hope the Government will take this opportunity of reducing this duty on the working man's tea, and at the same time do something to bring close

    1815
    together, by the only ties which can possibly be lasting—namely, commercial ones—this great heart of the British Empire with its other members.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken differed profoundly from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyttelton) in that whatever may be the strength or the weakness of his arguments, he, at all events, has his eyes upon the people who reside in these Islands, and he is not concerned, as the right hon. Gentleman was wholly concerned, not with the welfare of the people of this country, but with what might happen to the people in the Colonies. The whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was to this effect, "What can we do to prove to our Colonial Empire that we are ready to make sacrifices for them?" He never dwelt for a moment on the fact that the sacrifices which must be made, if they are to be made at all, for the benefit of the Colonials must be made at the expense of the people of this country by increasing the prices which they must pay for what they buy. But that was not at all the argument of the hon. Member. He had in his mind the idea that you could take a penny off tea and thereby give a certain amount of employment to the people of this country and reduce the price which was to be paid for the tea. But unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman this Debate has taken place not for the first time in this House, and it has been agreed by every Chancellor of the Exchequer that I can recall and by every Government that I can remember, that it is not the slightest good from the point of view of the consumer to take a single penny off tea. If you take only a penny off the whole of the profit goes not to the consumer but either to the purchaser or the middleman who is dealing in the commodity. Therefore as far as tea alone is concerned, if we are to reduce the duty at all it must be reduced not by a penny but by twopence. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite think you could reduce the duty by twopence this year, and that under the conditions of the present moment you could find the £2,500,000 from some other source which might go to replace the revenue which the duty produces? We do not know any other source from which at this moment that sum could be found. Therefore from the pecuniary point of view we are unable to accept this proposal.
    1816
    It was pointed out earlier in the discussion that this is the first time that the question of India had been introduced into these Debates. What would be the effect upon India of giving this preference? It is worth while to recollect what we buy from India and what India buys from other countries. India at present buys from us something like £50,000,000 worth of goods. The effect of this remission of duty might be to influence trade to the extent of a few hundred thousand pounds. I think the 17,000,000 lbs. of China tea which is brought into this country represents something like £300,000 or £400,000. That is the extent of the benefit which India would derive from the acceptance of this remission. Take the question of Java. Java exports, I think, 14,000,000 lbs.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: 21,000,000 lbs.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: That includes 7,000,000 lbs. which come from Holland. You do not know where it comes from. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to say how much of that 7,000,000 lbs. he can definitely say comes from Java. Is there no trade between India and Holland or between China and Holland? I do not think the hon. Gentleman will assert that proposition. For the purpose of the argument of Java pure and simple we must adopt the figures of 14,000.000 lbs. There again you get something like £200,000 or £300,000, which might be diverted under all possible circumstances to India. But there are other things than duties and prices which prevail in the purchase of goods. The question of taste and of sentiment comes in as well. If you are accustomed to buy a particular article you will go on buying it if you can afford to do so, though you may have to pay 1d. or 2d. a pound more. You will not divert trade from China or from Java to Ceylon or India simply because there is 1d., or something of that sort, increase in the price of that particular article. A person who is accustomed to buying from a particular source will continue to buy from it in spite of this small difference which is proposed under the Amendment. But there is one point with regard to this Amendment which is well worth notice. The hon. Member (Mr. Hope) moved it in the form that tea produced in the British Empire should pay a duty of 4d., but he said he was not very much wedded to that proposal, and he was quite prepared to drop it at a moment's notice, to reverse the whole of his arguments, and to suggest, not indeed that the

    1817
    tea which is grown within the British Empire should be reduced, but that the duty on tea grown outside the Empire should be increased to 6d. That is an entirely different proposition, and it will increase very considerably the tax upon a very large proportion of the tea which comes into this country. The two proposals would have very different effects.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: I suggested graduation, which would not increase the total burden.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyttelton) accepted the substituted Amendment. I do not know which horse they are going to ride, but it is quite certain that they cannot ride both at the same time, and I am certain that either one or the other will give them a fall before they have done with it. Therefore we come to this, that India can take no particular advantage from this proposal, that the United Kingdom can take no particular advantage from it, and it then comes down to the question of the Crown Colonies. The right hon. Gentleman administered quite unnecessarily and unjustifiably a lecture to the right hon. Gentleman (Colonel Seely) on the work of the Crown agents. The right hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong in what he said. He said the Crown agents gave a preference, and that that was a reason why this preference should be adopted in the financial treatment of the Crown Colonies. But they do nothing of the sort.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: I said nothing of the kind. I said the Crown agents first issued the loan for the Crown Colonies, and in return for that the practice for many years was that they gave English manufacturers the first chance of contracting for manufactured goods which the Colonies themselves could not produce.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am in the recollection of every Member who is in the House, and the right hon. Gentleman gave, as a reason for giving to the Crown Colonies a preference in this respect, the fact that they already received preferential treatment through the agency of the Crown Colonies.
    Mr. LYTTELTON: Preferential treatment to our manufacturers.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I will accept both, financial and commercial. I think if the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the
    1818
    OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will find that I am right. I have made inquiries as to what happens in regard to the operations of the Crown agents, and I am not content to rest my case upon what happens now, since the right hon. Gentleman has left the Colonial Office, because, of course, he could not necessarily be acquainted with the present practice. I am content to found myself on what took place in the past, and I find that in the case of every loan which is proposed to be issued under the authority of the Crown agent the prospectus clearly states that the Imperial credit is not any way pledged either with regard to the repayment of interest or of principal, and all that the Crown agents do is what can be done and is done by many private banks in this country. They act as the bankers in this particular transaction, and there is therefore no preferential treatment in that respect. It is a mere commercial transaction which might be done by any bank, and is done by some banks without any preferential financial treatment at all. Now I come to the question of the commercial preference. Colonial Regulation 379, which the right hon. Gentleman has possibly forgotten, and to which I should not have alluded had he not been so severe on my right hon. Friend, says:—
    "All requisitions from the Colonies for stores required from the United Kingdom or from countries not being adjacent to the particular Colony."
    Where is the preferential commercial treatment there?
    Mr. LYTTELTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say it is not the duty of the Crown agents first to offer the business to manufacturers in this country before they go abroad? I say it is.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman challenged me as to whether it is not the duty of the Crown agents to give to merchants in this country the first offer of orders for goods required for the Colonies. That is the proposition. I am informed, on the authority of——
    Mr. LYTTELTONmade a remark which did not reach the Reporters.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman should not be again too premature in his interruption. I do not know that I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman. I think I am entitled to make my own remarks. They are civil, and I think they are polite, even if the right hon.

    1819
    Gentleman does not think so. I am told it is not the case that the Crown Agents should act in the way suggested. My right hon. Friend denies that it is the case and more than that, if the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lyttelton) will refer to the Report of the Crown agents, he will see that the treatment accorded to merchants by the Crown agents of the Colonies is identical with that of the Indian Stores Department, with which I am more familiar. The Indian Stores Department do not give preferential treatment to merchants in this country. Their object is to buy the best article at the lowest sum at which they can procure it in the markets of the world. That, and that only, is their object. There is none of this preferential treatment to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Shame!"] I confess I do not think it is a shame to give the same treatment for the people on behalf of whom you are dealing as you give to yourself—namely, to buy the best possible article in the cheapest possible market. That is a business sentiment which appeals to Gentlemen in this House in their private capacity. Therefore we come to this fact: that we are considering a new proposal, from which neither the Colonials, in the case of merchants resident in Ceylon or India, nor our own people at home, would derive any benefit at all. The Noble Lord opposite was the only person who argued this question on the basis on which I think it ought to be argued in regard to a fiscal resolution of this sort—namely, that a reduction should be made purely and simply from the point of view of taxation on the people of this country. It cannot be denied that every Member of this House when he finds himself in Opposition votes against this tax, and when he finds himself on the side of the Government votes in favour of it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who are going to vote against it to-day have supported the tax when a Unionist Government was in office. The real fact of the matter is that revenue has to be raised, and, speaking entirely for myself and not for my colleagues, I say that while food taxation of any sort is undesirable, yet if the working classes are to take, as they are entitled to take, a great share in the government and control of this country, it is not unfair that some burden should be placed upon them corresponding to their share in the government. If that revenue is to be raised, it may he necessary, undesirable though it
    1820
    be, to raise a portion of it by means of taxation on some article of food. That is the proposition which I laid before my Constituents before they elected me to this House, and they knew well that I would support this tax. I propose to do so to-day. We have reduced not only the burden of taxation by a considerable amount, but we have substantially relieved during our term of office the burdens which lie upon the poor people of the country, both directly and indirectly. We refuse, both on practical and theoretical grounds, to yield to the proposal which has been made. If it were possible to get rid of food taxation, I believe both parties and Governments would be delighted to do so; but it is not possible. The proposal now made would not relieve the consumer in this country, and it would enable the middleman and the producer abroad to impose further taxation on the tax-payers of this country, which they could ill-afford to bear.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hobhouse) made what I might call the pièce de résistance of his speech an examination of the incidental illustration given by my right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Lyttelton). My right hon. Friend stated as a matter of fact in regard to the business done by the Crown agents in this country that two things happened—first, that the different Crown Colonies, instead of raising the amounts of their loans on the credit in every sense of the word of the particular Colonies, raised them by means of the agents as a whole, and therefore got the benefit of the credit which results from the transactions. What does the right hon. Gentleman say? He says it is specially stated in these loans that the Government of Great Britain it not responsible. Does anybody in this House, or out of it, say that anyone ever suggested that they were? Does the right hon. Gentleman say that, in the issue of any loan or in the raising of money in any shape or form, the issuing house is not a thing which tells with the public and therefore has a distinct influence with the lending public? My right hon. Friend said that if they have raised money, the Colonies, in so far as articles have to be bought which are not produced in the Colonies, do give a preference to British manufacturers in the supply of them. That is his statement. He did not say it was due to any written law. He said that during all the time he was at the Colonial Office, and

    1821
    previously, that had been the fact. What does the right hon. Gentleman opposite say? He says, "He is all wrong. I was Chairman of a Committee and I know all about it." My right hon. Friend and I have both looked carefully through the Report of the Committee of which he was Chairman, and there is not a word to indicate that there has been any change in that respect. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to say that there is any indication in the Report of any change. But there is more than that. From a party point of view I ask nothing better than that this House and this country should realise that our Government have given the Colonies all the assistance they can get in the raising of money; that up to now, in return, we have got work for our people in connection with our manufactures, and that the first thing this Government does is to say, "We are going to turn round and treat all countries alike." I believe I am right in saying that there is not a word to indicate that they have made that change. They have not only taken that trade away from our manufacturers, but they have done it clandestinely.
    Colonel SEELY: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to clear up what appears to be a mystery. The right hon. Gentleman opposite assumed that I had no knowledge of the working of the Crown agents. I do understand them, for I have been Chairman of a Committee examining into the work of the Crown agents for many months. We have examined a great number of witnesses, and, in point of fact, it has always been the rule, so far as I am aware, that the Crown agents should get the best article in the cheapest market.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The House seems to be satisfied with that statement. Either the right hon. Gentleman was right in his correction or he was wrong. I am willing to leave the interruption and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to the judgment of the House. Then the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, brought in another allusion which I thought was especially interesting. He said every Chancellor of the Exchequer, without exception, has stated that there is no use taking off merely a penny of the Tea Duty, and that to get any advantage for the consumer you must take off 2d. I am not certain at all about every Chancellor of the Exchequer. That statement is quite untrue. The present Prime
    1822
    Minister when Chancellor of the Exchequer did make the statement in one year—I think it was in 1906—and I thought it was one of the most ridiculous statements I had ever heard from anyone in his position. The same Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to the House next year and took off a penny, and that, forsooth! is the ground on which the Financial Secretary tells us there is no good in taking off a penny. I am perfectly willing and ready to admit that the principle of Colonial Preference within the Empire has not its strongest illustration in the case we are now putting before the House, but I do think it is not entirely devoid of strength from that point of view. It is perfectly true that the great bulk of our tea comes from countries within the Empire, and that we cannot do more than change the duty on a small part of our total import. But. I remember being told in this House—I think it was by the Member for West Islington (Mr. T. Lough)—that there is an immense increase in the growth of Java tea. It was for that reason I asked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies what the figures were. The figures show most clearly that there is no doubt there has been a very rapid expansion in the production of tea in Java. When we remember the fact, which is within the knowledge of every one of us, that the tea trade has changed within a very short space of time from China to India, is it unreasonable to say that if this tea production in Java grows up the trade may not within a very short time be a serious competitor with India, even in our market? I wish to point out that from the point of view of the effect of a preference, whatever it is, the advantage is very often far greater in preventing a competing trade from growing up, than in giving a benefit to an existing trade after it is in full growth and in full competition with the tea trade. The Under-Secretary for the Colonies says this policy of preference is political. Well, so it is. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hobhouse) said the hon. Member who moved the Amendment wished to get a preference on tea grown in the British Empire by a reduction of the duty or by imposing an extra duty on foreign tea. He asked, "Which horse do you ride?" I do not care a fig. Both policies mean Colonial Preference, and I am prepared to see either horse put on the racecourse and got to the goal. I say that the ground on which we desire this preference

    1823
    is political. The effect it will have will be to increase the trade of the Empire, and we believe to improve the relations of the different parts of the Empire. I wish to bring before the House two great tendencies which have been referred to as having occurred in the last two or three years. I am sure there is no Member on either side of the House who does not realise the immense change in the last few years which has taken place in the possibilities of preference within the Empire. For instance, at the Colonial Conference in 1907 the Prime Minister of Cape Colony, I think, pointed to the intermediate tariff of Canada, and to the effect it might have in preventing preference within the Empire, and he pointed specially to what that effect would be if such an arrangement were made between Canada and the United States. Sir Wilfrid Laurier actually interrupted the Prime Minister of Cape Colony—remember, Sir Wilfrid Laurier is himself the strongest advocate of Colonial Preference, and, indeed, I should not like to let an opportunity pass without saying that I think all people in this country, whatever side in politics they belong to, owe a deep debt of gratitude to Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his financial Minister, Mr. Fielding, who, I understand, is in this country now, for having been the very first to start a system which, as the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us, has been of enormous advantage to our trade, and now has been extended throughout most of the Dependencies of our Empire—Sir Wilfrid Laurier actually got up and said, "Do you think it probable we would be transferred to the United States?" He said it by way of sarcasm, and referred to it again and said this, "Once we did desire reciprocity with the United States, but our aim was rejected. We have turned our back on that trade now, and look forward to the British Empire for the expansion of our trade." That was only three years ago, and yet the very contingency which Sir Wilfrid Laurier then laughed at is the contingency that is now taking place, and the treaty probably on these lines will, within a few months, be negotiated between the United States and Canada. Another point which was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was, as he said, that without any exception all the Colonies had always urged a question of Colonial Preference.
    Colonel SEELY Colonel SEELY indicated dissent.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Let the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Colonies make quite sure that what he advocates is in the interests of the Colonies and is really desired by the Colonies. What greater proof can we possibly give of a universal, a practically unanimous, feeling that persistently and with patience the Colonies, without any exception and whatever party is in power, have held to the demand for a Colonial Preference, and it is because they steadily press——
    Colonel SEELY Colonel SEELY indicated dissent.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: What is the good of the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head? He brings up here, as against the representatives of the Governments of these Colonies, some ridiculous deputation of which he sees a telegram in the Press. If some body of English traders sent a deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer urging a duty on some commodity in this country, will the representatives of the Government in Canada at once say to you, "England is all against Free Trade and in favour of Tariff Reform"? If ever there was a subject in this world upon which the Colonies have shown unanimity it is this. From the first Colonial Conference in 1887, and at every subsequent conference without exception——
    Colonel SEELYindicated dissent.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do wish that the Under-Secretary for the Colonies would inform himself a little more upon the matter. Without a single exception at every Colonial Conference practically the same resolution has been put forward, and it has been put forward in this form:—
    "We, the Prime Ministers of these Colonies, will urge our Dominions to give a preference to the United Kingdom, and in return we urge the United Kingdom to give a preference to us on any duties which now exist or any duties which may be subsequently imposed." That has been the universal wish, and if the right hon. Gentleman really denies it, it only shows something that I will not describe. At the last Conference—and that is why it is peculiarly relevant to this Debate—the Prime Ministers of these Colonies pressed upon the Government that they would deal with preference on existing duties. even if they could get nothing more. It was a demand which was very difficult for the Government not to yield, and it seems

    1825
    to me that even the present Government admittedly had only two alternatives before them as to the way in which that demand of the Prime Ministers should be met. They could not, of course, as we should have done, say, "We sympathise with you, and we will give you preference not only on existing duties, but so far as we can do it without injuring our own people, and we believe we can do it without injuring our own people, we shall adjust our taxation in order to give you the highest possible amount of preference, in return for the preference which you have given and which you have promised to give." I admit that the Government could not do that, but they had another alternative. They could have said, "We see that you representatives of all these Dominions are urging us to give a preference on existing duties. They are very small. They will not do you any good. We believe that the whole thing is economically unsound, and that you are mistaken; but you have pressed it upon us so persistently that we wish at least to show that we have a feeling of sympathy with you, and we wish at least to show that we are not going to hold off from advancing in that direction on the ground of economic pedantry alone. We will meet you alone where we can meet you without injuring our own trade." That was one possible policy. There was another. There was a policy of meeting the demand of the Colonial Prime Ministers by saying, "We will slam, bar, and bolt the door against you." These were the only two alternatives which I think were open to His Majesty's Government. The first one to which I have referred would have been the policy of statesmen, whatever their views on fiscal questions. The second was the policy of His Majesty's Government.
    I must say that the Prime Minister who had to meet the arguments of the Colonial Premiers at the Conference was in a position which I did not envy when I read the account of the proceedings. He was asked: "Why do you refuse to do this? It is not against your principles to reduce existing duties; at the worst it can only mean a little loss of revenue, and it is not against your principles to do that." The Prime Minister said: "It will do you no good. The thing is too small." "Oh," the Prime Ministers answered, "we think it will do us good, and we ought to be the best judges." Then that argument of the Prime Minister goes. Then he turned to the other that has actually been put
    1826
    forward to-day by both right hon. Gentlemen on that bench. They say: "We cannot give a preference of this kind without discriminating against one Colony in favour of another." That argument was dwelt on at length last Thursday by the Prime Minister. I think he said it is a question to which he had never had an answer. He has a peculiar method of viewing the subject. The Prime Minister makes a speech and never dreams of reading what people say in reply to it, and then says that he put a question and never got an answer. He has got an answer dozens of times even in this House when he was not perhaps present. But I quite admit he has a right if he pleases to ignore our answers or our attempts at answers, and to think that they are not answers at all. But he got an answer at the Colonial Conference which he has no right to treat in such a way. He put that argument before the Conference. Dr. Jameson, the Prime Minister of Cape Colony, interrupted him, and said, "Ought not the Colonies to be the best judges of that?" The Prime Minister was undaunted. He went on still with his argument, and pointed out that South Africa was one of the Colonies which would suffer by this discrimination. The Prime Minister of South Africa interrupted him again, and said to him, "Really, do you suppose that we will be injured because Canada gets a benefit on something which we do not export? Are we to be such dogs in the manger that we will refuse to allow Canada to get a benefit because we do not get it ourselves?" That is the answer, the complete answer, given by those who are best able to judge, to that unanswerable conundrum of the Prime Minister. He was driven, therefore, from that position, and what was his answer? Only the words which were contained in the speech read by my right hon. Friend. He said: "We cannot do that because it will involve the principle of treating our Colonies differently from foreign countries." There it is. There is the whole point at issue between us. There may be a difference about the economic side of the business, but I say without the smallest hesitation that if the people of this country understand it, that if they realise that on the question of preference on existing duties the only argument left to these gentlemen is, "We will not treat our Colonies better than foreign countries," they would not be allowed for a day to sit upon that bench.
    Mr. VIVIAN: I rise to offer a few observations concerning the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. gather that we have been travelling rather wide of the question that is before the House, but I trust that I may be pardoned if I say a word or two in reply to the observations made by the hon. Member who has just spoken. With regard to the problem of the tax on tea imported from the Indian Empire I think it is admitted on both sides that that is just a political move made by each party in turn when in opposition, and, therefore, I think I can treat it with the contempt which it deserves. Whenever I read the speeches of succeeding Oppositions on this subject I see that the game is played by every Opposition, and I do not propose to treat it seriously except to say this, with regard to the suggestion that we are making additional work for our own people by giving a preference to Indian tea, that it passes my comprehension, because I presume even the Chinaman engages in commerce in order to be paid for his tea, just as the Indian would, and all you really do is to transfer your business arrangements from one country to another. You do not really add to the volume of your trade by that particular arrangement. Therefore the argument that you are adding to the volume of your employment really has no foundation in fact. In regard to the suggestion that we should attempt to use our Colonial Office, or the policy of this Government, in order to divert the trade of this country, I say that the answer given from the Government Benches, to me at any rate, is perfectly satisfactory. I do not think we have any right to use the power of our Government to compel or even to press upon the Colonies to buy goods that they require from other than the most satisfactory markets. There is a large number of Gentlemen on that side of the House who defend this principle who would never have been in this House if they would have conducted their business upon that principle. Indeed, I should he surprised if they were not in the bankruptcy court or the workhouse. Indeed, I am not at all sure that it is in accordance with any decent standard of ethics for hon. Members to come down to this House, and press upon the Government or any Government Department a standard of conduct in relation to its business which they absolutely repudiate in the conduct of their own business. I regard it as my duty in
    1828
    every matter in which a Government Department is concerned when dealing with public money to act in precisely the same spirit as I should in dealing with my own private affairs, and if I have a pound of public money to spend on behalf of the public I think it is my duty to see that I get the best value for that sovereign.
    I support the Government in their declaration that they will not act contrary to that spirit when dealing with the Colonies. After all, the really important issue at stake is the proposal of a Colonial Preference which has been introduced into this discussion. It is a proposal which would fundamentally change the economic relations, and ultimately, I submit, the political relations of the Mother Country and the Colonies. I have never heard a proposal affecting such vast interests defended with such feeble arguments as those advanced by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. What does this proposal of Colonial Preference really mean? Take Canada, which is the most brilliant and remarkable of our Colonies, and probably that which has the greatest career. What will happen if we seriously attempt to introduce preference in connection with Canada? How are you going to impose a tax on imports from the United States, and to take from Canada similar goods free of duty? I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to realise that they would at once and straightway put Canada into the cockpit of the struggle between the United States and the Mother Country. You will at once compel the United States, with a population of 90,000,000, and growing to 100,000,000, and with all her vast resources, to set about bargaining with Canada as against the attempt of the Mother Country to get a monopoly in the Canadian market. Does anybody believe that the United States will take it lying down? Does anybody believe that, with the enormous frontier of Canada and the United States, where there are interests jostling with one another, and where it is sometimes almost impossible to distinguish between the two territories, or between the two types of citizens there, relations are so close that the United States will really take an attempt of that kind lying down? Straightway, you will at once have a continuous series of bargains attempted between the United States and Canada which would beat anything that we could offer. We are only able in this country to offer a market with a population of 40,000,000. In the case of

    1829
    the United States, they have a population of from 90,000,000 to 100,000,000, and it is increasing at an enormous rate. It is a population which has a large number of attachments with Canada over the borders, because there is an enormous ebb and flow of population as between the two countries. If you put the case, from the point of view of the relations of the United States with Canada in regard to this kind of preference, side by side with anything that we in England can offer, I mean to say that, in the long run, instead of making for the unity of Canada with the Mother Country, it would, as a matter of fact, stimulate in Canada and in the United States, those particular parties who aim at the annexation of Canada to the United States.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Gentleman ought to confine his observations to the question before the House. Because some other Members have wandered out of the right path, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not continue to follow them.
    Mr. VIVIAN: Then I have very little more to say on the point. In regard to the question of bargaining, it would create conditions which, in the long run, would deprive this House itself, and the country, of control over its own system of taxation, because you would set up interests, whether in India, in Canada, or in Australia, which you would bolster up by means of your system of preference. When you have done that you will have brought capital and labour on to what is called the virgin soil of Canada. Much capital and labour would be bound to flow there, and the profit upon it would be the additional price derived from the taxation on the imports paid by the consumers in this country. When these interests have come into being you will have thousands of farmers, manufacturers, and workmen whose wages and profits will be derived from the inflated prices paid by the consumers in this country. I am now assuming that Tariff Reformers are in power, and that there will be a great Free Trade campaign carried on. When the
    Free Trade Government comes into power again the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have a mandate to remove those taxes in the market places of the country, because the Free Trade party in power have pledged themselves to the work-people that they would take them off. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will stand at that Table and bring in his Budget, and amongst his proposals would be one to remove taxes that have been imposed under a system of preference. Look at what would take place in the outer parts of our Empire. There will be businesses all over the Empire bolstered up by these taxes, and directly the news goes across that our Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to remove the profits which they derive by taking away preference, then it will be seen that you have introduced a force that will not make for the unity of the Empire, and, indeed, I should be astonished if the Empire stood for five years the strain of this method of raising revenue. Those engaged in the businesses would at once send their demands to their Colonial Governments, and bankruptcy would ensue in all directions. I am as proud of our Empire as are hon. Gentlemen opposite, and they have no right to set up as monopolists of admiration for it. I admire our Empire as much as they do, but I say that the only way in which it can be kept together is by allowing those great nations which are growing up overseas—Canada, Australia, and the other Colonies—complete freedom in raising revenue, leaving us complete freedom to do the same, so that the population in this country may not have to pay more for their loaf or more for any commodity in order to purchase the unity of Empire, nor capitalists or workmen in our Colonies be made bankrupt because of any action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is only on these lines I believe that we can keep the Empire together.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The House divided: Ayes, 145; Noes, 188.

    Division No. 129.]

    AYES.

    [7.42 p.m.

    Adam, Major W. A.

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

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Arbuthnot, Gerald A.

    Baring, Captain Hon. G.

    Brotherton, E. A.

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Barnston, H.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Ashley, W. W.

    Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

    Butcher, J. G. (York)

    Attenborough, W. A.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Baird, J. L.

    Benn, Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Balcarres, Lord

    Boyton, James

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Brackenbury, H. L

    Cave, George

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

    Rice, Hon. Walter F.

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Ridley, Samuel Forde

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

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Louth)

    Rolleston, Sir John

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Heath, Col. A. H.

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Hohler, G. F.

    Royds, Edmund

    Cooper, Capt. Bryan (Dublin, S.)

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Cooper, R. A. (Walsall)

    Hume Williams, W. E.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Jackson, Sir J. (Devonport)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Jardine, E. (Somerset, E.)

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    Croft, H. P.

    Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

    Stanler, Beville

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Keswick, William

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Dalziel, D. (Brixton)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Starkey, John R.

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott

    Knight, Capt. E. A.

    Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkc'dbr'tch.)

    Dixon, C. H.

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Strauss, A.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lawson, Hon. Harry

    Sykes, Alan John

    Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

    Llewelyn, Venables

    Talbot, Lord E.

    Duke, H. E.

    Lloyd, G. A.

    Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Thomson, W. Mitchell (Dawn, North)

    Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

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

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Fell, Arthur

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

    Tryon, Capt. George Clement

    Fisher, W. Hayes

    MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

    Twist, Henry

    Fitzroy, Hon. E. A

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Verrall, George Henry

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Fleming, Valentine

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)

    Fletcher, J. S.

    Mitchell, William Foot

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

    Foster, H. S. (Suffolk, N.)

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mount, William Arthur

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Gastrell, Major W. H.

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Gibbs, G. A.

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Gilmour, Captain J.

    Nield, Herbert

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

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

    Goulding, E. A.

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Grant, J. A.

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Haddock, George Bahr

    Quilter, William Eley C.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir A. Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Hamersley, A. St. George

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Alden, Percy

    Cullinan, J.

    Hudson, Walter

    Allen, Charles P.

    Dawes, J. A.

    Hughes, S. L.

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Devlin, Joseph

    Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

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

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Johnson, W.

    Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

    Dillon, John

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Barclay, Sir T.

    Doris, W.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Barlow, Sir John E.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Jowett, F. W.

    Barnes, G. N.

    Elverston, H.

    Joyce, Michael

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Falconer, J.

    Keating, M.

    Barton, William

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lambert, George

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

    Ferens, T. R

    Leach, Charles

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Munro

    Lehmann, R. C.

    Bowles, T. Gibson

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Brace, William

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Brady, P. J.

    Glanville, H. J.

    Lincoln, Ignatius T. T.

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Brunner, J. F. L.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Hackett, J.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Mallet, Charles E.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Haworth, Arthur A.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Clough, William

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Millar, J. D.

    Clynes, J. R.

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

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Collins, G. P. (Greenock)

    Henry, Charles S.

    Mooney, J. J.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

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

    Hindle, F. G.

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hogan, Michael

    Munro, R.

    Corbett, A. Cameron

    Hooper, A. G.

    Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    Neilson, Francis

    1832

    1833

    Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Walker, H. De R.(Leicester)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Robinson, S.

    Wardle, George J.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Waterlow, D. S.

    O'Dowd, John

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

    Watt, Henry A.

    Ogden, Fred

    Seely, Col. Right Hon. J. E. B.

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Sherwell, Arthur James

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

    O'Malley, William

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Wiles, Thomas

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Sutherland, J. E.

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Pearce, William

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Williams, P.(Middlesbrough)

    Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

    Tennant, Harold John

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

    Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Pembroke)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Thomas, D. A. (Cardiff)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Pointer, Joseph

    Thomas, J. H. (Derby)

    Wing, Thomas

    Ponsonby, A. W. H.

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Toulmin, George

    Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Reddy, M.

    Verney, F. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Vivian, Henry

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Wadsworth, J.

    Viscount CASTLEREAGH: I beg to move to leave out the word "five" ["Tea the pound…. five pence"] and to insert instead thereof the word "four."
    I move this Amendment with all the greater confidence because I do not think that in the Aye Lobby in the last Division there were any of the hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Labour Benches or on the benches behind me. I should like to assure those hon. Gentlemen that there is no taint whatever of preference about this Amendment. My proposal is that the Tea Duty should be reduced by one penny all round, whether it comes from the Colonies or the Crown Colonies or from foreign countries. This is a matter on which most hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House have addressed their constituents at some considerable length, and they have held out hopes that they will do whatever they can to reduce the present taxation on the food of the people of this country. There is no one who will deny that tea is a very important item of consumption amongst all families in this country, and particularly an important article of consumption in the families of the poorer classes of the community. I really would venture to appeal to hon. Gentlemen in all sections of this House to give some sign of a desire to redeem the pledges which they are so willing and so anxious to give at election times, and which when they come into this House they seem to ignore altogether.
    Mr. H. S. FOSTER: I beg to second the Amendment. I do so with pleasure and with the greater emphasis because, like many of my hon. Friends around me, I remember that one of the most striking
    1834
    placards made use of by my political oppoments at the last election was:—
    "Tax the luxuries of the rich and not the necessities of the poor."
    That is a very good sentiment, and now we shall have a practical opportunity of seeing how far hon. Members believe in that sentiment, and how far their votes are in accord with the professions made on platforms. No one in this House will deny that tea is one of the necessities of the poor, and that the great bulk of the tax upon tea falls upon the poor, and that the poor are taxed more heavily than the rich for the tea they drink because the tax is not an ad valorem tax, but a tax on quantity, and is therefore much heavier on cheap tea than on dear tea, amounting in some cases to practically 100 per cent. increase in the cost of that tea to the price it would be if it came in duty free. That is an object lesson of the methods by which we are levying our taxation to-day in contrast to that of every other civilised nation in the world except Turkey. We tax, and tax heavily, not only the necessities of the poor, but we tax those things which we cannot ourselves produce, and the taxation of which, therefore, is not of the slightest benefit to any single person in this country, man, woman or child, while by the very methods by which we raise those taxes we compel them to fall on the consumer because there is no competitive article in this market against which they are sold. I welcome the opportunity of voting for a reduction of this tax, and I say that until this House adopts, as I believe it will adopt in the next Parliament, Tariff Reform, we shall still have a continuation of those unjust burdens on the necessities of the poor, and we shall

    1835
    still insist on thrusting the whole burden of taxation on the shoulders of our own people instead of compelling other people outside to bear their proportion of it.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I really should like to accept this Amendment, and I hope that pretty soon the Government will be in a position to announce that our finances are in a position to enable us to take off those taxes which are taxes on the food of the people. It is exceedingly desirable that they should come off. I shall be very glad to be in a position to do so, but after all, we must consider what we are able to do, and the Noble Lord did not tell me how I was to get this penny.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGHmade an observation which was inaudible to the Official Reporters.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am very glad the hon. Member for Hackney has at last got an ally, and that the Noble Lord belongs to that party. I think they stand alone as a party. There is very little new in a proposal of this sort. The Seconder of the Amendment said that it could be done by means of Tariff Reform. I will not enter into that beyond saying that the proceeds of Tariff Reform have been promised for many things. There is a sum of five to six millions for the reduction on tea, and it is to finance old age pensions and is to finance the British Navy.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: The same cure for everything.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is no real use in making this proposition without any reference at all to the financial condition of the country. There are many taxes one would like to see off and to see reduced, but all those things have got to be done by stages, and at the present moment we are not in a position to do so. In voting for a reduction of the Tea Duty we have got to upset the whole scheme of finance for the time being. I trust hon. Friends of mine, who are just as keen as I am for the reduction of the Tea Duty will not at the present moment play the very legitimate game of the Opposition, the sort of game I would have played myself years ago, Taking the whole of these circumstances into account, I hope my hon. Friends will know perfectly well that the way not to reduce the Tea Duty is by voting for an Amendment of this kind. By voting for it
    1836
    would be to embarrass the Government, and to make it impossible to carry out a difficult scheme of social form, and, in my judgment would make it difficult for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove these taxes on food, and would be entirely in the interests of the Tariff Reform policy, the policy of taxing food, and entirely in the interests of a policy the main feature of which, and the only striking feature of which is the taxation of food.
    Mr. H. S. FOSTER: That is not a fair statement of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am taking the statement of the hon. Gentleman as to Tariff Reform. The only part of Tariff Reform that would produce money is the taxation of food. It is practically the only revenue-producing item that Germany can depend on. Therefore I trust my hon. friends will not enter into this conspiracy for the taxation of food.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I had no intention of taking part in this Debate, and I was hesitating how my vote should be given. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made up my mind for me both as to participation in the Debate and as to my vote. I am not going to follow him into the wide theme he opened up, but I venture to say he was singularly remote from the truth, and from the fact in the statement that the only revenue-producing part of Tariff Reform was the tax on food. The experience of every other country which has a tariff on manufactured goods has proved the statement which he has made to be without foundation. He alluded to Germany, but he is not correct in his statement. Germany has collected a very considerable revenue from manufactured goods even though the tariff is in so many cases prohibitive, and with a more moderate scale of duties even a greater revenue could be derived. If the defence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the best defence that can be made, I think I have no option but to vote against him.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: I am glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer has on this public occasion announced that he is a food taxer, although no doubt he says he is an unwilling one. At the last election there was no more popular cry on Radical platforms than that we were food taxers. The party opposite forgot to mention that they were food taxers to the extent of £11,000,000 or

    1837
    £12,000,000 a year. An opportunity is now given them of showing some faith in their denunciation of their opponents and of proving that they are willing to remove a portion of one of the food taxes. It is a somewhat crucial test, but I hope that some hon. Members opposite, by going into the Lobby in support of the Amendment, will show that they were sincere in the contentions put forward on Radical platforms, not merely at the last election, but in 1906.
    Mr. F. W. JOWETT: The Secretary to the Treasury, in the discussion on the last Amendment, said that all Chancellors of the Exchequer for many years past had had to consider the effect of a penny reduction on the Tea Duty, and had come to the conclusion that such a reduction would not reach the consumer. I find, however, that the present Prime Minister, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, was responsible for a penny reduction on tea, and that in justifying it he made it as clear as language could do, that, in his view, the penny reduction would reach the consumer. These were his words:—
    "A reduction, however small—and the Committee will see that any reduction I propose must be small—in the Tea Duty has, as compared with other remissions of taxation, several distinct advantages of its own. In the first place, tea being an article which does not undergo, as tobacco does, after importation more or less elaborate processes of manufacture and manipulation, the lowering of the tax is not intercepted, but goes almost direct to the consumer. He gets the benefit at once or almost at once, either in a lower price, or, what is often of greater importance, in an improved quality of the article."
    These arguments are used on the one side or the other, according to the Government responsible for the time being, and the propositions themselves that are made from time to time lack that sincerity which I think ought to characterise them. Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, speaking just now, acknowledged the game of definitely moving a Motion, not on its merits, but for the sake of embarrassing the Government of the day. I am prepared to make one of any group, large or small, to endeavour to destroy once for all that system of conducting the business of this House. As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to vote on the merits of the question, and I shall go into the Lobby in favour of the penny reduction on the Tea Duty.
    Mr. F. W. VERNEY: It is perfectly true that many of us are pledged to the reduction of the taxes on the necessary food of the poor. That I certainly admit. These taxes, particularly on tea, sugar,
    1838
    and many other articles, are taxes which no one can be glad to see imposed on the poor, and many of us will welcome the opportunity when it comes, not only of reducing them, but of entirely removing them. But those of us who are really in earnest in this matter desire that these reforms should be brought forward in such a way that they can be carried out without mischief to the cause which we have at heart. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated very clearly what the real facts are. The Liberal party has no defence whatever for taxes on necessary articles of food, which press more heavily on the poor than on the rich. Speaking for myself, I do not consider that we can properly bring forward such a Motion as this, if it is to be successful, without its forming part of a scheme for reform of taxation on a large scale. A piecemeal reform of this kind, which would result in a tremendous loss to the revenue, could not possibly be brought forward without so dislocating the taxation of the country as to involve great hardship on many people and to wreck any properly considered scheme of reform. In voting against this Amendment nobody on this side can he accused of defending taxes on food. I give that as my view, as one who has on many platforms expressed the strongest desire to see these taxes removed. The Prime Minister himself has expressed the same desire, and there are no people in this country more eager and more resolute than those who sit on the Treasury Bench to bring forward these reforms the moment it can be done with success and without such injury to the revenue as would lead to embarrassment in many directions. It is quite impossible to take one particular tax and deal with it without regard to its effect on other taxation. Such reforms have never been brought forward successfully in that way, and never will. Those of us who have watched the taxation of the country for many years, and perhaps have had an opportunity of watching from the Gallery the great masters of finance when they brought forward their various proposals, must have been struck by the fact that every kind of taxation has been introduced as part of a great plan, and all remissions of taxation must be brought forward in the same way if they are to succeed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in dealing with the taxation of the country, has done what none of his predecessors have been able to do. He has brought forward a great scheme of social reform——
    Mr. SPEAKER: The general discussion is not open at this stage. The hon. Member must confine himself to the particular Amendment before the House.
    Mr. VERNEY: Of course, I bow to your ruling, Sir, but I thought that hon. Members opposite had practically opened up the question of Tariff Reform.
    Mr. SPEAKER: It has been done by the hon. Member's Friends; it was not opened on the other side.
    Mr. VERNEY: Then I will come to the Amendment. Does anyone consider that such a reduction will really relieve the poor to any considerable extent? If the proposal was to take off the whole duty I could understand its being supported by all Members who desire the poor to be made richer, but to say that they will be made richer by a reduction of one penny on the Tea Duty is, I think, such an absurdity that no one will really support the Amendment on that ground. To bring forward a Motion like this, which is merely intended to embarrass the Government,
    and would have no real effect upon the misery or poverty of the poor, is obviously a piece of tactics, and nothing else.
    Viscount CASTLEREAGHrose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
    Mr. VERNEY: Therefore I strongly oppose this proposal, and I think the House will do well to hesitate before it concedes a point like this, which has been raised for a mere tactical purpose, and will do no good whatever in the direction in which those who propose it appear to hope it will.
    Mr. H. S. FOSTERrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
    Question put, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Resolution."
    The House divided: Ayes, 162; Noes, 99.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGEclaimed "That the main Question be now put."
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
    And it being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.

    GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (IRELAND) BILL.
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."
    Mr. NOLANproposed, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
    I should like to have your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether the Motion to recommit the Bill in the matter of the provision of facilities for railway communication with the quays at Drogheda is in order?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: (Mr. Whitley): That Motion is certainly out of order, because it refers to something quite outside the scope of the Bill. Only matters that are in the Bill can be dealt with on the Report stage, and such other matters that properly come within the Rules of Order.
    [The Motion referred to was the following: "Mr. Nolan: On Consideration of Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Bill, as amended, to move, That it be recom-

    1843
    mitted in the matter of the provision of facilities for railway communication with the quays at Drogheda."]
    Mr. NOLAN: Then, Sir, I shall proceed with the Motion that the Bill be considered on this day three months. I do not propose to discuss the general policy of the Great Northern Railway Company as it affects the town of Drogheda, although I should be very glad if it were in order to do so. What I wish to draw attention to is the fact that the directors of the Great Northern Railway Company have made a distinct departure from the intention they expressed in the first instance with regard to the object they had in view in asking for the extension of their line to the quays at Dundalk. I hold in my hand a letter from the town clerk at Drogheda in reference to an interview which took place between representatives of the Great Northern Railway Company and a deputation from the corporation of the town of Drogheda. He says:—
    I wish to tell you that in the interview which the deputation from the corporation had with the directors, it was stated by Mr. Fane Vernon, on behalf of the company, that the proposed extension to the quays at Dundalk was only intended for the company's convenience in getting sleepers and other materials into their own works at Dundalk more cheaply than at present, and was not intended for general convenience."
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does that come within the scope of the Bill?
    Mr. NOLAN: The Bill deals with the extension of the accommodation of the Great Northern Railway Company at Dundalk, and in the Bill the company distinctly asks and obtains, up to the present, the powers it asks for, and it is with these powers that I am dealing now. I am not
    now talking about the suggestion of constructing a line of communication between the quays of Drogheda and the main line, but I am dealing solely with the proposed extension of the company's line on the quays at Dundalk. I wish to draw attention to the fact that there has been a distinct departure from the intention expressed by the directors of the railway company. In this letter it is stated, on the authority of the chairman of the railway company, that this proposed extension in Dundalk was intended for the private convenience of the railway company, and was not intended for general traffic. The letter goes on to say:—
    "It now appears from the proceedings before the Committee on the Bill, that the directors propose to depart from their expressed original intention, and have made it known that the extension will be used for general work, and, needless to say, this would add
    1844
    to the injury already imposed upon the Port of Drogheda by the Great Northern Railway Company by a further diversion of its natural traffic."
    That is clearly borne out by clauses to be found on page 9 of the amended Bill. I was present myself in the Committee Room during the discussion, and I heard it distinctly stated there that the railway company intended to use these powers and the new wharf and new line for the purpose of carrying on general traffic to the Port of Dundalk, and what I wish to draw the attention of the House to is the fact that the town of Drogheda is injuriously affected by this policy.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. Member is traversing my ruling. It appears that he does not object to something that is in the Bill, but he wants something else put into the Bill. That, of course, is out of order at this stage.
    Mr. NOLAN: I have no desire at all to traverse your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I do not propose to say anything to the House about the construction of a line communicating from the quays of Dundalk to the main line, but what I do wish most respectfully to draw the attention of the House to is that a distinct departure has been made by the directors of the Great Northern Railway in connection with powers by which they seek to extend their railway communication to the quays of Dundalk. It was originally said by the directors that they wanted this extension for the purpose of handling goods required by themselves in the maintenance of their main line, such as sleepers and rails, and now it appears from what they have stated that they do not intend this limited use of the line and the wharf, but they propose to carry general goods by this line. What I most respectfully ask is that someone representing the Great Northern Railway will here and now disavow the intention of the company of departing from their original declaration as to the power they sought under this Bill. I hope they will adhere to their originally declared intention, as otherwise it will be my duty to offer all the objection that I possibly can according to the Rules of the House. I might carry on the discussion at greater length, and prove beyond the possibility of a doubt that the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland have not exercised the powers which they have already got, with a view to advancing the interests of the community at large. I think I could prove that the House, in granting addi-

    1845
    tional powers to the Great Northern Railway Company, ought to secure that those additional powers would not be used to damage any part of the community in Ireland affected by this railway, which is one that has gradually grown up within the last seventy years. I do not wish to discuss the general policy, but I could prove, if it were in order in connection with this stage of the Bill, that the Great Northern Railway Company has not acted in such a way as would entitle it to ask this House for further powers. I shall ask the House to express its opinion upon this subject. I shall be glad if someone representing the Great Northern Railway Company will deny the statement that the directors of that company propose to act in connection with the extension of this line in a way contrary to the intention they expressed when the Bill was introduced.
    Dr. O'NEILL: The Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland have promised a great deal in regard to what they are going to do, but we have no guarantee that they will carry out those promises. I take this opportunity of strongly supporting the Amendment that the consideration of this Bill shall be delayed for three months in the hope that during that time the company may see their way to consider more the interests of the community affected by this proposal. I have much pleasure in seconding this Resolution.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: I am very sorry to differ from my hon. Friend the Member for South Louth, who so very ably represents the district concerned. I think, however, I can show that the course he is taking on this question is one which will not do any good to the interests of his own constituency. Naturally my hon. Friend is very anxious for the development of his own constituency. With regard to the town of Drogheda, even if it were possible to develop a scheme running to the north or to the south it would be one which probably would set certain persons in his own constituency at variance with himself and others in that district. With regard to the argument that the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland have departed from the terms of their original proposal, I would like to point out that there never has been any competition with the seaport of Drogheda and Dundalk with regard to the traffic in question. No sooner did Dundalk sell their interests to the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, instead of developing the port, they reduced the number of train services. It may be
    1846
    true that the London and North-Western Railway Company's goods traffic might be injured to a small extent, but that is only a fleabite to this great Company, which discharges most valuable work in Ireland. Beyond that I cannot conceive of the smallest injury being done to the port of Dundalk. If this Bill were to be rejected on account of the supposed injury it might do to the port at Dundalk, it might interfere with the development of the creosote works and other undertakings which are likely to give employment to the extent of hundreds and thousands of pounds per annum. I know my hon. Friend is highly popular in his constituency, and without arguing the case any further I will put this point to him: This Bill has been considered by a Committee upon which there was a representative of the Irish Party who, although a new Member of this House, is likely to become an efficient Member, and one who has no interest whatsoever personally with regard to this question—I refer to the hon. Member for the St. Stephen's Green Division of Dublin. As I understand this question, not only Irishmen but Englishmen as well are entirely unanimous as to the value of this Bill and the desirability of its passing into law. The hon. Member I have referred to as the Irish representative on this Committee has sat with an entirely detached mind, and has heard the arguments on both sides, and it seems to me to be a slur on the organisation of the Irish party and its efficiency if its own Members were to be flouted in this way. I therefore thought it my duty to oppose the Motion of my hon. Friend, for whom I have the highest respect. I think sometimes persons in Ireland do not altogether realise the difficulty of the passage through this House of schemes which are no doubt very desirable. I remember the proposal was made to connect these quays with the Great Northern by a guarantee, and the Committee rejected the guarantee. I am not sure about the town of Drogheda. Drogheda had an independent representative in this House up to 1875, and I never heard the old Member for Drogheda or South Louth press this as a grievance. It would be going in face of all regularity if a measure of this kind were to be rejected because an admitted grievance has not been met in a Bill which was never intended to meet it.
    Mr. BRADY: I feel bound, as a Member of the Committee, in justice to that Committee to inform the House that I am

    1847
    constrained with great reluctance to vote against the Amendment of my hon. Friend. There is no other course open to me. The Committee gave this Bill their most careful consideration. It was regarded from every standpoint, and the Committee unanimously came to the conclusion that the proposals of the Great Northern Railway Company, so far as they affected Dundalk, were such as to find very ready acceptance. It would be a very unfortunate thing if a Bill which would add to the facilities of Dundalk should be rejected at this stage. It seems to me very regrettable that the town of Drogheda and those people who are so anxious now to get these facilities, did not acquire a locus standi, and appear before the Committee and urge their views. There was no representation of the Corporation of Drogheda before the Committee, and so far as I know they made no attempt to be represented. I think it is rather late in the day for them to come forward now and compel my hon. Friend to put this Amendment on the Paper.
    Mr. ASHTON: I merely want to say, as the Chairman of the Committee, that the Corporation of Drogheda was not represented before the Committee at all, and, if they had really objected to the Bill, they ought to have been represented and have presented their case there. The Committee, however, had no knowledge of the case of Drogheda, and I can give no opinion about it at all. It is not merely a question affecting Dundalk and Drogheda, but to a great many other portions of the country it is a matter of importance, especially to Belfast, and I do ask the House to support the Committee and pass the Bill.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I understand my hon. Friend intends to go to a Division, and, in consequence of the Debate, to which I have listened with great attention, I think I shall feel it my duty to vote with him. The hon. Gentleman who was Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Ashton), and my hon. Friend the Member for the St. Stephen's Division (Mr. Brady) have put their finger on the spot. They said the Corporation of Drogheda had no locus standi before the Committee, and that no evidence——
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. J. H. Whitley): I cannot allow the discussion on the position of Drogheda to proceed. It
    1848
    is really a matter entirely outside the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I would ask whether we are not in order in giving some reason to the House for acceding to the Motion that the Bill be considered this day three months? The Chairman of the Committee has referred to the absence of evidence upstairs, and I am going to offer a good reason why that motive should not prevail.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I pointed out to the hon. Member who moved the Motion now before the House that he could not move on the question of Drogheda, and he founded his Motion on the question that certain railways proposed to be made under this Bill to Dundalk should not be made.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I intended following up my allusion to the absence of evidence by showing why no evidence was offered on the part of others. No locus standi was established for the very good reason that this Bill had been introduced under a false pretence. The House must not be allowed to be deceived. I submit that, if a Bill has been introduced to a Committee upstairs and is reported without any Amendment being proposed on the part of persons interested, then that Bill comes before the House on a false pretence. This Bill was allowed to go to a Committee on the declaration of the promoters that the extension would be used only for a certain purpose. Then when the Bill is before the Committee a Clause is added altering the original purpose. I therefore submit that, this Bill, having been allowed to pass through Committee under false pretences, and being now reported with some Amendments, this House is entitled to consider the circumstances under which it was carried through Committee. That is what I consider the strength of my hon. Friend's case, and that was why I rose to make a few observations before the Chairman of the Committee asked the House to pass this Bill. I wanted to hear from someone who could speak with authority why it was that no evidence had been offered by those most concerned. I am concerned neither for Dundalk nor Drogheda; my Constituency is somewhat remote from their geographical situation, but I am concerned that a precedent should not be established for carrying through this House a Bill that affects any of the important ports of Ireland in the manner

    1849
    that this Bill has been brought before us. I think we should not have a Division until it has been ascertained what was the nature of the false representations made, and why it was that the promoters of the Bill had stated it was their intention to use this extension only for private purposes, and afterwards so to extend the Bill as to make it usable for public purposes to the detriment of a port not very far away. I am confining myself entirely to the one point made by my hon. Friend, that no evidence is offered by the districts concerned in consequence of the misrepresentation that was made of the intentions of the promoters of the Bill. I want to know what really happened before the Committee upstairs. I want the House to know what misrepresentations were made which induced the persons concerned for other districts to refrain from establishing a locus standi. It is with reluctance I shall give my vote in this Division. Both ports are equally dear to me. I am not inimical to the interests of the one or the other, but, having regard to the circumstances under which this Bill was got through Committee, and having regard to the misrepresentations which endure to the present moment, I hope you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will be able, in consultation with your learned adviser, to state what is the real position of this measure having regard to the undoubted deception, I will not say wilful, but undoubted deception, practised on the Committee, and which is even now being unconsciously practised on the House. I hope the result of this Division will be that, on some future occasion, this Bill may be promoted, that it will not be carried through by false pretences, and that the House will have a fair opportunity of deciding on the whole case.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: I had been led to understand that any opposition likely to be put forward on behalf of the inhabitants of Drogheda would be in connection with the desire to have the quay connected with the railway, but the Committee have been told that that is not in order, and that we cannot therefore discuss it. Had it been otherwise I could have laid arguments before the House which would have shown there was little or no weight in the contention of the hon. Members. But I candidly confess this is an entirely new opposition as far as I am concerned. I never before heard any objections of this nature raised. It is usual for persons in charge
    1850
    of opposed Bills to have private conferences outside, and, so far as I am aware, no mention was ever made of the particular point which the hon. Member has placed before the House to-night. The hon. Member for North Kildare (Mr. John O'Connor) used some very strong language in reference to this Bill.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: No, no.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: The hon. Member talked about the Bill having been laid before the Committee under false pretences, and he also spoke about the gross misrepresentation of those in charge of it.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I qualified those expressions by saying I did not think the misrepresentations were consciously made.
    Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: That robs them of a good deal of their sting. I am perfectly certain that the Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland have not been guilty of any misrepresentations or wilful deception whatever. I ask the House to remember that this Bill has been exhaustively examined before the Committee upstairs, and that any representations on behalf of Drogheda could have been made, had it been desired, against what the railway company propose to do with reference to Dundalk, which must have been known to the people of Drogheda a sufficiently long time to enable them to establish a locus standi. A Bill of this kind cannot be effectively or properly discussed on an occasion such as this in the Whole House. Matters of this nature require evidence to be brought forward to support them, and I certainly cannot see there is any weight in the objections made by the hon. Member below the Gangway. If there is, however, any weight in them, witnesses ought to be forthcoming, and the whole matter should be properly tried before a Committee upstairs. This House is certainly not the proper place to decide upon a point of this nature at the stage which this Bill has now reached. I must ask the House once more to remember that this particular railway extension in Dundalk is only a small part of the whole Bill. There are several other very important projects in the Bill necessitating the expenditure of very large sums of money in improving and widening that portion of the line of the railway company, near Belfast especially, proving

    1851
    that the trade of the Great Northern Railway of Ireland is improving. I think the House, therefore, instead of throwing cold water upon this Bill, should think that if a railway company in Ireland was improving in its position that it was necessary to aid it. On that ground, if on no other, I think this House should pass this stage of the Bill without further discussion. This particular point has never been raised before, so far as I am aware, and the House will observe that my name is on the back of the Bill, and I have, of course, been kept informed of the various objections which have been raised from various quarters to the measure. Nearly all those objections have been overcome. Some of them by concessions on the part of the railway company and others after arguing the questions raised with those who brought them forward, but now we are face to face with a new objection, which, so far as I am aware, has never been raised till this moment, and I say that this is not the occasion, and this House, as constituted to-night, is not the proper place for the consideration of such a point as this. I hope, therefore, the House will agree with the Chairman of the Committee and the other Member of the Committee who has spoken that the very fullest consideration has been given to all the details of the Bill. The Committee have passed it unanimously, and I ask the House to do so also.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Tennant): I only want to say one sentence on behalf of the Board of Trade, and it is to ask the House to consider the Bill now, and not to postpone it for three months. I am not sure whether the Bill requires any further argument from me, because it is one of those cases in which, to use the words of the poet:—
    "North has answered unto South."
    I think there is, therefore, no more to be said, and it does not follow because a particular party was refused a locus standi that deception should have been used. I do not think there was any deception used, and I should be very reluctant and unhappy to see this Bill, which has been most thoroughly investigated, thrown out in the manner suggested by the hon. Gentleman opposite.
    Mr. HAZLETON: I do not want to delay the House in coming to a decision, but
    1852
    I merely want to shortly explain my attitude in regard to this Bill. I sympathise very deeply and sincerely indeed with the position of my hon. Friend the Member for South Louth in the attitude he has taken, and I regret very sincerely that it is out of order for him to raise the particular matter in which he is interested. I and others at a previous stage of the proceedings on this Bill also had points of difference with the company, which we were, happily, able to settle outside, and, therefore, the position which at one time it seemed we should have to take up in regard to this Bill was rendered unnecessary. But I would join in the appeal that has been made to the House of Commons this evening to pass the further stage of this Bill, because I believe that the interests involved are very considerable, and that in particular this measure will be of great importance and value to the town of Dundalk. I sympathise with my hon. Friend, as I have said, but I merely rise to say, for my part and those who were acting with me in the negotiations on the former stage of this Bill, that we shall feel compelled to support the further consideration of the Bill.
    Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to:—Bill, as amended, considered; to be read the third time.

    HIGHLAND RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL— [By Order].
    Order for consideration read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now considered."
    Mr. HUDSONmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day three months."
    I rise to move the Amendment which stands on the Order Paper in my name that this Bill be considered on this day three months, but according to the Rules of the House I have not the opportunity of dealing with the matter with which I intended. The Rules of the House do not permit me to go into the general conduct of the railway company. There are very few opportunities of doing that, and this is not one of them. There is in Clause 4 of this Bill, however, a most important matter that should have the very closest

    1853
    attention before it takes its place in the legislation of the country. This railway company has already had powers given to it under an Act passed in 1897, but they allowed those powers to run out of date, and now they come to Parliament and ask that they should be extended for a further period. This Bill allows that for five years. But if a railway company cannot use in the first instance the powers that are given to it, and if this House is to be troubled from time to time with extending those powers, it is a matter which should be considered very closely. It is quite true that there is an important Clause in the Bill upon which the whole Bill really rests, which stipulates that if they do not now carry out the various operations for which powers are given that they will cease entirely at the end of the time limit, which is now mentioned. It also deals in another place in the Bill in Clause 7 with the raising of capital by the company for certain purposes, and there are certain moneys which have been raised by this railway which, I think, ought not to be raised in the way in which they have been. Money in hand from the ordinary revenue can be applied to this particular undertaking in one, two, or three schemes under the Bill. I do not know whether it will be in order to review how this money is raised in certain cases. It is part, undoubtedly, of the money in hand from current revenue, and money that is raised in a way detrimental to the interests of the general public. If restriction is placed on the public getting the necessary convenience that they require, or upon those who serve the public, I think this question of raising revenue which may be in hand for this purpose is a matter of serious consideration for the House, and I think, the promoters being under the necessity to come to Parliament from time to time to amend their powers, those powers should be used for the general welfare of the public. I think they themselves cannot defend their own action in raising revenue under certain circumstances.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I understand that the Clause which the hon. Member is alluding to is one permitting the company to raise money for capital purposes, or to use money which they have raised for capital purposes. It has nothing whatever to do with revenue.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That appears to me to be the case. I was waiting to see how the hon. Member would connect his remarks with that matter.
    Mr. HUDSON: I was misled somewhat by the wording of the Clause. It merely reads: "May apply to the purpose of this order, to which capital is properly applied, any money which they now have in their hands." One would not suppose, at first sight, that this is all raised otherwise than by revenue. I base my objections against the further consideration of the Bill, and support my Amendment, on the ground that this company should not have an extended power for five years to carry out the Clauses of the Act which they got in 1897. If they have neglected to use them they ought to have been more attentive to business and to have taken the power they possess under the Act, and there would have been no necessity to come to Parliament now.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: In seconding the Amendment, I should like to raise another point altogether. Paragraph 4 of the Schedule of the Provisional Order Bill gives the company certain general powers. It enables it to extend the period of construction, and the principal Bill gives the company certain powers over stations and land acquired in connection with stations. Certain things have arisen in the administration of the company's business which require a pledge to be given on the authority of the company before the House ought to extend the powers granted by the main Bill. I should like to ask whether the Board of Trade has any pledge to give to the House as to how Clause 4 of the Order is to be administered? At present the company allows political matters to influence it in the administration of its affairs.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The only question which can arise on paragraph 4 of the Schedule is the extension of the time proposed. It is impossible to go back at this stage to the principal Act.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: If the Bill should happen to be defeated to-day the whole of the powers that the company has under the provisions of the Bill will have to lapse. Is it not in order to consider whether this House, in view of certain things which have happened in connection with the general administration of the company, should consider whether it is prepared to extend their powers which could not be put into operation unless the Bill were passed?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: To attempt to go into questions which might have been raised on the principal Act at this stage of a Bill of this kind would not be within the Rules of this House.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Supposing it can be proved, as it can, that the company is not using its powers properly, is it not in order that the House at this stage should consider whether it is going to extend those powers?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is a question which in certain cases has been raised on the Second Reading of Railway Bills but not on the further stages of Report or Third Reading. In this particular case, by the Scottish Procedure Act, the House has deliberately divested itself of that opportunity in order to send these Bills to a Commission in Scotland, where matters such as the hon. Member referred to may be inquired into.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: Is that ruling to hold good when, as a matter of fact, the circumstances which have arisen, and to which we desire to call the attention of the House, arose after the Bill was before the Scotch Committee?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that is so. Any matter raised must be directly relevant.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: That being your ruling, of course it is impossible for us to raise the merits or the demerits of this Bill. I hope most sincerely that the House will divide and show this company what we think of its conduct, which it is exceedingly fortunate it is impossible to discuss now on account of the Standing Orders of the House. I shall vote against the consideration of the Bill if my friends go to a Division.
    Mr. WATT: I desire to support the Amendment. This company came to this House as far back as 1897 and asked powers to construct the railway. They were limited as to the time within which the construction was to be carried out. Instead of proceeding with the construction of the railway in the ordinary way, they delayed, and had to come again to the House in 1901 to ask that their powers should be extended. Again, in 1905, having further delayed, they came for the third time and asked another extension of time. Now, in 1910, they are asking a further extension of five years to complete
    1856
    this particular railway, I think that action on the part of the Highland Railway Company is making a fool of this House. They are making the limitation of time placed by the House on the construction of the railway an absolute farce. Their action shows that they are not in real earnest in regard to the making of the railway. Under the cloak of this fourth application for an extension of time, the railway company seek to give themselves, in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Schedule, further powers in quite different directions. In Clause 5 of the Schedule they seek an alteration in the time for closing their registers—for what purpose I know not. They seek that twenty-eight days previous to those on which ordinary and extraordinary meetings are held should be the period for closing the register instead of the longer time which is the rule now. In paragraph 6 of the Schedule they ask powers to abandon the making of the Ivergary and Fort Augustus Railway. I venture to think that this is the type of Bill which should not be encouraged by the House.
    Mr. TENNANT: My hon. Friend (Mr. Watt) seems to be very ill to please, for he objects to this railway company abandoning the project, and he also objects to their being given further time in which to carry out the project. I do not know whether my hon. Friend thinks the Scottish railways are gold mines, but I can assure him, having some knowledge of the subject, that they are nothing of the kind. I have not the smallest doubt that if the Highland Railway Company could have raised the money for this particular work they would have carried it out long ago; but people know that in sparsely populated districts they are not going to earn very large dividends by investing in a railway of that kind, and therefore they will not supply the capital for that particular class of enterprise. It is very difficult nowadays to raise money for home railways. I have pointed out more than once that the policy of the House has rendered it difficult for railway companies to raise further capital. This is a Bill asking an extension of time for a work which, I hope, will be carried to a successful conclusion, and, speaking for myself, I shall certainly vote for the consideration of the Bill.
    Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 145; Noes, 94.

    Division No. 130.]

    AYES.

    [8.15 p.m.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Falconer, James

    Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Alden, Percy

    Ferens, Thomas Robinson

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Allen, Charles P.

    Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Munro

    M'Callum, John M.

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs. Spalding)

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Mallet, Charles Edward

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Marks, George Croydon

    Barclay, Sir Thomas

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Meagher, Michael

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)

    Hackett, John

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Barton, William

    Hall, Frederick (Normanton)

    Millar, James Duncan

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

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Bethell, Sir John Henry

    Harmsworth, R. L.

    Mooney, John J.

    Bowles, Thomas Gibson

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Brace, William

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Hazleton, Richard

    Munro, R.

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Neilson, Francis

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Henry, Charles Solomon

    Nolan, Joseph

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Higham, John Sharp

    Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hogan, Michael

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

    Hooper, Arthur George

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    O'Dowd, John

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Ogden, Fred

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Hudson, Walter

    O'Malley, William

    Clough, William

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    O'Neill, Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

    Pearce, William

    Compton-Rickett, Sir J.

    Johnson, William

    Pointer, Joseph

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Corbett, A. Cameron

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Joyce, Michael

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Cowan, W. H.

    Keating, Matthew

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Cullinan, John

    Lambert, George

    Reddy, Michael

    Dawes, J. A.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Denman, Hon. R. D.

    Leach, Charles

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lehmann, Rudolf C.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Dickinson, W. H.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Dillon, John

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Robinson, S.

    Doris, William

    Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

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

    Elverston, Harold

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Vivian, Henry

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Soares, Ernest Joseph

    Wadsworth, John

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Spicer, Sir Albert

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

    Sutherland, John E.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Winfrey, Richard

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Wing, Thomas

    Tennant, Harold John

    Wardle, George J.

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Waterlow, David Sydney

    Young, William (Perth, East)

    Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

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

    Toulmin, George

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Gulland.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Wiles, Thomas

    NOES.

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

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Adam, Major William A.

    Forster, Henry William

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Ashley, Wilfred W.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Attenborough, Walter Annis

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Gooch, H. C.

    Ronaldshay, Earl of

    Balcarres, Lord

    Goulding, Edward A.

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Gretton, John

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Barnston, Harry

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Stanier, Beville

    Boyton, James

    Healy, Timothy Michael (Louth, N.)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Brackenbury, Henry Langton

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkcudbright)

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Strauss, Arthur

    Brotherton, Edward Allan

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Sykes, Alan John

    Butcher, John George (York)

    Jackson, Sir J. (Devonport)

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Carlile, Edward Hildred

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Cave, George

    Keswick, William

    Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

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

    Knight, Capt. Eric Ayshford

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Clyde, James Avon

    Llewelyn, Venables

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Clynes, John R.

    Locker-Lampson. G. (Salisbury)

    Twist, Henry

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

    Verrall, George Henry

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire)

    Croft, Henry Page

    Macmaster, Donald

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Wheler, Granville

    Dixon, Charles Harvey

    Morpeth, Viscount

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs. Southport)

    Du Cros, Arthur P. (Hastings)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

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

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Fell, Arthur

    Nield, Herbert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Viscount Castlereagh and Mr. H. S. Foster.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. G. A.

    Division No. 131.]

    AYES.

    [9.52 p.m.

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

    Fleming, Valentine

    Mount, William Arthur

    Adam, Major William A.

    Fletcher, John Samuel

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Adkins, W. Ryland D.

    Forster, Henry William

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Allen, Charles Peter

    Foster, Harry S. (Lowestoft)

    Nield, Herbert

    Arbuthnot, Gerald A.

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Norton, Capt. Cecil W.

    Ashley, Wilfred W.

    Gooch, Henry Cubitt

    Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

    Attenborough, Walter Annis

    Gretton, John

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Bagot, Captain J.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Gulland, John William

    Pearce, William

    Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Balcarres, Lord

    Hamersley, Alfred St. George

    Randles, Sir John Scurrah

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

    Rea, Walter Russell

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan

    Barnston, Harry

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesell)

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.)

    Hills, John Walter (Durham)

    Robertson, John M.(Tyneside)

    Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Robinson, Sidney

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

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Rutherford, Watson

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid.)

    Horne, Wm. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Boyton, James

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

    Soares, Ernest Joseph

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Illingworth, Percy H.

    Stanier, Beville

    Bull, Sir William James

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Butcher, John George (York)

    Kemp, Sir George

    Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkc'dbr'tsh.)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)

    Keswick, William

    Strauss, Arthur

    Carille, E. Hildred

    King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

    Sykes, Alan John

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Lambert, George

    Talbot, Lord Edmund

    Cave, George

    Law, Andrew Boner (Dulwich)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Leach, Charles

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

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

    Llewelyn, Venables

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Clough, William

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Clyde, James Avon

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsay)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cooper, Capt. Bryan R. (Dublin, S.)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Verrall, George Henry

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

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

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Waterlow, David Sydney

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Croft, Henry Page

    M'Callum, John M.

    White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

    Dawes, James Arthur

    M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs. Spalding)

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

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Mallet, Charles Edward

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. S. (Glasgow, E.)

    Marks, George Croydon

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Mason, James F.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

    Elibank, Master of

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

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

    Mitchell, William Foot

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. J. M. Henderson and Mr. Mitchell

    Fell, Arthur

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Munro

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Thomson.

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Morpeth, Viscount

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Henry, Charles Solomon

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Alden, Percy

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Dowd, John

    Baker, Harold, T. (Accrington)

    Hogan, Michael

    Ogden, Fred

    Barnes, George N.

    Hooper, Arthur George

    O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Boland, John Pius

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Brace, William

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Johnson, William

    Pointer, Joseph

    Buxton, C. R. (Devon, Mid)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Jowett, Frederick

    William Pringle, William M. R.

    Clough, William

    Joyce, Michael

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Clynes, John R.

    Keating, Matthew

    Reddy, Michael

    Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

    King, Joseph (Somerset, North)

    Richards, Thomas

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Cooper, Richard Ashmole (Walsall)

    Lehmann, Rudolf C.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

    Cullinan, John

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Lincoln, Ignatius Timothy T.

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Samuel, S. M.(Whitechapel)

    Elverston, Harold

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Meagher, Michael

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

    Hackett, John

    Menzies, Sir Walter

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Twist, Henry

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Mooney, John J.

    Vivian, Henry

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

    Wadsworth, John

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Munro, Robert

    Walters, John Tudor

    1858

    1859

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Wing, Thomas

    Wardie, George J.

    Williams, John (Glamorgan)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Watt, Henry A.

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Hudson and Mr. J. R. Macdonald

    Whyte, A. F. (Perth)

    Winfrey, Richard

    Wiles, Thomas

    Main Question put, and agreed to:—Bill considered; to be read the third time tomorrow.

    WAYS AND MEANS— [8th July]— (BUDGET RESOLUTIONS).
    Resolution reported,

    INCOME TAX.
    1. "That Income Tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and ten, at the rate of one shilling and two pence in the pound, and that the same Super-tax be charged for that year as was charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and nine."
    Motion made and Question, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

    AMENDMENT OF LAW.
    Resolution reported,
    2. "That it is expedient to amend the Law relating to National Debt Customs and Inland Revenue (including Excise)."
    Motion made and Question, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

    FINANCE BILL.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Emmott), the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Lloyd George), and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hobhouse).
    Presented accordingly by Mr. HOBHOUSE, and read the first time; to be read a second time to-morrow (Tuesday).

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

    LICENSED PROPERTY (IRELAND).
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have a very short statement to make in reference to a matter which arose in a discussion at Question Time. What I want to ascertain
    1860
    is the ground of the action which is being taken in regard to the administration of the Licensing Clauses of the last Budget in the case of Ireland. In order to make my position plain, I think I must preface it by stating that I have many times stated I thought that the Budget proposals, in relation to licensed houses and licensed property were excessive and oppressive, and I do not complain if the Government see their way to modify them equitably all round. But I think that there is every objection to anything which is in the nature of selection at the will of the Government, and which varies the provisions which Parliament thought it was enacting, not in their general application under certain rules which are applied equally and fairly to licensed property in all parts of the three Kingdoms, but which selects a certain part of the three Kingdoms for special and exceptional treatment. I may observe that the last concession which the Government made in this matter to Ireland is not the only concession which they made. The amount of Licence Duty payable by any house of course depends on the valuation, but it depends upon it subject to certain general principles. One of them was that there should be a minimum in the case of Ireland. The Government saw fit to reduce the minimum to something like one-third of what the minimum is in England or Scotland of similar population. But that was a concession made with the knowledge of this House during the passage of the Bill through the House, and if there was a case for discrimination in that at any rate the House made itself a party to it, and I do not propose to go back on that now. But in the case of Ireland the Bill provided that we should take Griffith's Valuation, with an addition of 20 per cent. The charge in Ireland will be calculated in accordance with Sub-section 7 of Section 43 of the Inland Revenue Act, 1880, which says that in the case of premises in Ireland, the annual value upon which the duty of the licence in respect of the premises is to be charged shall not exceed the amount of the value assigned thereto under the Valuation Act, 1852, that is, I think, Griffith's Valuation, with the addition of 20 per cent. to the amount. That was very favourable to Ireland. You

    1861
    took the old valuation, which, I think, was very little in reference to the real value of the premises to-day, and you said that you should not exceed an addition of 20 per cent. on that valuation.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That was the maximum.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I quite understand that that would mean that on good cause shown it should not amount to 20 per cent. But that is not, I think, what the Government now says. As I understand—I speak subject to correction, because we have had very little information on the matter, and the information we have has only been obtained in answers to questions at Question Time, and the answers have not always been perfectly consistent—the Government have now provided by an Order in Council——
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If not by Order in Council, in some other way, that the valuation is to be Griffiths Valuation, with only 5 per cent. added. If the government can alter the principles of valuation they can alter the taxation, and when the House of Commons thought it was imposing one tax the Chancellor of the Exchequer is taking it upon himself to impose a different tax. If abatement is to be made in the case of Ireland in regard to a tax which the House of Commons thought it was imposing, why is a similar abatement not to be made in the case of England and Scotland? I said at the beginning of my speech that I thought the whole of the provisions in regard to licences were excessive and oppressive. I have no objection to abatements which are made on general principles and which are extended to the whole of the interests affected. But I think it is open to the greatest objection that by administrative act the Government should vary the amount of the tax in particular cases, or for a particular geographical area, while they leave the full burden of the tax to be borne in other places. The answers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer so far as I have heard them give no justification for the distinction now drawn between the case of Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom. I think we have a right to claim that in this matter, as far as taxation depends upon acts of administration, and which is not rigidly laid down by law, that administration should be impar-
    1862
    tial towards every part of the United Kingdom, and the Government should not, under pressure of particular interests or of an organised vote in this House, extend to one portion of the United Kingdom what they refuse to all the others. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, I see, accepts that rule, but I wish his action had been in conformity with it. I must say I think it is a reflection upon the Act which the House passed that it should be possible for the Government to take such wide administrative action under it, and so to vary the taxation. At any rate I take this opportunity, as the only one I have in this part of the Session, to invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give us a fair explanation and justification of the course of conduct which he has pursued, and which we have not hitherto had in answer to questions across the floor of the House.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think that the right hon. Gentleman and the House are perfectly entitled to ask for an explanation from the Government of this administrative order; and I shall be very happy to give it. The right hon. Gentleman complains that there is a distinction drawn between the methods of valuation in Ireland and the methods pursued in this country. It is perfectly true, although we are not responsible in the slightest degree. The method of valuation is established by an Act which the right hon. Gentleman very fairly quoted; I forget who was responsible for it. In this country the principle of valuation varies, and the Government has been forced from time to time to consider whether there ought to be some method of national valuation. In Ireland you have got a national valuation. Then came the question how out of that national valuation we were to evolve the value of the public-house. The Act gave power to the Excise to add anything up to 20 per cent. to Griffith's valuation. That 20 per cent. was the maximum. I think it was Mr. Gladstone who was responsible for that Act, and these are the words he used in 1880:—
    "What was proposed was that there should be given power to the authorities in certain cases, according to the merits of each case, to add an amount to Griffith's valuation which would in no circumstances go beyond 20 per cent."
    For some reason or other that seems to be taken as a direction that 20 per cent. should be added. From time to time towns in Ireland applied to different Governments for the revision of that addition. Belfast, I think, was the first

    1863
    to apply, and there, I think, Griffith's valuation is brought up to date. Griffith's valuation is not the 1852 valuation altogether. In towns like Dublin and other populous centres, the Griffith's valuation is brought up to date. In Belfast it is very much brought up to date, and there is a very considerable grievance in that place that the valuation is so high. They appealed to the Government to knock off the 20 per cent., and I believe Belfast got rid of it altogether. In the country districts of Ireland the Griffith's valuation is more or less a low valuation, but that is not the case in the towns, where there have been constant revisions of the valuation.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is that true of all the towns?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is mostly a Dublin case.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Only part of Dublin.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is really a Dublin case. This is not a very big concession. There are only some 800 houses altogether, including Belfast, that are affected by this Order. I have made some inquiries of the officials, and I was assured that although probably in the case of the lower houses the valuation may be still pretty much as it was, yet when you come to the better class of houses of £50, and therefore of a totally different class, the valuation is very much higher. There are two very substantial distinctions between the valuation of public-houses in Ireland and public-houses here. The first is this, that an old valuation here taken fifty years ago would be a valuation taken when the population was 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. less than it is now, while the valuation taken in Ireland in 1852 is a valuation taken when the population was 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. higher than it is now. The population in Ireland has gone down, and I am not sure that the public-houses have not increased.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Surely the depopulation does not affect Dublin. As to Belfast, there has been a revaluation which has put the full value on the public-houses. Some hon. Members will not give as much as I was giving to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and an hon. Member said the full value is not put on the houses in Belfast.
    Mr. DILLON: I said far beyond it.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Then the full value or beyond it. I take the middle statement and make this admission to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I understand that in the case of Belfast, if the revised value is the full value, that you do not want any percentage on it. I believe the revision has only taken place in Belfast and in a portion of Dublin; so that it does not apply to the major portion of Dublin, and neither does the Chancellor's argument about population, because, whatever may be the case with regard to Ireland generally, the population of Dublin has increased since 1852.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I may be wrong, but I think it means with the new valuation of Dublin, and when there is an increase of population, Griffith's valuation, more or less, goes on. Therefore it does not apply in valuation where there has been an increase. As to the old portions, I should not be surprised if the public-houses of those districts are stationary or gone down.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Do you revise the valuation in the City of London on the same principle?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will come later to the question of the City of London. That is a point that has got to be considered. I want to deal now with the difference in the methods of valuation. The old valuation in Ireland represented a state of things where the country, as far as population is concerned and as far as custom of the public-houses is concerned, was more numerous, while, on the other hand, the number of public-houses has gone up. In this country, with an increased population and a diminished number of public-houses, you have a very different state of things. There is another and a much more serious reason. We were face to face in the valuation in Ireland with this fact, that the public-house in the vast majority of cases is not a public-house merely, but carries on a mixed trade. That makes a very serious difference as far as valuation is concerned. I am very doubtful if there was a revaluation, whether we would get any monopoly value at all. I have always thought so. A revaluation in Ireland would probably mean the wiping out of monopoly value in the vast majority of these cases. And I am doubtful if we would get anything out of it. I am perfectly certain that Griffith's valuation, with 5 per cent., represents

    1865
    more than the licensed value of the vast majority of these houses. I do not say all. I have no doubt there may be some very profitable houses. That shows there is nothing comparable in the condition of things in Ireland and in this country. All we have done is that we have carried out a purely administrative order. Supposing we had no licensed provisions this year or last year, what we have done has nothing to do with the Finance Bill. It is purely an application which comes from time to time to every Chancellor of the Exchequer from Ireland in respect of these houses. I must say, upon the facts put to me, that if there had been a discussion here I could not have resisted the application, and I am certain that if the right hon. Gentleman had heard the case he would have supported the application for a reduction of the percentage. It was not intended to be a maximum or that 20 per cent. should be imposed, and all I have done is to exercise a discrimination which Parliament intended I should in these cases, and I think justly.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The discretion which the right hon. Gentleman exercises may take one or two forms. It may take the form of saying that you are to treat the 20 per cent. as a maximum and only charge where you have reason to charge. I understand that what is being done is not to treat 20 per cent. as a maximum but 5 per cent. as a maximum. Will any house be charged more than 5 per cent. under the administrative order even if the facts would justify it?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have not treated it as a maximum but as a uniform charge, and that is the only way you could deal with the thing in Ireland, and the way in which it was dealt with by my predecessors. It was not done by taking each individual house and charging 10 per cent. on one and 20 per cent. on another and say that another house was not to be charged a single penny. That, I agree, would be a more scientific method of doing it, but that is not the method adopted by my predecessors. Therefore I simply carried out the principles which have always been applied. Can the right hon. Gentleman give me a single case where there have been discriminations of that kind? It has always been a general order. In Belfast it is said nothing should be charged——
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Because they had a new valuation on each individual house and there was no necessity. You are applying a general order to cases different in character without any revaluation.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Take the rest of Ireland, where there was no new valuation at all. There was simply some general imposition of a 20 per cent. maximum. I agree it is an unsatisfactory method, but I am dealing with a state of things for which I am not responsible. This is an Act of Parliament which was passed thirty years ago. It has been in operation ever since, and did some sort of rough justice. That is why I have always been impressed with the desirability of a revaluation not only in Ireland but here as well. The only objection to it in Ireland is that we would lose money by it. The right hon. Gentleman referred to this country. The principles of valuation are wholly different here. I do not think the publicans of this country would be satisfied with a general addition of 20 per cent., or 5 per cent. to their maximum. It would be perfectly unfair as between one house and another. You may get a house in this country with a very high valuation; I know of such eases, and where the value of the licence is not one-tenth of that of another house where the assessment is much lower. That, of course, is the unfairness of the present method in this country, and with anything which the right hon. Gentleman states as to the unfairness of the present method of valuation I would agree. That is why I think the sooner there is a revaluation in this country the better. I think there are some publicans who have very hard cases, their premises being very valuable, although the business is not; but, on the other hand, there are houses whose premises are not valuable, but the business is of enormous value, and they do not pay anything like their fair proportion of the Licence Duty. That is why I thought that last year, on the whole, although there may have been criticisms on details, there was a general agreement that there ought to be a revaluation. There may be parts of London where the population has gone down, and in those cases no doubt on a revaluation the publican would gain. The hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. G. Younger) has impressed upon me the desirability of hurrying on the valuation. I agree with him, but it depends very much on the publicans

    1867
    themselves. If they assist in the process of valuation it can be got through in a very short time—at least, I hope so—and the grievances of valuation will be removed not merely here, but in Ireland. There was a general desire for a revaluation in Ireland, and the only people who have reason to complain are the Inland Revenue, because I am certain if there was a revaluation of Irish public houses on the principles which apply in this country it would be quite impossible to charge anything like the Licence Duties charged at the present time. If there is any discrimination between the method of valuation in Ireland and the method here I am not responsible. It was laid down by my predecessor thirty or forty years ago.
    Mr. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what influence caused him to make this subtle distinction in Ireland?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I know exactly what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and nothing I could say would convince him. He has got a rigid theory about this particular matter, and it is no use arguing with anyone who is so thoroughly partisan as that. Nothing would convince the hon. Member, who is a thoroughly reasonable man, outside Irish questions, but once he gets on a matter of this sort, he lets go all that moderation which characterises him in other spheres of life. That is really the whole explanation. I think justice is done in a general way, after very careful inquiry into the value of these public-houses.
    Mr. H. T. BARRIE: I have heard of this latest concession to the liquor trade in Ireland with not a little surprise, and I think the real test of the value of the statement just made is the way in which the concession is viewed and emphasised on political platforms in Ireland. Our Friends below the Gangway have been unanimous in hailing this as another concession. I remember that previous concessions were also minimised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House. I think, in answer to a question, he stated that the last concession to Irish publicans cost the Revenue about £26,000 per annum, but on Irish platforms people engaged in the liquor trade were told that the concession was worth nearly £100,000. Thus, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons wisely minimises his concessions to the liquor interest, they are interpreted by the trade in Ireland to
    1868
    be immensely more valuable than they really are. With reference to the Belfast valuation, I recall that in connection with the recent valuation in Ireland the united liquor interest there urged that they were being overvalued or severely valued, and it will hardly be contested by hon. Members below the Gangway that under that revaluation the value of licences in Belfast went up on an average 400 per cent. The same valuation is long overdue for Dublin. The hon. Member for North Fermanagh has asked dozens of times in the last four years why that valuation has not been proceeded with in the ordinary course, and the reply has always been that the Government valuation staff was insufficient to cope with it. But many of us who are acquainted to some extent with the circumstances in Dublin know that the interest in the liquor trade there is most powerful and influential, and every obstacle has been thrown in the way of that long overdue valuation, with the result that at the present moment, in the older parts of Dublin particularly, that valuation has made no progress. Public-houses modernised and brought up to date now appear on the valuation roll at a rental utterly out of keeping with their value in the open market. It is to that class that the present concession is so valuable. It is said that there are in Ireland only 800 public-houses of over £50 valuation. While that explanation is largely true, if we had a modern valuation in Dublin, Cork, and one or two other of the larger cities, the possibilities of revenue would be very much greater than the right hon. Gentleman has led the House to believe. I speak as one who has no connection with the trade, and who opposed on principle the concession made last year, when the right hon. Gentleman refused to raise liquor licences in Ireland in the same way as he raised them in England and Scotland because I believe that by that refusal he did a great deal against the temperance cause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will not deny that he had resolutions of protest from every temperance organisation in Ireland when that proposition became public. We have 17,000 public-houses in Ireland, against only 6,000 in Scotland, where there is a larger population. If a moderate increase had been applied to the smaller licences, many of those which are now found most troublesome to supervise would have been wiped out, and nobody would have been anything the worse, but the trade would have been greatly improved. I feel that this is

    1869
    another concession done in a most circuitous and irregular manner at the demand of our Friends below the Gangway. I can only regret that, wrapped up so skilfully and minimised, as it has been, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the fact remains that the liquor trade has, from this temperance Chancellor of the Exchequer, received another concession, while the trade in England and Scotland is left to bear the full brunt of last year's Finance Act.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not say that I am not open to argument. I trust I am always prepared to vote on whichever side of the House advances what, to my mind, are the most reasonable arguments on the point at issue. I do not know that I have any particular knowledge of Ireland.
    Mr. DILLON: Come over and spend the summer in Ireland.
    Sir F. BANBURY: If the hon. Gentleman can arrange that there will be no Autumn Session, perhaps I might come to Ireland. There seemed to be a little difference of opinion between my hon. Friend on my left (Mr. Barrie) and the supporters of the temperance party, who appear to be rather dumb on this occasion. I see the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Charles Roberts) making notes. I presume he is prepared to get up and say that this concession to Ireland will conduce to temperance there, and that that is the reason that has actuated him in supporting the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. I listened to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman with a desire to be convinced, if possible. The right hon. Gentleman advanced three arguments. First, he said that there were only 800 public-houses in Ireland which would be affected by this concession. To that I would answer that I have always been brought up to see that it does not matter whether you are going to do wrong to three or four only, it still remains that the wrong is being done. And if you are going to do wrong it does not alter the question whether the number is 800, 8,000, or 8. I was sceptical of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, and the thought flashed across my mind that the right hon. Gentleman had a bad case, or he would not have advanced so exceedingly foolish an argument as that. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with the valuation of 1852, saying that it took place when the population was larger than now.
    1870
    Therefore, he said, in all probability, the majority of publicans would not be dissatisfied with the valuation taken on that basis. I presume the right hon. Gentleman means that as the real value of the public-houses in Ireland at the present time is much greater than in 1852, therefore there is no argument to deduce from the fact if the valuation went back as far as 1852. There are, however, other causes besides a decrease in population which affect the value of public-houses. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the "Daily Telegraph" of to-day he will see an announcement of a sale of public-houses in the City of London. The "Three Kingdoms" public-house, with a free lease for sixty and a half years—I commend this to the hon. Baronet the Member for Lincoln—a free lease, not leased from a brewery company, with a yearly rental of £305 0s. 10d., sold, with possession, for £1,150. Twelve years ago it fetched £28,000. Is that owing to the decrease of population in the City of London, or is it owing to other causes? Then there is "The Grapes." Here there was a free lease of thirty-six and a half years, and the rental was £150 a year. It was sold for £700. Two or three years ago it realised £22,000. I think I have shown that there are other reasons besides depopulation which conduce to alteration in the value of these houses. The point of my argument is this, that if there is a case for concession because of the decrease in population, and therefore a decrease in valuation—if there is to be a concession to be given to the Irish for that reason, then there should be a concession given to the publicans in England because there is a decrease in value for reasons over which they have no control. The right hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear," at that. It is no satisfaction to the publican who has only got £1,150 to-day for what fetched £28,000 a few years ago that the right hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear," and if he will instruct his right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury to say he is going to make some concession in his Regulations to the English publican then on this side we shall not regret the concessions made to hon. Members from Ireland below the Gangway. It is an extremely important question, because publicans all over the country, whether in Ireland, Scotland, or England, ought to be considered on the same basis. They may be regarded as engaged in a nefarious trade—some hon. Members opposite think that they are—but if they are—and I do

    1871
    not admit it—there is no reason why an Irishman engaged in a nefarious trade should be treated different from an Englishman or a Scotchman engaged in the same trade. I should like to hear some argument advanced by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to show us the reason for this concession. We are told that for the future argument is to weigh in this House. I should like to hear some argument to convince me that there is some justice in this concession to hon. Members from Ireland.
    On this side of the House some of us think that all these Regulations made by the right hon. Gentleman should be made by Parliament, and not by a Department. Here we have an instance of a Department using its powers to make these Regulations—I do not want to impute motives—in favour of hon. Members who support him in the Division Lobby. That is a curious coincidence, and it shows the danger of the thing. These Regulations should be made by the House of Commons, and not by a Minister, however talented he may be. I hope we shall have some statement or pledge from the right hon. Gentleman that he will give the same concessions to Englishmen that he is giving to Irishmen, and I trust if that is so, hon. Members sitting upon this side will maintain the justice of the case and support the right hon. Gentleman in his course. If he does not do so, we shall have our eyes opened to the dangers of allowing Ministers and Departments the power to favour one side of the House against another.

    LABOUR EXCHANGES.
    Mr. J. R. CLYNES: I wish to submit a few points with regard to the administration and management of Labour Exchanges. We have listened with a great deal of patience to questions of high Imperial politics, and we feel that we ought to give some attention to the subjects which affect the life and conditions of the labouring poor. We wish success to the Labour Exchanges, and I am glad to know that they are doing some service in the direction of bringing ready and willing workers in closer touch with such work as may be available for them. But notwithstanding this, the accounts we have received of the methods of management and questions connected with the administration of these Labour Exchanges have convinced us that the managers have shown an over-anxiety merely to fill
    1872
    vacancies without due regard to the many consequences and effects which were certain to follow. We have in this connection endeavoured to procure from the Government an account of the antecedents and some information as to the capacity of the men who have been put at the head of these exchanges. Some few weeks ago the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil questioned the President of the Board of Trade with regard to this very method, and the right hon. Gentleman replied that it was not the custom to publish an official statement as to the qualifications and previous experience of officers appointed to situations in the public service, and that he saw no reason for departing from that rule in the present instance. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil was anxious to obtain information as to the previous commissions held by those who have been appointed at the head of the several Labour Exchanges. We wished to have that information, because it had been borne in upon us that a number of these men were not showing that capacity for management or that acquaintance with labour and social questions that ought to be possessed by the men who have to deal with these questions. We wished to know whether we had at the head of these exchanges the right men for managing them. I wish to draw attention to a precedent which has been set in this matter.
    The right hon. Gentleman has so far withheld the information we have asked for on the ground that it was not usual to supply it. I would remind him that on 3rd June, 1907, a Return was asked for by the hon. Member for Leicester as to the previous occupations and professions of the gentlemen who had been appointed to the position of factory inspectors, and a Return giving the fullest details was supplied to my hon. Friend. If in the case of the gentlemen who are to fill positions as factory inspectors we can be supplied with information as to their previous occupations and professions, we do not see why it should not be supplied in the case of Labour Exchanges. We have had a number of complaints as to the rate of wages paid to the men performing daily service, as compared with the considerable salaries paid to the men at the head of these institutions. We ask are those who are actually doing the work as clerks and minor managers, under-managers, and deputy-managers, down to the men and women who clean the office, being properly remunerated for their services, as compared with the men who are receiving

    1873
    £500 and £600 a year. I have here information of a case of two persons who for a week's work of something like seventy hours received about 15s. It is conveyed to me in these words:—
    "Have you ever tried to keep a family on 13s. 6d. per week? If not perhaps it will interest you to know my experience. I am caretaker and cleaner here at this handsome salary, Nominally the payment is 15s., with three rooms and the use of a kitchen, with light and fuel, but, as we have to find our own materials for cleaning and keeping the exchange in order at a cost of at least 1s. 6d. per week, it reduces the salary to 13s. 6d. The exchange consists of two large four-storey buildings with basements. There are four or five cwts. of coal to carry daily in the winter months up a number of stairs, and the work of cleaning takes my wife and myself on an average over seventy hours a week, and we have to be on the premises all Sundays and all holidays."
    Such work and such wages are not creditable to this or any other Government, and cases of that kind should be immediately reviewed. They made some complaint with results very disagreeable. Feeling grieved and thinking it would command attention to his case, the man wrote to the head of his Department. He received an answer threatening to dismiss him for having technically violated some regulation to the effect that he ought not to have written to the head of the Department. When men feel aggrieved in connection with State work and communicate direct with the State Department they ought to receive better treatment than to be told that in so presenting their case they are incurring the risk of dismissal. Many of us have visited these exchanges and we would urge very seriously the necessity, especially in view of the winter months before us, of providing better accommodation in many cases for those waiting to hear of a job. During the past month or two many of the exchanges have had to revise their times, and in a number of cases—I know of some myself in Lancashire—they are now beginning work at a quarter to six in the morning. It is essential persons should not be compelled to walk some four or five miles to some central exchange, and I would suggest the advisability of opening a number of suboffices, which, I think, could be done without any great cost to the State.
    I would ask attention to our grievance with regard to the absence up to now of the advisory committees that were promised and, indeed, provided for in the Labour Exchanges Act. We have been specifically promised the setting up of these advisory committees. We know the difficulties in the way. We are not imputing any undue delay or neglect of duty on the part of those who
    1874
    have had this matter in hand, but it does appear to us to be necessary now to hasten the formation of these committees so that they may be fully prepared for the circumstances that will have to be dealt with in the winter months.
    Many complaints have reached us as to the action of Labour Exchanges on wages. The fullest promise was given to us when this question was under consideration as to the impartial position which these exchanges would occupy on the question of wages in districts. But our contention is that the exchanges have not been absolutely impartial. We have a report from Carlisle. Recently two members of the local branch of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, in consequence of an application from Camborne, Cornwall, for fitters and turners, journeyed to that town and were there asked to start at 2s. below the union rate of wages. They refused, and telegraphing to the exchange at Plymouth the officers of the association there paid their fares back to Carlisle. My comment on that is that it would be far wiser before labour is supplied to any employer to have an understanding on the question of wages rather than that men should be sent a considerable distance and then be offered work below the regulation wage, and in consequence have to have their fares paid back to the town whence they started.
    Again, in the case of Reading the local trades and labour council applied to be allowed to place in the premises of the Labour Exchange a list of the standard rates of wages in the possession of the trade unionists of the town. They were refused permission for the use of the exchange premises for so innocent a business as giving information to the working men of the district as to what were the proper rates of wages. On this matter the Board of Trade, in a letter sent out on the 23rd May, stated that the officer in charge of a Labour Exchange should undertake no responsibility with regard to wages or other conditions. The business of the Labour Exchange was to notify workmen of any vacancies of which the exchange had been able to obtain notice. It was to be left to the workman to use his own discretion as to whether the wages offered to him were right. But the fact remains that if a man after perhaps some weeks of unemployment is sent miles to a place he is not in a position to excercise discretion; circumstances may compel him to accept whatever may be offered for the time being. My view is that non-

    1875
    interference and impartiality in the holding of the scales as between employers and employed on this question of wages may be difficult, but under no circumstances nor in any form should the Labour Exchanges supply workmen to employers at less than the standard rate of wages. In fact, the Exchanges have virtually taken the side of some employers on the wage question, and are not acting impartially at all. May I draw attention to a speech which was made by the right hon. Gentleman who is now at the head of the Board of Trade in this House, dealing some time ago with the question of contracts? The principle of the Motion which he himself was responsible for carrying in this House was this, that the Government should not provide work for employers who paid less than the standard rate of wages. The point I put to him is this: That if it is right to withhold work from an employer until he pays the standard rate of wages, it is wrong to supply workmen to an employer who does not pay them. Surely the workmen and the work should be supplied, so far as the State is concerned, on the same principle.
    The workmen, as well as the employers, have been totally misinformed as to the way in which the exchanges would be used. Some time ago the employers in Coventry passed a resolution to the effect that workmen who asked for, or wanted, more than 30s. a week for any class of work should not be allowed to use the exchanges. If that view of the Coventry employers has come to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, I would like to know what his view of such a resolution is. During the existence of trade disputes there have been, as most Members of this House are aware, cases reported from time to time of men trying to fill positions which have been vacated by men who have entered into a state of dispute. It was never intended that the exchanges should be used for such a purpose, but certainly they have been so used. When the Home Secretary, then at the Board of Trade, was placing this matter of the Labour Exchanges before the House in the last Parliament, he repeatedly and emphatically stated that these exchanges would aid neither party during a dispute. Neither party, he said, was to be aided by the exchanges during a dispute. We say that these instances show that employers of labour have been aided by the exchanges in cases of dispute. It is not sufficient to leave either to employers or workmen
    1876
    liberty to notify the existence of a dispute, and then to leave it to the discretion of the workman as to whether he will fill a vacant place or not. When under any circumstances or in any form a workman is supplied to an employer where a dispute exists, it is not acting impartially, but it is acting the part of an agent of an employer where working men are supplied during the existence of a dispute on existing conditions.
    The whole of the administration of these exchanges is a matter which should be watched carefully by those who are responsible in the last resort for their efficient management. They will not fulfil the purpose they were intended for unless they can secure and retain the confidence of the organised workers of the country. The prosperity and success of the interests of workers of this country rests upon the prosperity of our trade unions. It is understood that we are to have the questions of wage adjustments, of minimum rates for those in sweated trades, insurance for the unemployed and those out of work through sickness linked up with the management and work of our exchanges, and for these reasons, if for no other, we are wishful to have them lifted above any suspicion, and to be worked impartially in the interests of the workmen and employers, and worked with a view of giving the assistance they were intended to give to the unemployed classes.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I fully recognise that the Labour Exchange system, which I think is making good progress, cannot be a success unless it receives general assent from all quarters inside and outside the House, and I quite agree that unless it obtains and retains the confidence of the organised workers and employers it cannot be the success which we hope it will be. The question of rates of wages in particular places has not come before me. I shall be very glad to inquire into it, and I shall be prepared to do at the Board of Trade what I did at the Post Office, and look into any case which is sent to me and see how far justice is done in reference to wages and conditions of labour. If the hon. Member will send me particulars I will certainly look into the case, but, with few exceptions, I have not received complaints with reference to the question of wages under Labour Exchanges. As to the premises, the work of the Labour Exchanges is quite new, and it has been done under great pressure.

    1877
    It was necessary to carry it out rapidly in order to open a considerable number of Labour Exchanges to give the experiment a fair opportunity, and therefore a considerable proportion of these premises are of a temporary nature. We are remedying that as rapidly as we can by the acquisition of permanent premises which will meet the objection.
    The hon. Member also mentioned the question of advisory committees. There, again, we have been making as rapid progress as we can. The worst thing we could do would be to set up these advisory committees without proper inquiry, consideration and communication in various quarters. But I am glad to think we are making considerable progress with them. The advisory committee for London had its first meeting on Thursday, and in other parts we are rapidly proceeding with the creation of these committees. I agree that the creation and the existence of advisory committees will be of the greatest possible assistance, and I am glad to believe that the committees, which consist of representatives of workmen and employers, will do a great deal to meet the other points which my hon. Friend has referred to. In starting a new institution of this sort it is quite obvious that various questions will arise, some of them of a peculiar nature, and some of them of quite a long character. These are questions which have to be solved gradually and with due consideration. My hon. Friend ought to remember that in regard to the points he has raised we have endeavoured at every stage to act in the best way for all those concerned. My hon. Friend said it was the duty of the exchanges to notify vacancies so far as possible in order to put workmen in the way of filling them. It is not very easy, indeed it would be impossible, in every instance to say how far a particular vacancy is suitable for a particular workman. In every case the exchanges give such information as they can to the workman who is seeking a position in order that he shall be put in possession of the facts as to the position of affairs when he is applying for a particular vacancy. But there again there are many points which have come to my attention, which I will certainly look into—matters in which advisory committees will be of the greatest possible assistance. In regard to all questions of disputes I think the hon. Gentleman will remember that when the Bill was introduced originally there were two courses open with respect to the attitude of the
    1878
    Labour Exchanges. One was that where there was a dispute the Labour Exchanges should, so far as that particular portion of their work was concerned, be put out of gear, and that no men should be engaged or applied for through them. The other course was that in every case where there was a dispute the exchanges should notify it, and give full information as to the position of affairs to men who are on the lists, and allow them to exercise their own opinion in regard to it. The matter was discussed with representatives of the trade unions, and my right hon. Friend came to the conclusion—basing his conclusion largely on the experience of Germany—that it would be better, instead of putting the exchanges out of gear in reference to these matters, at all events to see how the other course would work under the conditions I have described. In the case of Germany, which is the best example, Labour Exchanges were put out of gear during disputes; but after a short time employers and workmen, and especially those representing the trade unions, came to the conclusion that second thoughts were better. I can assure my hon. Friend that, in regard to all the points to which he has referred, we are watching matters with the greatest possible care. We are exceedingly anxious that the Labour Exchanges in these matters should maintain an impartial attitude. I hope that, with the help of the advisory committees and the greater experience which comes to us with longer time, we may be able to satisfy those interested in these matters that the Labour Exchanges are conducted on an impartial basis, and that, as a matter of fact, they do not interfere on one side or the other. I desire to acknowledge very heartily the generous assistance we have received from all quarters interested in the Labour Exchanges with the view to their getting a full and adequate trial. I hope the results will be satisfactory to all concerned.
    Mr. CLYNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman make any statement as to the opening of sub-offices in large cities and towns?
    Mr. BUXTON: That is a point which I had in my mind. Of course we have not yet opened all the head offices. We cannot move very rapidly in this matter, but I am glad that it has been mentioned, and I shall give it special attention.
    11.0 P.M.
    Mr. G. YOUNGER: I am extremely sorry I was not in my place when my right

    1879
    hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire raised the question of the most recent concession to Ireland on the subject of Licence Duty. I do not intend to say very much about that. I make no complaint about the concessions which are obtained by my hon. Friends from Ireland for licence holders there, because I recognise that the duties are of a very extreme and very punitive character. I am only too glad to think that the political influence of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway has been able to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make no fewer than three concessions already upon the tax as originally proposed to be levied in Ireland. But I bring this matter forward in order to press upon the Chancellor the fairness and the justice of reconsidering the position with regard to the licences above a certain rental in England and Scotland. If it be fair and reasonable to make these constant concessions to Ireland, on a rental based on a perfectly out-of-date valuation, bearing no relation whatever to the existing actual value in Ireland, surely there is a very good case for reconsidering the charge upon the very excessive site value, and building value rental upon which Licence Duty is based in England and Scotland; and I think the House ought to know what this really means. I have asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer two or three times to furnish figures showing what the real effect of these new duties is upon certain localities in England and Scotland. He has hitherto told me, I have no doubt with perfect truth, that he is unable to do so, that the Inland Revenue authorities have not yet been able to provide him with those figures, and that until he has the actual valuation of the higher houses settled upon the new basis, or rather, I ought to say, on the alternative basis. it is quite impossible for him to give these figures. I have got in my hands a typical case, that of the borough of Cardiff. I do not know whether it is in any sense a peculiar case or whether the other county boroughs of England and Wales would be in the same position, or whether the licence holders there would be situated very much in the same way. But it is a very interesting case. It is a case which I think the House ought to hear about, and then perhaps they will realise what these licence duties mean. There are 235 houses in Cardiff which are affected
    1880
    by the new duties. The old duty on these houses for the year ending in July would have been £7,006. The new Licence Duty, taking the £500 houses and all those above that figure at the minimum charge which the Finance Bill proposes, and taking the hotels as if less than one-third of their takings were for liquor—I find that the new Licence Duty for the year amounted to no less than £29,934, an increase of £22,934.
    [Mr. HOLT: "Hear, hear."] The hon. Member for Hexham says "Hear, hear." Yes; I wonder whether he would like a charge of that kind put upon shipping.
    Mr. HOLT: We do not get the special monopoly privilege.
    Mr. G. YOUNGER: That may be perfectly true, but what is the good of a monopoly privilege if the taxation is such as to take it away? I think the licence holders in Cardiff would be very glad to be in the position of the hon. Gentleman to carry on their business under the same conditions as those under which he carries on his. Certainly the hon. Member is not punished by taxation which takes away infinitely more than the monopoly value. I think that these figures ought to show clearly that while it may be perfectly right and fair to make these concessions to the Irish licence holders there is a very strong case for some reasonable consideration of England and Scotland. The difficulty is that you are assessing on the annual rental value, which in many cases has no sort of relation whatever to the trade done in those houses. It may arise from a very expensive site value, or expensive building value, and it does not necessarily arise from the trade value. While the Chancellor of the Exchequer has bound himself in the Finance Act to make a revaluation of the whole of these houses on the annual licence value basis, so far as I can see it is very doubtful indeed whether that valuation will be ready for the purposes of the finances of 1911. I am bound to say that I agree, if you can arrive at the licence value, it is a very fair and just basis to insist upon. But the continuance of a system which is full of anomalies cannot be justified—a system which is grossly unfair, which penalises many people doing a comparatively small business, and is very much in favour of people doing a large trade carried on in premises of a very low value, and which, of course, pay a very low duty. I know many cases of the kind

    1881
    myself. I had a case brought before me in which a house pays £40 Licence Duty and sells ever so much liquor, while another house not very far from it pays £250.
    There is no fairness in that. Where does the monopoly come in there? The Chancellor of the Exchequer was told of these cases all through the Debates on the Finance Bill, but he turned a deaf ear. I think, however, that the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges now that the charges on these more highly rated houses are really unfair, and I think he is satisfied now that these people should receive greater consideration. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will revise the duties in such a way as to take away from these people payment of the very excessive sums which they are now charged. I trust before we reassemble in November the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give the figures both for Scotland and for England as to the new Licence Duty, which by that time will all be paid, and in cases where they are not paid the House will know. We shall then know whether his estimate of £2,100,000 has been exceeded or not. I think we have a right to claim if that sum has been exceeded, as I believe it will be very greatly exceeded, that he will then consider the propriety, the fairness, and the justice of giving licence-holders in England and in Scotland a concession which will, at all events, refund to them the money which he has taken over and above that sum, which he always agreed he had no right to take.

    NAVAL CONSTRUCTION.
    Mr. H. S. FOSTER: I am told that this is practically the last opportunity which this House will have before the Recess of considering at all that which they have only had a very limited opportunity of considering hitherto, and that is the very grave statement by the Prime Minister a few days ago with regard to our naval strength. I say that advisedly, because the Naval Estimates were only discussed for about five and a half hours one day, and I think there were three Ministers and three ex-Ministers who took part in the discussion. Those, with the speeches of hon. Members who represent dockyard constituencies, on matters no doubt of great importance to them and their constituencies, but hardly of the importance of the Prime Minister's speech, consumed the whole of the time. I feel I should be
    1882
    wanting in my duty if I did not take this opportunity of expressing what I know to be the feeling very strongly felt outside this House, and this is the grave anxiety which has been caused in the country by the speech of the Prime Minister. I refer to what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition called the small, the rapidly diminishing margin of security against probable or even possible risks, which the Prime Minister disclosed last Thursday to this House, and which margin the Prime Minister himself declared has hitherto been maintained by the contention of all parties in the State as essential to public security. We were told about two years ago by a distinguished naval officer that we could go and sleep comfortably in our beds quite safe in the idea that we were properly protected by our Fleet. Within four months of that most comforting and reassuring statement we had that grave warning delivered in this House by the Foreign Secretary in which, undoubtedly, his desire was to rouse his countrymen to some sense of danger that was approaching them. On no other theory could the words of the Foreign Secretary be justified.
    Events pass so rapidly, and we get so many urgent questions engaging our attention that even that grave warning has been almost forgotten, although it was delivered less than eighteen months ago on the floor of this House, and although it was of so grave a character that two of our own Dominions beyond the Seas at once cabled spontaneous offers of "Dreadnoughts" to come to the assistance of this country in that which they conceived to be her need. Often as have the words been quoted, I do not think it is at all unnecessary that I should remind the House again of what that warning consisted of, because it is not the vain fears of hon. Gentlemen who want an excessive Navy. The words are those of one of the most responsible Ministers of the Cabinet—the Foreign Secretary—and the warning that he gave to this House and the warning he gave to this country was, that he believed the country was perfectly right to view the situation as grave. He pointed out that a new situation had been created for this country by the German programme; that when the German programme was completed Germany would have the most powerful fleet the world had ever seen, and that that would devolve upon us the necessity of entirely rebuilding the British Navy.

    1883
    What was the effect of the Prime Minister's speech the other day? He pointed out that, although the margin of security of Great Britain was equal to the needs of to-day, step by step, as each twelve months passed, by the end of 1913 or the beginning of 1914, instead of having a fleet equal to those of any other two Powers plus a margin of 10 per cent., which has hitherto been accepted by both parties as the minimum consistent with safety, one nation alone—Germany—would have twenty-one "Dreadnoughts" to our twenty-five. As far as other nations are concerned, they are entitled to build any Navy they think right for their own purposes. It would be impertinence on our part to attempt to dictate to them what they should or should not do; and it would be equal impertinence on their part to attempt to dictate to us what we should consider necessary for our safety.
    Our position is on a totally different plane from that of Germany. To Germany the question of a strong Navy is practically a luxury compared to our position. To us a supreme Navy is an absolute necessity of our very existence. To Germany the destruction of her Navy would be an incident in her history, and would not affect her position as a military Power in Europe. To us the destruction or even the weakening of our Navy to such a point as to make it worth the while of any other nation to think of challenging us would be an absolute disaster. When hon. Members speak about saving money upon our Navy, do they realise what it would mean to this country? If any disaster happened to our Navy, do hon. Members suppose that we should get off with a lighter penalty than £1,000,000,000 for the mere permission to continue to exist as a third or fourth-rate Power? The fact is that on this question of a supreme Navy we labour under the difficulty of having on the other side a house divided against itself. We had an extraordinary and perfectly frank admission by the First Lord at the conclusion of his speech the other night; I do not know that sufficient attention was paid to it. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had to rely on the fair sense of the House, for, said he, "I have always to have regard to the two sides at the same time." Our complaint is that ever since they have been in office the Government have been trying to please two antagonistic views on the question and they have not pleased either.
    1884
    The Prime Minister's speech was a fair example of that. In the course of twenty minutes the right hon. Gentleman expressed diametrically opposite views on the same question. He was arguing about the margin of security, and he said—for the benefit of hon. Members on this side:—
    "When in doubt give the benefit to the margin of safety."
    That, we are all agreed, is a perfectly sound doctrine. Twenty minutes later the right hon. Gentleman contradicted that, for in working out his margin—as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out—he said:—
    "Whenever there has been a doubt I have given the benefit of the doubt rather in this direction: I have minimised and postponed the dates of the completion of foreign ships; I am trying to put them off as far as I can."
    As the Leader of the Opposition very truly said, it was the first time in his experience that a, Minister of the Crown, speaking of the naval strength necessary, always puts in his calculations the size of the risk for this country rather than the size of the risk for any foreign country. It has only been by postponing to the most extreme date possible the completion of foreign ships that the Prime Minister is even able to show that in three years time the present margin of our security will have been diminished in a way which we have not known for nearly 100 years. Many as are the grave questions we have to consider, the Constitutional question, the Budget, etc., there is no question which is so grave and none upon which we have a right to feel more deeply concerned than upon this question of our naval security at this moment. We cannot muddle though when our difficulty comes.
    Lord Rosebery said, very truly, that in the past somehow or another we had frequently muddled through our troubles by the power of the purse, by the power of endurance, and we had fortunately succeeded where we had been unprepared. In the case of the Navy to be unprepared is to meet certain disaster. The construction of "Dreadnoughts" takes from two years to two years nine months, and inasmuch as, to use the Prime Minister's expression, the critical period will arrive in two or three years, unless we make our preparations now, unless before the close of this Session we insist upon the strengthening of the Navy programme as disclosed by the Prime Minister, it may be too late next year, certainly the year after, to make the preparations which we ought to make to-

    1885
    day. I, for one, hope that sooner or later the House will make up its mind to two things: First of all, to lay down a new policy which shall not necessarily compare with the Navy of any one of single Power or combination of Powers, but which shall say that in the future our naval strength shall be two keels to one against the next strongest Power; secondly, that we shall do as Germany has had to do, have a Naval Loans Bill for the purpose of spreading over a series of years obligations which, for the benefit of posterity as well as our own, we shall have to enter into in order to adequately arm ourselves. I believe, myself, that the weakening of our present margin is due to the weakness in the Government in the first year of office. In response to the pressure brought to bear upon them by a section of their own followers they abandoned the Cawdor programme.
    The history of the last four years has been the same. Every three or four months a section of their followers, 100 or 150, have been barking at their heels, and have approached them by memorial or by deputation to impress upon them the necessity of reducing the Naval expenditure, and therefore reducing the margin of our security. The speeches which some members of the Cabinet make are directed to pleasing the Opposition, and the strong Navy men upon their own side and another section make speeches for the purpose of encouraging those who are in favour of the reduction of the Navy and the weakening of our security. The result is that the Government being divided against itself will not only not get continuity of policy but will encourage our rivals to redouble their efforts in order to catch us up. It happened in 1906 with the acceleration of the German programme; it is happening now with the fresh building programme of the Mediterranean Powers. A few days ago we had a solemn warning from an able and a friendly critic of this country, Admiral Mahan, than whom there is no man better qualified to write on such matters. He delivered a solemn warning to this country, pointing out the impression he had got—an impression which is abroad—that England's resolve is breaking in the matter of her naval defence; that our resolve to maintain a position, not of defiance, but of defence of our shores and Empire, is weakening in the minds of our people. He pointed out that if we do not prepare now it would be useless to do so in the
    1886
    day of danger and of battle. I earnestly hope the Government may take their courage in both hands, and inasmuch as the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have themselves been the loudest and most prominent in sounding the note of alarm in March last year, that consistently with the policy they then advocated, instead of speaking in this House with whispering humbleness because they have got to increase the Navy, or instead of explaining that nobody can say they are doing too much, as the Prime Minister said when he stated nobody could accuse them of having a bloated programme, or doing more than was absolutely necessary, if they take the tone always taken by men in their position and see if there is to be any risk it shall not be on our side, and if there is to be a margin of security it shall be too much instead of too little, they may rely upon the general support of the country and upon an enormous measure of support in this House.
    Mr. W. P. BYLES: My views on the subject which has been raised by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down are so entirely and diametrically opposite to his that I think it is due to the House that I should say a few words. I do not stand quite alone. I believe there is a very large amount of opinion in this House in agreement with me rather than with the views of the hon. Member who has spoken. These are the Gentlemen who are leading this country into a dangerous morass. The hon. Member referred to a speech delivered here fifteen months ago, by the Foreign Secretary. I heard that speech and I was very much impressed with it, indeed every hon. Member of this House is always impressed by the speeches of the right hon. Baronet. The House of Commons prostrates itself before the Foreign Secretary. What I remember of that speech is that he told the House that the policy of these enormous naval armaments was leading the country headlong into national bankruptcy, and if it went on unchecked a little longer it would submerge civilisation. I believe that firmly, and I want an arrest of this growth of armaments not only here, but in other countries. I believe it might be accomplished by international friendly agreements.
    We are asked in the Bill before the House to appropriate sums of money, unprecedentedly large, towards

    1887
    the Army and the Navy. Nobody in our recent Debates on the Budget referred to the magnitude of the Budget with the exception, I believe, of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bonar Law), and I did feel it was something like "Satan reproving sin." Who are responsible for these vast sums? Hon. Members like the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed us and the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord Charles Beresford). You must have a big Budget if you vote £70,000,000 for munitions of war. Some hon. Gentlemen who have urged upon us this expenditure object to paying the bill. A week or two ago the whole cry was, "You must have two keels to one, hang the expense; if you cannot pay for it, for heaven's sake borrow the money." That is the argument of the hon. Member who has just spoken, and of the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth, the "Navy Plunger" I would call him. When a dog barks it sets others barking, and so we have the Noble Lord, "The National Review," and "The London Observer" all joining in the same chorus, and a day or two afterwards these same gentlemen object to paying the bill. They squander one day and squeal the next. For my part I would ask the House to brush aside the arguments of the hon. Member, and especially those of the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth. I do not want to speak disrespectfully of so distinguished a man, and of one who makes such interesting speeches to us, but I would not have him or any of the service Members either on this or the other side in the House at all. I do not think they ought to be eligible for our Benches. We do not have paid members of the Board of Trade or of the Post Office here, and I do not see why the paid servants of the Army or Navy ought to be here. At any rate, if they are here I do not think they ought to vote money, part of which they themselves are to receive. I do not in the least object to have members of this House and the wealthy men outside they represent having burdens placed upon them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suppose I should not be in order to discuss it on this Bill, but it is peculiarly appropriate that the burdens should be laid upon men of property, because it is property that the Navy and Army are principally maintained to protect, and it is inexpressibly mean of hon. Members who propose to put the cost of these services say upon sugar.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member said he was not going to speak on that topic.
    Mr. BYLES: I must not speak on Tariff Reform, I suppose, but it inevitably crops up owing to the varied observations that fall from my opponents. I shall vote for this Bill, and I will have no part in the swollen expenditure on bloated armaments. Hon. Members opposite laugh, but it is no laughing matter to me. It is contrary to my most cherished convictions, and I am certain it is weakening the allegiance of the supporters of the Government both in this House and in the country.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I want to call the attention of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies to a matter of very grave moment affecting the commercial prosperity of the West Indies. I refer to the matter of cable communication with the West Indian Islands. There is at present a crying evil, which has increased, which is increasing, and which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree ought to be diminished. I make no complaint whatever, so far as communication up to Jamaica is concerned. The cable service to Jamaica is comparatively reasonable in charge. It costs about 11½d. per word for Press messages, and about 3s. for ordinary messages. It is fairly regular and effective. When we come, however, to the service beyond Jamaica, to Trinidad, to the Barbadoes and to Demerara, the lack of facilities really constitutes a crying public scandal. In the first place, it is the most costly service in comparison with all the other telegraphic services in the world, and in the second place it is inefficient. I have taken the trouble to get out the cable rates to several distant places, and I find the cable rate to Alaska is 2s. 9d. per word, to Australia 2s. 9d., to Japan 4s. 7d., to Argentina 4s. 2d., to New Zealand 2s. 9d., to India is. 10d. or 2s., and to British Guiana it is 7s. a word, and a very inefficient service at that. I really do say that from a commercial point of view the cost at present of that service is outrageously excessive. As to the efficiency of the service. It is liable to, and indeed has, frequent breaks down, and last year for the period of practically a fortnight, in November, all communication between the islands beyond Jamaica with Great Britain was absolutely cut off, that being just the period of the year in British Guiana when the autumn sugar crop is being got in. Such an absolute break of

    1889
    communication between the markets here and the sellers of the produce in British Guiana is a very serious matter, inasmuch as all communications had to be sent by mail, with a consequent delay of nearly three weeks, during which important changes in price might occur on the sugar market, involving a loss of thousands of pounds to the producer. I desire to ask a question with regard to communication between Trinidad and British Guiana by wireless telegraphy. The Government of British Guiana actually entered into a contract with the Wireless Telegraphy Company incurring an outlay of £3,000 a year for five years. So far as my information goes nothing has, however, been done in the matter of actually establishing a wireless service. I do not believe that the imperial solitude of British Guiana has been broken by an electric spark from 1907 to this date. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what has become of this contract, and whether any money has been paid under it. On the general point of cable communication I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to take some immediate action on the lines of the Report prepared by a Departmental Committee of the Colonial Office which sat on this question two years ago. I was instrumental to a certain degree in getting that Departmental Committee appointed, and I want to see something come of it. We have been hammering this point for a considerable number of years. I know the Colonial Office have good-will in the matter. Everybody must recognise that great commercial interests are at stake, and it is a serious matter that these islands should be liable to be absolutely cut off from telegraphic communication with the main ports of the world. It is a serious matter, too, that there should be such absolutely prohibitive rates between the producers and the buyers in the markets. I hope we shall have an assurance that the Colonial Office really intend to move in the matter.
    Colonel SEELY: The notice which the hon. Member was kind enough to give me that he intended to raise this question was not sufficiently long to enable me to consult the different authorities concerned, but I have had an opportunity of conversing with the Postmaster-General. We agree it does seem almost ridiculous that whereas the rate to Alaska is only 2s. 9d., that to British Guiana is over 7s. But the difficulty of communication with the West
    1890
    Indian Islands is very great indeed. Though places like British Guiana are of very great importance to the Empire, the needs of telegraphic communication with them as compared with great centres of population like Japan are very small indeed, and the consequence is that the Cable Companies find it excessively difficult to carry on operations at a profit. Still, a good deal has been done. A Committee in which I know the hon. Member took great interest has sat at the Colonial Office, and the late Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Committee interested itself in the matter of communication by cable. My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General and the Colonial Office are, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, interesting themselves in this question, and will do whatever they can to secure some abatement of the very high charges that have to be paid at present for cablegrams to these remote parts of the world.
    My right hon. Friend told me only a moment ago that he believed himself, and the Post Office believed, that the solution would be found in wireless telegraphy, because where you have a very small amount, of messages to send wireless telegraphy is peculiarly adopted to that kind of arrangement. I know from inquiries I have made that in the West Indies wireless communication, if it can only be established on a proper and centralised plan so that there shall be no interference, will be the best solution. I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised the point, because of the great importance of this matter to the trade of this country with these islands, and I can promise him that it will not be lost sight of, and we will do our very best to meet his requirements.
    Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: I should like to say a word or two about a statement which has been made that our Navy is too large, and it seems to me that some people have not the sense to see that we must have a strong national defence if we are to have a country at all. An hon. Gentleman on this side of the House told us that according to the Prime Minister himself in 1913 we shall have only twenty-five "Dreadnoughts," while Germany alone will have twenty-one. It is not only that, but the Government have told us that up to 1912 we shall only have one dock where a "Dreadnought" can be repaired, and that seems to me to be a very serious matter. I know some hon. Members are impatient

    1891
    to get to bed, but this is the only opportunity we have, or one of the only opportunities we have, of discussing the question of whether we are safe from foreign conquest in this country. I therefore feel justified in pointing out that in the matter of "Dreadnoughts" the position is very unsatisfactory. Our position as to torpedo destroyers is still more unsatisfactory, because it is now admitted that in the matter of ocean-going destroyers, capable of being used effectively in the North Sea, we have not got so many as Germany alone, and without destroyers our battleships and cruisers cannot keep at sea at night in the North Sea. For that reason we are liable certainly to be invaded, and it is perfectly well known that there is no Army for home defence except our regular Army, which may be away at any time. We are in very distinct danger, because our Navy is comparatively smaller than it has ever been in comparison with the rest of the world for the last 100 years. It is all very well for hon. Members to think there is no danger, and that there will never be war. They thought the same just before the Crimean war and the Indian Mutiny. They went so far as to say in those days that even if we were invaded we ought to be so polite and so friendly to our enemies that they would go away of their own accord, apologise for the trouble they had caused, and pay us voluntarily for the damage they had done. We are getting into that state again, and the sooner we get out of it the better, because there is not much doubt that there will be war in the future, and unless we are prepared we shall be knocked down, and once a sea Power is conquered it never recovers. Such is the teaching of history.
    If you get foreigners planted in your homes, and you have to cook their food and do as you are told, you will know what invasion means. We are told we must not make a preferential treaty with Canada because the United States will not take it lying down. I suppose we are to take it lying down. We are not even to be allowed to make preferential trading arrangements with our own people because we are likely to offend foreign Powers. That sort of thing appears to me to be altogether wrong. We ought to be able to defend ourselves. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us we are building against nightmares. Are we? Does it look like
    1892
    it? Is Germany a nightmare? Cabinet Ministers ought to be a little more careful what they say. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is always against his own countrymen whenever he gets the chance. He told us that our people slaughtered 11,000 children in South Africa. That is not the sort of Cabinet Minister we want. For the preservation of the country we want Cabinet Ministers who will stick up for their own people and their own country. I am afraid that is what we have not got.
    The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) the other day quoted a writer in a German magazine, who told us "that Germany would not stand our having preferential trade arrangements with our colonies." He went on to say "that Germany would be quite willing to take us on if she had only half our strength at sea." Germany will have a great deal more than half our strength at sea. You may depend upon it that force of circumstances will, as it has always done in the past, compel Germany to expand. She has got to expand against some one. We are nearest. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We are the nearest people who have got no Army. It is perfectly true that France is nearer, but she has got a great Army and we have practically none. The huge majority of our people are perfectly helpless. Even some of the Territorial Force we hear so much about have not handled a military rifle out of doors on an open range. The great majority of our people do not pretend to be of any use to defend their country. Under present conditions we are drifting to destruction just as every other nation has drifted to destruction in the past whose sons have neglected to prepare themselves to defend their country. We are either too idle or too cowardly to learn to defend our country in time of national danger. The Under-Secretary for the Colonies has been a soldier, and is supposed to know something about it, but he is sitting there laughing. A most extraordinary thing is that when you get even a soldier firmly settled on the Radical Front Bench he never takes any notice about the safety of his country. Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House ought to try to be patriots as well as Liberals.
    Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time." put, and agreed to; Bill read the third time, and passed.

  CIVIL LIST.
  1. Financial.

  Resolutions reported,

  "That there be charged on the Consolidated Fund as from the demise of His late Majesty the following annual sums:—

  For the King's Civil List

  £470,000.

  For retired allowances

  Such sums as may be required for the payment in whole or in part in each year of retired allowances granted by His late Majesty or by His present Majesty to members of His late Majesty's house hold, not exceeding in all £18,000.

  For Civil List pensions

  Such sums as may be required for the payment in each year of Civil List Pensions already granted or hereafter to be granted.

  In the event of the marriage of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, for Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales.

  £10,000, to be increased to £30,000 in the event of Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales surviving His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.

  For the benefit of the sons of His Majesty other than the Duke of Cornwall.

  £10,000 in respect of each son who attains the age of twenty-one years, and a further sum of £15,000 in respect of each such son who marries.

  For the benefit of the daughters of His Majesty.

  £6,000 in respect of each daughter who attains the age of twenty-one years or marries.

  For Her Majesty Queen Mary, in the event of her surviving His Majesty the king.

  £70,000.

  and that provision be made for continuing, for a period of six months after the close of the present reign, certain payments so charged which would otherwise be then determined.

  2. Amendment of Law.
  "That it is expedient to amend the Law relating to the Civil List, the Hereditary Revenues, and Grants for the Royal Family."
  Resolutions agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Lewis Harcourt, and Mr. Hobhouse.

  ROYAL MESSAGE.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am commanded by His Majesty to acquaint the House that His Majesty and Her Majesty have declared their Royal Pleasure that the annuity granted to Her Majesty as Princess of Wales shall cease and determine.

  CIVIL LIST.
  Bill, "To make provision for the honour and dignity of the Crown and the Royal Family, and for the payment of certain allowances and pensions," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time to-morrow.
  ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Master of Elibank.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Three minutes before Twelve o'clock.