Sitting of 11 May 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRADE, ETC.
  Ordered, That the Standing Committee on Trade, etc., have leave to sit this day for the consideration of the Sale of Food and Drugs Bill during the Sitting of the House.—(Mr. John Edward Ellis.)
  Private Bills.
  Standing Order No. 62 complied with.
  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, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—

  CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY BILL.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  DUBLIN IMPROVEMENT(BULL ALLEY AREA) BILL.
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed, to.
  AYR BURGH BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  KENSINGTON AND NOTTING HILL ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  PERTH WATER, POLICE, AND GAS BILL [Lords.]
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.

  GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  [New Title.]

GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL (By Order).

  THIRD READING.
  Order for third reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. PICKERSGILL: This Bill proposes to enable this company to raise two and a half millions of additional capital. I ask the House to postpone the Third Reading of the Bill upon considerations which the Committee itself was not competent to enquire into, and, as a matter of fact, did not enquire into. I have always thought that by far the best plan would be for this Bill to be referred to the Committee now sitting on the question of the metropolitan gas companies. You, Sir, decided on a previous occasion that it would not be competent for me to proceed with a motion to that effect, and, of course, I bow to your decision. The House is now asked to part with its control over this Bill at a time when a Committee is sitting which is enquiring into the management and the powers of all the gas companies in London. It is perfectly true that the terms of reference to the Committee included more than this particular company; the Committee no doubt is appointed to enquire into the rates charged and the methods of management of all the metropolitan gas companies. I contend that we ought not to let these large powers pass out of our hands to this company until the Committee of the House which is now sitting has reported. It is the immemorial practice of Parliament that when a company comes to this House and asks for new powers it is regarded as a proper time to enquire info the way in which the company has heretofore discharged the duties which the House has imposed upon it. Therefore I submit that the present is certainly an occasion when, before we part with this Bill, we ought to have the decision of the Committee before us. Last year this company had a Bill in Parliament the object of which was to settle up the capital, and an endeavour was then made to raise the question I desire to go into now. It was, however, then said by the counsel for the company that a question of that kind could not he entertained at that time. He said expressly that the time for these enquiries would come when this company applied to Parliament for new capital. The company has applied to Parliament for new capital and, therefore, the time has come, and what we say in regard to this com-

  303
  pany is, that the company has itself broken the statutory bargains by which it is bound. There are some who seem to think that standard prices are sacred things which Parliament should not, having once granted, touch for all time; but in the case of these gas companies, at all events, the standard prices are regulated by the standard dividend of 10 per cent., and those powers were allowed on the express understanding that the affairs of the company were properly conducted. In proof of that I may cite the opinion of one of the strongest Committees which has ever been appointed by this House. It was the Committee which was presided over by Mr. Cardwell, in 1866, and that Committee said the companies were only entitled to a 10 per cent. dividend after exercising due care in management. Our complaint is that the Gas Light and Coke Company have broken the terms of the statutory bargain, and that they have not conducted the affairs of the company with due care. The popular feeling against this company is considerably enhanced by a comparison between the prices which are charged by them and the prices which are charged by the South Metropolitan Gas Company. The South Metropolitan Gas Company charge only 2s. 2d. per 1,000 feet for gas, while the Gas Light and Coke Company charge 3s., and that contrast is heightened and reduced almost to an absurdity by the fact that, whereas the Gas Light and Coke Company are charging 3s. for its gas on the north side of the Thames, they charge only 2s. 2d. on the south side of the river. Why is that? The reason is that twenty years ago the Gas Light and Coke Company, after opposition, consented to an arrangement by which it was bound never to charge more than the South Metropolitan charge on the south side of the Thames for gas. The consequence is that consumers on the north side are paying more to the gas companies than the consumers on the south side pay to their gas companies. What I want to point out is that not only is there this difference in price between the two companies, but that the difference has been a gradually growing one for the last ten years. It is not necessary that I should give the difference for all the years, but in 1889 the difference was 3d., and from that time it has regularly grown. Anyone who has thoroughly studied the charges made by
  304
  these two companies can only come to the conclusion that the prices charged by the Gas Light and Coke Company ought to be less than those charged by the South Metropolitan Company. The reasons put forward by the Gas Light and Coke Company why they should charge more than the South Metropolitan Company seem to me to be very inadequate. What are some of those reasons? One of them is that the adjustments of their stations are more necessary to their works than is the case with the South Metropolitan Gas Company. I say that this Bill is not of immediate urgency, and that it regards rather the purposes which lie in the future than the purposes which lie in the immediate present, and one of these objects, for which a considerable portion of the capital is required, is to buy land not to be used for the purpose of making gas, but land just lying around their gasworks. I submit the estimates upon which this capital is based are excessive. The estimates are based upon an average—that is, their estimate of future expenditure—of twenty years. That is a very unusual and almost unprecedented proposal. What I propose to do is to move the adjournment of this. Bill until the Committee now sitting has reported. It will not be the necessary result of my motion if it is accepted that the gas company should lose their Bill even in the present session, because if the report of the Committee now sitting should be favourable to the Gas Light and Coke Company there will be no kind of opposition to this Bill, and I presume that the opposition which has been raised to this measure in this House will not be renewed in another place. There is no reason in the world why this Bill should not go through, even during the present session. But I will assume that the consequence of passing this Amendment, which I now submit to the House, will be the loss of the Bill for the present session. The result would not be a very great loss to the promoters. I have had it suggested that their estimates are very incomplete, but even according to the case of the promoters they have still sufficient capital for the present year, they having a surplus of £60,000. This House is always very much guided by precedent, and I think the precedent of 1875 in regard to the gas companies is a strong one in favour of the action I am now asking the House to take. In 1875 several of the metropolitan gas companies had Bills be-

  305
  fore this House, which asked for an increase of their capital powers, but the House refused to proceed with those Bills, and the Committee known as Mr. Forster's Committee was appointed, and the Bills were postponed, and they did not pass into law during the year 1875, but in the following year they were passed, after the report of Mr. Forster's Committee had been received by the House. That is exactly the course which I ask the House to follow now. I would like to give the House another precedent. It may be remembered that in 1848 the Vauxhall Water Company promoted a Bill which fixed very high rates and charges, and the opportunity was seized to reduce the rates of a number of the south metropolitan water companies which had Bills before this House, and from that reduction the Vauxhall Company managed to escape. Under the circumstances I ask the House to keep control over this Bill until the decision of the Committee of Parliament has been made known to the House. Let the House remember that if we lose this opportunity it will not recur for ten years, and perhaps not for twenty years, and during that period the incriminated company will be entirely independent of the control of Parliament. I cannot understand the House appointing a Committee to enquire into the management and affairs of the company if before that Committee reports the House is willing to put the company into a position to enable it for ten years at least to snap its fingers at Parliament. That seems to me a most absurd position for the House to assume, and one which is distinctly not to the public interest. I beg to move that the Debate be adjourned.
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
  MR. PIRIEsaid he would second the motion of his honourable friend. If the House wished that the Committee which had been appointed should be a reality instead of a sham, it would wait for its Report before passing the Bill. The Committee was meeting primarily without a doubt to enquire into the conduct of the particular company concerned, and he might say that the evidence already given before that Committee went conclusively to prove that of all the metropolitan gas companies the
  306
  Gas Light and Coke Company was the worst managed and the company that charged most for its gas. That was therefore a sufficient reason why the hands of the Committee should not be tied as they would be tied if this Bill were passed. There was no urgency in the matter. If the company wanted money they had borrowing powers under which they could get it. If the Committee reported that the price of gas should be reduced, that recommendation could only be given effect to by the Government of the day, as a private Member's Bill for the purpose would not be of any use at all. The only other way would be by a Bill promoted by the company itself. Therefore, if the House was determined to put down the largest gas monopoly in the world, it should without a doubt consent to the motion of his honourable friend.
  SIR W. CODDINGTONsaid he was Chairman of the Committee on the Bill, and all the arguments of the honourable Member for Bethnal Green were fully gone into by the Committee, and the Committee passed the Bill. The Bill was merely to give the Gas Light and Coke Company power to raise increased capital, which was absolutely necessary for the conduct of its business, and the Committee reduced the amount asked for from three and a half millions to two and a half millions. The learned counsel who opposed the Bill did not produce a single witness against it, and the whole of the evidence was in favour of the Bill. The Committee were therefore of opinion that it was a fair and proper Bill to pass, but they reduced the capital to such an extent as they thought would compel the company to come before the House of Commons again in reasonable time. The money was to be raised at a very cheap rate of interest, which would enable the company to reduce the price of its gas. As Chairman of the Committee he could only say that he had never passed a Bill in which he concurred more heartily, and he should therefore vote against the motion.
  SIR JAMES RANKINsaid, as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Metropolitan Gas Companies, he might say that the Committee had considered the question——
  MR. SPEAKER: This is a Committee which has not reported, and the honourable Member would be out of order in referring to its views. I do not mean to say that the honourable Member may not be in order in some of the observations he proposes to make, but he will not be in order in referring to the deliberations of that Committee.
  MR. J. SAMUEL, as a member of the Committee which sat on the Bill, supported the Motion for Adjournment. In reply to the statement of the honourable Member for Blackburn, who was Chairman of the Committee, that there was no evidence before the Committee except evidence for the promoters, he thought it only fair to state that the Bill was opposed by the City Corporation and the County Council, but those bodies preferred to produce their evidence before the Select Committee which was appointed to inquire into the affairs of all the gas companies. Personally he voted against allowing the company to have such a large amount of capital, because he felt that as the House of Commons had appointed a Select Committee, it was only light that that Committee should deliberate and report before the Gas Light and Coke Company obtained powers to increase their capital. He thought that a great responsibility rested on the House in giving such a huge monopoly, which paid a maximum dividend—up to 12½ per cent.—increased powers. The only reason brought before the Committee to explain why the company charged such a high price for its gas was that they had to pay extra for coal. He found, however, that on an average they only paid a shilling a ton more than some other corporations who only charged 2s. per thousand cubic feet for gas. If the company maintained its present rate of expenditure, the increased capital it would get would enable it to go on for a period of fourteen years before coming to Parliament again. He thought a very strong case had been made out why the debate should be adjourned until the Select Committee had reported.
  MR. DUNCOMBEsaid the honourable and learned Member for Bethnal Green had made a speech which showed that he had a perfect grasp of the subject, but he brought nothing new before the House. He
  308
  strongly advised the House against the Adjournment, on the ground that it was an inconvenient, expensive, and gradually-growing practice to adjourn decisions on private business put on the Paper by order of the House itself, and one which ought to be stopped.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he hoped the President of the Board of Trade would give some consideration to the motion. It was not hostile to the Bill, and it was really the very smallest Amendment that could be moved if the House were to retain any sense of the dignity of its own proceedings. The honourable Gentleman the Chairman of the Committee made the only defence they had heard, but what did it amount to? He said that no evidence had been brought forward against the point that this company required further capital. He would only ask, Why did the House of Commons appoint another committee to consider the affairs of this company really, although other companies were included, and about which some of the most flagrant facts had been brought forward? It charged 33 per cent. more for its gas than its rivals, and the only reason for that was that it managed its capital worse. It was now proposed to give that company more capital, and release it for fourteen years. What his honourable and learned friend asked was simply to wait until the Committee now sitting had pronounced judgment. If the Bill were now passed that Committee might as well shut its doors at once, for in that event what could the Committee do for the gas consumers? If the Bill were not passed, and if the Committee made recommendations, conditions might be added to the Bill which would be of great advantage to the gas consumers in the Metropolis.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, as one of the Members of the Committee now sitting, he did not wish to give a silent vote on the motion. He was not prejudging the merits of the case, but it seemed to him a perfect farce that a Committee should be discussing this question, and that their recommendation, when made, should be simply waste-paper. The debate ought certainly to be adjourned. He did not wish the Bill to be thrown out, but some report ought to be made by the Committee now sitting before such large powers were given to the Company.
  MR. BANBURYsaid he was in favour of the Bill passing, because if it were postponed it would absolutely impossible for the Committee to report in time for the Bill to go through both Houses of Parliament. If the Bill were passed now, and if the Committee subsequently made representations, there would still be time to impose conditions in another place.
  MR. MOONsaid it appeared to him that the House would stultify itself by giving the Bill a third reading now. His constituents felt very strongly on the subject of the Bill, and if it were passed the Company need not come to Parliament again for ten or fourteen years.
  MR. KIMBERsaid he thought it was worth while to consider what the Bill was for. It was to raise further capital which would enable the Company to supply the consumer with an article which it was bound by law to supply. If the Bill prejudged the decisions of the Committee now sitting, he could conceive grounds for argument against the third reading now, but the Bill did not contain any power enabling the company to increase the price of gas to the consumer. On the contrary, it gave power to reduce it. If the Bill were rejected it would give the opponents of the gas company, at whose instance the present Committee was appointed, an opportunity of saying that the company had not kept pace with the demands upon it. He hoped the House would not lend its assistance to political gerrymandering of that kind, for the purpose of putting an obstruction in the way of the company, which was certainly within the rights conferred upon it by Parliament itself. Suppose that the Committee reported that the company charged more for its gas than it ought, in what way would the postponement of the Bill assist Parliament? Parliament could not insist on inserting stipulations with reference to the charge for gas in the Bill. He thought it would be inflicting a great injury on the company to postpone the Bill.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he thoroughly agreed with the remarks of the honourable Member for Uxbridge. He was not con-
  310
  cerned with the merits of the case at all. He had nothing to say for or against the company, but surely having appointed, a Select Committee to consider the question of gas companies' charges, it would be stultifying the action of the House to pass the Bill now. The honourable Member for Peckham said the Committee could not report for some time, and that there would not be time for the Bill to pass after the Committee had reported. He understood the Committee were likely to report before the end of the session, and he did not think any Member would oppose the third reading after that report had been received, and there would be no difficulty in getting the Bill through Parliament, if after the report it was found to be a proper Bill. Even if the Bill were thrown out no harm would be done, because the company had money to go on with. It would not be right for the House to prejudice the report of the Committee they had appointed in regard to the matter. He was surprised that the honourable Member for East Islington, who had moved for the appointment of the Committee, had not opposed the Bill going through. Quite apart from the merits, but simply for the dignity of the House, he would oppose the third reading.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERsaid he thought the House would be taking rather an unusual course if they postponed the consideration of the Bill. The Bill came before the House in the ordinary course; the promoters of the Bill had satisfied the Committee that they were entitled to receive all they asked for, and it was granted to them by the Committee. The only objection taken to the passing of the Bill on the present occasion was that possibly at some time or other—it was not even known whether during this session or next—another Committee might make some report the gist of which was not known at the present moment, which might or might not have some influence on this Bill. Surely that was too remote a contingency to take into consideration. Even if the Committee were to make a general report it would be applicable not only to one particular company but to other gas companies also, and therefore no advantage would be gained by penalising the Gas Light and Coke Company and leaving the others free. Under those

  311
  circumstances he suggested to the House that the adjournment should not take place. It was understood on the last occasion that a decision would be come to on the present occasion, and he hoped the House would not now postpone that decision.
  MR. COHENsaid he took rather a different view of the matter from other honourable Members, especially in view of the fact that he moved for the appointment of the Committee now sitting. If he were to vote against the postponement of the Third Reading it might seem as if he were prejudging the matter, and it might also appear that he had arrived at the conclusion that the Gas Light and Coke Company had been found guilty of inefficient and improper management. Legislation need not necessarily follow the recommendations of the Committee now sitting, but it seemed to him that it might be a very good reason for curtailing the powers of capital sought by the Bill, and it might be possible, during the present session, before the Bill became law, to bring about such a reduction. So far as he was concerned, as a member of the Committee, he would take no part in the Division.
  MR. AIRDexpressed the hope that the House would see its way to pass the Third Reading. It would be a very serious thing if the Bill were thrown out. The money was required for necessary expenditure, and in justice both to the company and to the consumers it was necessary the Bill should pass.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid that there was a very strong feeling all over North London on the subject of gas charges. In view of the appointment of the Committee the matter was so important that one honourable Member said he could not even vote on it, another honourable Member said that it was not right that the House should decide now, and another honourable Member took a different view. With such diversity of opinion it would be more seemly to adjourn the Third Reading until they had the report of the Committee.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 121; Noes, 166.—(Division List No. 133.)

  AYES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Allen, Wm. (Newc. underLyme

  Duckworth, James

  M'Leod, John

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Dunn, Sir William

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Ambrose, Robert

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Evershed, Sydney

  Moore, Arthnr (Londonderry)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn.

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  O'Kelly, James

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Billson, Alfred

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Blake, Edward

  Harwood, George

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Perks, Robert William

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hogan, James Francis

  Price, Robert John

  Burns, John

  Holland, Wm. H. (York, W. R.

  Priestly, Briggs (Yorks.)

  Burt, Thomas

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Caldwell, James

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

  Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Kay-Shuttleworth, RtHn.SirU

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lambert, George

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Daly, James

  Leng, Sir John

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Davitt, Michael

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sinclair, Capt. Jn. (Forfarshire

  Dillon, John

  Lough, Thomas

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Souttar, Robinson

  Doogan, P. C.

  M`Ghee, Richard

  Strachey, Edward

  Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Woodhouse,SirJ. T. (Hddersf'd

  Trevelyan, Charles Phillips

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

  Woods, Samuel

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Pickersgill and Mr. Moon.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Aird, John

  Garfit, William

  Mount, William George

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Gedge, Sydney

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Murray, RtHnA. Graham(Bute

  Arnold, Alfred

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Newark, Viscount

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Gold, Charles

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Arrol, Sir William

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Ascroft, Robert

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Palmer,SirCharlesM.(Durham

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Goschen,RtHnG. J. (StGeorge's

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bagot, Capt.Josceline FitzRoy

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Pease,Herb'rt Pike(Darlington

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Gunter, Colonel

  Percy, Earl

  Balfour, Rt HnGeraldW.(Leeds

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo.

  Pilkington, Richard

  Barry, RtHnAHSmith-(Hunts

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Pollock, Harry Frederick

  Beach, Rt Hn Sir M. H. (Bristol

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Henderson, Alexander

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampst'd)

  Priestley,Sir W. Overend(Edin

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Bill, Charles

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chs. Thomson

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Round, James

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Jebb, Richard Calverhouse

  Rutherford, John

  Campbell, Rt Hn, J. A. (Glasgow

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Kimber, Henry

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Knowles, Lees

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Lea, Sir Thomas (Londonderry

  Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen(Wore'r

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Leighton, Stanley

  Strutt, Hon, Charles Hedley

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'nsea

  Usborne, Thomas

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Vincent, Col.Sir C. E. Howard

  Colville, John

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. SirWilliamH.

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T. D.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Crombie, John William

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Liverpool

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent

  Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight

  Curzon, Viscount

  Lowther, RtHnJW(Cumb'land

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

  Doughty, George

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinb'rgh. W

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Doxford, William Theodore

  M'Killop, James

  Woodall, William

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Yorks.

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

  Evans, SirFrancis H. (South'ton

  Middlemore, Jhn. Throgmorton

  Wyndham, George

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Milbank, SirPowlettChasJohn

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Milton, Viscount

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.

  Fergusson, Rt HnSirJ. (Manc'r.

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Monk, Charles James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  William Coddington and Mr. Banbury.

  Fry, Lewis

  Morrell, George Herbert

  MR. LOUGHsaid he believed several Members had taken part in the Division without thoroughly understanding the question raised, and he was so much impressed by the gravity of the position
  314
  that he would take a Division against the Third Reading.
  Original Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 185; Noes, 114. (Division List 134.)

  AYES.

  Aird, John

  Garfit, William

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Allsop, Hon. George

  Gedge, Sydney

  Murray,RtHnA. Graham(Bute

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Gibbons, J. Lloyd

  Myers, William Henry

  Arnold, Alfred

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Newark, Viscount

  Arnold-Foster, Hugh O.

  Gold, Charles

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Arrol, Sir William

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Palmer, SirCharlesM. (Durham

  Ascroft, Robert

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  GoschenRtHnG. J. (StGeorge's

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Baillie, Jas. E. B. (Inverness)

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Pease, Herbt. Pike(Darlington

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Balfour Rt. Hn. Grld. W. (Leeds

  Gunter, Colonel

  Pilkington, Richard

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Barry, Rt Hn A. H. Smith-(Hnts

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Priestley, Sir W. Overend(Edin.

  Beach, Rt. Hn. SirM. H. (Bristol

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Henderson, Alexander

  Rankin, Sir James

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead

  Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Biddulph, Michael

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Bill, Charles

  Howard, Joseph

  Round, James

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Hozier, Hn. James HenryCecil

  Rutherford, John

  Boscawen, Arthur, Griffith-

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)

  Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Sidebottom, T. Harrop(Stalyb.

  Burt, Thomas

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glsg'w

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

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

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Spencer, Ernest

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Kimber, Henry

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Chamberlain,Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Knowles, Lees

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Chamberlain, J. Austen(Wrer.

  Lea, Sir Thomas, Londonderry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Thornburn, Walter

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Leighton, Stanley

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset)

  Ushorne, Thomas

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swnse.

  Vincent,Col. Sir C. E. Howard

  Colville, John

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Cooke,C. W. Radcliffe(Heref'd

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe)

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T. D.

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Liverpool

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Cox, Irwin Edward B. (Harrow)

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Crombie, John William

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. James(Kent)

  Webster, SirR. E. (Isle of Wight

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Whiteley, George (Stockport)

  Curzon, Viscount

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Williams, Jos. Powell-(Birm.)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'gh, W.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  M'Killop, James

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

  Doughty, George

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. J. W.(Yorks.)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Middlemore, Jhn Throgmorton

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Milbank, Sir PowlettChas. Jhn.

  Woodall, William

  Evans, Sir FrancisH. (South'ton

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

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

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Milton, Viscount

  Wyndham, George

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mner.

  Monk, Charles James

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Morrell, George Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES,

  Fry, Lewis

  Morton, ArthurH. A. (Deptford

  Sir William Coddington and Mr. Banbury.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Mount, William George

  NOES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Allen, Wm.(Newc, underLyme

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Burns, John

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Billson, Alfred

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Ambrose, Robert

  Blake, Edward

  Caldwell, James

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

  Cameron, Sir Charles(Galsgow

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Cawley, Frederick

  316

  317

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Lambert, George

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid(Cumb'land

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Daly, James

  Leng, Sir John

  Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

  Davitt, Michael

  Leuty, Thomas Richmond

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lloyd-George, David

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Dillon, John

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Frd. Dixon

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Sinclair, Capt. John(Forfrshre.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Ghee, Richard

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Leod, John

  Souttar, Robinson

  Duckworth, James

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Strachey, Edward

  Dunn, Sir William

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Evershed, Sydney

  Morgan,J.Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Thomas, David Alfd. (Merthyr

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbt. John

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Gurdon,Sir William Brampton

  O'Kelly, James

  Weir, James Galloway

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Harwood, George

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Hayne,Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Perks, Robert William

  Williams, John Carvell(Notts.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

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

  Hedderwick, Thos. Chas. H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Holland, Wm. H. (York, W. R.

  Price, Robert John

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

  Woodhouse, SirJ. T. (Hudd'rsfd

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Woods, Samuel

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES,

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

  Mr. Lough and Mr. Pirie.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Ashburton, Wallingford, and Wokingham, ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES).
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to Brighton, ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Bristol, Cheltenham, Ealing, Gelligaer and Rhigos (Rural), Leicester (three), Newmarket, Scarborough, Tonbridge (Rural), Wallasey and West Ham, ordered, to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Ashton-in-Makerfield, Ashton-under-Lyne, Bolton, Llandudno, Rother-
  318
  ham, Southport (two) and York, ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Aberavon, Barry, Brixworth (Rural), Hambledon (Rural), Manchester, Pontypridd, Rickmansworth and Swadlincote, ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Ashburton, Wallingford and Wokingham," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 186.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
  "To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to Brighton," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 187.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Bristol, Cheltenham, Ealing, Gelligaer Rhigos (Rural), Leicester (three), Newmarket, Scarborough, Tonbridge (Rural), Wallasey and West Ham," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 188.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Ashton-in-Makerfield, Ashton-under-Lyne, Bolton, Llandudno, Rotherham, Southport (two) and York," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 189.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Aberavon, Barry, Brixworth (Rural), Hambledon (Rural), Manchester, Pontypridd, Rickmansworth and Swadlincote." Presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 190.]

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP J).
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERreported from the Committee on Group J of Private Bills, That the parties promoting the Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill (Ystradyfodwg (Maerdy) Order) had stated that the evidence of David William Smith, Stationmaster at Maerdy, was essential to their case; and it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move, That the said David William Smith do attend the said Committee upon Monday next, at Twelve of the clock.
  Ordered, That David William Smith (Stationmaster at Maerdy) do attend the Committee on Group J. of Private Bills upon Monday next, at Twelve of the clock.

PETITIONS.
  ADULTERATION (FOOD PRODUCTS) BILL.
  Petition of the Council of the British Medical Association, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  BOROUGH FUNDS ACT, 1872.
  Petitions for alteration of Law;—From Southall;—and, Norwood; to lie upon the Table.
  COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH GERMANY.
  Petition of Charles Whitmore Stokes, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  GROUND RENTS (TAXATION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Petition from Skelton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Two Petitions from Dumfries, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour;—From Vauxhall;—Methilhill;—New Broughton;—No. 2, Arley Hulton;—Sheepbridge, No. 1;—and, Clay Cross, No. 1, Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petition from Stirling, against establishment; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from London, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TEMPERANCE REFORM (THREEFOLD OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Stranraer, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Dundee, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, &c.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (GENERAL REPORTS).
  Copy presented,—of General Report by the Chief Inspector of the Southern Division of Scotland for the year 1898 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE (FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND BRITISH POSSESSIONS).
  Copy presented,—of Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions for 1898 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  COMPANIES (APPLICATIONS FOR RETURNS).
  Return presented,—relative thereto (ordered 22nd March; Mr. Faithfull Begg); to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT.
  Copy presented,—of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Uxbridge and Rickmansworth Railway Bill and the objects thereof (pursuant to Standing Order 158A); referred to the Committee on the Bill.
  EAST INDIA (ESTIMATE).
  Copy presented,—of Estimate of Revenue and Expenditure of the Government of India for 1898–9, compared with the results of 1897–8 (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 191.]
  EAST INDIA (FINANCE AND REVENUE ACCOUNTS).
  Copy presented,—of Finance and Revenue Accounts of the Government of India for 1897–8 (by Act); to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (HOME ACCOUNTS).
  Copy presented,—of Home Accounts of the Government of India (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 192.]
  NAVY (HYDROGRAPHERS REPORT).
  Copy presented,—of Report on Admiralty Surveys for the year 1898 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
  Copy presented,—of Statement of the estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation for the year 1899–1900 (by Act); to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 193.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2257 and 2258 (by Command); to lie upon the Table.
  MARGARINE ACT, 1887 (MANUFACTORIES).
  Address for "Return of the Names and Postal Addresses of the Manufactories of Margarine in the United Kingdom registered under Section 9 of the Margarine Act, 1887 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 358, of Session 1892)."—(Mr. Arthur Moore.)

  TELEPHONE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT.
  Copy ordered, "of Treasury Minute, dated the 8th day of May, 1899, upon the Proposals for the Development of the Telephone System in the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 190.]

  RESTRICTIONS UPON BRITISH INDIAN SUBJECTS IN BRITISH COLONIES AND DEPENDENCIES.
  Address for "Return (1) showing in the case of every British Colony and Dependency, the population of which includes British Indians, what Disabilities or Restrictions are imposed upon such British Indians; (2) stating for each Colony or Dependency the approximate number of such British Indians; and (3) giving in each case from the statutes or the bye-laws an abstract showing the nature of the Disabilities or Restrictions in question."—(Sir William Wedderburn.)
QUESTIONS.

  MILITARY TRIBUNALS AND CIVIL CONVICTIONS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, what is the practice of

  323
  the military authorities with reference to cases in which a military officer has been convicted of an offence by a civil tribunal; do the military authorities in such a case ever inflict upon an officer who has been thus convicted a second penalty, amounting to a suspension of an officer from military duties during a limited period and allowing him to return to his duties at the expiration of that period; and, is it the practice of the military authorities, when an officer has been convicted of an offence before a civil tribunal, to inflict a further punishment upon him, either by suspending him from his military duties, by calling upon him to resign his commission, or by dismissing him from the Service, without giving the officer himself any intimation that his case is under the consideration of the authorities and without affording him any opportunity of giving any explanation that he may have to offer.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. GEORGE WYNDHAM, Dover): In the last eight years there have been but five cases of civil conviction against officers in the Regular Army. These officers have been either removed from the Army or called upon to resign, in accordance with the nature of the offence. The rarity of such cases makes it difficult to speak of a practice, but going beyond the period of eight years, two cases are remembered in which officers were removed from the Army immediately after the decision of a Court of Law.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Has the War Office no practice?
  [No reply.]

  ENTERIC FEVER AT KING WILLIAMS TOWN.
  MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he has received any information in respect to the deaths from enteric fever of a number of soldiers belonging to the Berkshire Regiment now stationed in King Williams Town; and, whether the necessary steps are being taken to put the South African barracks in a proper sanitary condition.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The battalion is stationed partly at King Williams Town
  324
  and partly at Grahams Town. At the former place there have been eighteen cases of enteric fever but no deaths; at the latter seven cases and six deaths. Some days have elapsed since the last admission to hospital. The cause of the King Williams Town outbreak has not as yet been ascertained. At Grahams Town enteric fever is prevalent among the civil population, owing, probably, to the want of rain: but four of the cases are attributed to the condition of a soakage pit which has since been cleaned and thoroughly purified. £22,400 has been taken in this year's Estimates to improve the accommodation of the troops in South Africa.

  SHORNCLIFFE CAMP.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he is aware that the rateable value of Shorncliffe Camp and grounds is now considerably higher than is represented by the amount contributed by the Treasury towards the rates; and, whether he is disposed to consider the desirability of making that property assessable to the rates, or of fixing such a contribution as would be in accordance with the system of late years adopted in London of contributing to local rates, so as to relieve struggling urban districts like Hythe, Sandgate, and Cheriton from burdens necessitated by fresh expenditure on repairs to and construction of roads, lighting, &c. I beg also to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that the rateable value of Shorncliffe Camp and grounds is now considerably higher than is represented by the amount contributed by the War Office towards the rates; and, whether he is disposed to consider the desirability of making that property assessable to the rates or of fixing such a contribution as would be in accordance with the system of late years adopted in London in contributing to local rates.
  A JUNIOR LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ANSTRUTHER, St. Andrews Burghs, for Mr. HANBURY): There is no ground for the statement in the first paragraph. The Camp was entirely re-valued in September, 1894, when the assessment was fixed by the Treasury Valuer and the Assessment Committee of the Union in conference at gross £8,090, rateable,

  325
  £6,492. The Assessment Committee then passed the following resolution:
  "That the Committee accept the above figures as a fair assessment of the Government Property to the Local Rates."
  So recently as the 30th December last all the new buildings, &c. erected between September 1894 and that date, were added to the valuation on which the Government rate contributions are paid. There are other new buildings in course of erection but not completed, which will also, when completed, be added to the valuation. The system or principle on which the rates contributions are given for Shorncliffe Camp is precisely the same as that on which the contributions for the Government property in London are given.

  MILITIA TRAINING.
  MR. BILL (Staffs. Leek): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether, under the new militia regulations, it is proposed to make the regiments selected for possible service abroad liable annually for extra training beyond the usual twenty-seven days; and, if so, what amount of extra training will be given?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Power will be taken to give the special service men in such regiments seven days' additional training annually for musketry.

  "MONTGOMERY MORE" WATER-TIGHT COMPARTMENTS.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that there is a system for controlling valves automatically on water-tight doors in vessels, known as the Montgomery More system; whether, in view of the late lamentable loss of life by the wreck of the "Stella," it is the intention of the Admiralty to make further inquiry as to the advisability of such a system being adopted and made compulsory; and, if such a system has already been adopted by a French firm.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): To the first question of the honourable and gallant Gentleman my answer is "Yes," and I should add that the Admiralty have had many such, proposals before them—that is
  326
  to say, for closing water-tight doors by a single operation from a fixed station. The Admiralty have, of course, only considered such proposals from the point of view of war vessels, for which they have not adopted them. As to whether it would be expedient to adopt the system in the Merchant Service, where the conditions are different, and to make its adoption compulsory, would be a question for the Board of Trade, not for the Admiralty. The Admiralty have no information as to the adoption of the Montgomery More system by French firms.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Does the First Lord consider that the examination made into this question is sufficient without further inquiry?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, the Admiralty understand the system perfectly. They have thoroughly investigated it.

  TELEPHONE OFFICE AT INNISHOWEN COASTGUARD STATION.
  MR. T. B. CURRAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he is aware that a public telephone office is placed in the coastguard's station, Inneshowen Head, county Donegal, and is in the charge of the wife of one of the coastguards; and whether this is contrary to the rules of the coastguard service; and, whether any of the coastguards in this station are remunerated by a local steamboat company for reporting vessels coming into Lough Foyle to the agents of the said company; and, if so, whether this is contrary to the regulations of the service.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): A public telephone office is situated at Innishowen coastguard station and is in charge of the wife of one of the coastguardsmen. This was sanctioned by the Admiralty and Postmaster-General. None of the coastguard receive any remuneration from the local steamboat company for reporting vessels coming into Lough Foyle.

  CRUISE OF THE CHANNEL SQUADRON.
  SIR LEONARD LYELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Lerwick, in Shetland, will be included among the ports of call to be visited by the Channel Squadron

  327
  during its summer cruise; and, whether he is aware of the strong desire in Lerwick that the Channel Fleet should resume its visits to that port, the most important centre for the Naval Reserves in the North.
  MR. GOSCHEN: It is not probable that the Channel Squadron will visit the Shetland Islands during the summer. It is not possible to gratify the wish of all the ports to whom the visit of the Channel Squadron would be welcome. As I have frequently explained, the cruise of the Squadron cannot be determined by any but naval considerations.
  SIR LEONARD LYELL: Could not the right honourable Gentleman arrange for occasional visits to Lerwick?
  MR. GOSCHEN: It must depend entirely on naval considerations.

  THE ADMIRALTY AND THE THAMES IRON WORKS.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what Admiralty contracts have been secured in the last twelve months by the Thames Iron Works; and, whether, in deciding on the acceptance or rejection of the tenders in question, the rate of wages prevailing on the Thames, or any other consideration, was taken into account, or whether each accepted tender of the Thames Iron Works was the lowest tender put in for the particular work in question.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Thames Iron Works Company have received contracts for two battleships, a sloop, and a store ship in the course of the last twelve months. My reply to the enquiry of the honourable Member as to whether, in connection with the placing of these contracts, the rate of wages prevailing on the Thames, or any other consideration, was taken into account, is in the negative. The tenders were simply accepted because they were the most advantageous for the public service.

  CLERK OF THE BOMBAY INSOLVENCY COURT.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN,: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Clerk of the Insolvency Court at Bombay is paid
  328
  by fees, which amount to between 3,000 and 4,000 rupees a month, and whether the present incumbent accepted the appointment subject to the understanding that the scale of his remuneration was likely to be revised; why the recommendation of the Finance Committee of 1886 that, looking to the amount of the work, the salary should be fixed at Rs.500 or Rs.600 per mensem, the fees to be credited to Government, was not acted upon; and, whether he will lay upon the Table the correspondence regarding the salary of this appointment between the Bombay Government, the Government of India, and the Secretary of State subsequently to the year 1895?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): (1) The Clerk of the Insolvency Court at Bombay is paid by fees, the average amount of which is a little over Rs. 3,000 a month, out of which he meets certain charges for establishment. It is apparently the case that the present incumbent accepted the appointment (in 1875)
  "subject to any revision of the remuneration that might be ordered by competent authority."
  (2) The recommendation of the Finance Committee for the salary to be fixed at Rs.500 or Rs.600 a month, was coupled with a further recommendation that the duties, of the post should be revised and made more important, and a higher salary attached to it, by an Insolvency Bill which was then under consideration. This, measure has been under consideration for many years, but it has recently been decided not to proceed further with it; and I now propose to communicate with the Government of India on the subject. (3) The correspondence on this subject, though very lengthy, is still incomplete, and I cannot undertake to present it.

  PRIMOGENITURE IN THE PUNJAUB.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether many important petitions have been presented to the Punjaub authorities from loyal sirdars of the Cis-Sutlej territory of the Punjaub, praying for relief from uncertainty and for recognition by Government of the rule of primogeniture in the succession to their respective estates; whether there has been any delay or want of uniformity on the part of local officials in reporting on and

  329
  dealing with such petitions; and, whether he has any objection to grant a Return of the dates, names of subscribers, and prayers of such petitions, and of the official correspondence and rulings of the Government of India and Punjaub authorities on the subject.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: In reply to the question of my honourable friend, I have to say that there is no information at my disposal which would supply an answer to the first two paragraphs. As regards the Return asked for in the last paragraph, it could not be furnished without a reference to the Government of India, as the correspondence is not on record in this country. My honourable friend's question will be forwarded to the Government of India for any observations they may have to make.

  INDIAN SUGAR DUTIES.
  MR. MARKS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state to the House the purport and the result of the communications that have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Austro-Hungarian Government with reference to the imposition of countervailing duties upon bounty-fed sugar imported into India.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): The correspondence between the two Governments on the subject is not yet concluded, and it would therefore be premature yet to state its result.

  INDIAN CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the following recent cases: The case of Empress v. Maharaj and another, in which the defendants were convicted of theft, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment and fine by Mr. Marr, Joint Magistrate of Begu Sacrai; the case of Dr. Kuniram Ghose, who was convicted by the Magistrate of Murshidabad for an alleged act of negligence in his professional capacity, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment and fine;
  330
  the case of Mr. Augier, Sub-Deputy Magistrate of Pwrulia, who was sentenced to imprisonment for six months in a case relating to a female coolie; whether he is aware that in each of these cases the High Court of Calcutta set aside the conviction, declaring that no offence had been proved; and, whether, in view of these facts, he will consider the desirability of introducing a change in the present system of criminal administration in India, by which the district magistrate is the head of the police, the virtual prosecutor, and at the same time the chief magistrate in his district.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I have no information in regard to the three cases referred to in the honourable Member's question. I do not think that the orders of the High Court, so far as their terms are stated in the question, would justify me in requesting the Government of India to consider the advisability of introducing a revolutionary change in the present system of criminal administration in India.

  BOARD OF TRADE AND MARINE CERTIFICATES.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he is aware that in 1887 the Secretary of the Mercantile Marine Service Association was informed by Mr. Thomas Gray, then Secretary to the Board of Trade, that the Board had recently made a new departure with regard to the course to be adopted in dealing with certificates on conviction for an offence; and that they had, in cases where the offence was of a professional nature, determined to invite the holder of the certificate to offer any explanation of his conduct before exercising their power of cancellation or suspension; whether this new departure has been adhered to during the twelve years since it was first announced; and, whether he is prepared to consider the advisability of extending to cases in which the offence was otherwise than of a professional character the new departure of hearing the officer before inflicting the second additional punishment of suspending or cancelling his certificate.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): Yes, Sir, I have seen the

  331
  letter to which my honourable friend refers. The case then under consideration was one in which the master of a vessel was convicted of an offence of a professional nature, viz., that of negligently running foul of a lightship; and the rule was then laid down, and has been adhered to since, that, in analagous cases, the Board would ask for an explanation before exercising their power of cancelling or suspending the certificate of the offender. Cases of a more or less criminal nature are on a different footing, and I am not prepared to adopt a similar course with regard to them, though I shall (as far as I can) have regard to the nature of the offence for which an officer has been convicted before deciding whether to cancel his certificate, or to suspend it for a longer or shorter period.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the right honourable Gentleman say in how many cases since 1882 an officer has been heard in his own defence?
  MR. RITCHIE: I cannot now, but if the honourable Gentleman will put the question down, I will get him the information.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Not in any case.

  BOARD OF TRADE CLERKS.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that four of the clerks serving in the Official Receivers (Bankruptcy) Department of the Board of Trade have been granted Civil Service Certificates; and, if so, whether, taking into consideration the fact that some of their colleagues have been serving in that Department for 15 years, he will recommend to the Treasury, in accordance with paragraph 15 of the Order in Council of 29th November, 1898, that certificates should be granted to those who have not less than six years' established service.
  MR. RITCHIE: The position of the clerks employed by the Official Receivers in Bankruptcy attached to the High Court was enquired into by a Departmental Committee of the Treasury and Board of Trade in 1896, with the result that certain clerks were placed on the permanent establishment. I am not
  332
  prepared to recommend a similar alteration in the status of the clerks generally. The question is not affected by paragraph 15 of the Order in Council of 29th November, 1898, which relates to permanent Civil Servants only.

  SCOTTISH EDUCATION GRANTS.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, having regard to the statement that Scotland would receive a sum of £80,000 per annum, under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1897, whilst the amount borne on the Imperial Estimates for the current year in respect thereof consists only of an additional sum of £24,000 for necessitous school boards, of £12,600 for voluntary schools, and of £5,000 to keep up the capitation fee grant to 12s. per child, making in all a total of only £41,600, or £38,400 per annum less than that calculated, the Government will re-consider the amount of grant payable to Scotland under the said Act.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): The honourable Member is labouring under a misconception. If, as I assume, he refers to the statement made by me on the second reading of the Education (Scotland) Bill, 1897, he will find that the sum of £80,000 was not referred to as to be paid only under the Act of 1897, but included the £13,000 odd which was payable under the operation of Section 67 of the Act of 1872; which £13,000 odd the honourable Member has deducted, and thereby converted the sum actually borne on the Estimates of this year for necessitous Board Schools, viz., £37,500 into £24,000. But I should wish to add that such details are unsuitable for discussion by means of question and answer, and it would be more convenient to leave them to be dealt with more fully when the Education Estimates come before the House.

  APPEAL COURT BUSINESS.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General what arrangements have been or will be made for the hearing of appeals in the Court of Appeal during the absence out of the country of the Lord Chief Justice of England, and of Lord Justice Collins, as Commissioners of Her Majesty; whether it is the intention of

  333
  the Government, or of the Lord Chancellor, to put in force Section 4 of The Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875, during the absence of the learned Judges referred to, so as to secure the attendance in the Court of Appeal of an additional Judge of the High Court of Justice; and, whether the Government will introduce a Bill to make the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary ex officio Judges of the Court of Appeal, and to enable the Lord Chancellor to request the attendance as Judges in the Court of Appeal of Peers who have held the office of Lord of Appeal in Ordinary or any other high judicial office in England if they consent to do so?
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): It is proposed that the President of the Probate and Admiralty Division, who is a member of the Court of Appeal, shall sit in that Court during the absence of Lord Justice Collins. The answers to the second and third paragraphs of the honourable and learned Member's question are in the negative.
  SIR H. FOWLER: Who will sit in the Probate and Divorce Court, then?
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I assume that, if necessary, one of the Queen's Bench Judges will. The right honourable Gentleman will probably remember that one of the Queen's Bench Judges has been constantly assisting in the Admiralty Court when, owing to temporary illness, Sir F. Jeunce and Mr. Justice Barnes were absent.

  MARINE INSURANCE BILL.
  MR. WARR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce the Marine Insurance Bill during the present session.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I do not anticipate that this Bill will be dealt with in the House during the course of the present session. Matters will have to be gone into very fully, and laboriously dealt with by the Committee in charge of it.

  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  MR. STRACHEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend to take next Wednesday, upon which day the Rating of Machinery Bill is the first Order.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; I do not propose to take next Wednesday for Government business.

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES CONFERENCE.
  MR. TENNANT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is prepared to give any information as to the proposed International Conference of the North Sea Powers; whether he can include in his statement information as to the date and place of meeting, the nature and scope of the inquiry, the representation of the various nations interested; and, whether the British representative has yet been selected; and, if so, what instructions have been given to him.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Conference is to meet at Stockholm on June 15. The programme proposed as the basis of proceedings is too long to summarise within the limits of a reply to a question, but it deals principally with the subject of scientific inquiry to be undertaken with a view to formulate suggestions to improve the international legislation in connection with the sea fisheries. The British representatives are Sir John Murray, Mr. Archer, Chief Inspector of Fisheries, and Professor D'Arcy Thompson.
  MR. PIRIE: Will there be any other method of making the instructions more public than this answer?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the honourable Member had better put a question down.

  SCOTTISH EDUCATION MINUTE.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in consideration of the terms of paragraph 7 of the Scotch Education Minute of 27th April 1899, upon which no action will be taken before 27th May, he will give an opportunity for the discussion of that Minute before the Whitsuntide Recess.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This Minute will no doubt become law unless it is discussed within a certain number of days, and I believe the Scotch Members have desired an opportunity to discuss it. I suggested a discussion on the Scotch Estimates last Friday week, but it was found to be inconvenient to the Gentlemen interested in the question. I had therefore to defer its consideration to a later date, but I cannot give a day for the discussion.
  MR. BRYCE: I wish to ask whether, having regard to all the circumstances connected with this Minute, the honourable Gentleman will not undertake on the part of the Government that no action shall be taken on it until the House has an opportunity, which will naturally arise on the Scotch Estimates, of considering it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I could not answer that question without consulting the Secretary for Scotland, but I may point out that this Minute can be superseded at any time by another Minute, if the House indicated that this course was desirable.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: In consequence of the right honourable Gentleman's reply I will ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House at the close of questions.

  ASCENSION DAY.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: Respecting the disparity of practice between the two Houses on the point, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury why it is necessary to make a motion that Committees of the House of Commons shall not meet till 2 o'clock on Ascension Day if the Committees of the House of Lords sit as usual.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should like to inquire into the facts before answering; out if the House of Lords itself does not sit on Ascension Day it seems to me unlikely that its Committees would sit.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: The House of Lords Committees have been sitting as usual.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I know nothing about the House of Lords Committees.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: But they sat to-day.
  DR. CLARK: Yes, at 11 a.m.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will inquire.
  MR. R O'BRIEN: Is the House of Lords aware that this is Ascension Day at all?

  SCHOLARSHIPS IN TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION.
  SIR JAMES RANKIN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Science and Art Department regard scholarships held at any school or college, and paid for by the technical instruction committee of any county council, as constituting aid to that school or college; and, if they do not so regard them, whether such scholarships can be held at schools or colleges carried on for private profit.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST, Cambridge University): The question asked by the honourable Member is a legal one, which would have to be determined in the first instance by the Local Government Board auditor. The Science and Art Department has never regarded scholarships as constituting aid to the schools at which they are held; but their view does not bind the Local Government Board auditor.

  ESSENDON NATIONAL SCHOOL.
  SIR BARRINGTON SIMEON: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been ca led to the report of Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools respecting the state of education of the children attending the National School in Essendon, Hertfordshire; whether he is aware that two of the three trustees of the school are non-resident, and never attend the school meetings, while the third trustee is the Rector of Essendon, and that the elected managers very inadequately represent the subscribers to the school funds, and have refused to appoint a master, notwithstanding the warning given by the Inspector that the Government Grant will be withheld unless there should be an

  337
  improvement in the work and discipline of the school; and whether, under these circumstances, the Committee of Council on Education will recommend the appointment of additional resident trustees, with whom the management rests under the trust deeds establishing the school.
  SIR. J. GORST: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. I have been informed that two of the trustees are usually absent from the meetings, but there are four managers who have equal control with the trustees. Her Majesty's Inspector reported that the school narrowly escaped being called inefficient. A new head mistress, trained, and first-class in the certificate examination, has lately been appointed. The Education Department has no authority to interfere in the appointment of trustees.

  STATISTICS AS TO INDOOR PAUPERS.
  SIR JAMES RANKIN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what is the total accommodation for indoor paupers in the workhouses in the various unions of England and Wales, and what is the total number of indoor paupers at the present time.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN, Lincolnshire, Sleaford): From inquiries which I have caused to be made quite recently the total number of paupers (except vagrants) for whom there was accommodation in the workhouses, work-house infirmaries, and separate schools, other than district schools, may probably be estimated at between 230,000 and 240,000. The number of occupants on 1st February last was nearly 198,000, but the number of course varies considerably from time to time.

  LONDON SCHOOL ROARD ACCOUNTS.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the London School Board keeps its accounts in an aggregate form which makes it impossible for a ratepayer to object to any specific item which he believes to be illegal or which the auditor can disallow; whether the Local Government Board will take steps to ensure that the accounts shall be kept in such a form
  338
  that objection can be taken to illegal items, as provided in the Education Act of 1870, Section 60, Sub-sections (5) and (6); and whether, during the present audit, any instructions can he given to the auditor by which the School Board may be required to remedy the difficulty which it has caused.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am informed that the accounts of the London School Board are kept in the prescribed form, and as a general rule in such a way as to enable ratepayers to object to any specific items which they may believe to be illegal. Possibly my honourable friend's question has special reference to the expenditure on account of science and art schools and classes, to which objection has been raised. I understand that part of the expenditure on these schools and classes has not been incurred exclusively for that purpose, and consequently that it has not been separately shown in the accounts. But I am informed that some items of expenditure have been incurred exclusively for such purpose, and that at the inquiry now going on before the auditor no great difficulty has been found in specifying certain items of this kind, on which the objections of the ratepayers can be, and are being, based. It does not appear to be necessary that any instructions should be given to the auditor in this matter with regard to the accounts now under audit.

  VACCINATION EXEMPTION CERTIFICATES.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether, in view of his statement that non-delivery of a certificate of exemption under Section 2 of The Vaccination Act, 1898, to the vaccination officer within seven days after it has been granted renders the certificate null and void, he can now state to whom such certificate should be delivered during any period in which, through death, resignation, or non-appointment, there is no vaccination officer for the union; and, whether, as in ease of the death or removal of the vaccination officer, or of errors in or the destruction of his registers, there may he a difficulty in proving the registration of certificates in subsequent proceedings, he can arrange for the issue of a certificate of the delivery and registration which may be available as evidence of the granting of a certificate of exemption and its delivery and registration within the prescribed period.
  MR. CHAPLIN: In the event of a vacancy in the office of vaccination officer which cannot be filled up forthwith, the Guardians are required to appoint a person to act temporarily, and it would seem that the certificates of conscientious objection should be delivered to the person so appointed. I am not aware that any difficulty of the kind referred to in the second paragraph has arisen, and it does not appear to me to be necessary to make any arrangements, at all events, at present, with regard to it.

  DONAGHADEE HARBOUR.
  MR. BLAKISTON-HOUSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the dangerous state of Donaghadee Harbour: whether he can state what was the difference between the soundings taken in the harbour in 1863 and the last soundings taken recently there by the Board of Works; and whether, considering that this harbour is the principal harbour of refuge for trading vessels at the entrance of Belfast Harbour, where there is so much traffic, something will be done to render the harbour a place of safety for trading vessels and the Scotch fishing boats frequenting the harbour.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): From information received in October last, it appears that the harbour is not dangerous for the boats frequenting it. The average difference between the recent soundings and those taken in 1863 is, in the body of the harbour, about 2½ feet, but the depth at the entrance between the piers is practically unchanged. I may, perhaps, remind the honourable Member that the purpose of the deepening effected in 1862 was to accommodate steamers proposed to be employed in postal communication with Portpatrick. That necessity does not now exist. The real harbour of refuge for the district in question is Belfast Lough. Donaghadee Harbour was not constructed to serve that purpose.

  POST OFFICE TELEPHONE EXCHANGES.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Return as to Post Office Telephone Exchanges (in continuation of No. 231, of Session 1897) will be laid upon the Table.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): Arrangements are being made for the presentation of this Return, which is already completed.

  STORE STREET (LONDON) POST OFFICE.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the tablet on the letter-box at the Store Street Post Office intimates a collection at 9 a.m., whereas there is no such collection; whether there are other discrepancies between the intimations and the facts; and whether, in view of the great inconvenience which arises from such misdirection, he will cause inquiries to be made as to the letter boxes generally to ascertain whether the tablets correctly indicate the times of collection.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): The collection from the Store Street Post Office, to which the honourable Member refers, was recently altered from 9 a.m., to 8.45 a.m. The change was duly shown in the window notice, and, pending the supply of a new time plate, the hour in the old plate was altered by means of a paper slip, which appears to have become detached. A new time-plate will be supplied as soon as possible.

  CORK TELEGRAPH STAFF.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, in reference to his statement of July 1898, that the question of increasing the established staff of telegraphists at Cork is under consideration, whether that revision is yet completed; and, if so, when it may be expected to be brought into force; and whether, considering the long delay in formulating the scheme, the Postmaster-General can see his way to make it retrospective.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): The proposals for a revision of the indoor force at Cork, Postal and Telegraph, are now awaiting Treasury sanction, on receipt of which they will at once be carried into effect. There are no special circumstances in the case which would justify the Postmaster-General in recommending that the scheme should be made retrospective.

  AMERICAN MAIL SERVICE.
  Mr. KIMBER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Continental mails by the German ship "Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse," leaving Southampton on Wednesday 26th April, arrived in New York on Tuesday 2nd May, while the English mails by the White Star steamship "Britannic," leaving Liverpool on Wednesday 26th April, arrived in New York on Friday 5th May; also that a portion of the English mails forwarded by the "Aurania," a casual Cunarder, leaving Liverpool on Tuesday 25th April, arrived in New York on Thursday 4th May, two days later than if they had been sent from Southampton on 26th April; and, seeing that the "Britannic" is an obsolete ship taking nine days instead of six for the Atlantic voyage, will he explain why she is still used by the English Post Office for the conveyance of mails to America.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): The official returns have, of course, not yet been received from New York; but according to the telegraphic reports published by the newspapers, the arrivals of the three steamers took place as follows:—
  "Kaiser Wilhelm," 3 p.m. 2nd May.
  "Aurania," Midnight 3rd May.
  "Britannic," 1.30 p.m. 5th May.
  Both the British steamers sailed from Queenstown, the "Aurania" having on board letters posted practically the same day as those carried by the; "Kaiser Wilhelm," and the "Britannic" letters posted a day later, as she did not leave Queenstown till the 27th April. The employment of the slower boats of the Cunard and White Star Lines together with the faster has been frequently explained to the House. The mail contract gives the companies the right to the conveyance of all of the correspondence not specially superscribed, and requires them to use their fastest boats all the year round and to put in at Queenstown for mails. The "Britannic" is one of the four fastest boats of the White Star Company; and the Postmaster-General has no power to exclude her until the Company have a better boat to take her place. Letter-writers can always secure the transmission of their letters by any
  342
  steamer they prefer by specially superscribing them.

  DONAGHADEE HARBOUR.
  Mr. M'GHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasure, with reference to the present state of Donaghadee Harbour, whether he has yet made inquiry as to the rate per day chargeable by the Belfast Harbour Commissioners for the use of their bucket dredger, which removes about 12,000 tons of dredging per week from Belfast Harbour, and has to carry the same about seven miles to sea; whether he is aware that this work is done at a cost of about £100 a week: whether any other, and, if so, how much, has been made to the Commissioners by the Board of Works for the use of this dredger at Donaghadee; whether, considering the failure of the dredger sent from Kingstown by the Board of Works, he will advise that some effort be made to secure the services of such a dredger as is capable of doing the work required: and, whether he will state if any and what offer was made to the Belfast and County Down Railway Company on condition of their taking over charge of this harbour.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): Inquiries made in October last showed that the only dredger possessed by the Belfast Harbour Commissioners which was available for hire was entirely unsuited to the economical removal of the material at Donaghadee. The answer to the second and third paragraphs is in the negative. It is not proposed to take any further steps at present with regard to dredging, since, from information received in October last, it appears that the harbour is sufficiently safe for the boats frequenting it. Under existing circumstances the deepening of the harbour would not increase its safety, or its trade, or the length of berthage used to any appreciable extent. In 1896 the Belfast and County Down Railway Company, who have a branch line to Donaghadee, were offered a sum of £1,000 to cover expenses of dredging, on condition that they should take over the harbour under legislation enabling them to levy tolls. The company, after consideration, declined the offer.

  RED SEA LIGHTS.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for

  343
  Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have received information that the Porte has arranged with the Administration des Phares to build and administer four lighthouses off the Arabian coast in the Red Sea; whether the lights in question will be at or near the points at which the want of lights has been for many years recognised by Her Majesty's Government; whether the funds hypothecated by arrangement with the Government of Egypt from the light dues levied by them for the provision of such lights will be applied to the provision and maintenance of the lights designed by the Sublime Porte; and, whether the surplus of Egyptian light dues above mentioned has been accumulated during the long-continued negotiations on this subject, and may be applied to the erection of lights in the Gulf of Aden.
  MR. BEODRICK: Her Majesty's Government have been informed that the Porte has arranged with the Administration des Phares for the construction of four lights in the Red Sea: at Mocha, Zebair, Abu All, and Jebel Tir. These lights will be kept up by the Turkish Government, and no new taxes will be levied on shipping on account of them. In these circumstances the ultimate destination of the funds which had been accumulated by the Egyptian Government for this purpose will be a matter for future consideration.

  SAMMUN BAY.
  Mr. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Minister in charge at Pekin is still pressing the claims of Italy to lease Sammun Bay and the adjoining territory; and, whether it is proposed to take any further action in support of the claim.
  MR. BRODRICK: No action has been taken in the matter by Her Majesty's representative at Pekin since the statement which I made on the 20th March in reply to a question on the subject by the honourable Member. Her Majesty's Government will await the formation of the new Italian Ministry and the communication of their wishes on the subject before considering the question of what further steps, if any, can be taken by Her Majesty's Charge d'Affaires.

  PIRACY NEAR SAMSHIRI.
  MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the number of British gunboats now stationed near Samshiri; and, whether the statement of Acting-Consul Fox, which was received at the Foreign Office on 10th April, that cases of piracy in the neighbourhood of Samshiri were unpleasantly frequent during the last months of 1898, that attacks had been made on two steamers flying the British flag, that the provincial authorities wore either unable or unwilling to put a stop to such a state of affairs, that the outrages were perpetrated in broad daylight often within sight of the guard stations, and that in hardly one instance had the offenders been captured, had received the attention of Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, whethes any representation has been made to the Chinese Government; and, whether he can give any information as to the results of same.
  MR. BRODRICK: Her Majesty's Government have had under consideration the increase of piracy in Chinese waters in the neighbourhood of Hong Kong and in the West River, and strong representations have been made to the Chinese Government on the subject. The correspondence has been forwarded by the Admiralty to the Commander-in-Chief on the China Station. The gunboat "Sand-piper" is at present stationed in the West River.

  TELEGRAPHIC NEEDS OF SAMSHIRI.
  MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, although Samshiri has now been an open port for over a year, and that the telegraph wires pass through Hokow, no telegraph station has been established at the port of Samshiri; whether he is aware that great inconvenience is suffered by British subjects in consequence of the nearest station at Sainan not having an English-speaking operator; and, whether he will consider the advisability of taking the necessary steps to remove the grievance of British traders stationed in that part of China.
  MR. BRODRICK: The absence of any telegraph station at Samshiri and the resulting inconvenience are referred to in

  345
  the report of the British Acting Consul for 1898, which has been presented to the House. There would no doubt be great advantage for commercial business that there should be a telegraph station nearer than three miles, but I fear that until other more important matters connected with our trade in China have been dealt with, we cannot make this a subject of diplomatic representation.

  BRITISH PROPERTY AT HANKOW.
  MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representations have been made to him in respect to the refusal of the Russian Consul at Hankow to recognise the title of British subjects to property owned by them within the Russian concession; and whether any communication has passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Russian Government in respect to same; and, if so, whether he can give the result of such communications.
  Mr. BRODRICK: Representations have been made to the Russian Government on the subject, and they have sent instructions to their representatives in China to suspend all definite action in the matter pending further orders.

  SIERRA LEONE.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he proposes to lay upon the Table the Report of Sir D. Chalmers on the recent troubles in Sierra Leone.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have just received Sir F. Cardew's observations and am now considering the whole question. I expect to present the Report at an early date after the Whitsuntide Recess.

  BISHOP TUGWELL.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Bishop Tugwell has been committed for trial at Lagos on the charge of criminal libel, the libel consisting in a statement that probably 75 per cent. of the Europeans on the West Coast of Africa die from the effects of drink; and
  346
  whether the Colonial Office proposes to take any steps towards the assistance of this prelate in his unfortunate position.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information on the subject except from the Press telegrams. If a prosecution has been instituted by a private person or persons I have no power to interfere.

  MR. LE MESURIER.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received the report of the Governor of Ceylon on Mr. C. J. R. Le Mesurier's indictment of the Governor and of other officials in Ceylon; whether these complaints were sent to the Colonial Secretary in January, through the Governor himself; and whether it is imperative on the Governor, under the Government Regulations, to report on such a complaint at the time of forwarding it to the Secretary of State; and whether the Inspector-General of Police in Ceylon has protested against the use of police to eject the occupants of lands claimed by the Crown; and whether the Law Officers of the Crown in Ceylon have advised against the action of the Governor in using force to occupy such lands, and advised him to proceed under the Common Law; and has the Government at last taken proceedings under the Common Law of the island to assert the right of the Crown to use of these lands; and why the same procedure could not have been taken with all the other lands in dispute.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The petition in question, dated December 31, was forwarded with a despatch dated April 3, which reached me April 24. The Acting Governor, who wrote the despatch, explained the delay as follows:—
  "It has not been possible to deal with this memorial as speedily as I should have desired, owing to the number of references which were necessitated to the several officers who were charged by Mr. Le Mesurier with grave dereliction of duty. They, in fact, include all those officers of Government whose duties necessitated their coming in contact officially with Mr. Le Mesurier, and his complaints range over a period of some 3½ years."
  The Governor, who is in England, states that as far as he is aware the Inspector-General of Police did not, and was most unlikely, to make any such protest as the question implies. The Attorney-General of Ceylon, under whose advice all pro-

  347
  ceedings under the ordinance have been taken, has not advised as suggested in the honourable Member's question, nor has he advised the Governor to proceed under the ordinary law, except in one or two cases where Mr. Le Mesurier is concerned. In these cases Mr. Le Mesurier, by technical objections, thwarted the proceedings under the Waste Lands Ordinance, and consequently the Attorney-General saw no reason why he should continue to have the benefit of the cheap procedure provided by the ordinance, especially as he would not have the same opportunities for obstruction under the more rigid ordinary law. To adopt the same procedure in all cases would be unfair to other claimants, who prefer the inexpensive and expeditious procedure under the Waste Lands Ordinance. That ordinance is generally very popular, and many large proprietors are anxious to have settlements effected under it because, besides being cheap and expeditious, it provides for the amicable settlement of claims, and Government has from the first directed that all bona fide claims are to be treated in a generous spirit. Consequently, nearly all claims other than Mr. Le Mesurier's have been amicably disposed of under the ordinance without the intervention of the ordinary courts, which are open to every claimant.

  FEVER EPIDEMIC IN THE GLENTIES UNION.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he has received copies of resolutions passed at meetings of the Guardians of Glenties Union, held on 4th and 31st March, and of the Rural District Council held on 15th April, calling attention to the fact that the Guardians are liable for a sum of nearly £500 in connection with proceedings taken against them in actions in the Superior Courts at the suit of Ward and M'Cabe, whose houses, at Kendew, in the Glenties Union, were burned in the interests of the public health by the sanitary authority, at the instance of the sanitary officer of the district, as an indispensable necessity for staying the progress of a fever epidemic, that the amounts which should be applied to other purposes are now swamped by these charges, that the treasurer has refused to give any overdraft, and requesting the Local Government Board to advance the
  348
  amount for which the Union, in the discharge of an absolute duty, has been thus rendered liable; will he explain why the Local Government Board declined to accede to the request of the Guardians for permission to advance sums of £20 each to Ward and M'Cabe as compensation for the burning of their houses, which they were willing to accept in complete discharge of all causes of action; and, what steps will be taken by the Government with a view to the relief of the Union from liability for the sum incurred by legal proceedings into which it was unavoidably launched by the refusal of the Local Government Board to permit the Guardians to accept the proposal made before the institution of the actions for the reasonable settlement of these claims.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,): Copies of the resolutions referred to in the first paragraph have been received. As regards the second and third paragraphs, when the Guardians asked the Local Government Board to sanction a payment in money to the occupiers of the houses in question to compensate them for the destruction of the houses, the Board informed the Guardians that they had no power to sanction such a payment from the rates. Recognising, however, the difficult position in which the Guardians found themselves, the Board instructed their Inspector to attend before the Guardians and suggest that they should take steps under the Labourers' Acts to erect dwellings for these people, for which special purpose there were funds at the disposal of the Guardians; but they declined to act on the Board's recomnmdation. Had the Guardians adopted this recommendation, the legal costs of which they now complain would probably not have been incurred. There are no funds at the disposal of the Board, or of Government, from which the advance asked for by the Guardians could be made.

RAILWAY VALUATION AT MILL-STREET, CO. CORK.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the honourable Member for Mid-Cork, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Commissioner of Valuation has, after a period of 52 years, re-

349
duced the valuation of the Great Southern and Western Railway by the amount of £1,084 5s. in the Millstreet Rural District, county Cork; and whether, having regard to the hardship imposed upon the district council by the reduction in question, the Commissioner will be directed to reconsider his decision.
MR. G.W.BALFOUR: A re-valuation of the Great Southern and Western Railway system was made this year at the request of the Tralee Board of Guardians. The effect of this re-valuation has been to increase the rateable value of the railway on certain sections of the line, and to reduce it on others—the net result being a considerable increase. On the section running through Millstreet Rural District there was a decrease amounting to £1,081 5s. It is open to any ratepayer in the district to appeal against the decision of the Commissioner of Valuation, and if such an appeal be lodged, and if it be proved to his satisfaction that the present valuation of the railway is unfair, he will be prepared to reconsider the matter.

CORK LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTION.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: On behalf of the honourable Member for North Cork, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the recent elections in Ireland held under the Local Government Act, 1898, petty sessions clerks were engaged as deputy returning and presiding officers in nearly every county in Ireland except the county of Cork; if he can state, in view of the fact that they have frequently discharged the duties of presiding officers at the Parliamentary elections in Cork county, why they were not eligible to serve at these local government elections; and, whether the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks gave permission to them to act; if so, why were they debarred from acting on this occasion.
MR. G.W.BALFOUR:The facts, I am informed, are stated with substantial accuracy in the question. Deputy returning and presiding officers are appointed by the returning officers, and I assume that the Returning Officer for Cork, in not employing a Petty Sessions Clerk to act in the capacity mentioned at the recent elections, was guided by the terms of a
350
circular issued to these officers in 1884, which prohibited them from taking any part in Parliamentary, Municipal, or Poor Law Elections, except to record their votes. It is apparent that the terms of this circular have not been complied with. There are obvious objections to the employment of Petty Sessions Clerks in the capacity stated, at all events in the districts for which they are appointed as clerks, and the whole subject is now under the consideration of Government.

IRISH FINANCIAL RELATIONS.
MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will arrange that the Third Reading of the Finance Bill should be taken, so as to afford an opportunity for a discussion on the question of the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland.
MR. A.J.BALFOUR: I am not aware that any new facts have come before the House since last year to justify the House again going over the ground referred to. I do not make any pledge on the part of the Government to find time for a discussion of the subject.

DOCK ACCIDENTS.
MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the report of Dr.Tatham as to the serious number of accidents at docks and wharves causing deaths, and being far in excess of normal industrial accidents, being in fact more than double that of other occupations; what steps have been taken to inspect gear and working machinery on wharves and docks for the purpose of preventing accidents; and, whether a Return can be made, and laid upon the Table, of visits paid to wharves and docks, with name and time of visit, and place inspected.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): I have seen Dr. Tatham's figures, which are important and interesting, and show that dock labour is one of the most dangerous occupations. They relate, however, to the years 1890 to 1892. Since then the Factory and Workshops Act of 1895 has been passed, and under its powers the Factory Inspectors (who

351
have been increased in numbers) now inspect the gear and working machinery in docks and wharves in the same way as if these places were factories. I cannot give separate statistics of visits to docks and wharves, but the visits are very numerous.
AN HONOURABLE MEMBER:Is there any increase of the staff at Liverpool?
SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY:I cannot answer any question as to details.

MAINTENANCE OF CHILDREN IN INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
MR. W.F.D.SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is his intention to introduce a Bill to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Reformatory and Industrial Schools, 1895-6, with regard to the payment of contributions by parents.
SIR M.WHITE RIDLEY: In a Bill which I have prepared dealing with various matters relating to youthful offenders, I have inserted provisions which would give effect to the bulk of the recommendations referred to. I may add that I hope that this Bill will shortly be introduced in another place.

TRAIN WRECKERS.
MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the number of cases during the last ten years where prisoners convicted of robbery with violence and garrotting have been flogged; whether he can give the number of convictions obtained during the same period of prisoners charged with attempts to wreck railway trains; and, whether he can give any information as to the increase of the latter offence during recent years.
SIR M.WHITE RIDLEY: The numbers of cases in which prisoners have been sentenced to be flogged in each of the ten years 1888 to 1897, are 26, 24, 9, 17, 18, 46, 65, 30, 29, and 31. During the same years the numbers of persons convicted on indictment under Sections 32, 33, and 34 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861, are 18, 4, 11, 4, 6, 3, 11, 10, 14, and 0. The figures for 1898 are not
352
available; but those which I have given show that while there are great variations from year to year in the number of convictions, it cannot be said that there is an increase in recent years.

JOSEPH WILSON, OF FAILSWORTH.
MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Joseph Wilson, aged 18, of Failsworth, who, on the 23rd of February, 1898, was sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour, and committed to the Strangeways Prison, Manchester, and, on his complaining that he was ill and unable to work, was reported to the Governor, and, on the medical officer stating he was shamming, was confined for three days in the punishment cell, with a diet of bread and water; and on the 24th March was removed to the prison hospital suffering from enteric fever, contracted within the prison, from which he subsequently died: Whether at the inquest any evidence was given as to the punishment he had suffered for complaining of illness; and whether the relatives had the opportunity of being present at same: and whether any compensation can be made to the father, who was, to a great extent, dependent on his son's earnings.
THE HOME SECRETARY (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY): My attention was drawn to this case last year, when I received a report from the Prison Commissioners and a transcript of the evidence taken at the inquest. It is not the case that the prisoner complained that he was ill and unable to work, that the medical officer stated that he was shamming, or that he was confined for three days in the punishment cell. The prisoner was in good health on admission to the prison on the 23rd of February, but on account of his age was put to light labour only, namely, picking cotton. He was reported for idleness on the 15th March, and was passed as fit for the punishment imposed, i.e. one day's confinement in his own cell, with bread and water. Nine days afterwards, on the 24th of March, the prisoner, who looked ill, was admitted to the hospital, and on the 27th of March the symptoms of enteric fever showed themselves. These facts were given in evidence at the inquest at which the prisoner's relatives were present. It is

353
by no means proved that the disease was contracted in the prison: evidence was given that the drains and water were all in perfect order, and no other case occurred. The medical inspector came to the conclusion that the disease was not contracted in prison, but that it had been incubating from a date very shortly prior to the sentence. The circumstances would not justify the grant of any compensation as suggested in the last paragraph.

POST OFFICE MAIL BAGS.
MR. HALSEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General of the Cape Colony has raised objections to the making up of mail bags for the United Kingdom on board Her Majesty's ships on that station, thereby depriving the officers and men of the privilege of the Imperial penny postage; and if so, whether he will take measures to secure to the officers and men of Her Majesty's ships on that station the privileges they now enjoy in every other part of the British Empire.
MR. ANSTRUTHER (for Mr. HANBURY): The Postmaster General understands that the naval authorities at Simons Town arranged with the Postmaster General of the Cape Colony to delay the establishment of the mails from the ships pending the settlement of a question of accounts. As that question is now settled, the Postmaster General sees no reason why the mails should not be established at once.

SECONDARY EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIRrose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "the new scheme for Secondary Education in Scotland as set forth in the Minute of 27th April, which provides for the distribution of £35,000, and will become operative on the 27th day of this month"; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen,
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIRsaid that he was reluctant to trespass on the time of the House. If the First Lord of the Treasury would be good enough to undertake to arrange that the Minute should not come into operation until they had had an opportunity of discussing it, he would he very glad to sit down at once, so far as he was concerned; but if the First Lord of the Treasury could not see his way to do that, then he must say he would feel obliged in the circumstances of the case to bring the matter before the House. The reason that influenced him was that this was a new Minute dealing with a sum which was applied for the purpose of secondary education in Scotland, and the method adopted by the Minute removed practically from Parliament all direct control of this secondary education. It superseded the existing authority, and it made the Scottish Education Department supreme over the existing authorities to an extent and degree which it had never held before. He did not think the House, perhaps, realised the confusion into which Scottish secondary education had been brought by nine years' government by Minutes and circulars from the Scottish Education Department——
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUK,): Will the honourable Gentleman allow me to interrupt him? He has made a direct appeal to me.I do not know anything about this, but I have been inquiring from my hon. friend near me, and he informs me that nothing can be done under the Minute for some little period. The distribution is not until 31st October, and no steps of a character which will commit the House, or anybody, can be taken for some little time. I will bring on the Scottish Estimates at as convenient a time as possible. I have already tried to bring them on, but owing to the objections of my hon. friend opposite they were postponed. I believe, however, that the Scottish Estimates will come on at a period before any steps of a serious character are taken.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Perhaps I may be allowed to point out that even the opportunity of the Scottish Estimates will not be a very good opportunity for the discussion of the Minute, and for this

  355
  reason—on the education vote for Scotland there is ample material for a long discussion, because there is an entirely new Code this year, and a very great deal of matter that requires to be discussed. This Minute is a definite matter by itself, and if the right hon. Gentleman can give this facility to the Scottish Members, I am sure it would be in the interests of Scottish education.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIRsaid that he could only express his regret that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to see his way to give them this concession. His purpose in intervening to-day was to claim the right that this question should be discussed by Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to give them a definite undertaking, he would be still very glad to withdraw, but as that was not the right hon. Gentleman's intention he must proceed. He begged to remind the House that the first grant was given as long ago as 1890. The number of authorities which administered that grant was something like 238 in Scotland. The second grant was given two years later, and for the purpose of the administration of that grant, 39 new and separate authorities were created. There had been two such grants since then. Altogether the sum of money, with this £35,000, available was about £175,000, not taking into consideration the £200,000 which they had for endowments, and at the other end of the scale the part which was claimed for secondary education by the higher standards of the elementary public schools. The objection to the Minute was that it added to the confusion that already existed in secondary education in Scotland. In the first place, it added to the number of authorities who had a right to distribute these grants. There were certain authorities which had laid upon them the duty of distributing the residue grantunder the Act of 1890. There was another set of authorities which had the right to distribute the grant under the Act of 1892, which went by the name of the Equivalent Grant. The Scottish Education Department had the duty of distributing £2,000, they said, for agricultural education, and also the money which came to them from the Science and Art Department, and which was now administered by the Scottish Education Department. This new Minute, which set forth the new method in which the grant was to be
  356
  administered, adopted an entirely new procedure. That very fact in itself seemed to him to condemn the method which had at present been established. They had, therefore, an additional element added to the confusion. The first paragraph of the minute proposed to devote £2,000 for the purpose of defraying the cost of inspection, and the cost of the leaving certificates. In Scotland £2,000 aleady went to this purpose from a separate source. He wanted to ask the Lord Advocate if he would inform them what different method was to be adopted in reference to this additional £2,000? Was it intended that this £2,000 should be really additionally applied for this purpose, or was it to relieve the Equivalent Grant, from which at present £2,000 was taken for this purpose, and were they to have a new separate set of inspectors? The next paragraph proposed to allot £2,000 for agricultural education. In the first place they had a sum given to this purpose from the Science and Art Department, under the Scottish Education Department. Now they had this new grant of £2,000 also to be readministered by the Scottish Education Department under conditions which they did not yet know. Besides the total sum of £4,000 they had the County Councils in all parts spending money in agricultural instruction of various sorts entirely separately, and, it might be, out of touch with the central institutions by whom at present the £2,000 now devoted was applied. There was an increasing demand in Scotland for this form of instruction, and it did seem to him that when they had the total money devoted to this purpose, coming from a multiplication of sources, there was little likelihood of building up from the beginning a satisfactory form of instruction in Scotland, and there were large gaps in the present system. The present £4,000 went to four central institutions, and, on the other hand, the grants from the County Councils went generally to itinerant lecturers and courses in the county districts. There were large gaps in the East of Scotland. There was a wide district for which no provision was made. There were Perthshire, Forfarshire, and Fifeshire, all without institutions in this direction which they ought to have. He did not ask what institutions the money was to be allotted to, but he asked why more money was not allotted for this purpose, and how the money that was

  357
  allotted was going to be spent. As to the next part of the Minute, would the State aided schools, with higher departments, be eligible for moneys under this grant? When the Secondary Education Committee undertook the work of endeavouring to organise secondary and technical education in counties, they had the two years' balance moneys in hand. It had always been expected that their work would be strengthened and supplemented in some degree by the action of Parliament. Without that help it was more than likely that in some counties grants that had hitherto been made to certain institutions would have to be reduced in time to come. He wanted to point out another defect in the present system, namely, the entire want of continuity— which characterised the present method of distributing the grant——
  MR. SPEAKER: If I had known the line of argument the hon. Member was going to adopt I should have hesitated in saying that this was such a definite matter that it could be presented to the House on a motion for adjournment. The hon. Member seems to me to be raising the whole subject of Scottish education. That is not a definite matter on which a motion for adjournment could be founded. I thought there was one definite point in the scheme to which the hon. Member objected. But to discuss the whole subject of Scottish education generally on a motion for adjournment would be quite out of order.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIRsaid he was perfectly ready to bow to that ruling, and he assumed the House was in possession of all the facts in connection with this matter. He would therefore only endeavour to point out that this Minute added to the confusion already existing, and was a Minute to which some of them took the strongest objection. His main objection was that the Minute adopted a new method of aiding secondary education in Scotland. It was a scheme which was entirely new in its method and in its application. The main objection they took to this Minute was the objection taken last year to any further dealing with this subject by Minutes or Circulars issued by the Scottish Education Department. This method of dealing with the subject had brought secondary education in Scotland into a state of chaos, and
  358
  both sides of the House had admitted it. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in his Paisley speech, had admitted it, and they were all agreed that the multiplication of authorities was disastrous, and managers and teachers might well be discouraged by the complexity and confusion into which the system had been brought. The only difference between them was as to the method of dealing with this intricate subject. The Scottish Secretary proposed to deal with it by Minute——
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): Mr. Speaker, I understand you to rule that the hon. Member must confine his remarks to a definite matter— namely, the effect which this Minute would have at once if it was not not discussed in the House to-day. The hon. Member is raising the whole question of Scottish secondary education, and it will be impossible to confine my remarks in reply to anything less than a justification of the whole policy of the Government. I ask whether your ruling does not really shut out the line of argument which the hon. Member is taking.
  MR. SPEAKER: What was in my mind in putting this to the House was the fact that a Minute was coming into force on the 27th May which I understood made some material alteration in the administration of Scottish education, and that there would be no other opportunity of discussing it before that date. It is to the mischiefs that would occur in consequence of the Minute coming into force on a certain date that I would ask the hon. Member to address himself. When the Lord Advocate rose, the hon. Member appeared to me to be addressing himself to the general question as to whether an alteration in the administration of Scottish education ought not to be done by legislation, instead of by Minute. That clearly would be out of order upon a motion for adjournment.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIRsaid his point was that he wished that the mischief would last only a few weeks, but he was afraid that it would last for a longer period. The method of administering the secondary education funds that had been adopted by the Scottish Secretary would, he believed, be prejudicial to secondary education, and would increase the existing confusion rather than relieve it, and put the matter

  359
  on a sound footing. Scottish secondary education was in need of the time and attention of Parliament, and it would never be in a satisfactory position so long as it was controlled and administered solely by Minutes issued by the Education Department. The effect of such a method was to kill and stifle the public interest which ought to be taken in the question of education in Scotland, and which would be taken if another method was adopted. Any one who examined the state of secondary education in Scotland——
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now clearly entering into a matter which on an Education Bill would be pertinent, but which is not within the leave given to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIRbowed to Mr. Speaker's ruling. He would only again repeat his strong protest against the method which had been taken by a responsible Department in dealing with this subject. There had been no time for any expression of public opinion in Scotland with reference to this minute, and he did not think that such a method as this was likely to truly advance the interests which he was sure the Lord Advocate had at heart.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That this House do now adjourn."—(Captain Sinclair.)
  MR. CROMBIEseconded the motion. He said they had no desire to impede the business of the House, but they considered that it was a matter of urgent importance to stop the operation of this Minute. They felt that if this Minute came actually into operation it would add another item to the already great confusion which existed in the administration of Scotch education. His hon. friend had already pointed out that there already existed a large number of authorities which did administer the money. It was perfectly competent to the Education Department to have handed the money over to be administered by the County Committees, but they had not done so, presumably because they found that the administration of the money by these County Committees had not been wholly satisfactory. By bringing forward this Minute the Education Department had
  360
  admitted to the full that the present system was not working sufficiently well. They were proceeding in the wrong direction, and the Minute was entirely wrong in principle. Such administration as this only doubled and trebled the already existing confusion in Scottish secondary education, and if this Minute was acted upon, it would make it more difficult to unravel the present tangle.
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAYadmitted that this was an important question, and also that the Minute was a departure from that of the Minute of 1893. It rather went back to the Minute of 1892, and was to a great extent a reaffirmation of certain principles which it would have been well if the then Secretary for Scotland had not departed from. It was, however, impossible to discuss this matter in a manner that would satisfy his hon. friend, as the hon. Member himself had said, without raising a debate upon the entire subject of Scottish education. In accordance with the ruling from the Chair, what he had to do with was the present mischief of the minute. The hon. Members had been unable to show that there were any present mischiefs at all. As to the fact of the minute being promulgated, that was the fault of the Act of Parliament, because it provided that there must be a Minute issued providing for the distribution of this money. The scheme, such as it was, provided that grants were to be made by the Education Departmeut in favour of certain secondary or technical schools, that before making any such grants they were to be satisfied of certain things, and that the method of distribution should be as follows:—Every such school shall forward before 1st October, 1899, for the consideration of the Department through the County Committee, a return containing certain things and their proposals as to assistance. Therefore no practical action could take place on this Minute until procedure. began with the forwarding of new schemes on the 1st of October. The hon. Member was perfectly well aware that the Minute had no force of law in the sense of a statute. It could be at any moment superseded by another Minute. Technically speaking, the Duke of Devonshire and the Secretary for Scotland might put a Minute on the Table of the House every day of the week, and each Minute might supersede the other. Consequently it was abundantly clear, as the Scottish

  361
  Estimates must come on before 1st October, hon. Members opposite would have full opportunity to discuss the whole policy when they would not be hampered by any ruling such as was given to-day. If, after discussion, hon. Gentlemen did persuade the Government, then another Minute could be published, and no harm would be done. The Government could do what Sir George Trevelyan did in the last Parliament, when he upset his own Minute at the instance of one of his own supporters. But he did not think the present Scottish Secretary was likely to follow a similar course. He therefore appealed to hon. Members opposite not to persist in their motion, but to put off the discussion till a more convenient opportunity.
  MR. BRYCEagreed as to the difficulty of discussing the question without going beyond the limits of the ruling laid down. At the same time the Lord Advocate had not presented the whole case. What his hon. friend said was that this method of distributing was inconsistent with the method laid down by another Minute, and that this imparted an element of confusion into the whole subject, which demanded attention in the interest of secondary education. The committees in the burghs and counties who were distributing the grant in 1892 expected that this grant would be given to them as an additional fund to distribute, which would be the natural thing to expect, as it would seem only natural that this further fund should be placed in their hands. If that was not done, and a new method of distribution was introduced, it would practically oust these committees. Surely, therefore, it was a proper thing that the whole subject should be reviewed, and that this Minute, instead of being a partial one, dealing with £32,000, should deal with other money also, and place the distribution of the whole of it on similar principles. The Lord Advocate had stated with truth that these Minutes could be re-called at will, and the Minute said on the face of it that no action was to be taken for a month. They called attention to it in the interests of the committees. They also called attention to the Minute in the interest of the schools, as it held out the hope of sharing in £32,000 upon application to the Scottish Education Department. Although the applications were not to be sent in till the 1st October,
  362
  they might begin to be sent in now, and the schools might at once take steps to secure a share in the amount, so that it was not correct to say no action could be taken at present. Those who could not afford to wait could commence at once to secure it. They were also desirous of calling attention to the confusion which beset the subject. The Lord Advocate said this Minute went back to the principles of 1892. Did the hon. Gentleman remember that the Minute of 1892 was rejected in consequence of discussion in the House of Commons? If they had an opportunity of bringing the substantial merits of the case before the House, and could argue that to proceed by Minute instead of by legislation was a mistaken and unfortunate process, he thought they would be able so to convince the House. It would be a very great convenience to have all these Minutes in a collective form. In deference to the feeling entertained in the House, and in the Committees of Schools in Scotland, who had not had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the subject, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to take no action until the House had a chance of debating the question.
  MR. BUCHANANhoped the Lord Advocate would respond to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman. Would the right hon. Gentleman ensure on behalf of the Government that there would be an adequate opportunity of discussing this Minute and the various questions arising on it?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid the hon. Gentleman might be quite sure that he would represent what the wishes of Members on the other side were, and he was quite sure that his noble friend Lord Balfour would give them most favourable consideration. He must deprecate an actual pistol being put to his head, but he could assure hon. Members that he would transmit their views. More than that he did not think he could be fairly asked to say.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIRsaid he was sure the right hon. Gentleman, in representing the feelings of the House to Lord Balfour, would not underrate the strength of that feeling, and, relying on the undertaking the right hon. Gentleman had given, he asked leave to withdraw his motion.
  Motion by leave withdrawn.

FINANCE BILL.
Order for Committee read.
MR. BUCHANAN MR. BUCHANAN (Aberdeen shire, E.) moved:
"That it be an instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two parts, and to report to the House in the first place the portions dealing with Customs, stamps, and income-tax; and in the second place that dealing with the National Debt."
He said his object was to separate from the Bill the part which dealt with the National Debt, and he claimed support for his motion on the grounds of precedent and convenience. The precedence in the past had all been in favour of having any legislation in connection with the National Debt separated from the ordinary finance legislation of the year. That was done in 1885, in 1886, and in 1887. When the present First Lord of the Admiralty diminished the debt charge from £28,000,000 to £26,000,000, the right hon. Gentleman brought in a Bill for that object, and when he subsequently reduced it he brought in a separate Bill to deal with it. Again, in reference to the Finance Bill of 1894, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire introduced his Finance Bill, a similar instruction was moved in the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the London University, that it should be divided into two parts, a motion which was strongly supported by the present First Lord of the Admiralty, but successfully resisted by the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire on the ground that a single Bill should contain all the financial arrangements of the year. In 1894, however, the Budget touched the National Debt in a trifling degree, but here the Chancellor of the Exchequer was making one of the largest alterations that could be made in the law, for he was reducing the permanent National Debt charge not only that year, but for the years to come. He thought, therefore, in view of the precedents of the past, and in view of convenience in the future, it would be very much better that part 5 should be separated from the rest of the Bill, and such a course would not in any sense delay the passing of the two measures.
SIR J. LENGformally seconded the instruction.
Motion made and Question proposed—
"That it be an instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two parts, and to report to the House in the first place the portions dealing with Customs, Stamps, and Income-tax; and, in the second place that dealing with the National Debt"—(Mr. Buchanan.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH, Bristol, W.): The hon. Member has based his instruction on the grounds of precedent and convenience, and I oppose it for both reasons. The precedent is that of 1894. In 1894 the National Debt was dealt with by the suspension of the old and new sinking funds, and clauses for that purpose were inserted in the Finance Act of the year; and the precedent then set has been acted upon ever since in the annual finance of the year. On the other hand, the matter of convenience was fully discussed at that time, and although there was a difference of opinion expressed on the subject, I think no case has been now made out for departing from that precedent. It is for the general convenience of the House that all the financial arrangements of the year should be included in the one Bill.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have a very vivid recollection of the discussion of this principle on the Budget of 1894, when the right hon. Member for the London University, warmly supported by the First Lord of the Admiralty, endeavoured to upset the proposal by which all the financial arrangements of the year were included in one Bill. I shall certainly support the Chancellor of the Exchequer in retaining the present form of the Bill, for this reason. I stated at that time that it was proper that the House of Commons should have the whole finance of the year under its view and under its discussion. This year there is a deficit, and you ought to discuss the two methods of dealing with it. It is perfectly true that in olden days we had separate Bills for almost every Customs duty, and separate resolutions, but the present arrangements have been found much more convenient, by which the whole finance of the year can be dealt with by a simple Bill, and for that reason the title of the Bill has been altered from the Customs Bill to that of

365
the Finance Bill, which would not be consistent if we excluded from it any matters dealing with the finance of the year. I hope, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be supported by my own party now as I myself was supported by his in 1894. The absence of the First Lord of the Admiralty will relieve the right hon. Gentleman from the fear of any difficulty which might result from a repetition of the oration that colleague made against the present arrangement on a former occasion. One reason for putting the whole finance of the year into one Bill is that the House of Commons may have absolute control of that finance. If we separate our finance into two or three Bills, one of the Rills might he rejected in another place, and the whole of the financial arrangement destroyed, whereas that House could not reject the Finance Bill unless they meant to leave the country without any pecuniary resource. For all these reason I hope tins House will adhere to the proposals made.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid it seemed to him that, although there ought to be a separate Bill for the reduction of the National Debt, Parliamentary time was so reduced, owing to the unconscionable holidays Ministers took and hon. Members supported them in taking, that there would not be an adequate opportunity for the consideration of the Bill. Though, therefore, the instruction was strictly in accordance with high financial principle, he would suggest that there was no use in pressing it.
SIR H.H. FOWLER: I cannot, support the appeal which the bon. Member has made. In 1861 Mr. Gladstone put the whole of the financial arrangements of the year into one Bill, with the avowed intention of preserving the absolute supremacy of this House over the finances of the year, and leaving to another place, in dealing with the finance resolutions, the power only to reject them altogether or to accept them altogether. I should have been very strongly opposed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he had introduced a separate Bill to deal with the reduction of the debt, and I hope my hon. friend behind me, having fully justified his statement by the action which the Opposition took
366
in 1894 will withdraw the instruction and spare the House the trouble of a Division.
Motion by leave withdrawn.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1:—
MR. BROADHURST MR. BROADHURST (Leicester) moved to reduce the duty on tea. from 4d. to 2d. His object was not to defeat the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but to take the opinion of the Mouse upon the justice of reducing the duty, and concentrate the attention of the right hon. Gentleman upon the matter, in order that in the preparation of his next year's Budget he might see whether he could not give the remission in the direction desired. Tea had undoubtedly become more and nice an article of drink with the working people, and it was a, drink with adoption of which he thought the House of Commons should encourage as far as it was possible to do so. In the case of the labourer, and particularly the unskilled labourer, it had for some years past Leon taking the place of beer, and more particularly home-brewed beer. The demand which would be made upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer by this reduction of the tea duty was not a large demand, and it could easily be met by taxation in other directions. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to tax the drink consumed in this country, he could easily make good his deficiencies by increased taxation on the costly wines. If he did not like that, he could turn his attention to beer and spirits. Tea. was becoming a necessity of life amongst the poor and the poorer a person was the more need he had of this article. It might be said that tea was cheap. It was a great deal cheaper than it used to be in his young days, but still that was no reason why the poor should not have increased advantages. He thought he must press the matter to a Division.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 21, to leave out the word 'fourpence,' and insert the wore "twopence '" —(Mr. Broadhurst.)
Question proposed—
"That the word 'fouvpence' stand part of the clause.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I do not share the view of the hon. Member in regard to the tea duty; but even if I did I could not possibly accept an Amendment which, if carried, would reduce the revenue of the year from 1½ to 2 millions, especi-
ally when it would be impossible to make that sum up by other means.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 125.—(Division List, No. 135.)

Priestley, SirW. O. (Edinburgh)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

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

Webser, Sir R. E.(Isle of Wight

Rankin, Sir James

Spencer, Ernest

Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

Richards, Henry Charles

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l

Stanley,Henry M. (Lambeth)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Stewart, Sir MarkJ. M'Taggart

Williams, Colonel R (Dorset)

Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

Round, James

Strauss, Arthur

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Rutherford, John

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Wilson, J. W. (Woresterch.,N.

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Sutherland, Sir Thomas

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Wolff, Gustav. Whilhelm

Savory, Sir Joseph

Thorburn, Walter

Wyndham, George

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Young, Commander(Berks. E.)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Sidebottom, T. Harrop(Stalybr

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Sidebottom, William(Derbysh.

Ward, Hn. Robert A. (Crewe)

NOES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Hayne,Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Power, Patrick Joseph

Allen, Wm. (Newe. underLyme

Hazell, Walter

Price, Robert John

Allison, Robert Andrew

Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

Asher, Alexander

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hogan, James Francis

Richardson,J. (Durham, S. E.)

Atherley-Jones, L.

Holland, Wm. H. (York, W. R.)

Rickett, J. Compton

Auston, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

Bainbridge, Emerson

Jaeoby, James Alfred

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Barlow, John Emmott

Johnston-Ferguson, JabezEdw.

Robson, William Snowdon

Billson, Alfred

Joicey, Sir James

Samuel J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

Blake, Edward

Jones, William(Carn'rvonshire

Schwann, Charles E.

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Kearley, Hudson E.

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Kitson, Sir James

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Burns, John

Labouchere, Henry

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Burt, Thomas

Lambert, George

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarshi'e

Caldwell, James

Lawson, SirWilfrid (Cumb'l'nd

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Cameron, Sir Charles(Glasgow)

Leng, Sir John

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Causton, Richard Knight

Leuty, Thomas Richmond

Souttar, Robinson

Cawley, Frederick

Lewis, John Herbert

Spicer, Albert

Channing, Francis Allston

Lloyd-George, David

Steadman, William Charles.

Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

Lyell. Sir Leonard

Stevenson, Francis S.

Clough, Walter Owen

Macaleese, Daniel

Sullivan Donal (Westmeath)

Crombie, John William

M'Ghee, Richard

Tennant, Harold John

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.

Daly, James

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

David, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

M'Leod, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Davitt, Michael

Maden, John Henry

Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

Dillon, John

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Wallace, Robert (Perth)

Donelan, Captain A.

Moore, Arthur (Londonderry)

Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

Doogan, P. C.

Moragan, J. Lloyd(Carmarhten)

Waltaon, Joseph (Barnsley)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Wedderburn, Sir William

Duckworth, James

Moulton, John Fletcher

Weir, James Galloway

Dunn, Sir William

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Williams, John Carvell (Notts

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk

Fenwick, Charles

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

O'Connor, James(Wicklow.W.

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Foster, Sir Walter (DerbyCo.)

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Oldroyd, Mark

Woodhouse, SirJ. T. (Hudder'd

Gold, Charles

Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

Woods, Samuel

Gourley, SirEdward Temperley

Paulton, James Mellor

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Philipps, John Wynford

Mr. Broadhurst and Mr. Mendl.

Harwood, Geoge

Pirie, Duncan V.

Clause agreed to.
Clause 2:—
SIR HOWARD VINCENT SIR HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central) moved to insert the word "foreign" before the word "wine," with the object of excluding from the extra wine duties, wine produced in any Brit-
370
ish colony or possession. Directly the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave notice in his Budget speech of the increased duty upon wine, he (Sir H. Vincent) notified that he should move that the extra duty should only be applied to foreign wines. He mentioned the fact because he did not wish it to be supposed that his Amendment sprang from any desire on the part

371
of any British colony or colonial Government to interfere in the slightest degree with the fiscal arrangements of this country, but rather from a genuine desire on behalf of a great mass of the people in this country to give better trading terms to their own kith and kin than to foreigners. The whole policy of Lord Salisbury's administration had been to do everything possible to encourage and develop trade within the Empire. Several steps had been taken in that direction. There were the colonial conferences of 1887 and 1897, which had all been in favour of better trading relations within the Empire. A very notable statement was made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies on March the 25th, 1896, to the effect that if the people of this country and of the colonies meant what they said and intended to approach the question of Imperial unity in a practical spirit, they must approach it from the commercial side. And following on the colonial conferences and the visit of the colonial Premiers in 1897, the Government gave notice almost immediately to terminate the treaties which prevented the colonies from putting lighter duties on British than upon foreign goods. Those treaties came to an end on the 31st of July, last, and on that very day Canada gave the United Kingdom the preference of 25 per cent in her markets over the foreigner. The Agent-General of Tasmania declared the other day, in the presence of a Member of the Government, that his colony, New Zealand, and Western Australia had Bills absolutely in preparation in order to enable them to follow the example of Canada. Besides this, Her Majesty's Government had received a cablegram from the Prime Ministers of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, New Zealand, Tasmania, and Western Australia, suggesting that the present was a very unfortunate time for this step to be taken. He ventured to point out to the Government that a more unfortunate moment could hardly have been chosen to propose that increase of duty, and he ventured to say, with all deference to the right hon. Gentleman, that if he persisted in maintaining the increased duties upon wine imported from the British Colonies, he would do so against the special remonstrances of the Colonial Governments and of a score of members sitting on that side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman
372
would recollect the applause which he gained from both sides of the House when, in the course of his speech on Budget night, he said, in effect, he thought we had in the past paid far too much attention to the susceptibilities of foreign nations, and that it behoved us in these matters, in the future, to look after our own interests rather than the interests of foreigners. He invited the right hon. Gentleman to practise what he preached, and not to repress these natural sentiments when dealing with the colonies in commercial matters. At the same time, he cordially acknowledged, and he thought it was only right he should do so publicly, the great courtesy the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown, in receiving the Agents General of the self-governing colonies, and in expressing his willingness, although his time was much occupied, to receive a deputation from traders on the question. The only reason why the trade did not trouble him was that they preferred to leave the representation of their case entirely in the hands of the Agents-General. Before submitting to the Committee the colonial aspect of the question, he would venture to ask leave to examine, as briefly as he possibly could, the financial aspects of the question, so far as it affected this country. If this was a matter which went to the root of the financial proposals of the Government, he freely admitted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be thoroughly justified in resisting the Amendment to the utmost. But that was not the case. His right hon. friend expected the new wine duties to yield £420,000. Assuming the importation of colonial wine amounted to 715,000 gallons, the extra duty of 6d. a gallon would yield £17,875, and the Australian Premiers were justified in saying that that amount was beneath serious calculation in the consideration of the Budget. If his right hon. friend consented to dock that sum from the revenue he expected to derive from the new duty, he would still be left with an estimated surplus of £212,000 instead of £230,000, which would, surely, be amply sufficient for his requirements. If the revenue lost this £17,875, which it did not want, by the adoption of the Amendment, British Trade as a whole would gain far more by preventing any falling off in the production of wine in Australia, and its importation into this country; as there were people engaged in the industry— 10,000 in Victoria alone—who, if they were

373
less employed in the production of wine, would have less money with which to buy manufactures imported from this country, and British ships engaged in the carrying of wine from Australia would have less to carry, while fewer oak staves would have to be brought from England for the manufacture of casks. Was there anything in our relations with foreign countries which prevented differentiation in favour of the colonies? On 21st August, 1894, he asked his hon. friend the Member for Poplar, then Under-Secretary for the Colonies, a question as to the opinion of the law officers of the Crown upon the conclusion of preferential trading relations between the mother country and the colonies, and his right hon. friend replied that the general effect of the stipulations in regard to import duties was that they did not prevent preferential treatment in favour of the colonies. That was at a time when the treaties of 1862 with Belgium, and 1865 with Germany, were in force. Now, those treaties had been denounced by the Government, and he submitted that the way for relieving the colonies of this import was made infinitely clearer, and there was no reason, so far as international relations are concerned, why the colonies should not be exempted from increased duty. As to the colonial point of view, when he asked that the correspondence on the question should be laid on the Table, the right honourable Gentleman, although he said it was not usual, kindly consented, but he was sorry to say that it had not yet been placed in the hands of Members, He must, therefore, trouble the Committee with a general outline of the representations made on behalf of the colonies. On 25th April the High Commissioner for Canada, the Agent- General for the Cape of Good Hope, and the Agents-General for the Australian Colonies were received by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and on the following day they reported their answer to the Secretary for the Colonies. They said that, although not all directly concerned in the production of wine, they were all interested in the development of the trade of the outlying portions of the empire with the mother country, and all regarded with alarm the proposed increase in the wine duty. Although New South Wales, Victoria, the Cape of Good Hope, and South Australia were specially concerned in the new taxes proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, other colonies
374
might, sooner or later, become engaged in the wine industry, and, indeed, Canada already manufactured a large quantity of wine, the trade in which was regarded by the Canadian Government as one of the possibilities of the near future. The Colonies further submitted that the wine industry had attained its present position in the face of many difficulties, and that its very existence would be jeopardised by the proposed new duties. The industry laboured under many disadvantages. In the first place, the colonies were much farther away from the British market, and the freightage was three times as high in consequence; in the next place, oak staves had to be imported from Great Britain, to be manufactured into casks, and large stocks had to be maintained there, in consequence of the distance from the source of supply. Again, the long voyage made it necessary to keep the wine for a much longer period before it could be used, thereby preventing so rapid a turn-over of capital as was possible in the case of foreign wines. The Agents-General went on to point out that it was with the cheaper foreign wines that the colonial wines came principally into competition. Foreign wines were known by the names of the districts in which they were produced, and, although the price might be increased in consequence of the new duty, it would still be possible to provide some sort of wine at the price formerly paid. For instance, there were qualities of Medoc which could be bought at prices ranging from 12s. to 24s., and with a slight variation in quality they could be sold at the same price as heretofore. Colonial wines, on the other hand, were known by brands, and their quality must be maintained, and the extra cost involved in the duty must be added to the price, a circumstance which was calculated to affect the trade very seriously. Indeed, he had in his hands a bill for wine in which the extra duty was added to the invoice price, and he had seen an advertisement issued by one of the leading firms which dealt in Australian wines, indicating an increase of price to the extent of 6d. per gallon, or 1s. per dozen, since the Chancellor of the Exchequer had announced his proposals. He had information from reliable sources that the extra cost to the consumer would be not less than 2s. per dozen. Hon. Members would surely admit that must seriously affect trade in the future.
MR. GALLOWAYasked for further information as to the advertisement referred to.
SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid the advertisement was printed in the Wine and Spirit Trade Circular of April 12th, in the Wine Trade Review of April 15th, and in the Daily Graphic. The colonial wine industry had been in existence since before 1851. For a long time colonial wine did not find the slightest favour in this country. Indeed, it was not until the Exhibition of 1886 that the wine began to find any favour at all here. The trade was helped by the colonial feeling engendered by Lord Salisbury's colonial policy and the first colonial conference of 1887. A right hon. Member seemed to doubt that.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT:My hon. friend will excuse me. I did more than that; in 1886 I lowered the duty on colonial wine from 2s. 6d. to 1s.
SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he confessed that that good action on the part of the right hon. Gentleman had escaped him. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would be anxious not to increase the duty at the present time. In 1887 the importation of colonial wine amounted to 184,000 gallons, and last year it rose to 710,863 gallons. But neither that quantity nor its total value of £115,000 compared with the importation of foreign wine, valued last year at £6,385,000. Indeed, the whole Australian production was only 6,000,000 gallons, compared with 728,000,000 gallons in France, 485,000,000 gallons in Italy, and 447,000,000 gallons in Spain. It was therefore peculiarly unfortunate that just at the moment when colonial wines were becoming more popular, and the vineyards in Australasia and South Africa were being extended, the trade should be jeopardised by this unequal impost—unequal because it would press more hardly upon the less known colonial wines, than upon celebrated foreign wines; unequal because this was practically the only oversea market for colonial wine. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that he did not see why we should give any favour to the products of colonies which put a protective tariff upon British goods. That was a very narrow-minded view, and one unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman's
376
great ability. He was not by any means an advocate of the extreme protection of Victoria. But why were New South Wales, South Australia, and the Cape of Good Hope and Canada to be punished for the fiscal policy of Victoria? If the right hon. Gentleman would look at the returns of trade with Australian colonies, he would find that their imports in the year 1896 were valued at £63,000,000 sterling, and of these not less than £56,000,000 came from the British Empire, £25,000,000 being from the United Kingdom, and £31,000,000 from British possessions. Was not the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with that proportion of the total importation of goods into the Australian Colonies coming under the British flag? The exports of Australasia to the United Kingdom in the same year were £9,000,000, to British possessions £28,000,000, and to foreign countries just under £9,000,000. Then he came to South Africa. The imports into Cape Colony represented £18,000,000 sterling, and of these no less than £13,000,000 came from the United Kingdom, and £1,000,000 from British possessions. That, surely, was an additional reason why they should do all they possibly could to foster colonial industry. Would not his right hon. friend look at the subject as a whole? The right hon. Gentleman talked of "financial purism gone mad." Let him consider if his proposal was not "political economy gone mad." The Chancellor of the Exchequer feared that, if he relieved the colonies from the new duty, France, Spain, and other countries would send their wine to Australia or the Cape to come here as colonial wine. Such a suspicion would not bear one moment's examination. In the case of Australia there would be a journey of some 30,000 miles, and how would that affect the Chateau Laffitte, to say nothing of the cost? Then, as he had told the House, the lowest import duty on wine in Australia was 5s. a gallon, and it went up to 20s. "Oh! but," he had said in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet, "the foreign wine may be bonded at Melbourne and Sydney, and so escape the duty." In the first place, there was little trans-shipment trade in Australia, and bonding was not usual. He was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no intention of imputing to the Australian or any colonial Governments that

377
they would enter into any conspiracy to defraud the revenue of this country. Yet that was what his suspicion amounted to. Then, if the worst came to the worst, surely the Custom House authorities in the United Kingdom, who received £l,500,000 a year in salaries and expenses, were capable of devising and carrying out regulations to prevent fraud. If they could not, let them appeal to Scotland Yard, who would show them how to prevent it. Now, he expected that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would presently produce a letter from a certain firm of shippers of Australian wine, thanking him for the new duty. But on the 14th ultimo that very firm had attended a meeting, at which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet was present, and actually proposed a resolution praying the Government to refrain from levying the proposed increased duty upon wine produced within the British Empire, which would, in their opinion, be calculated to do great injury to a growing inter-British industry. On the 17th April another meeting had been held at their own offices of the representatives of the Australian wine trade, when, according to the paper he held in his hand, bearing the stamp of the firm—
"it was unanimously resolved to invite the Agents-General of the Colonies to represent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the proposed increase of duties on wines would be very prejudicial to the wine-growing colonies."
He had the minutes of that meeting, signed by the general manager of the firm, and they bore out all his statements. He was at a loss to account for the sudden volte face— he had almost said the treachery to Australia—of this firm. The Times, he understood, admitted their letter only as an advertisement, and by large placards in grocers' windows it looked as if they were striving to unload the stock of 5,000 hogsheads they had in hand, and which had probably proved unsaleable. But the Imperial Government did not frame its Budget to suit the pocket for the moment of an individual firm of wine merchants, whatever adulation that might bring to the Chancellor. The views of the Premiers of Australasian Colonies, the views of the responsible Governments of all the colonies, had been submitted to Her Majesty's Government through the official and accredited channels. It was to these
378
views, and not to those of some one wine merchant who liked to have the duties increased that he might have the opportunity of raising the cost to the public of his wines in stock, that the Government was bound to give consideration. Since the letter in question appeared, the Government of South Australia had cabled to the Hon. Dr. Cockburn, its Agent-General, as the result of a meeting in Adelaide, "Vinegrowers unite in representing injury to trade if increase of duty enforced." What was the use of Greater Britain exhibitions if this was the way we acted in this country? He thanked the Committee for its attention. He urged hon. members without reference to party or mere party politics to support this Amendment. He begged the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who had up to the present shown such far-reaching Imperial spirit, to use his influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer so far as to induce him to give way. He implored his right hon. friend himself, not wanting the money, to abstain, for such a trifle, from doing a wrong to the colonies at total variance with the general policy of the Government. At any rate, he hoped to receive from him a sympathetic reply, and that he would at least feel himself able to give the assurance that if, as foreshadowed by the Premier of New South Wales, the federal tariff of Australasia differentiated in favour of British goods, the mother country would not be backward in differentiating in favour of colonial products. This course would encourage the development of trade in all parts of the British Empire, and stimulate that healthy feeling which in recent years had existed between the mother land and her daughter colonies.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 1, after the word 'on,' insert the word 'foreign.'"—(Sir Howard Vincent.)
Question proposed—
"That the word 'foreign' be there inserted."
SIR M. HICKS-BEACHWhen I found, in arranging the finances of the year, that I had to provide for a sum of nearly £900,000 by additional taxation, of course I had to consider from what source it should come. I might have increased the income-tax by a half penny in the pound, and by adding a

379
small amount to the stamp duties, which I now propose, I might have made up the sum required. But that would not have been agreeable to my hon. friend who has proposed this motion, or my hon. friends generally on this side of the House. I thought that a part, at any rate, of the sum required ought to be found by indirect taxation. I had to choose between certain articles—wine, beer, tobacco, and spirits. I chose wine. It seemed to me that the other three articles were the object of large manufacturing industries in this country and articles largely consumed by the poor, and, at any rate with regard to beer and spirits, the raw material was also largely produced in this country, and I considered I had no right, if I could avoid it, to disturb industries of that kind. I turned to wine because it is a luxury which is produced abroad. The industry in this country connected with it is a distributing, not a manufacturing, industry, and the old duty on wine was less in this country on an average, in proportion to its value, than the duty on beer and very much less than the duty on spirits or tobacco; and, further, as I think everyone knows, our wine duties are far lower than those of other countries. This proposal of mine has been represented as if it were a kind of wanton attack on a colonial industry. As a matter of fact, out of the imports of wine into this country in a year, some 17,500,000 gallons come from foreign countries, and only 750,000 gallons from our colonies, and, as my hon. friend has admitted, out of £420,000 additional revenue which I hope to raise by additional taxation on wine, less than £20,000, on the present basis, would be paid by the products of the colonies. Therefore, when this is alluded to, as it was the other day by no less a person than Lord Rosebery, as simply laying a tax on the produce of the Australian vineyards in order to raise a comparatively small sum of money, I certainly demur to such a representation. Now, my hon. friend says it is a small matter; that if we accepted his motion we should only lose a sum of £17,875 a year—very little to this country, but very little also to the colonies. It is not a financial matter of any great importance, but my hon. friend has raised a principle the importance of which I do not think he has adequately represented to the Committee, and it is for that reason, and not on account of the
380
small sum involved, that I feel compelled to object to his proposal. Let me call the attention of the Committee to the facts with regard to our Customs tariff. Any addition, I will venture to say, to the duties raised by Customs in this country upon any article which produces a considerable Customs revenue must affect colonial interests, and in most cases would affect them more largely than the proposed increase of the duties on wine. Take, for instance, tea. The great bulk of the total imports of tea comes from India and Ceylon. I do not propose to increase the duties on tea, but any increase in those duties would affect our colonies far more than the increase I now propose. Take spirits. Of the amount of spirits imported into this country annually our colonies send something like a proportion of 43 to 55 from foreign countries—not far short of half. I remember that five years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth was obliged to increase the duty on spirits by 6d. a gallon, the result was that £95,000 in the course of the year was raised from this colonial product. Lord Rosebery was the head of the Government at the time. I suppose he was an Imperialist then, subject to the counsels of the right hon. Gentleman, but no one ever suggested that in the course then taken he was adopting a melancholy method of promoting and spreading Imperialism.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: No, Sir.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: No; yet what is the difference between the action then taken and the action I now propose as far as colonial interests are concerned? Merely this, that the Government of that day, in raising the duty on spirits, extracted £95,000 from colonial products, while I propose, according to my hon. friend, to extract under £18,000—not more than one-fifth of the sum then imposed. And so, if I were to go on to other articles on which we levy Customs Duties, such as cocoa or coffee, I find a greater proportion of cocoa and coffee imported into this country comes from our colonies than of wine. Someone has mentioned sugar. Well, it has been proposed by some people that a Customs Duty should be imposed on sugar. Is it not obvious that if any proposal of that sort were made, colonial

381
interests would be far more affected than by the addition of taxation on wine? The proposal of my hon. friend, therefore, is a very far-reaching proposal indeed, and probably if he were staunch to his principles, as I am sure he is, he would raise it in reference to any article on which Customs Duties are levied, or could be raised. What my hon. friend, therefore, asks me to do is to adopt a precedent which would involve a return to a system of differential duties in regard to our colonies, which was abolished 40 years ago. He asked us to depart from our revenue tariff, of which the most important principle is a system of equal rates upon the same products from whatever country they may come, and to adopt a differential system in favour of the colonies. Well, that must carry with it very important changes, and it would be necessary to return to all those precautions against fraudulent entries, all those provisions in regard to place of origin, and all the trammels on freedom of movement, the abolition of which has done more for the interests of the trade and commerce of the country than the abolition of the duties themselves. It is that and nothing else that my hon. friend asks us to do for the sake of this small sum of £17,000 a year levied on imports which are practically confined to the wines of two colonies, Victoria and South Australia, amounting in value to no more than £112,000, out of the total exports sent by these Colonies to this country of £7,500,000. I do not think the occasion is quite worthy of the proposal which my hon. friend has made. But let me see what it is he really desires. I think I am not misinterpreting my hon. friend when I say in words that have been adopted by the Agents-General of the colonies concerned, that he desires to develop trade between the outlying portion of the Empire and the Mother Country. Of course, he does not desire that any tariff concession should be made on one side only. That would not be the way to encourage trade. He desires that the concessions should be mutual, and that what we do for Australia, Australia should do for us. Now that is a very agreeable idea, but I venture to suggest that it is an idea extremely difficult to put in practice. I will tell my hon. friend why. He is, I know, in favour of a return to the old Customs tariff of 50 or 60 years ago, with its
382
duties on I know not how many articles. But he must take our tariff as he now finds it, a revenue tariff, comprising very few articles indeed, which is therefore very far from being adapted to the process of bargaining which my hon. friend tries to promote. Of course, if he had his way, it might be possible to reduce the duties on wine in favour of certain colonies. By the way, I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth was mistaken in saying that he reduced the duties on colonial wine. What he did was to raise the alcoholic scale from 26 to 30, and, as a matter of fact, all Australian wines being under 26 came in before at the lowest rate of duty.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I remember the deputation well, and their asking me to put them under the Spanish tariff.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I have made careful inquiries, with the result I have mentioned. My hon. friend would bargain with certain colonies to reduce the duties on their wines in return for certain concessions; with other colonies for a reduction of the duty on spirits; with others for the reduction of duty on cocoa or coffee, or whatever may be their special product. Well, if you made an agreement on these points, what would happen? Foreign countries would come and say, "You have made such an arrangement with your colonies, will you make a similar arrangement with us?" What would my hon. friend say to that? If he accepted the proposal he would at once find himself entangled in the meshes of the most-favoured-nation clause, and the whole of his plan would fall through; while if he declined the proposal the foreign country would have a grievance against this country, far greater in amount than any increase of duty on equal terms would be. Although I do not wish to attach undue importance to the anger of foreign countries, yet I cannot forget that no less than two-thirds of our trade is with foreign countries, and we should have to be very careful in any arrangement to which we agreed that we did not lose a great deal more than we could gain. But assuming that my hon. friend means to enter into an arrangement with the colonies, and not with foreign countries, at any rate you must deal equally with all the colonies. Now the articles on our tariff come from

383
our tropical colonies, and when our powers of dealing with them are exhausted, suppose any of our other colonies not producing wine, cocoa, coffee, or any other article on our tariff were to come and say "You have made arrangements with other colonies for preferential treatment, what are you going to do for us? We admit your goods on as favourable terms as they do; you must give us some differential treatment which would favour our goods on your market." Is my hon. friend prepared, or is the Committee prepared, to impose a differential duty—which will have to be of a substantial amount to be of any use—on corn and timber from foreign countries in favour of corn or timber from Canada? I am afraid I am detaining the Committee at some length, but I felt it was only right to put before them, as shortly as possible, the difficulties and dangers which I see in the policy to which we are asked to commit ourselves. But I admit that there is something to be said on the other side, and that this question cannot be treated solely as a fiscal question. It is not merely a matter of pounds, shillings and pence. There is nothing more remarkable in recent years than the growth in this country and in the colonies of the Imperial sentiment—the desire in every way possible to promote more and more Imperial unity; and it may be that as this sentiment grows means may be reached for overcoming obstacles and removing difficulties which to my mind are grave indeed. In this connection my hon. friend has alluded to a telegram from Mr. G. Reid, who occupies a very high and important position in Australia. Mr. Reid telegraphs:— "Colonial Premiers are favourably disposed towards in future making differences in favour of British goods, and this disposition will, it is hoped, bear practical proof under federation." Well, I hope federation is rapidly approaching in Australia. I am quite sure that, whatever Government may be in office in this country, if, after federation, the Australian Federal Government approached this country with suggestions by which greater freedom of trade can be mutually promoted between this country and Australia, that suggestion would meet with the most careful examination and sympathetic consideration. But we have nothing of the kind at the present moment. If my hon. friend
384
derives any hope from the telegram, it is a hope relating to the future. At the present time we have to deal with the fact that this request my hon. friend has placed before the Committee is practically a request from two colonies, Victoria and South Australia; and these colonies are not prepared in any way, so far as I know, to make any mutual arrangement of the kind which my hon. friend desires. These two colonies at the present moment are thoroughly protectionist in their tariffs against our manufactures and the manufactures of other countries; and I do not understand, I confess, the policy of my hon. friend for desiring to give to these two colonies what at any rate they appear to feel would be a matter of great importance to them—namely, a preferential treatment in our market in return for nothing whatever on their side. That is the proposal. Now, whatever the force of sentiment in this matter, and I admit the force is very great indeed, surely the sentiment might be tempered with a little business-like consideration; and I think if my hon. friend would devote his attention to the subject from that point of view, he would see that in the interest of the policy he had suggested we should not give away all we had to offer without getting something in return. What are the facts with regard to these two colonies? My hon. friend said that the wine industry in Victoria and South Australia was handicapped by the necessity of having to import casks or oak staves from this country. Now, as a matter of fact, both colonies impose heavy import duties on empty casks, and one imposes a heavy duty on oak staves. These colonies complain of an additional 6d. per gallon duty on wines, while they impose a duty of from 10d. to 1s. 2d. per gallon on English beer, which is practically more than its value—more than 100 per cent. Then, if I turn to clothing, furniture, woollen goods, soap, saddlery, and the most important kinds of machinery, and blacksmiths' and other tools — which, I believe, are made in Sheffield—I find an ad valorem duty ranging up to 25, or oven 35 per cent. imposed on the goods I have mentioned. Well, I do not think the proposal of my hon. friend, even from his point of view, is quite reasonable at the present time. But there is another argument. It is said by the Agents-General, and my

385
hon. friend has repeated the statement tonight, that the very existence of these industries in these colonies is jeopardised by the additional 6d. per gallon which we propose to impose on wines. And my hon. friend has stated to the Committee certain reasons, in his opinion, and in that of the Agents-General, why that will have this effect. First of all there is the argument of distance. The freight is more, larger stocks of wine have to be kept, and they have to be kept for a longer time, so that capital is turned over less quickly. Then the wines of Australia are wines that are known by certain brands; they have to reach that standard, and they cannot be manipulated in the manner in which French or German wines are manipulated in order to meet any increase of duty. That is the argument. But it is a fact that there are no vintage wines sold in this country from Australia; and as one vintage must certainly differ from another in quantity and quality, there must be a blending of Australian wines in order to keep them up to their proper standard. Therefore, although I do not profess to understand the secrets of the trade, I do not see why there should not be the same opportunity for making up Australian wines to meet an increased duty as there is with French and German wines. But whatever the force of this argument maybe, what I would place before the Committee is this—that in spite of these disabilities the industry has grown and flourished, and reached its present dimensions under a system of equal duties. My hon. friend made use of a letter from a firm to which he alluded. Well, I have made inquiries on the point, and I find that Messrs. Bourgoyne, who wrote this letter, are justified in the statement which they made that they originally introduced Australian wines to the British public, and have annually, during 28 years, paid more duty on such wines than all the rest of the trade put together. They are, I believe, importers both from Victoria and South Australia, and are themselves owners of vineyards in Victoria. They say that "the thanks of the vine-growing interests are, in their opinion, due to me for not conceding preferential duties to Australian wines." They say that "such preference would have ruined the industry," and that my "decision saved it." They say that "the industry requires no nursing, that there is a force behind it which is fast raising it to the level of the
386
foremost wine countries in the world, that the competition they supply is in vigorating and helpful. We do not think the tax will limit the consumption of Australian wines, but, on the contrary, judging by our own business, it appears to have given the trade an extraordinary impetus, in spite of the natural disturbance which a change of prices brings about. There has been no covering up the extra tax." My hon. friend made a great deal of the fact that in regard to the Australian wines notice has been given by the merchants who deal in them of an increase in the price due to the increase in the duty.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER: An increase of double the amount of duty.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: Yes, that is a very common practice, but I did not think my right hon. friend was so guileless as not to see what action of that sort on the part of the wine merchants may mean.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: May I hand to the right hon. Gentleman papers which bear the signature of the firm of which he has given the name, showing exactly the contrary? Here is a resolution proposed by the general manager of the firm at a meeting of the representatives of the Australian wine trade:
"It was unanimously resolved to invite the Agents-General of the Colonies to represent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the proposed increase of duties on wines would be very prejudicial to the wine-growing Colonies."
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I do not doubt it in the least. These gentlemen were naturally banded together for a certain time, as long as they thought that their common action might induce me to adopt the proposal of the Agents-General; but as soon as they found that I was not prepared to adopt that resolution, then their opinion changed as I have stated. But my main point is this: the proposal of my hon. friend is a most important and a far-reaching one. It is not a mere matter of sentiment, or a mere matter of £17,000 a year. It goes very far beyond that. It is a proposal that can only be accepted by this country after grave consideration and examination of all that it might lead to. We are asked to accept it, not as an arrangement of a mutual character between any colony or colonies

387
and ourselves, although that is the essence of the policy of my hon. friend: we are asked to give it in return for nothing, to two protectionist colonies which impose very high duties on the goods of the mother country. I say that in such a case as this, to my mind it would be utterly unreasonable that we who bear the burdens of Empire should surrender our fiscal freedom in the way my hon. friend proposes. I hope he will not press this motion to a Division. I believe it would do more harm than good; but if he does press it to a Division, I would ask the Committee to decide against him.
SIR H. H. FOWLER: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us very frankly, that when he was face to face with his deficit of £900,000, he had turned his attention to different branches of indirect taxation. But he forgot to tell the Committee this deficit had been created entirely by himself, by taking off last year a very large sum of indirect taxation, which has benefited nobody except a few happy manufacturers of the article, and still happier retailers, who have put into their own pockets what I may call this differential duty to which the right hon. Gentleman objected to in the case of pure wines. I regret that the question of throwing away this million and a half last year could not be raised on the last Amendment, for that is really the source of the difficulty with which we are confronted to-day. I also agree with my hon. friend opposite that this is a very unfortunate time at which to impose additional duties on wines, not only as regards the colonies, but as regards foreign nations. However, the proposal of the hon. Member for Sheffield is pure and simple protection. You may call it differential duty; you may call it the establishment of a better feeling between ourselves and the colonies; but the proposal really is that a tax is to be put on the English consumer, who would pay the whole of the duty, no matter whether the wine comes from Australia or Canada, the Cape, or from France. The proposal is simply this, that so much of that tax as is paid on foreign wines will not go into the pocket of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but go at a bound into the pockets of the wine producers in the colonies. I challenge a contradiction of that as a proper statement of the case. The colonial merchant, if he had got a
388
large stock of wine on which he had paid the lowest duties, would raise a very large profit, for the consumer would have to pay the full duty, and the difference would go into the pockets of these gentlemen, who would be rightly thankful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the same. The colonial producer would raise his price to what would be a sufficient difference between himself and the producer in foreign countries to give him practically a command of the market, and he would put the difference which would be paid by the English consumer into his pocket. I will not go over the admirable arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer against differential duties, although I think, to some extent, the right hon. Gentleman has admitted the principle that these preferential duties may be bargained for in some shape or form. Whether it may be called free trade purism or free trade pedantry, it is the doctrine of free traders to which we on this side certainly adhere, that all these bargainings are to the disadvantage of the consumer, that they hamper trade, and that they benefit no one except a few fortunate individuals who put the money in their own pockets. I would ask the hon. Gentleman where he proposed to stop. Will he stop with wine, or is he going on to spirits and other commodities which the colonies produce? And is he going to confine his favours simply to the colonies? We have many questions raised nowadays as to the financial relations of the different parts of the United Kingdom. Why do not the producers of spirits in Ireland or Scotland claim some advantage over spirits produced in foreign countries which come into this country? The whole system of differential duties was abandoned forty years ago, under the circumstances mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially with relation to sugar, and its importation from our own colonies. The whole thing went when Free Trade was established, and the hon. Member for Sheffield has given no ground whatever why he should impose this tax upon ourselves for the benefit of the producers of the colonies. I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this would be an injury to the colonies and colonial trade instead of a benefit. The injury is not in the imposition of the duty, but in the diminished trade it would create. A less quantity of wine would

389
come from the colonies on account of the increase in price, and also from France for the same reason, and a great deal of the beneficial legislation which was inaugurated thirty years ago would be seriously hampered if the proposal were adopted. I would put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is not possible to meet the colonial case, and also the case of those at home to whom wine is not a luxury, namely, the lower middle classes, who are the consumers in this country of cheap light wines. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the bulk of the wines that came from Australia were under 26 degrees alcohol strength. If he would take out the first item from the Schedule, and confine his increases to the wines above 26 degrees, he would, so alter his alcoholic scale as to allow cheap French and colonial wines to come in at the same rate together, and I do not think that the loss to him would be more than £100,000. In this way the difficulty would be solved. That question, I believe, will come on later upon an Amendment by one of my hon. friends behind me, and to that Amendment I shall give my support. But, on the grounds stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I, and I hope every gentleman on this side of the House, will support the Government in its resistance to the retrograde policy which is involved in the proposal of the hon. Member.
MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid he was not going to be tempted by the right hon. Gentleman, who had sought to drag the red herring of Protection across their path. This question had nothing to do with Protection; it was simply a. proposal to afford to our fellow-subjects in other parts of the empire a reasonable preference in our trade. He was much disappointed at the tone of his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At this moment overtures were being made to us by our most influential colonies. Canada had accorded to Great Britain a distinct preference in her tariff, and the Prime Minister of one of our Australian colonies, New South Wales, which had never hitherto been identified with Protection, had indicated that he and his brother Australasian Premiers were anxious to reciprocate with us on the question of preferential trading. Yet, this was the moment when the right hon. Gentleman dwelt upon every conceivable difficulty which could be raised against this principle. The right
390
hon. Gentleman answered himself, because in his speech a few nights ago he had pointed out that the foreign countries whom he feared would enter upon reprisals had already taxed our goods as much, as they possibly could, or, at all events, had consulted their own interests and not ours. How could the right hon Gentleman reconcile his sentiments with those of some of his colleagues? Lord Salisbury had said it was to the trade which was carried on between the empire and this country that we should have to look for the vital forces in the future in the commerce of this country. The Secretary for the Colonies said experience taught them to draw closer to the colonies. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not quite closed the door, he certainly had not done anything to open it to a closer union between the several branches of the empire. He was greatly disappointed at the retrograde action of his right hon. friend, coming as it did upon the far more enlightened utterances of Lord Salisbury and the Secretary for the Colonies. The want of sympathy of his right hon. friend towards this question of inter-British trade was lamentable. Here was an opportunity for the Government to perform a graceful act which would have been much appreciated by our colonies, and which would have cost a mere bagatelle, but his right hon. friend had discarded that opportunity, and had taken refuge in the miserable platitudes of the Cobden Club.
MR. LAMBERTwished to explain his position with regard to this matter by drawing attention to the fact that, in a period of unexampled prosperity, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was reduced to the miserable expedient of placing a tax upon cheap colonial wines. It was regrettable that this proposal should come from a Unionist Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the Unionist party had said so much about developing the resources of our Empire and bringing the colonies and the mother country together. He quite agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his right hon. friend below him that preferential duties as between the colonies and the mother country would cause bickerings and ill-feeling between the different colonies. Having gone to the country clothed almost in the Union Jack, the Government now proposed to put a tax on the colonies which was resented

391
by the whole of the Australian colonies, which had sent letters to the right hon. Gentleman asking him to exclude these wines from this duty. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman opposite could be carried out in a different way. Nearly all the colonial wines came into this country under 20 degrees of proof spirit, and if the duty was allowed to remain as at present on wine under 30 degrees of proof spirit, that would practically cover the colonial grievance. He deeply regretted that a Unionist Government should have so irritated colonial feeling at this critical period in the history of our colonies.
MR. GALLOWAYsaid he wholly objected to this tax, and though he was in hearty sympathy with his hon. friend he could not vote for this motion, because it did not express the principles which his hon. friend had laid down. As he was not prepared to vote against it he was in a dilemma, and therefore he did not propose to vote at all. Having, however, just returned from the colonies, he was in a position to say how much the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be misinterpreted, not only by the whole of the wine trade, but the colonies at large. He recognised the difficulties of the fiscal policy, but did not sympathise with the protectionist view which ran through the debate. Although the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had intimated his intention to stand to his resolution to increase the wine duties, he hoped that before the debate terminated some arrangement would be come to by which these particular wines might be exempted from extra taxation. But whether that took place or not, in his opinion a more unfortunate time could not have been chosen at which to put the proposal forward. Even if at the eleventh hour the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw the proposal, he would call forth an expression of gratitude from the colonies.
COLONEL PILKINGTONhad no doubt that advantage

AYES.

Bartley, George C. T.

Daly, James

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Graham, Henry Robert

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Donelan, Captain A.

Hardy, Laurence

Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd

Donkin, Richard Sim

Hogan, James Francis

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Doogan, P. C.

Holland, Wm. H. (York, W.R.

Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

Doughty, George

Howell, William Tudor

ought to be taken of every possibility to improve our trade relations with the colonies. He was pleased to think that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted that there was some weakness in the position which he had taken up. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not think the time was convenient to accede to the request in the matter of the wine duties, but that he looked with favour upon the suggestion. He thought that this was an opportunity when we might do something to help, please and conciliate the colonies in a small matter, and at the same time of enlarge the trade of the empire. He did not think there need be any fear with regard to what foreign nations might do in the matter, inasmuch as we were the largest customers that they had, and everybody might be quite sure that they would not quarrel over tariff. He therefore did not see the danger to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had alluded, whilst if this proposal were persisted in it would be a matter of great irritation to the colonies. He had great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
COLONEL WELBYregretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not seen his way to accept the Amendment, because in his opinion, in addition to affecting the flow of trade and the interest of the consumers, these duties had a tendency to strain the relations existing between the mother country and the colonies. We ought in a question of this kind to lay aside the hard view of political economy, and try to see whether sentiment between the mother country and her daughters, the colonies, should not exercise some influence in drawing closer the bond of relationship. He was one of those who hoped the time would come when there would be Free Trade between all parts of the empire, but he was afraid that that time was still very far off.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 37; Noes, 192. (Division List, No. 136.)

Hutchinson, Capt.G. W. Grice-

Power, Patrick Joseph

Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough

Lorne, Marquess of

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. ThosMyles

Younger, William

MacAleese, Daniel

Seton-Karr, Henry

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Sidebottom, William (Derbysh.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Sir Howard Vincent and Mr. Pilkington.

Myers, William Henry

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkeeny)

Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. SirAlex. F.

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (CityofLond

Morrell, George Herbert

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

Morton, Arthur H. A. Deptford

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport

Arnold, Alfred

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Mount, William George

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Nusey, Thomas Willans

Balcarres, Lord

Goschen, RHn. G. J. (StGeorge's

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Gosehen, George J. (Sussex)

Oldroyd, Mark

Balfour, RHn. Gerald W. (Leeds

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Barnes, Frederic Gorell

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.

Barry, RtHnAH Smith-(Hunts

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

Barton,Dunbar Plunket

Harwood, George

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Beach, Rt. Hn. SirM. H. (Bristol

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Pierpoint, Robert

Bethell, Commander

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Pretyman, Ernest George

Blake, Edward

Hazell, Walter,

Price, Robert John

Blakiston-Houston, John

Hedderwick, ThomasChas. H.

Priesley, Briggs(Yorks.)

Boseawen, Arthur Griffith-

Helder, Augustus

Priestley, SirW. Overend(Edin

Broadhurst, Henry

Hemphil, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Richardson, SirThos. (Hartlep'l

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Henderson, Alexander

Rickett, J. Compton

Burns, John

Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

Ritchie, RtHon Chas. Thomson

Caldwell, James

Jacoby, James Alfred

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

Cameron, Sir Charles(Glasgow

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Round, James

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Jeffreys,Arthur Frederick

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Cawley, Frederick

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Rutherford, John

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Charmberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Channing, Francis Allston

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt HnSir U

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Kenyon, James

Sidebottom, T. Harrop (Stalybr.

Charrington, Spencer

Keswick, William

Sinclari, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Knowless, Lees

Souttar, Robinson

Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.

Lawrence,SirE.Durning-(Corn

Spicer, Albert

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Lawson, SirWilfrid (Cumb'land

Stanley, Hon,Arthr.(Ormskirk

Coghill, Douglas, Harry

Lecky, Rt. Hn. WilliamEdw. H.

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Stevenson, Francis S.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Leng, Sir John

Strauss, Arthur

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Leuty, Thomas Richmond

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Colville, John

Lewis, John Herbert

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Corbett, A. Cameron,(Glasgow

Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Courtney, Rt Hon. Leonard H.

Llewelyn SirDillwyn-(Swansea

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Lloyd-George, David

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Ure, Alexander

Curzon, Viscount

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Valentia, Viscount

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Long, Rt. Hn Walter(Liverpool

Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Lowe, Francis William

Wallace, Robert (Perth)

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Webster,SirR.E.(Isle of Wight

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Macdona, John Cumming

Weir, James Galloway

Doxford, William, Theodore

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

M'Ghee, Richard

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Fardell, Sir T. George

M'Killop, James

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Fellowes, Hon. AilwynEdward

M'Laren,Charles Benjamin

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

Fenwick, Charles

M'Leod, John

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

Finch, George H.

Maden, John Henry

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk

Fisher, William Hayes

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Fitz Wygram. General Sir F.

Milton, Viscount

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

Folkestone, Viscount

Monekton, Edward Philip

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Forster, Henry William

Monk, Charles James

Wyndham, George

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Young,Commander(Berks, E.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

TELLER FOR THE NOES—Sir

Fry, Lewis

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

William Walrong and Mr. Anstruther.

Garfit, William

Morgan, J. Lloyd(Carmarthen)

MR. COURTNEYsaid the object of the Amendment he now rose to move was to secure that the duty should be the same on the same wines whether imported in cask or in bottle. That had, for a long time, been the principle of their wine duties. Indeed, he thought he might say that the principle of taxing the same wine at the same rate of duty was always the idea aimed at by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer. It had been realised for a long time past that, in whatever form the wine was imported, the duty should be calculated at the same rate. In suggesting that the same rate should be maintained and continued, whether the wine was imported in cask or in bottle, he knew he lost the support of the members of the wine trade itself. They were friendly to an increase of duty on wine imported in bottle, and the reason was not far to seek. If they put a different rate of duty on wine in bottle from that on wine in cask, the wine being absolutely the same, they made the importation of the wine in cask put on the market in this country cheaper, and the work of bottling was transferred from the foreign country to this. The members of the wine trade had intimated to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they were not opposed in principle to differentiation of duties on wine in bottles and wine in casks, but they considered the proposed increase too high. He confessed he thought the fact that they were friendly to the change was something which ought to put all persons not interested in the trade in opposition to it, because they must conceive that the proposal was favourable to them as a class, and for the same reason it must be injurious to the consumers as a whole. It was to the interest of the consumers that the trade should be perfectly free and unaffected by the imposition of any fiscal duties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed the opinion that upon this change he anticipated that a good deal of wine which had hitherto been brought in bottles would, in future, be brought in casks, and that there would be no cheap wine in bottles. If that view were sound, he appealed to those interested in the freedom of trade, and who take it that the theory of our fiscal system was not to interfere with the natural course of trade, to support him. The interest of the consumer was the first and last thing to be regarded in this matter, and they ought,
396
therefore, to secure that the same rate of duty should be paid on wine brought to this country, whether it came in one way or another. He was surprised to see how the system in force had stimulated a small trade between the consumers and the merchants. He pointed to the fact that under the freedom of trade which had hitherto existed the wine merchant on the Continent had traded directly with the consumer here without the intervention of a middleman, and an international intercourse had thus been developed which they ought to jealously safeguard. It might be suggested that after the Bill is passed, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer carried out his proposed change, the consumers might still trade direct, and import in cask and bottle for themselves. That would not be so, and a large number of small consumers who now obtained the small quantities of wine they required for domestic consumption direct from the merchant abroad would entirely discontinue the importation to which they had been accustomed, or such importation would be greatly reduced, and private consumers would be deterred from doing so. What was the reason for making the change? If the wine was different he could conceive some argument in its favour. Different wines paid a different duty, but the same wine should pay the same duty, however it was imported. The only possible reason was to be found in the statement that bottled wines were dearer than higher class wines, and that, therefore, the higher rate of duty produced an ad valorem duty. That statement was not true, because the wine which was imported in bottle was the wine which would not bear the cost of being imported in cask and afterwards bottled in this country. It was the wine which was cheap in price and which was capable of being imported in casks. The wines of the Rhine and Moselle were cheap, nutritious, and highly recommended by the faculty as of delicate, bouquet and flavour; but they were just the class of wines which would lose their special quality if they were imported in wood, and it were then attempted to bottle them here. In the interest of health, as well as of commerce, he should strongly deprecate the establishment, for the first time in a great number of years, of a, principle that they should pay a higher rate of duty on wine brought here in bottles than on wines brought here in

397
casks, only for the interests of the bottlers here. In no other interest could it be alleged that this duty should be established. What he had said applied not only to the wines brought into this country from Germany and France, but to Italian wines, which were imported direct in bottles, and which were of good quality, cheap, nutritious, and wholesome. He failed to see any reason which justified the Chancellor of the Exchequer in dealing with wines in this way. If the right hon. Gentleman retained the principle of securing a higher rate of duty on wine in bottle than on the same wine in wood, they should have to examine hereafter what that rate of duty might be. He might for the present point out that if they established a higher rate of duty, however small the addition might be, they introduced a taxation of the alcohol in these cheap wines out of all proportion to the duty on alcohol in the form of pure spirits. He believed, considering the alcohol that was to be found in the cheap wines of the Moselle country, that the actual rate of taxation per gallon of alcohol under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scale would be something like 24s. on Moselle, as compared with 10s.6d., which was the duty upon a gallon of proof spirits—nearly two and a half times as much. In regard to the wines of France, the duty on the alcohol in the wine was equivalent to something like 16s. per gallon. These were excessive rates, and to propose such a plan was a retrograde step and abandonment of the fiscal policy which Mr. Gladstone adopted in 1861—which had been followed with great success ever since—of endeavouring to get, through fiscal changes, an alteration in the drinking habits of the country, whereby, in place of the old, strong, heavy wines, or the still stronger spirits, which were the consumption of former generations, they might find a large class of this country approaching in their drinking habits the habits of the Continent, where they saw wines freely consumed as table wines and where they rarely saw an illustration of excess in their consumption. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was going back upon that policy, and was doing so in an aggravated form, for he was proposing to put on cheap wines in bottles an increase of 150 per cent.—2s. instead of 6d.—over the rate of duty which he proposed to put on wines in casks. He strongly
398
urged on the right hon. Gentleman the expediency of abolishing the differentiation he proposed, and of laying down the principle that, whatever increase he might seek to establish in the duty on wine, the same duty should be put on wine in bottles as upon wine in casks, provided it was one and the same wine. If they could make a distinction as to the wine, that would be a very different matter; but wine of the same kind should be charged one and the same duty in whatever form or vehicle it was brought into this country. For all those reasons he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
Amendment proposed—
"In Clause 2, line 5, to leave out 'other than still wine in bottle.'"—(Mr. Courtney.)
Question proposed —
"That the words 'other than still wine in bottle stand part of the Clause."
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: My hon. friend has accused me of going back on the policy of Mr. Gladstone in the matter of the amount of duty to be levied on the lighter wines. But, so far from going back on Mr. Gladstone's policy, I am in direct accordance with it. Under the treaty with France in i860 the duty on still wines in bottles, as compared with wines in wood, was placed as I proposed to place it in this Bill. That treaty lasted without any complaint until 1866, when a commercial treaty was made with Austria which equalised the duty, so far as Austria was concerned, on wines in bottles with wines in wood. Then, under the most favoured-nation clause, the provisions of that treaty were extended to all other countries; and thus, without any action on the part of France, the extra duty on still wines was abolished and has remained abolished ever since. The Austrian treaty was denounced in 1876, and therefore the concession no longer secures us any advantage. Mr. Gladstone's policy was distinctly to impose an extra tax on wines in bottle as distinct from wines in cask. Now I propose to re-establish that policy. And why? Because I am convinced that every one of these wines—except, perhaps, those to which the righthon.Gentleman has alluded, can just as well be imported in wood as in bottle. In fact, they are so imported at the present time. The total importation of Italian wines in 1898 was 402,000 gallons in cask and only about 32,000

399
gallons in bottles. The importation of still wines in 1897 was 14,500,000 gallons in cask, and only a little over 1,000,000 in bottle. Therefore, Sir, what I am aiming at in this proposal is this—that the more expensive still wines, the only wines which will in future come in bottle, should pay some extra duty. That, no doubt, is tantamount to an ad valorem duty. But, Sir, I have considered this matter, which has been before me in its various aspects, and I think that for various reasons, even for the sake of revenue, I have put the duty rather too high. What I suggest is that the Amendment should be accepted, and that later on a surtax of 1s. per gallon on still wines imported in bottle should be placed in the Bill instead of the present proposal. The effect of that will be a reduction of 6d. per gallon in the duty I have proposed on wines in bottles. There may be some slight loss of revenue; but I do not think it will be much, because the lower duty will cause the cheaper wine to come in more in bottle than it would have come in under the higher duty.
SIR CHARLES DILKEappealed to his right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin to accept the amended proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The cheaper wines were being increasingly used in this country, and if it was desirable that the consumption of the lighter class of wines should, be encouraged, the wines upon which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to put a duty were especially deserving of the attention of the House. Although they would be less hard hit under the new proposal than under the original proposal it would still remain true that the tax on alcohol in the case of light wines imported in bottle would be enormously large as compared with the taxation of alcohol in the form of spirits.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I forgot to add that, as part of my proposal, I shall have to move a resolution to the effect that the same 1s. surtax will be imposed on spirits imported in bottle.
MR. COURTNEYsaid he should be very glad to accept the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal that the Committee should agree to the Amendment. They would however, be at liberty to withhold their approval of the subsequent Amendment with regard to the surtax.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I really cannot carry the matter further. If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept my suggestion, I shall not be inclined to go on with it.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown great generosity, and to a certain extent had met the arguments of the hon. Member for Bodmin. It might be that his experience of spirits was less than that of most hon. Members, but he was convinced, speaking generally, it was only the costly wines and spirits that came in bottle, the less costly coming in wood. This extra bottle tax would in effect amount to an ad valorem duty. He recommended the light hon. Gentleman to jump at the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and close with it at once.
MR. COURTNEYobserved that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the master of the situation, and, if the right honourable Gentleman was not prepared to make any further concession, he would accept his proposal.
Question put and agreed to.
MR. HARWOOD MR. HARWOOD (Bolton) moved an Amendment to provide that on wine (other than still wines in bottles) not exceeding 26 degrees of proof spirit the duty should only be 1s. a gallon. He assured the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the differentiation he proposed was not based upon the economic fallacies which were urged with regard to the former Amendment by the Member for Sheffield. The proposal which he had the honour to introduce did not depend upon any idea of differentiation in regard to the colonies or any other country, but was based upon the unjust incidence of the proposed wine duties. He would venture to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the proposed wine duties fall very unjustly and disproportionately upon the lower classes of wine. They had been told that, as a matter of fact, although, the duty should be 1d. per bottle, the actual addition to the consumer was 2d. What would be the consequence of that? That the consumers of light claret, for instance, would be paying double the amount of the duty that was proposed to be raised—in other words, they would be paying £300,000 towards the £150,000

401
that the Government were going to raise. The consumers were the people whom the House ought to consider with great care. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had used an axiom which was not an axiom. He said that wine was an article of luxury. ("No.") He was subject to correction, but that was the general remark he understood him to make. He ventured to say that the cheaper wines had become an article of necessity—at any rate, people had acquired the habit of drinking them. He had, and he was also prepared to say that he and everybody else was the better for doing so. These wines were drunk by a class who were already more than fairly taxed. There were two classes in this country who were very well protected the one was the rich class, and the other the working class, which was now organised; but between the upper and nether millstone was the community which the House did not seem to be so careful in protecting and doing justice to, and that was the struggling middle class, the poor professional class. That was the class that mostly consumed the wines in question. The proportionate increase on the cheaper wine was eight times as much as it was upon the wine consumed by the richer classes, and they put that tax upon a people who were the least able to pay and who were most deserving of the tender consideration of the Committee. Again he submitted that the interposition of the Committee was injurious to the trade generally. He did not consider the question of the susceptibilities of France or of the colonies—he did not think that was a consideration worth entertaining. If we diminished the consumption of articles sent to us by another country, some of his friends on the opposite side of the House would rejoice. The hon. Member for Sheffield seemed to think it a most desirable thing to prevent anybody from sending us anything. Personally, he rejoiced that people should send him anything. The Committee should never lose sight of the fact that while it was a good thing for foreigners to take our goods, it was at least half a good thing for us to take theirs. For every cask of wine we took from France or any other country they took goods from us, and he therefore objected in the interests of trade to the nonsensical idea that we held the key of the situation by the imposition of the duty. The last ground upon which he objected to the increased
402
duty was that it was a retrograde step in the matter of temperance. The word temperance had been very much mistaken. Temperance did not mean abstinence, but the moderate use of that which was good What was the object of Mr. Gladstone's great radical change in the reduction of the wine duties? It was to encourage amongst our people the use of wholesome alcoholised drinks. He thought the use of alcoholised drinks was in some degree a good thing. At any rate he found it so himself, and he did not wish to see any abstinence from a reasonable use of it amongst other people. But the important thing was that the use of alcoholised drink in beer and spirits would be encouraged by the disuse of the light wines. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he did not believe the imposition of the duty would discourage the importation of light wines. At the time Mr. Gladstone effected his great reduction of the wine duties the import trade from France had fallen away to 600,000 gallons; and the result of that great statesman's fiscal policy was that the import had now gone up to 9,000,000 gallons. It was, therefore, perfectly obvious that the proposed change would discourage the use of light wines, which so many people in the country found extremely healthy and pleasant. It was hard for him to discuss the question with an ascetic who neither smoked nor drank, but he should like the right hon. Gentleman to go to some of the large Lancashire towns and see the extent to which the shilling claret was consumed by what he (Mr. Harwood) considered the most reputable class of the community—a class that could not drink beer, that did not want to drink spirits, and yet wanted to drink something. They were discouraging the consumption of light wines to a very serious degree, and consequently encouraging the consumption of a heavier drink. He would put before the right honourable Gentleman considerations which he thought should have weight with one whose humour they so often admired. In the 15th and 16th centuries the chief drink of this country was the light wine of France and Spain, and they heard that Jack Cade wished the fountains to flow, not with beer, as he would have done nowadays, but with claret. They knew also what bright and winsome associations were connected with the

403
name of sack. He would suggest to the right honourable Gentleman, for the sake of the wit and humour of his country, which was said to be rather ponderous, that it was a wrong step to encourage the consumption of beer at the expense of light wines. He moved his Amendment for three reasons—first, because these duties would bear unjustly upon a particular class of wine; secondly, be cause this particular class of wine was chiefly consumed by those who most had a claim on the consideration of the House; and, thirdly, because the effect of this policy would be to discourage the consumption of light wines, and to encourage the consumption of heavier drinks.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 5, after 'wine (other than still, in bottle), to insert 'not exceeding 26 degrees of proof spirit, the gallon, £0 1s. 0d.'"—Mr. Harwood.)
Question proposed—
"That those words be there inserted."
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: The honourable Member has made a proposal which I do not discuss from the point of revenue, because for other reasons it will be impossible for me to accept it. He has proposed that there shall be a fresh scale, the 1s. duty continuing on wines not exceeding 26 degrees of proof spirit and a 1s. 6d. duty being applied between 26 and 30 degrees. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, I think in 1886, raised the scale of the lowest duty from 26 to 30 degrees with the object of making a certain arrangement to our commercial advantage with Spain by that concession. The result was that a large quantity of Spanish wine between 26 and 30 degrees was introduced into this country at the lowest rate of wine duty, I need not say very greatly to the advantage of Spain in her competition with French wines. In return for that concession Spain placed us in her minimum commercial tariff instead of, as she might have done, in her maximum tariff. Therefore, I do not think that, as that state of things still continues, we can in fairness retract that concession and place Spanish wines, because that is what it amounts to, between 26 and 30 degrees on a higher scale of duty than those below. The great bulk,
404
in fact nearly the whole, of the wine used in this country between 26 and 30 degrees comes from Spain; but I have a proposal to make to the Committee which perhaps may solve this question; at least I hope it will, because if my concessions do not shorten debate, I am afraid they will fail in their object. I have been impressed by what has been said in the course of this Debate and on other occasions as to the effect of the proposed increase of duty upon the lightest grade of wine. Sixpence all round is no doubt comparatively a larger increase on the lighter wines than on the stronger wines. I was going to say cheaper wines, but it is a delusion to suppose that lightness and cheapness are synonymous terms in the case of wine. A good many of the lightest wines are the most expensive, as many Members, who, like the honourable Member opposite, are fond of wine, know very well. I have also been impressed by what has been said by the Agents-General of the Australian colonies, and by what has been said this evening with regard to Australian wines. I was unable to assent, for the reasons I have given to the Committee, to the proposal of my honourable friend to introduce the principle of differential duties into our fiscal system; but, as a matter of fact, nearly all the wines which come from Australia are within the thirty degrees limit, and therefore what I am about to propose is this. Though, I admit, at some little risk with regard to my financial calculations, I propose, instead of asking the Committee for an additional 6d. on the lower scale wines, to ask them only for an additional 3d. That I hope will show that I am anxious to meet the objections that have been raised on both sides of the House to the utmost of my power. I may say that I shall recoup myself to some extent for this concession, as well as for the concession I have made to my light honourable friend the Member for Bodmin, by the 1s. surtax on spirits in bottle; but still there will be, no doubt, a deficiency in the yield I estimated from the wine duties. However, I am of a hopeful temperament. The Revenue looks well, and, on, the whole, I think I am justified in making the concession I now propose; but I must end as I began, by saying that I hope the concession will shorten debate.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the right honourable Gentleman had defended his

405
scale as against that of the honourable, Member for Bolton, on the ground that the latter would be unfair to Spain. But it should be remembered that in Spain, for years, we were at a disadvantage, and did not enjoy the most favoured nation treatment for our goods. On the contrary, we were subjected to absolute maltreatment. We altered our scale to meet the views of Spain. At the same time, he was glad that the limit was raised from 26 degrees to 30 degrees, because the duty was, undoubtedly, too heavy upon that class of wines. What ought to have been done whenever the wine duties were going to be increased was to have made more steps in the scale; instead of having two scales, the duties ought to have been made to correspond by more steps to something like the alcoholic strength of the wine. They could not treat the lighter wines as if they were merely the cheaper wines, and therefore successive Chancellors of the Exchequer had always rejected the view that it was possible to introduce anything like ad valorem treatment. They had always had in view that there should be some approximation of the scale to alcoholic strength, but the new duties were a conspicuous example of departure from that principle. Now his honourable friend proposed to take 26 degrees as his limit. All the French and Australian wines came in below the scale of 26 degrees, the Spanish wines came in between 26 and 30 degrees, and the Portuguese wines came in above 30 degrees. The difference was very great indeed. The vast bulk of the French wines came in at 16, 17, and 18 degrees (mostly at 17 degrees), the Australian wines at 24 degrees, the Spanish wines at 27, 28, and 29 degrees (principally at 27 and 28), and the Portuguese wines came in at 34, 35, 36, and 37 degrees. By the one-step scale a most extraordinary advantage was given to Spain as compared with France on the one hand, and Portugal on the other. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to increase the apparent injustice from the point of view of Franco, inasmuch as he proposed to recoup himself for a certain loss of revenue by his now shilling duty upon brandy which came in in bottle. That tax would fall almost exclusively upon France—on the Charente district particularly. If it were the case that the present scale of wine duties was unjust to France, the
406
injustice would be enormously increased by the additional tax of 1s. upon brandy, which came in from the same districts as the wine. The right honourable Gentleman refused to accept the Amendment of the honourable Member for Bolton, on the ground of unfairness to Spain. Spain obtained her present position by maltreating our trade, and our trade with Spain was small, while our trade with France was enormous. If, consequently, they were to oppose the Amendment on the ground of its unfairness to Spain, he thought they were entitled to point out the much greater unfairness which would be inflicted upon French trade. It had often been suggested that they should have a new step in the scale at eighteen degrees, but hitherto that had not been carried into effect. An enormous amount of the trade of Lancashire went into Franco at the present moment, and the course which was being pursued was certainly not calculated to secure for it the must favoured nation treatment, which it received in that country. He viewed these proposals with great misgivings. He could not but believe that they must have a most detrimental effect on our commercial position. He thought we were putting a weapon in the hands of the French protectionists in their contest against the trade of this country. If the wine duties were to be revised there was an overwhelming case, not for lowering them, but for bringing them into closer proportion to alcoholic strength by having six or eight instead of only two steps which was the only fair basis on which they could be placed.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: The right honourable Baronet entirely forgets that although I propose to increase the duty on liquor from France by the imposition of one shilling duty on bottled spirits, I at the same time make a great concession to France by reducing the increase on the lower grade wines from sixpence to three-pence. I cannot, therefore, admit that I am treating France unfairly.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: As compared with Spain, I said.
SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNRMAN: The right honourable Gentleman has made a double appeal to the Committee. In the first place he asked that the Debate should not be unduly

407
prolonged, and in the second that the compromise offered should be accepted. But the right honourable Gentleman will bear in mind, of course, that most of us approach this question from the point of view of those who think it would have been desirable not to have meddled with the wine duties at all. We are not convinced there was not some other way open to him for raising the money without disturbing this somewhat delicate part of our revenue. The main purpose we have before us is to save as much as possible the light wines, the consumption of which deserves encouragement. My honourable friend the Member for Bolton made a very interesting speech on the subject, and I agree with him in what he said, except in the words in which he sought to read a lesson to my own fellow-countrymen as to the form in which they should take such refreshment as they required in liquid shape. He laboured under the delusion that it is not the Scotch practice to drink wine, saying that the Scotch genius, brilliant as it may be, would be still more extraordinary if cultivated under the influence of claret. Why, claret has been the special drink of Scotland for many years! The drink of the lower classes—if I may use that expression—was in the main beer—of a sort—"twopenny," as an honourable friend behind me suggests. The poems of Robert Burns refer to the principal liquor consumed—and he had considerable experience of it—not as whisky, but ale. The other classes mainly drank claret; and I am astonished that one so well read as my honourable friend does not remember the well-known lines written after the Methuen Treaty, by which the duty on port was lowered:—
"Finn, and erect, the Caledonian stood;
Prime was his mutton, and his claret good.
"Let him drink port,' the southron statesman cried;
He drank the poison, and his spirit died."
The glamour of these lines might have prevented my honourable friend from going so far astray in his criticism of the spirit of my country. I was prepared to support the Amendment of my honourable friend, and should have liked it still better if the right honourable Gentleman could have been induced to go further and extend the immunity from any increase of taxation to the wines above 30 degrees. I would, however, recommend my honourable friend to accept the
408
compromise of a threepenny duty up to the standard of 30 degrees. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a somewhat peremptory person when dealing with these matters. He has already reduced the right honourable Member for Bodmin to a submissive frame of mind, in which he has seldom been before. As nothing can be gained by resistance, it is better to put a good face upon it and accept thankfully and cheerfully the compromise the Chancellor of the Exchequer has offered.
MR. LAMBERTsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been good enough to make a concession which would undoubtedly meet the difficulty in regard to the greater part of the colonial wine imported into this country, but could he not allow wine under 30 degrees of proof to come in at the same rate as at present, because this small tax was hardly worth the considerable derangement of trade which would result. The persons with between £500 and £700, whose income-tax he reduced last year, were precisely the class who would drink these cheap wines, and therefore he was practically putting on this year what he took off last year.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I have carefully investigated this matter, and I have gone to the utmost limit I possibly can.
MR. HARWOOD: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Other Amendments made.
Clause 3:—
MR. HENDERSONsaid he drew a distinction between shares which were the definite property of the owners in whose name they were registered, and share warrants transferable by endorsement, and which, passing from hand to hand, were ultimately registered in the name of the ultimate owner. The duty which would be equitable in the one case would not be so in the other. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech stated, in regard to shares, that, once stamped, they would be perfectly free from any future stamps during their lifetime, and it would be perfectly equitable to require the stamp as proposed by the Bill on shares to bearer but quite

409
inequitable as regarded those shares which were transferred from one person to another, and which, as a matter of fact, had no distinctive number attached to them. It would be impossible to transfer the stamp from one share to another, and he suggested that the two classes of shares should be separated altogether. The first-mentioned class of shares might fairly be left under the category upon which a 5s. per cent, duty was proposed to be levied, but with regard to the other class of shares that, although passing from hand to hand, were capable of being registered, and indeed must be ultimately registered, these were held in large numbers throughout the country, and for them there was an extremely free market, hundreds of thousands of these shares passing at differences sometimes of a sixteenth per cent. To put upon these shares the heavy charge of 5s. per cent. would have the effect of driving this business from the City of London to markets at Brussels, Amsterdam, Antwerp, and other places where no duty existed, and the large business which was done in these shares in this country would be destroyed. If it was found possible to transfer the stamp from one share to another, and the proposed duty was insisted on, the business would, in his opinion, still leave London altogether. It would hardly be fair to exempt these shares from all duty now that new duties were being imposed, and from inquiries he had made he was led to the conclusion that 1s. per cent. could be borne without fear of evasion by underhand means. The suggestion he made, therefore, was that the stamp should be at the rate of 1s. per cent. on these transferable securities instead of 5s., as proposed in the Bill. If this were done he believed it would be possible to make it a recurrent stamp producing as much to the Exchequer as the original proposal. For the purpose of carrying out his proposal he moved the first of a series of Amendments.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 31, at end, to insert, 'And on every share warrant or stock certificate to bearer, by means of which any share or stock of any company or body of persons formed or established out of the United Kingdom is, after the first day of August One thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine, assigned, transferred, or in any manner negotiated in the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Henderson.)
Question proposed—
"That those words be there inserted."
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: This is a very technical matter, and we are all indebted to the clear and lucid way in which the proposal of the honourable Gentleman has been placed before the Committee. When I made ray proposal on introducing the Budget I thought I had provided in two ways for the difficulty alluded to, and that in the stamp of 5s. per cent. I had taken a figure not so high as to drive away business from the Stock Exchange, and that in the third subsection I had made a concession to this class of instruments. Since then I have been in communication with the committee of the Stock Exchange and other gentlemen of high authority in relation to the subject, and I think that on the whole I should do well to accept the proposal of my honourable friend. It was a matter on which, of course, there might be differences of opinion, but it has never been my intention to do anything that would drive away business, because, of course, the result of that would be that I should receive no revenue. I think it very possible that my honourable friend is justified in his assumption that the revenue received from the smaller tax he proposed would ultimately be as large as that which I myself have proposed. There was one point in regard to winch I think it will be necessary to make an alteration if I accept the proposal. I fixed the stamp at 5s. on £100 in order to provide for the particular class of security to which the honourable Member has alluded; but for that I should have put the stamp at the same rate as was now applied to English securities of the same kind namely, 10s. The first sub-section of the clause referred to—
"every marketable security made or issued by or on behalf of any foreign State or Government, or foreign or colonial municipal body, corporation, or company, being a security transferable by delivery,"
and I think that, as regards foreign bonds and other securities included in that subsection, they should pay the 10s. I shall propose a resolution enabling me to make that alteration at a subsequent date, but at present I am willing to accept the Amendment of my honourable friend.
Question put and agreed to.
Other Amendments made.
Clause 6: —
MR. LLOYD MORGAN MR. LLOYD MORGAN (Carmarthen, W.) moved an Amendment to provide that in the case of companies reconstructing for the purpose of raising additional capital the ad valorem stamp duty should be pro rata on the new capital to be brought in. In the case of such companies he thought 2s., and not 5s., ad valorem stamp duty should be charged, as the shareholders in a reconstructed comyany would have to pay this ad valorem stamp duty twice over. Under such circumstances it would be impossible for such a company as he had in his mind to seek fresh capital. It appeared to him that in a Bill of this kind the duty was unduly excessive, and therefore he hoped his Amendment would be accepted.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 4, line 15, at end, to add, 'Save in the case of companies reconstructing for the purpose of raising additional capital, in which case the ad valorem stamp duty shall be pro rata on the new capital to be brought in.'"—(Mr. Lloyd Morgan.)
Question proposed Question proposed—
"That those words be there added."
SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid the Amendment would introduce an alteration in the present law. He did not see why a company should have more favourable terms for reconstruction than on the original promotion. He had very good authority for saying that in many cases where companies went through the process of reconstruction the object was to water capital as much as anything else. He thought if there was an occasion when a company ought not to be favoured it was on such an occasion as that. He was unable to accept the Amendment.
Question put and negatived.
Clause 8:—
Mr. LOUGH Mr. LOUGH (Islington, W.) moved to omit "five pounds," and to insert "one hundred pounds." He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept the Amendment which he now proposed with regard to letters of allotment. He suggested by it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should fix one hundred pounds as the amount at which the higher rate should be paid. As the Bill at present
412
stood, he thought it would press very hard on the small investor. He pointed out that where £1000 of stock was allotted in amounts of five pounds' worth of stock, the duty would be £5, but where the whole was allotted at once it would only be sixpence.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 5, line 11, to leave out the words 'five pounds,' and insert the words 'one hundred pounds.'" —(Mr. Lough.)
Question proposed—
"That the words 'five pounds' stand part of the Clause."
SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid that as the letter of allotment would be like any other contract, it would bear a sixpenny stamp. The honourable Gentleman complained that this clause would press heavily on the small investors, but he pointed out that the duty would not have to be paid by the people who applied for allotments but by the companied who sent out the letters of allotment, who would have to stamp them before they sent them out. This increased duty would not deter companies from issuing allotments to small shareholders. They were only too glad to get small shareholders of this kind, because they were likely to be permanent holders of shares and did not take them up for the purpose of selling them to somebody else. He did not see his way to accept the Amendment.
MR. LOUGHhoped that some better reason for not accepting the Amendment would be given than that the stamp would have to be paid by the company allotting the shares. The effect of this would be that the companies would not allot to small holders but only in large blocks. He hoped the matter would be reconsidered and that some concession would be made. Perhaps the right honourable Gentleman would place the limit at £50.
MR. BANBURYdid not agree that because the companies had to pay the stamp they would not allot to the small shareholders. They were the people whom companies were most anxious to secure. The people who applied for large amounts did so inorder to sell them again. It would not be to the advantage of a company, in order to save a few sixpences, to allot

413
shares to people who would put their shares on the market and bring the premium down. Therefore, the small investor would not suffer in any way.
MR. MOULTONdid not think that that argument would apply, because an allotment of £5 was so exceedingly small that no one would dream of allotting so small an amount. If the amount were fixed at £50 he thought it would be fair, but £20 or £25 would not be unreasonable. In its present form it was a sort of poll tax, and in his opinion it was ridiculous to put

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Doughty, George

Labouchere, Henry

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Doxford, William Theodore

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Lecky, Rt Hn William Edw. H.

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A.J. (Manch'r

Finch, George H.

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Banbury, Fred. Geo. [(Hunts)

Fisher, William Hayes

Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'nsea

Barry, Rt. Hon. A. H. Smith-

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (L'pool)

Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor)

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Bartley, George C. T.

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Beach, Rt. Hn.Sir M. H.(Bristol

Flower, Ernest

Macdona, John Cumming

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Folkestone, Viscount

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Bethell, Commander

Forster, Henry William

Maclure, Sir John William

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Blakiston-Houston, John

Gedge, Sydney

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Bolitho, Thomas Bedford

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir Herbert E.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H.(City of Lond

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Bowles, T. Gibson(Lynn Regis)

Gibbs, Hou. Vicary (St. Albans)

Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Butcher, John George

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Milward, Colonel Victor

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Monckton, Edward Philip

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Goschen, Rt Hn GJ.(StGeorge's

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon.J. (Birm

Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire(

Chamberlain, J. Austen(Wore'r

Graham, Henry Robert

Morrell, George Herbert

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Green, Walford D.(Wedn'sbury

Morton, Arthur H.A.(Deptford

Charrington, Spencer

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury

Mount, William George

Chelsea, Viscount

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Gretton, John

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Gull, Sir Cameron

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Myers, William Henry

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hatch, Ernest Fred. George.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Heaton, John Henniker

Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Henderson, Alexander

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Hermon-Hodge, R. Trotter

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

Percey, Earl

Corbett A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol)

Pierpoint, Robert

Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Pilkington, Richard

Cox, Irwin Edward B. (Harrow)

Howell, William Tudor

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Cranborne, Viscount

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Powell, Sir Francis Charles

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Jackson, Rt. Hn. Wm. Lawies

Priestley, Sir W.O.(Edinburgh

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Purvis, Robert

Curzon, Viscount

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Dalkeith, Earl of

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlepool

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn.Chas. Thomson

Denny, Colonel

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Kenyon, James

Robinson, Brooke

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Keswick, William

Rutherford, John

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Knowles, Lees

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

the same stamp to £5 as was put to £1,000 allotment.
MR. BEGGsaid an allotment of £5 was an extremely rare thing and he therefore thought the Amendment was a reasonable one. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would raise the limit to, at least, £50.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 197; Noes, 92. (Division List No. 137.)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Williams, Joseph Powell (Birm)

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Seton-Karr, Henry

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Ox. Uniy.

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Sidebottom, T. Harrop(Stalybr.

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

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

Sidebottom, William (Derbys.)

Valentia, Viscount

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

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

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Wyndham, George

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe)

Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Steadman, William Charles

Webster, Sir R. E. (Isleof Wight

Younger, William

Stephens, Henry Charles

Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

Stewart, Sir Mark J.M'Taggart

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Strauss, Arthur

Whiteley, George (Stockport)

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

NOES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Philipps, John Wynford

Allison, Robert Andrew

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Pirie, Duncan V.

Asher, Alexander

Harwood, George

Power, Patrick Joseph

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Price, Robert John

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Hazell, Walter

Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

Barlow, John Emmott

Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. C. H.

Rickett, J. Compton

Billson, Alfred

Holland, Wm. H. (York, W. R.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Horniman, Frederick John

Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

Broadhurst, Henry

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez E.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Burt, Thomas

Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn SirU

Sinclair, Capt. Jn. (Forfarshire

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Leuty, Thomas Richmond

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Caldwell, James

Lewis, John Herbert

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Stevenson, Francis S.

Cameron, Robert (Durham)

Macaleese, Daniel

Strachey, Edward

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Causton, Richard Knight

M'Ghee, Richard

Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

Cawley, Frederick

M'Killop, James

Trevelyan, Charles Phillips

Channing, Francis Allston

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

M'Leod, John

Weir, James Galloway

Daly, James

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Williams, John Carvell(Notts.

Doogan, P. C.

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport

Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wilson, John (Durham. Mid.)

Evans, Samuel T.(Glamorgan)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wilson, John (Govan)

Fenwick, Charles

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Oldrovd, Mark

Woods, Samuel

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Pease, Alfred E. (Cleyeland)

Mr. Lough and Mr. Moulton.

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herb. J.

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Clause 13:—
MR. HARWOOD MR. HARWOOD moved the omission of the word "permanent," and in doing so said he thought it was a most important Amendment. He did not see why the redaction of the annual charge from 25 millions to 23 millions should be a permanent one. He urged the Committee to defer making any permanent alteration of their standard until they had before them some well-considered and statesmanlike scheme for dealing with the National Debt. He thought the Committee might reasonably agree that the circum-
416
stances this year were exceptional, having regard to the expenditure on the Army and Navy, and that therefore £2,000,000 might be taken out of the amount set apart for the reduction of the Debt this year. But it should not be made a permanent charge. There was a great difference in a change to meet special circumstances and making a permanent alteration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer always had the power to come to the House with a proposal to take the money if circumstances rendered it necessary, but it was a serious thing, in his opinion,

417
to permanently reduce the Sinking Fund by such an amount. £25,000,000 was not by any means an excessive amount to set aside for the payment of debt in these days of superabundant prosperity.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 6, line 26, to leave out the word 'permanent.'" —(Mr. Harwood.)
Question proposed—
"That the word 'permanent' stand part of the Clause."
MR. LOUGHthought there should be a word of reply from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this point. He was not able to support the Amendment, for any of the reasons given by his honourable friend, but at the same time it was an excellent Amendment which he pressed on the Committee. He supported it because the structure of the clause would be greatly improved if the word "permanent" was left out. Nothing was permanent with regard to the National Debt when a Conservative Government was in power. Why, then, put in the adjective, which was the evidence of their shame?
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: There is one thing permanent when a Conservative Government is in office, and that is the perpetual interference of the honourable Member in debate. I hope the honourable Member who has moved the Amendment will excuse me if I decline to enter into the arguments on the main question. We

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Barry, Rt Hn AH Smith-(Hunts

Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor)

Butcher, John George

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Cavendish, R. R. (N. Lancs.)

Arrol, Sir William

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H.(Bristol

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Begg, Ferdinand Faithful

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.

Bethell, Commander

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Balfour, RtHnGerald W(Leeds

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.

Banbury, Frederick George

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Chamberlain,J.Austen (Wore.

have debated them at considerable length on a previous occasion, and the House has arrived at a decision on the subject. I would venture to point out that the honourable Member's Amendment is really an absurd one. He proposes that the Debt charge of £25,000,000 should be reduced for this year only to £23,000,000. But, of course, when I, on behalf of the Government, proposed that the Debt charge should be permanently reduced to £23,000,000 I made arrangements in the subsequent clause for the terminable annuities to be dealt with on that reduced basis. But the honourable Member makes no arrangement whatever for the terminable annuities under his Amendment, and we should still have to pay capital and interest on the terminable annuities on the old basis of expenditure of £25,000,000 a year, and yet only have £23,000,000 to do it with. It is really impossible to carry out the Amendment, which I hope the honourable Member will not press to a Division.
MR. MOULTONsaid it was absurd for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to contend that there would be any difficulty in carrying out the proposal embodied in the Amendment.
Question put.
The Committee divided; Ayes, 169; Noes, 85. (Division List No. 138).

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Gretton, John

Pierpoint, Robert

Charrington, Spencer

Gull, Sir Cameron

Pilkington, Richard

Chelsea, Viscount

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Henderson, Alexander

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. E.

Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

Pretyman, Ernest George

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

Purvis, Robert

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hill,SirEdward Stock (Bristol)

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Rentoul, James Alexander

Compton, Lord Alywyne

Howell, William Tudor

Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlepool

Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thompson

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Cox, Iwrin Edward B. (Harrow

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Robinson, Brooke

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Rutherford, John

Curzon, Viscount

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kenyon, James

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Seely, Charles Hilton

Denny, Colonel

Keswick, William

Seton-Karr, Henry

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Knowles, Lees

Sidebottom, William(Derbysh.

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Lawrence,SirEDurning-(Corn.

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

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lawrence, Wm. F.(Liverpoo.)

Stanley, Hn.Arthur(Ormskirk

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Doughty, George

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Stephens, Henry Charles

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Llewellyn,SirDillwyn(Sw'nsea

Stewart, SirMark J. M'Taggart

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (L'pool)

Strauss, Arthur

Fellowes, Hon.AilwynEdward

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Finch, George H.

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Fisher, William Hayes

Macdona, John Cumming

Talbot, Rt. Hn.J. G. (Oxf.Univ.

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Maclure, Sir John William

Valentia, Viscount

Fletcher, Sir Henry

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Ward,Hon. Robert A. (Crewe)

Flower, Ernest

M'Killop, James

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Folkestone, Viscount

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Webster,SirR. E. (IsleofWight)

Forster, Henry William

Middlemore, John Throgmort.

Welby, Lieut-Col. A. C. E.

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Gedge, Sydney

Monckton, Edward Philip

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Gibbons, John Lloyd

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary(St. Albans

Morrell, George Herbert

Williams,Joseph Powell-(Birm

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Morton,Arthur H. A(Deptford

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Mount, William George

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Murray, RtHn A Graham(Bute

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H.(Yorks.)

Gorst, Rt. Hon.Sir John Eldon

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wyndham, George

Goschen,RtHnGJ. (St. George's

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Wyvill, Marmaduke, D'Arcy

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Myers, William Henry

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Graham, Henry Robert

Northcote, Hn. Sir H. Stafford

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Green, WalfordD(Wednesbury

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury

Pease, HerbertPike(Darlingt'n

Greene, W.Raymond-(Cambs.)

Percy, Earl

NOES.

Allison, Robert Andrew

Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan

Lawson, SirWilfrid(Comb'land

Asher, Alexander

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Leuty, Thomas Richmond

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Donelan, Captain A.

Lough, Thomas

Asquith, Rt.Hon. Herbert Hy.

Doogan, P. C.

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Barlow, John Emmott

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

MacAleese, Daniel

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Billson, Alfred

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

M'Ghee, Richard

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

M'Leod, John

Broadhurst, Henry

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Gourley,SirEdwardTemperley

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Caldwell, James

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Moulton, John Fletcher

Causton, Richard Knight

Hazell, Walter

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Cawley, Frederick

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Channing, Francis Allston

Holland, Wm. H. (York, W.R.)

Oldroyd, Mark

Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.)

Horniman, Frederick John

Palmer, GeorgeWm.(Reading)

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Daly, James

Kay-Shuttlew'th, Rt. Hn. SirU.

Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

420

421

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Philipps, John Wynford

Sinclair, Capt J. (Forfarshire)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Pirie, Duncan V.

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Williams, John Carvell(Notts)

Price, Robert John

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Wilson, Frederick W.(Norfolk)

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Steadman, William Charles

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

Reckitt, Harold James

Stephenson, Francis S.

Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough

Richardson, J.(Durham, S. E.)

Strachey, Edward

Woods, Samuel

Rickett, J. Compton

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Roberts, John H. (Denbghsh.)

Tennant, Harold John

Mr. Harwood and Mr. Hedderwick.

Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

Thomas, David Alfd.(Merthyr)

MR. NUSSEYsaid he proposed to divide the Committee on this clause as a protest against what he conceived to be the unwise policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter. In 1887 and 1889 the First Lord of the Admiralty, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, tampered with the Sinking Fund twice, and he regarded it as more than a coincidence that both those raids on the Fund were made in years of lavish expenditure. The plea against paying off so much debt was a mere excuse to cover the nakedness of the Treasury. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider his course, which was fraught with so much danger to our national prosperity. He maintained that we could not afford to play and tamper with the credit of the country. How long would people believe in our national prosperity if we were not able to pay our debts? We were encroaching upon our reserve funds, and when we did that we had passed the safe margin, and the time had arrived to cry "stop." The Chancellor of the Exchequer had protested against lavish expenditure again and again, but had allowed himself to be over-ridden, and was now showing a certain amount of weakness in hesitating to put the expenditure on the right shoulders. Why not put an extra penny on the Income Tax, which would raise the necessary two millions of money? The upper and middle classes who had called for this lavish expenditure should not only call the tune but pay the piper.
MR. E. J. C. MORTONdesired to enter his protest against what he believed to be the most dangerous proposal with regard to the finances of this country which had been made since 1869. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government had not apparently taken into account the fact that, although our income had been going up by leaps and bounds on the same taxation during the last four years, yet our expenditure had also been going up by leaps and bounds until we had reached the point when the estimated expenditure was higher than the estimated income. He saw no possibility of our expenditure stopping as years went on, but there was great likelihood of our income decreasing. The last four years had no doubt been a period of unexampled prosperity, and it seemed to him that the true finance would be to make provision for the lean years which were bound to come during the fat years that were passing. Our expenditure, both in home affairs and in defence of the Empire, was likely to grow rather than diminish, and therefore it seemed peculiarly important to devote all the money that could be spared in paying off the debt contracted in past years. Let it not be said that the necessity to take two millions from the Sinking Fund was due to the expenditure on the Army and Navy. That was almost exactly the sum the Government had squandered on their permanent election agents in every parish—namely, the squires and the parsons.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have had more than one opportunity of entering my protest, and giving my reasons against the proposal contained in this clause, and I will not detain the Committee by attempting to repeat those arguments. I will only express my entire concurrence with the sentiments contained in the two very able speeches made by my honourable friends behind me. I do desire that we should regard this proposal as one which is a serious blow at the resources of our country at home, and which is calculated to greatly diminish the estimation of its strength abroad. I believe that in future years the evil of this proposal will be much more apparent than it is to-day.

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt.SirAlex F.

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Arrol, Sir William

Finch, George H.

Llewelyn,SirDillwyn(Swansea

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Long,Rt. Hn. Walter(Liverpool

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r

Fisher, William Hayes

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Banbury, Frederick George

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Barry,RtHnAHSmith-(Hunts

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Macdona, John Cumming

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Flower, Ernest

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Beach,Rt. Hn. SirM. H. (Bristol)

Folkestone, Viscount

Maclure, Sir John William

Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

Forster, Henry William

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

M'Killop, James

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Gedge, Syndey

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Gibbons, J. Lloyd

Middle more John Throgmorton

Butcher, John George

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Morrell, George Herbert

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Goschen,Rt. Hn. G. (St George's

Mount, William George

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Murray, RtHnA. Graham (Bute

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Graham, Henry Robert

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Charrington, Spencer

Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Chelsea, Viscount

Greene, HenryD. (Shrewsbury)

Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Gretton. John

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Gull, Sir Cameron

Percy, Earl

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

Pierpoint, Robert

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Henderson, Alexander

Pilkington, Richard

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

Pollock, Harry Frederick

Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Howell, William Tudor

Pretyman, Ernest George

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Purvis, Robert

Curzon, Viscount

Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

Rentoul, James Alexander

Dalkeith, Earl of

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Richardson, Sir Thos.(Hartlep'l

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Denny, Colonel

Kenyon, James

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Dibgy, John K. D. Wingfield-

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Keswick, William

Rutherford, John

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Knowles, Lees

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Doughty, George

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

On this clàuse we have the legitimate opportunity of entering, and recording on the Journals of this House, the protest which we on this side of the House have to make against what I believe to be an entirely vicious and evil system of finance. I will not, as I have said, delay the Committee by repeating the arguments which I have formerly used against this proposal, but I shall certainly take the opportunity of recording my vote against it.
Question put—
"That Clause 13 stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 154; Noes, 77. (Division List No. 139.)

Seely, Charles Hilton

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Ox'd. Unv.

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Seton-Karr, Henry

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Sidebottom, William(Derbysh.

Valentia, Viscount

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

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

Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe)

Wyndham, George

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Wyvill, Maymaduke D'Arey

Stanely, Lord (Lanes.)

WSebsterm Sir R. E. (I. Wight)

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Stephens, Henry Charles

Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

Stewart, Sir MarkJ. M'Taggart

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Strauss, Arthur

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

William,Joseph Powell-(Birm

NOES.

Asher, Alexander

Hedderwick, Thos. Charles H.

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Reckitt, Harold James

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Hy.

Holland, Wm. H. (York, W. R.

Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

Bartley, George C. T.

Horniman, Frederick John

Rickett, J. Compton

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Billson, Alfred

Kay-Shuttlew'th, Rt. Hn. SirU.

Samuel J. (Stockton on Tees)

Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)

Lawson,Sir Wilfrid(Cumb'land

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Broadhurst, Henry

Leuty, Thomas Richmond

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James-

Lough, Thomas

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Caldwell, James

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Causton, Richard Knight

M'Ghee, Richard

Stevenson, Francis S.

Channing, Francis Allston

M'Leod, John

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh.

Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

Tennant, Harold John

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Montagu, Sir S. (Whiteechapel

Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

Daly, James

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Morton, Edw. J. C.(Devonport

Wedderburn, Sir William

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Moulton, John Fletcher

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

Doogan, P. C.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wilson, Fredk. W. (Norfolk)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wilson, John (Govan)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

Oldroyd, Mark

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Wilson, Jos. H. (Middlesbrough

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

Woods, Samuel

Gurdon, Sir Wm. Brampton

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

Philipps, John Wynford

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Harwood, George

Pirie, Duncan V.

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. M'Arthur.

Hazell, Walter

Price, Robert John

MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It will be necessary, at the commencement of business on Friday, to move the Suspension of the Standing Orders to allow proceedings in Committee of Ways and Means to be continued or entered upon after midnight, though opposed. Not that I anticipate that the motion will have operative effect. I hope that the business will be disposed of before midnight.
In reply to a question by Mr. Asquith,
Mr. A. J. BALFOURsaid: The only other important business will be the Second Reading of the Colonial Loans Fund Bill. It is rather important on public grounds that this Bill should not be very long delayed. The London
426
Government Bill will be deferred in any case till Monday next. I suppose there will be no objection to my putting down the Report of Supply after the Colonial Loans Fund Bill.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

SUPREME COURT (APPEALS) BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

CLAUSE 1.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That Clause I, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
MR. SAMUEL EVANSobjected to the Bill on the ground that it would tend to weaken the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal was at present presided over by three judges, and without any good reason the Government were proposing to make it possible for two judges to act instead of three. There was already a provision in the Judicature Act which enabled the Lord Chancellor, upon an emergency, to send one of the most eminent judges of the Queen's Bench or the Chancery Division to the Court of Appeal. This provision would cover any emergency. The Bill was in his opinion a very mischievous one, and one for which no ease had been made out.
DR. CLARKsaid it was imagined that Conservative Governments always conserved, but the present Unionist Government was of a most revolutionary character. He moved to report Progress.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

SOLICITORS BILL [Lords].
As amended, considered; an Amendment made; Bill read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
BILL INTRODUCED.
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS.
  Bill to amend the law relating to factories and workshops, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tennant, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. John Burns, Sir John Stirling-Maxwell, Mr. Sydney Buxton, Mr. Haldane, Mr. M'Kenna, and Mr. Lionel Holland.

FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL.
"To amend the law relating to factories and workshops," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 1st June, to be printed. (Bill 191.)
House adjourned at half after Twelve of the clock.