Sitting of 6 March 1900

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, namely—

  London and North Western Railway Bill.

  London and North Western Railway (Wales) Bill.

  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  ABERDEEN CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL.
    NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed.
  HUNTINGDON CORPORATION BILL (BY ORDER).
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  KNOTT END RAILWAY BILL (BY ORDER).
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 20th March.
  OSSETT GAS BILL (BY ORDER).
  Read a second time, and committed.
  SOUTH EASTERN METROPOLITAN TRAMWAYS BILL (BY ORDER).
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  WELLINGBOROUGH AND DISTRICT TRAMROADS BILL (BY ORDER).
  Read a second time, and committed.
  MR.LOUGH: I have an Instruction on the Paper with regard to this Bill which I understand the promoters are willing to consider favourably. It is to the same effect as the Instructions carried last week with regard to similar Bills, and the object is to secure some necessary amendments in the clause relating to cheap fares for the labouring classes and the hours at which workmen's cars shall run. In this Bill the clause is in about the worst form of any I have seen this session, for it provides that the cars shall not run after 6 a.m. or till after 6 p.m. I beg to move the Instruction standing in my name.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Welling borough and District Tramroads Bill to inquire whether it is desirable that Clause 44 of the Bill (Cheap fares for the labouring classes) should be amended in respect of the hours at which the cars should be run, the number of cars to be provided, and the maximum and the minimum fares to be charged.—(Mr. Lough.)

  TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL.
  MR. STRACHEY: I beg to move the Instruction standing in my name, and I do so with the knowledge
  176
  that not only the Taunton Corporation but the people of the county of Somerset agree to it, and that it will be supported by the hon. Members for Taunton and West Somerset, whose names are on the back of the Bill. On the Second Reading of this Bill* the Secretary to the Local Government Board objected to the Instruction I am about to move, because the clause, as it stands in the Bill, represents a compromise arrived at on the subject last session between representatives of the Local Government Board, the Board of Agriculture, the municipal corporations, and the Parliamentary Committee of the Central Chamber of Agriculture. But I would point out that the representatives of the County Councils Association were not asked to the conference. And why? Because if they had taken part in it they would undoubtedly have protested against the invasion of their rights which was agreed to. What is proposed by the Bill is an unnecessary interference with the proper and legitimate duties of county councils. Last year the Corporation of Leeds inserted in its Bill a clause similar to the Instruction I am now proposing, and if the Instruction is adopted, the end aimed at by the clause, namely, that of ensuring the supply of uncontaminated milk, will be attained without injustice being done to the farmer. It will be remembered that the Local Government Board objected to the Leeds clause, and the Committee, after hearing Mr. Boyce, their representative, rejected it; but the county councils of the West Riding of Yorkshire felt so strongly about it, and were so cordially supported by the urban and rural local authorities, that they got it re-inserted by the Lords Committee, who held that the model clause of the Local Government Board constituted an unnecessary interference with the local authorities. The Committee also recognised the fairness and justice of taking these cases before two justices instead of one, so as to secure a proper hearing for the farmer. I shall perhaps be met with the argument that it is the duty of the Local Government Board to see after the proper sanitation of dairies, and to secure that the milk sold does not contain the slightest taint. I agree with that, and
  *See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxix., p. 1516.

  177
  I would point out that under Section 34 of the Diseases of Animals Act they are empowered to act when the local authority fails to do its duty. There is, therefore, not the slightest ground for saying that these clauses are necessary in the interests of the supply of pure milk. All parties are agreed on the main matter, and therefore it simply comes to this, that the Local Government Board wishes to force on the people of Somerset a form of procedure which they object to. The Somerset Chamber of Commerce has expressed an opinion favourable to my Instruction, and to-day the Central Chamber of Agriculture has passed a resolution approving of the clause being inserted. Therefore it resolves itself into this, that the Local Government Board are going to dictate to the people of Taunton what local regulations they shall possess, whether they like them or not.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: I have very little to say in seconding this Instruction beyond what has been advanced by the hon. Member for South Somerset. As one of the backers of the Bill I communicated with the Corporation of Taunton, and they readily agreed to the insertion of the clause suggested in the Instruction. As regards the attitude of the Local Government Board, I would ask why that Department, in this case, wishes to deprive the farmers of ordinary justice. The demand is simply that, before the corporation goes outside its own boundary, an order of two justices shall be obtained, and I think that is a perfectly fair and reasonable proposal. In my opinion, this question of the right of municipalities to go outside their own areas ought not to be dealt with by private Bills, but by a public Bill dealing with the whole case. I am afraid that the policy of the Government is to let these clauses be inserted in a lot of private Bills, and then to turn round and say that, since every corporation has them, they shall be the law of the land. That is a very intelligible policy, but not a very honest one. If the Government oppose this Instruction, they will be agreeing to different laws for different counties, since Leeds already has such a clause. Yorkshire is a large, rich, and thickly populated county, while Somersetshire is comparatively small, weak, and poor; but I think that the farmers of Somerset should have at least
  178
  the same measure of justice meted out to them as those of Yorkshire. I sincerely hope that the hon. Member will go to a division, if only as a protest against this anomaly, against a proposal which would enable a body which is not a judicial body to act as judge and jury in its own case and to close any man's premises. I know of no other business which could be closed in the same way.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Taunton Corporation Bill to provide in Part III. of the Bill that the powers of the Corporation and their officers to inspect cows and dairies outside the borough be not exercised without the previous order of two Justices sitting in Petty Sessions and having jurisdiction in the district wherein the dairy is situate, and that such order be not made unless the said Justices are satisfied that the local authority of the said district has not already dealt with the case."—(Mr. Strachey.)
  MR. CHANNING: I heartily agree with my hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Wellington Division in wishing that this subject could be dealt with in a public Bill on broad lines. But I wish to support as wise and on the whole as the best compromise on this question the model clauses which were arrived at last year. I do not know what course the Government propose to take, but I hope the House will support that compromise. How were these model clauses arrived at? Bills were introduced by several most important corporations in the north of England taking the power already enjoyed and exercised by the city of Glasgow to go outside their own areas in order to prevent the inhabitants being supplied with contaminated milk from the rural districts. That was a very wide power, and it was only after consultation between the President of the Local Government Board and representatives of the Board of Agriculture and the Central Chamber of Agriculture that these model clauses were drafted. It seems to me that they go quite far enough in the way of limiting the powers of these communities to protecting the health of the inhabitants, and that if we are to set up the jurisdiction of two county magistrates sitting in petty

  179
  sessions, who might possibly look solely to the interests of the farmers supplying the milk, we should be taking the serious step of increasing the obstacles which already stand in the way of the authorities protecting the health of the inhabitants of great towns in this matter of milk supply.
  *MR. JEFFREYSsuggested that instead of pressing this mandatory Instruction to the Committee, the hon. Member should consent to insert before the words "to provide," the words "to consider whether it is desirable."
  MR. STRACHEY: I am afraid I cannot accept that.
  *MR. JEFFREYSthought that a very unwise decision, as the Committee would be able with such an Instruction to consider the whole matter.
  MR. STRACHEY: They considered it last year, and objected to it.
  *MR. JEFFREYSreminded the House that in the agreement that was come to last year it was thought by several that the order of one magistrate in a locality to inspect farm premises would be sufficient, but in the House of Lords it was thought better to require two magistrates. Surely it would be wise so to word the Instruction that the Committee would seriously consider whether the order of one magistrate was sufficient, or whether it would be a greater protection to the farmers if the order of two magistrates was required.
  *MR. MCKENNAtrusted the House would not accept the Instruction. The matter would doubtless be considered fully before the Committee, and the evidence taken would be printed. If after reading the evidence the hon. Gentleman the mover of the Instruction was not satisfied with the action of the Committee, he would still have an opportunity of bringing the matter before the House.
  MR. HOBHOUSEcould not understand why, if all the districts concerned were agreed, that agreement should be overthrown or objected to by the Local Government Board. If the right hon. Gentleman thought a uniform
  180
  clause throughout the country was desirable, a public Bill ought to be introduced dealing with this important question. But if he did not consider it worth special legislation in that way the question ought to be settled to a large extent by the opinion of the locality. He ventured to think, however, that the Police and Sanitary Committee was not the best body to deal with the matter, as that Committee was very much in the hands of the Local Government Board. But if the right hon. Gentleman would say that his Department would not interfere with or put pressure upon the Committee he would be inclined to advise the acceptance of the modified Instruction suggested by a previous speaker.
  COLONEL WELBY: thought that if the Instruction was allowed to pass, it being made perfectly clear that it was not to be regarded as a precedent, it would be a recognition of the unity of interests between the small county boroughs and the district around, and would show the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy with agriculture.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Chaplin,: I think this proposed Instruction is to be deprecated on various grounds. The hon. Member who moved the Instruction bases his support of it upon the ground that it is desirable in the interests of agriculture. I am probably as much interested in agriculture as any Member of this House, and my opinion is that even upon that ground alone it would be difficult to show that the Instruction was desirable. The House remembers what has happened with regard to this question in the past. Of late years there has been a very laudable and proper desire to arrest, in the interest of public health, the spread of tuberculosis, and measures which were proposed with this object last year brought me into conflict at once with two great and different interests—the interest of agriculture on the one hand, and the interest represented by medical experts and those interested in public health on the other. A number of private Bills were brought in last year purely in the interests of public health, but were held to be extremely injurious to certain branches of the agricultural interest. As President of the Local

  181
  Government Board these Bills naturally came before me. In conjunction with my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Agriculture I resolved to see whether some arrangement could not be made by which these two great interests on this question would be brought to a common understanding. After much trouble and many conferences between representatives of the agricultural interest on the one hand, and medical and sanitary experts on the other, an arrangement was arrived at, and clauses, which have been referred to as model clauses, agreed to. The view, certainly, of my right hon. friend, of myself, and of most of those interested in medical science was that the arrangement was a very desirable one, and one which ought to be adhered to. That, however, is not the view of the hon. Member opposite. He has come forward with a mandatory Instruction, which upon that ground I think is to be highly deprecated, and he seeks to impose upon the Committee upstairs the duty of including this particular clause in the Bill. I think the House will see itself that it is not desirable that such an Instruction should be passed. I have been asked whether the Local Government Board will interfere. My intention with regard to that would be to leave this question entirely for the consideration of the Committee. I would ask the House to remember that a general agreement has been come to between the two parties, and now it is sought to override that arrangement. If such a course is adopted in this particular case, what is to prevent the powerful representatives of the medical and sanitary interests attempting to reverse what has been done in the past, and introducing clauses far more extreme and far more injurious in their character to the agricultural interests than at present exist? If on no other grounds than that of the interest of agriculture itself, I most strongly advise the rejection of this Instruction.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid he was very anxious that a compromise should be arrived at. There was really a great deal to be said on both sides. He himself might perhaps be suspected of being unduly prejudiced in regard to what might be called the count view of the question, because he was intimately connected with the administration of the
  182
  county, but he had very great sympathy with any effort made by a borough authority to obtain a purer supply of milk within its own district. That effort could not be effective unless a borough authority or the urban council had some power of control immediately outside its own limits, or unless the county authority were thoroughly in earnest with regard to sanitary control and inspection. In the north of England, which was more progresssve than the south, the county authorities might be trusted in the matter, but when a borough authority in the south of England asked for powers to enable it to deal with the causes of sanitary contamination outside its own area the House threw cold water on the demand. A county employing a medical officer of health stood in a different position from that occupied by a county without such an officer. The county of Somerset, although the question was twice discussed, had not appointed a medical officer of health. Not long ago there was a terrible outbreak of infectious disease in Bristol in which many valuable lives were sacrificed, especially in Clifton College, and in the report on that outbreak by the medical officer of health for Bristol, Somerset did not occupy a very strong position. Therefore he hoped that the hon. Member, in view of the large concession to his views which had been made, would not persist in his Instruction.
  SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid he would rather that the House should express an opinion on the Instruction, for it involved a very important matter affecting the public health. If the corporation of Taunton discovered that the residents were being poisoned by infectious matter introduced from outside it was important that it should have the earliest opportunity of finding out the source of that poison. The Instruction would involve very considerable delay. The matter was urgent and he hoped the House would reject the Instruction in the interests of agriculturists no less than of the public health.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERasked if the Government agreed to the assent of one justice being obtained.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): Yes, Sir. That provision is included in the bill.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid he was inclined to accept the modification.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 109;Noes, 172. (Division List No. 58.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Gretton, John

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Balcarres, Lord

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durh'm

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Hardy, Laurence

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Barry, Rt Hn AH Smith-(Hunts

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Perks, Robert William

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Healy, Timothy M. (N. Louth)

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B. (Hants

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Beaumont Wentworth C. B.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bethell, Commander

  Hobhouse, Henry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Blake, Edward

  Houston, R. P.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Howell, William Tudor

  Redmond, John E. (Waterf'rd)

  Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Round, James

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Hutchinson, Capt. G. W. Grice-

  Russell, Gen. F. S. (Cheltenham

  Caldwell, James

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Carew, James Laurence

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Carlile, William Walter

  Kilbride, Denis

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

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

  Knowles, Lees

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

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

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Denny, Colonel

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lough, Thomas

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Welby, Lt.-Cl. A C E (Taunton)

  Engledew, Charles John

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Maclure, Sir John William

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.

  M'Killop, James

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Finch, George H.

  Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir Herbert E.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Fison, Frederick William

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Morrison, Walter

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Garfit, William

  Myers, Wm. Henry

  Mr. Strachey and Sir Alexander Acland-Hood.

  Gold, Charles

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  NOES.

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (worc'r

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

  Arnold, Alfred

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Arrol, Sir Willam

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Baird, John Geo. Alexander

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Barnes, Erederic Gorell

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Flower, Ernest

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

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

  Foster, Sir Walter (Dreby Co.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H.

  Fry, Lewis

  Brigg, John

  Crombie, John William

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Gedge, Sydney

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Brymer, Willam Ernest

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir J. Eldon

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Dewar, Arthur

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

  Drage, Geoffrey

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Duckworth, James

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Ellis, John Edward

  Hazell, Walter

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Emmott, Alfred

  Hedderwick, Thomas C. H.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Monk, Charles James

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Howard, Joseph

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Stanley, Sir H. M. (Lambeth)

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh.)

  Steadman, William Charles

  Jacoby, Jame-Alfred

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Joicey, Sir James

  Morton. A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Jones, D Brynmor (Swansea)

  Morton Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Sturt, Hon. Humpbry Napier

  Jones, W. (Carnarvonshire)

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

  Talbot, Rt Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)

  Kimber, Henry

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Kinloch, Sir John George S.

  Oldroyd, Mark

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Labouchere, Henry

  PierPoint, Robert

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lafone, Alfred

  Pilkington, Sir G. A. (Lanc. S. W

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  Langley, Batry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Wallace, Robert

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'l'nd

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Purvis, Robert

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Leng, Sir John

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wason, Eugene

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swans.)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Lode, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Long Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Lowe, Francis William

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

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts.)

  Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cumb'l'nd

  Richardson, Sir hos. (Hartlep'l

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Ridley, Rt Hon Sir Matthew W.

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Wilson, J. W. (Wor'shire, N.)

  M'Crae, George

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

  M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W)

  Rothschild, Hon L. Walter

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

  Maddison, Fred.

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (H'fi'd.)

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Rutherford, John

  Woods, Samuel

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Younger, William

  Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

  Seely, Charles Hilton

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Mr. M'Kenna and Sir Albert Rollit

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

  First three Resolutions agreed to.

  LANCASTER CORPORATION BILL (BY ORDER.)
  *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: It is it the request of the Nonconformists of the burgh of Lancaster and of other inhabitants that I move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to leave out Clauses 90 and 91(Provisions as to tithe in the town of Lancaster)." I may be told that in doing so I am acting contrary to the wishes of a large portion of the inhabitants of Lancaster; but while I admit that the people of Lancaster are in favour of the Bill as a whole, there is yet a strong body of opposition to the clauses to which I wish to call the attention of the House. It is true that a town's meeting held in January last expressed approval of the Bill, but that meeting was held at a time of the day when few of the inhabitants could attend. It was also very imperfectly advertised; the result being that very few were present—not above thirty. At the opening of the meeting the mayor made a statement that the resolution to be submitted in favour of the Bill must be either accepted or rejected as a whole, and that he could accept no amendment. The result was
  186
  that those who were opposed to these two clauses could not object to them without rejecting the measure as a whole. An opinion was expressed on that occasion that the meeting should be adjourned to the evening, but that was defeated, and the Bill was sanctioned by twenty-one against eight inhabitants. That is the extent to which the clauses are approved of. It may be further objected that the inhabitants might have petitioned against the clauses, but the answer to that is that the inhabitants apart from the corporation have no locus standi. The House will bear in mind that the clergy of this country who receive their incomes from tithe rent-charge do so under the general law of 1836—the Tithe Commutation Act. The House also knows that the amount of the tithe rent-charge received by the clergy is dependent upon the seven years average of the price of corn—with this result, that £100 of tithe rent-charge is now only worth £66 15s. 9¼d. If the vicar of Lancaster were remunerated on the same terms he would be receiving less than a third of the sum which he actually receives. But the vicar of Lancaster is not subject to such vicissitudes as

  187
  his brother clergy. He has the benefit of an Act of Parliament all to himself—an Act passed in the reign of George IV.—in the days of close and corrupt corporations, before the passing of the Reform Act of 1832 and the Municipal Corporations Act of 1843, when it was possible to perpetrate any job, either in Church or State, with the utmost facility. At that time the tithes were paid in kind almost everywhere, and the Act recites that disputes had arisen in regard to the amounts which were payable. It also contains this curious statement: that several of the townships of the parish of Lancaster are at a considerable distance from the parsonage of Lancaster, and that the collection of the tithes and of the Easter offerings is thereby rendered difficult and made expensive; and so for the convenience of the vicar and the benefit of the occupiers, the tithes and Easter dues were abolished, and a substitute was found for them. It was then enacted that a corn rent of £1,358 should be raised from certain townships in Lancaster, and a special provision was made that the borough of Lancaster should pay £42 10s. a year out of the poor rate, and £167 10s. in a corn rent. The House will be astonished to hear what was the basis of calculation on which the amount of corn rent of £1,358 was fixed in the Act. It was upon the basis that wheat would never be lower than 97s. 6d. per quarter, and it was expressly provided that, however low the price of wheat might be, the corn rent should never be below £1,358. Now wheat in the year 1823,the year before the Act was passed, was sold at the rate of only 53s. 4d. per quarter, and at the present time it is sold at the rate of 26s. 10d. per quarter. I think the House will agree with me that that was a most exorbitant provision at that time; but it has become scandalously exorbitant now. Since the Act was passed a complete change has taken place in the parish of Lancaster. What were then the rural parts of the townships have now been divided into district parishes, with their own churches, their own clergy, and their own parochial machinery, and the inhabitants of most of these townships receive no guidance, no spiritual instruction, no help from the vicar of Lancaster. The clergy of these district parishes are paid out of pew-rents; subscriptions, and a few small endowments; but in
  188
  addition to the money voluntarily paid for this purpose, the inhabitants of the townships have to pay their share of the £1,358 received by the non-resident vicar of Lancaster. The only point of connection between the vicar and these particular townships is what may be termed a cash nexus. Then, strange to say, the vicar retains the patronage of some of the churches in these townships. All this has been going on for three quarters of a century, and this Bill proposes that, except in a very fragmentary way, it should go on still. There is another point; instead of the vicar collecting the tithe himself, each township must appoint two, three, or four collectors to collect its quota of the amount of £1,358 due. Whatever may have been the case when the Act was passed, the office of collector at the present time has become most disagreeable. Because it was opposed by the Nonconformists, some of them have been compelled by the force of law to undertake what is to them an odious duty; and in the last few weeks, the parish having neglected to appoint collectors, a mandamus has been issued to compel them to do so. Objection is taken not only to the mode of collection, but also to the exaction. If the Lancaster Corporation had made bold attempt to remove this grievance it would have been far better; but instead of doing that they have dealt with the matter in a fragmentary, narrow, and pettifogging manner, the result being to leave untouched the real grievance, which will remain as it is in all the townships not affected by this Bill. It does not even remove the grievance in the district in which it is to operate. In my opinion the House will do a service, not only to the town of Lancaster, but to the Church also, by rejecting these clauses, and thereby compelling the corporation to deal with this subject, not in the spirit of the times of the Georges, but in accordance with the better sentiments of these times.
  MR. PERKSformally seconded the motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Lancaster Corporation Bill to leave out Clauses 90 and 91 (Provisions as to tithe in the township of Lancaster)."—(Mr. Carvell Williams.)
  *MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat anticipated that I should have something to say in this matter, and the sooner I say it the sooner the debate will reach a conclusion. The House is becoming somewhat impatient of instructions to the Committee to do things which the committee can do without Instructions, and I look on all such Instructions with suspicion. I look on mandatory Instructions with grave suspicion, but when those mandatory Instructions are to give powers to the Police and Sanitary Committee, I look upon them with the gravest suspicion. If these two clauses are removed, the effect will be to retain for the Vicar a sum of £76 a year which he is ready to sacrifice. I cannot say if what is proposed is a fair bargain or not, because I have no means of testing the evidence. Under the circumstances, what I shall ask the House to do is not to pursue this question, but to send the matter before a Committee, who, having all the evidence before them, and having heard all sides, will arrive at a conclusion. If they consider the Bill is a fair one they will accept the clauses, if they come to any other conclusion they will reject it.
  Question put, and negatived.

  SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL (BY ORDER).
  MR. LOUGH: The Instruction which I have placed upon the Paper appears complicated in form, but it is really very simple in its object. The object of the Instruction is that this House instructs the Committee on the South Metropolitan Gas Bill to insert certain clauses in the Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee which considered the metropolitan gas companies. I think it will be agreed that this Instruction, at any rate, is absolutely necessary, because the Select Committee to which reference is made was a very important body appointed by the present Government, moved for by the other side of the House, and which carried on its deliberations for three or four months of last year. Unless such an Instruction as is down on the Paper is agreed to, the Gas Bill which has already passed a Second Reading this year, and other Gas Bills, might go up to Committee after Committee without any regard being had
  190
  to the important decisions that were arrived at by this very weighty Select Committee, which was presided over by the hon. Baronet Sir James Rankin, whom I see opposite. Therefore, I desire that we should instruct the Committee to have regard to the recommendations that that Select Committee made. Now, there is a good precedent for the course that I ask the House to take. A Select Committee considered the question of Metropolitan Gas in the year 1875, and that Select Committee dealt with just the same objects as are dealt with in this Instruction—namely, the standard price, the sliding scale, and the amalgamation of areas; and the recommendations of that Committee of 1875 were adopted by the subsequent Committees which sat on Gas Bills; in fact, the whole gas law of the metropolis since has been shaped in accordance with the recommendations of that Committee. Therefore, I think it is a good precedent for the course that I ask the House to take this afternoon. Although the Instruction looks complicated and technical, in reality it is very simple. It deals with only two subjects, the first being the question of the standard price. It reduces the standard price of gas by 3d. per 1,000, but it gives a new sliding scale, and the effect of this sliding scale is that the reduction in price will not injure the company provided the price is low. That works out in this way. If the price of the gas is over 2s. 6d. per 1,000 feet, the new sliding scale prevents them from obtaining such a large dividend; if it is from 2s. 4d. to 2s. 6d. it will allow them to pay the same dividend; if it is under 2s. 4d. per 1,000 it allows them even a slightly higher dividend than they pay now. Therefore the object of this sliding scale that the Committee has recommended is to give a great inducement to the company to reduce the price of gas, and that is an object which has generally been pursued by this House in dealing with this gas question. That is the first object, to induce the Committee to have regard to the recommendations of the Select Committee with reference to the standard price and the sliding scale. I do not think I need discuss it further, because I believe the promoters of the Bill are willing to accept the Instruction; they recognise the advantage that it will be to them, and therefore I do not think I need delay the House any further on that.

  191
  The second part of the Instruction may just require a single word. The second part deals with the question of area, and it recommends that effect should be given to the finding of the Committee that a certain district which is now worked by the Gas Light and Coke Company on the south side of the river Thames should be transferred to the South Metropolitan Company. Now at present the South Metropolitan Company exercises great influence in that small area belonging to the other company which is south of the river, for it fixes the price of gas in it, and gas is sold as cheap in this small area as in the larger area of the South Metropolitan Company, but it does so at the expense of the north. The Gas Light and Coke Company explained to the Select Committee that they were only able to sell gas so cheap in that southern area of theirs by throwing a new burden upon the consumers of gas in the north. Now it does not seem fair that the people who consume gas in the north of London should have to pay in addition to the price of their own gas something to enable the people in the south of London to obtain their gas a little more cheaply. Therefore the Select Committee recommended that this anomaly should be done away with by the area being transferred to the South Metropolitan Company. I hope the House will consider that that is a very fair and reasonable recommendation, and that it will be willing to instruct the Committee to insert clauses in the Bill to carry out these two recommendations. The matter has become a very serious one in London, as the price of gas north of the river is quite 10d. per 1,000 feet higher than it is on the south side of the river. The Committee had good reason to hope that if these recommendations were carried into effect a substantial reduction in price would take place, and thus a great burden be taken off the people of the north of London. I think I have made the matter sufficiently clear, and as I understand that the company and the promoters of the Bill will not object to the Instruction, I hope that the House will pass it unanimously.
  *MR. MARKS: In seconding the Instruction that has been proposed, I am not forgetful of the fact that suspicion frequently attaches to such Instructions given to
  192
  Committees, and that grave suspicion attaches when those Instructions take a mandatory form, but there are circumstances in connection with this particular matter which, I venture to think, differentiate it from almost all other cases that have recently come under the notice of the House. On an ordinary Second Reading of the Bill it would be perfectly competent to suggest, and no doubt it would be suggested, that the matters which are covered in this Instruction and cognate matters could well be threshed out before a Committee upstairs. In this particular case the matters have already been threshed out. The recommendations which are involved in this Instruction are not the opinions of any particular section of men. They are opinions and recommendations evolved by a Select Committee of this House after some four months careful and exhaustive inquiry. Let me remind the House that the Select Committee whose recommendations this Instruction deals with was appointed after no less than six years agitation on the part of gas consumers in various parts of the metropolis. Those consumers allege certain grievances—serious grievances—against the gas companies, and after repeated and the most earnest efforts, with great trouble and against great opposition, a Select Committee was finally appointed to inquire into the matter. That Committee investigated all the grievances, and it prepared a most careful and thorough Report, in which, after summing up all the evidence which had been taken on behalf of the consumers, and the evidence which had been given in public on behalf of the companies, it arrived at certain deliberate conclusions. Those conclusions were embodied in the recommendations of the Committee, and two of those recommendations—those which concern the South Metropolitan Company—form the subject matter of this Instruction. Now it might be urged that there is no necessity to have put this Instruction in such a mandatory form. I anticipate that some such objection may be urged. It may be said, Why not leave it to the Committee to consider these matters? But they have already been investigated by a Committee appointed ad hoc, and before that Committee, as I have said, the consumers appeared. Why should they be put to the necessity of appearing twice? Why should these people, who after five years

  193
  of earnest effort did finally get a hearing, he compelled after that hearing has elided to come and try their case over again? If the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into what is a public grievance is a serious matter one might naturally assume—at least, a comparatively young Member of this House might be pardoned for assuming—that the Report of that Committee should bear some fruit. This is about the only way in which the Report of the Committee ever can bear any fruit. The recommendations of the Committee were designed to take effect when the companies concerned should come to the House for any extension or alteration of their capital powers. This company now comes to this House for an extension and alteration of its capital powers. The event anticipated by the Committee has arisen, and in seconding this Instruction I do urge the House to give effect to the principles which the Committee has embodied in its very careful and weighty Report: to adhere to the recommendations of its own Committee, and to allow the gas-consuming public of the metropolis to derive the benefits of the investigation finally allowed them.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the South Metropolitan Gas Bill to insert such Clauses in the Bill as may be required to give effect to Recommendations 1 and 2 of the Select Committee on Metropolitan Gas Companies, as follows:—

  (1) That the standard price shall be reduced to 3s. 3d. to carry the standard dividend of 10 per cent., and that the existing scale of increase and decrease for dividend of¼per cent. for every penny of increase or decrease of price below or above 3s. 3d. be maintained, and that a secondary or additional scale be imposed which should permit of an increase or decrease of dividend over and above that regulated by the present scale of¼per cent. for every complete 3d. of decrease or increase below or above the standard price of 3s. 3d.

  (2) That the area south of the River Thames, at present part of the district of the Gas Light and Coke Company, should be transferred from the Gas Light and Coke Company to the South Metropolitan Gas Company at a fair and reasonable price."—(Mr. Lough).

  SIR JAMES RANKIN: I rise to move an Amendment to the Instruction which has just been moved by my hon. friend opposite, and it is to the effect of preventing that Instruction being of a mandatory character. Having had the honour of being chairman of the Select Committee on Metropolitan Gas Companies, I agree to a very great extent with the conclusions at which they arrived, but I do not think it is fair that on the companies coming before the House with their various Bills connected with this matter the South Metropolitan Gas Company and the Gas Light and Coke Company should not have a chance of being heard upon the recommendations of the Committee. Although, no doubt, we had before us very full evidence on the whole of the matter, yet our recommendations were never argued or considered directly by the gas companies. My chief reason in wishing to move this Amendment is this, that although the South Metropolitan Gas Company may agree to the Instruction moved by my hon. friend—and I admit it would have very little effect upon them, because they are a very well-managed gas company and produce gas at a very low rate yet if that Instruction were carried it would equally affect the Gas Light and Coke Company. That company has not agreed to this Instruction, and, I think it is only fair that they should have a hearing on this matter before the Committee upstairs before a conclusion is arrived at. I would point out that it is a very complex matter indeed, although my hon. friend will say it is a very simple one. I doubt very much whether, on once reading it over, any Member would understand exactly the effect which is carried out by this Instruction. With regard to the transfer of the area now belonging to the Gas Light and Coke Company south of the Thames to the South Metropolitan Gas Company a great number of complex arrangements would have to be made before it could be fairly carried out. I would also point out that the mere price of coal would have a very considerable effect upon fixing a standard price. I think all the matters should be heard and should be considered by the Council upstairs before we pass a mandatory Instruction. I would venture to suggest that if after the word "Committee" in

  195
  the second line of my hon. friend's Instruction the words, "to consider whether it be desirable" were inserted it would make it a perfectly fair Instruction to be carried. I think myself that it is highly desirable that this Committee upstairs should have regard to the various recommendations made by the Select Committee of last year, and in case—which is very improbable, I must say—their attention was not directed to it, I therefore quite agree to an Instruction of that sort; and I rather apprehend that my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade would agree to such an Instruction also. I think I have stated sufficient reason upon general grounds—and here I may say I altogether agree with my right hon. friend the Chairman of Ways and Means, in his views as to what should guide the House in dealing with these matters—I think I have stated enough to show that it would be better to allow the Committee upstairs a free hand rather than tying it by a mandatory Instruction in the House.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To insert, after the word 'Committee' in line 2, the words 'to consider whether it is desirable.' "—(Sir James Rankin.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Ritchie,): I hope the hon. Member who moved this Instruction will agree to the Amendment. I think that it is a practical impossibility for the House, upon an ex parte statement, to take upon themselves to decide whether the Committee to which this Bill should be referred should be ordered to insert in the Bill certain clauses which have been recommended by a Select Committee. Of course, the recommendations of the Select Committee must necessarily carry with them great weight before the Committee on the Bill. They would in any case, I think, have to consider them, but if the Committee decide to accept the recommendations it should be because in their discretion they think the recommendations are reasonable. If we are to instruct definitely the Committee to insert in the Bill these recommendations, it would, practically, be giving the powers of a law to the recommendations of Select Committees; and I do not think it would be advisable for
  196
  the House to agree to that. My hon. friend the Member for St. George's in the East has said that these companies have been heard. That is quite true; they have been heard before the Committee on the general question; but they have never been heard upon the special recommendations made by the Select Committee, and I think they are entitled to be heard, and I believe the House will so consider. I do not think the hon. Gentleman will be in any way damaging the cause for which he has been five years fighting if he accepts the suggestion of my hon. friend the Member for Leominster, and if he does accept it I think he will be placing the Committee in the position, in which they ought to be placed, of hearing the evidence which will be brought before them on these Bills.
  MR. LOUGH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether I understand him to say that he would recommend that both Bills should go to the same Committee?
  MR. RITCHIE: I did not say so, but I assumed that it would be so. I think that both the South Metropolitan and the Gas Light and Coke Companies' Bills ought to go to the same Committee, so that they may both be considered at the same time.
  *MR. MARKS: May I ask my right hon. friend if the addition of the words proposed will enable the Committee to add these clauses if they find them desirable?
  MR. RITCHIE: Most undoubtedly it will.
  MR. LOUGH: On the Amendment, I think the words, even if we accept the sense of the hon. Baronet opposite, who has moved them, might be a little improved. We might put it, "to consider, and, if desirable, insert." I am sure that would meet the hon. Baronet's wish, and I think those words are distinctly better. After what has fallen from the President of the Board of Trade, whose assistance in this matter one would naturally desire to secure, if the hon. Baronet would amend his Amendment in that form, I would accept it.
  MR. RITCHIE: Does that not seem to imply that they should consider, and if they think desirable to put in these clauses, they shall, but they shall not put them in in any form? Would that not seem to be implied? I think that would be unfortunate.
  SIR JAMES RANKIN: I think I must press my Amendment.
  MR. LOUGH: Very well, Sir, I will accept the Amendment.
  Amendment made—
  "By inserting after the word 'Committee,' in line 2, the words 'to consider whether it is desirable.'"—(Sir James Rankin.)
  Ordered, That it be an instruction to the Committee on the South Metropolitan Gas Bill to consider whether it is desirable to insert such Clauses in the Bill as may be required to give effect to Recommendations 1 and 2 of the Select Committee on Metropolitan Gas Companies, as follows:—

  (1) That the standard price should be reduced to 3s. 3d. to carry the standard dividend of 10 per cent., and that the existing scale of increase and decrease for dividend of ¼ per cent. for every penny of increase or decrease of price below or above 3s. 3d. be maintained, and that a secondary or additional scale be imposed which should permit of an increase or decrease of dividend over and above that regulated by the present scale of ¼ per cent. for every complete 3d. of decrease or increase below or above the standard price of 3s. 3d.

  (2) That the area south of the river Thames, at present part of the district of the Gas Light and Coke Company, should be transferred from the Gas Light and Coke Company to the South Metropolitan Gas Company at a fair and reasonable price.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment (Provisional Order confirmed); Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.

  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment (Provisional Order confirmed); Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time tomorrow.

  PONTEFRACT PARK BILL.
  Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  RUGELEY GAS BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Committee:—

  1 "That, in the case of the Central London Railway, Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."

  2. "That, in the case of the West Ham Corporation Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to introduce their additional Provision, if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

  3. "That, in the case of the Christchurch, Bournemouth, and Winton Tramways Petition, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that the powers to construct Sections I. and III. of the Tramways proposed to be authorised by the Bill be struck out:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

  4. "That, in the case of the Llandrindod Wells Water Petition, the Standing Orders ought not to be dispensed with."

  Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  DECLARATION OF PARIS.
  Petition from Macclesfield, for annulment; to lie upon the Table.
  GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (EXEMPTION FROM RATES).
  Petition from St. Mary, Stoke Newington, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Blaydon; Ryton; Little Malton; and Manchester; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petition from Elsecar, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Catford; and Bolton-le-Moors; to lie upon the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (MONMOUTHSHIRE) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Southampton; Glasgow; Forest Gate; and Peterborough; to lie upon the Table.
  TOWN COUNCILS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Selkirk, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SHERIFFS' ACCOUNTS.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Warrant, dated 27th November, 1899, appointing Benjamin James Bridgeman, esquire, and George William Couch, esquire, to examine Sheriffs' Accounts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (MILITIA TRAINING ESTABLISHMENTS).
  Copy presented, of Militia Training Return, 1899 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
  Accounts presented, for the year ended 31st March, 1899, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 86.]
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—NUMBER OF BOER PRISONERS.
  MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state the number of Boer prisoners of war now in Capetown or its vicinity, excluding the recent capture of General Cronje's force.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK,): In the absence of my hon. friend the Under Secretary for War perhaps I may be allowed to answer the question addressed to his department. Excluding the Boers captured at Paardeberg, and others who were captured in the other engagements connected with Lord Roberts' movements, and who are now at Kimberley, the total prisoners at Simons Town and Wynberg amount to 628.

  TREATMENT OF PRISONERS— GENERAL CRONJE.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is the name of the ship upon which General Cronje and his family are imprisoned, and how long it is intended to keep them imprisoned on shipboard.
  *MR. BRODRICK (for Mr. Wyndham): General Cronje and his family will be detained on board the flagship "Doris" I cannot at present say how long they will be kept there.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that as soon as possible General Cronje is provided with a suitable place ashore?
  *Mr. BRODRICK: That question will be dealt with by the military authorities on the spot.

  MAGERSFONTEIN ENGAGEMENT— MISSING SEAFORTHS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a statement that Mr. Bisset, the owner of Magersfontein, was an eyewitness of the battle, and relates that a party of forty Seaforth Highlanders made their way through the Boer lines to the top of a kopje, where some of them were

  201
  subsequently killed, and others taken prisoners by General Cronje; and will he endeavour to ascertain whether Major Mackenzie, Seaforth Highlanders, who has been missing since the battle, was with this party.
  *Mr. BRODRICK (for Mr. WYNDHAM): I regret that it has not been possible up to the present to obtain definite information as to the fate of Major Mackenzie, or to add anything to the answer given to the hon. Member on the 13th ultimo concerning that officer.

  PARCELS POSTAGE TO TROOPS AT THE FRONT.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, seeing that the gratuitous transport of private consignments of clothing and other articles to the British troops in South Africa does not guarantee delivery to the addressee, he will recommend a reduction in the parcels post rate to the field force of 9d. per lb., which in many cases is prohibitive.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. Hanbury,): I understand that the Post Office has not the power, without fresh legislation, to reduce the rate of postage which it is its duty to collect, but the War Office is considering how far it may be possible, with the concurrence of the Treasury, to do something which would meet the wishes of the hon. Member. As, however, it is necessary that the Cape Post Office should also be consulted, it is not yet possible to announce a decision in the matter.

  PAY OF AUSTRALIAN TROOPS AT THE FRONT.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Australian troops at the front are paid by the Imperial Government; and, if so, is the pay given to them more than the pay of the men in the Regular Army; and, if so, how much more.
  *Mr. BRODRICK (for Mr. Wyndham): The Australian troops at the front are paid by the Imperial Government at the same rates as the Regular forces.

  AUSTRALIAN "BUSHMEN" CONTINGENT.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Imperial Government has applied to Australia for more troops; and, if so, will the cost, including pay of the men, be borne by the home Government.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. Chamberlain,): The Australian Governments have been informed that Her Majesty's Government will be glad to have the services of 2,000 men similar to the "Bushmen" contingent, and all the costs, including the pay of the men, will be borne by this country. I may say that the request of Her Majesty's Government has been received gratefully and with enthusiasm.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: What will be the pay in this case?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is a question for the War Office.

  PAGET'S HORSE.
  MR. H. S. FOSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the first and second sections of Paget's Horse have now been enrolled many weeks; that a large proportion of those forming part of these sections gave up their occupations in order to join the ranks; and that dissatisfaction exists at the delay and uncertainity as to their departure for the front. Whether he can state approximately the date of their departure; whether the War Office has handed over to the Imperial Yeomanry Committee the military arrangements, and what experience the members of that committee have had in organising and transporting large bodies of mounted troops; and will he state why the second section have not yet been furnished with rifles, and when they will be so armed.
  *Mr. BRODRICK (for Mr. Wyndham): The 51st Company Imperial Yeomanry will not be ready for embarkation till the 16th March, and will sail in the "Tagus" on that date. The 52nd Company is ready and will be despatched as soon as transports are available. The Yeomanry Committee have secured the assistance of experienced officers in regard to the

  203
  organisation and transport of the Yeomanry. As regards the rifles, the 52nd Company have not yet applied for them to the War Office.
  MR. H. S. FOSTER: Have the War Office, as asked in the third paragraph, handed over the arrangements to the Imperial Yeomanry Committee?
  *Mr. BRODRICK: Certain arrangements have been handed over to the committee, and the experiment has so fat been attended with great success.

  OFFICERS AT THE FRONT—THE STAFF COLLEGE.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Way whether he can state in what years respectively the following officers passed the final examination at the Staff College—namely, General Lord Roberts, General Lord Kitchener of Khartoum, General French, General Macdonald, and Colonel Lord Dundonald.
  *MR.BRODRICK: None of the officers named passed through the Staff College.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: How does my right hon. friend explain their success?
  *Mr. BRODRICK: There is no law in the mind of the War Office which suggests that much learning maketh a man mad, but it is possible for a man to be successful even if he has passed through the Staff College.

  ARMY ESTIMATES.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, before proceeding to discuss Vote A, Army Estimates, in Committee of Supply, a statement will be circulated to Members of the House showing the estimated number of Cavalry, Royal Reserve Battalions, Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers respectively to be provided for in the Estimates, under the head of temporary measures for increasing the number and efficiency of the forces in the United Kingdom, and more particularly described on page 4, sub-head (C), in the statement of the Secretary of State for War.
  *Mr. BRODRICK (for Air. Wyndham): It is not proposed to furnish such a state-
  204
  ment. A full explanation of the measures will be given on the introduction of Army Estimates in Committee.

  THE BLAKELY GUN.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that, as shown on page 551 of the Report of the Ordnance Select Committee, 1863, the Armstrong gun patented in 1858 embodies the principles contained in a patent taken out in 1855 by the late Captain T. A. Blakely, R.A.; and in view of the fact that the widow of this officer expended the greater part of her fortune in enabling her husband to bring to perfection, in the manufacture of heavy ordnance, a principle which was eventually adopted in guns manufactured for Her Majesty's Government, will he consider Mrs. Blakely's claim to be placed on the Civil List.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. Balfour,): I answered a question of the same purport on 28th July, 1898.* I then informed the hon. Member for Norwood that, according to such inquiries as I had been able to make, Captain Blakely was one of several inventors who at about the same time had independently hit on somewhat similar methods of improving artillery. No guns made on Captain Blakely's design were ever introduced into the service, nor was expenditure incurred at the instigation of the British Government.

  THE VOLUNTEERS—EASTER MANŒUVRES.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, as reported, the usual Easter Manœuvres are not to take place this year; whether he is aware that the London Volunteers look to the Easter training as the only period during the year in which some part of their military training can be carried out; whether he will inquire of the commanding officers of the London Volunteer battalions as to the advantages derived from this training; and whether, considering that these battalions contain many men who have recently joined, and the importance of giving the best training possible to the Volunteers this year, the War Office will reconsider their decision.
  *See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxiii., p. 311.
  *MR. BRODRICK (for Mr. Wyndham): There have been no manœuvres for some years, and there will be none at Easter, nor will there be any route marches. In lieu of this it is contemplated to extend the periods of Volunteer camps during this year.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the commanding officers of London Volunteers with a view to have military manœuvres at Easter this year?
  *MR. BRODRICK: I am afraid that the decision come to by the authorities cannot be varied this year.

  COLCHESTER RIFLE RANGE.
  MR. F. W. WILSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when the Colchester Rifle Range at Middlewick will be opened.
  *Mr. BRODRICK (for Mr. Wyndham): It is not possible to say when it will be opened. The range is all ready, and the purchase money has been paid into court, not a delay has arisen through a small legal difficulty which it is to be hoped will be shortly settled.

  CLOSED RIFLE RANGES.
  MR. F. W. WILSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the detailed Return of closed rifle ranges in the eastern district can be issued before Easter.
  *MR. BRODRICK (for Mr. Wyndham): The Return was distributed to the House yesterday.

  SOMALILAND TROUBLES—AFRICAN NATIVE TROOPS.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War to what place the British Central African natives, lately in Mauritius and now said to be at sea, are going, and for what purpose.
  *Mr. BRODRICK (for Mr. WYNDHAM): The battalion is on its way to Somaliland, where local disorder has rendered its presence desirable.

  NAVAL MANŒUVRES FOR 1899.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended to circulate any Report on the Naval Manœuvres of last year.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (MR. Goschen,): Yes, Sir.

  DELAGOA BAY.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether negotiations are in progress between Her Majesty's Government and the Portuguese Government with a view to the acquisition by England of Delagoa Bay or some other port in Portuguese East Africa.
  *MR. BRODRICK: No such negotiations are in progress.

  DISTURBANCES AT MONTREAL.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the cause and extent of the disturbances in Montreal recently between French and English Canadians.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: These unfortunate riots appear to have been begun by students at McGill University on Tuesday last as a demonstration against the offices of French newspapers accused of anti-British feeling. Students of Laval University retaliated by pulling down the flag on the office of the Star, a British paper. Subsequently a mob took part in the rioting. A telegram received last night informs me that no further rioting has occurred.

  ELECTRIC ENERGY BILLS.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to obtain a tribunal appointed on non-party lines, he is prepared to recommend that the Committee to whom the Electric energy Bills are to be entrusted shall be exclusively nominated by the Committee of Selection.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THEBOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Ritchie,): I think the House would act wisely if it referred these Bills to a Committee nominated as suggested in the question.

  OFFICIAL RECEPTION OF POSTAL TRADES UNIONS.
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if the announcement recently made in the

  207
  official document known as Registered No. 234, 768/99, is to be taken as a concession of the official recognition of Postal Trade Unions, and if so, will the Postmaster General enlarge, if necessary, such instructions on the subject which he may issue so as to provide for the reception of properly elected trade union representatives without qualification as is customary with private employers
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is not aware of the precise meaning which is intended to be attached to the expression "official recognition." The Postmaster General is at all times ready to consider any representations made, whether collectively or individually, by persons in the employment of the Department, and it is not necessary for any person in order to obtain a hearing to associate himself either formally or informally with others. All classes of Post Office servants have full liberty to form themselves into associations for any legitimate purpose, and any representations from such bodies will be duly considered if conveyed through the usual official channels, provided that all those by whom or on whose behalf the representations are made are in the service of the Department, and that the questions raised are such as directly affect the whole body represented. The Postmaster General does not consider it necessary to issue any special instructions on the subject, nor to enlarge the statement contained in the official communication referred to by the hon. Member.

  POSTAGE RATES FOR PERIODICALS AND MAGAZINES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is his intention to remedy the disparity between the cost of postage of periodicals and magazines, published in this country at greater length of time than one week, and the ordinary newspapers; whether his attention has been called to the statement in the last report of the Postmaster General of New Zealand to the effect that a magazine post has been established in that colony, the rates of which are 1d. for the first 8 oz., and ½d. for each succeeding 4 oz.; and whether he can see his way to grant a similar concession to the people of this country.
  MR. HANBURY: My hon. friend often sees similarity where none exists. Magazines differ from newspapers in so far as they do not contain news, in their greater weight, and in the longer intervals at winch they appear. Books published at regular intervals might just as well be sent at the newspaper rate as magazines. My hon. friend too frequently changes his views as to the rates to be charged. He now suggests more than double the rate he proposed when he last asked the question. He is aware that there is already a loss on the newspaper post in this country, and that the postal authorities in the United States and in Canada complain that the development of postal facilities is strangled by the large deficits due to the cheap carriage of printed matter in those countries. For packets exceeding 2½lbs. in weight the parcel post in this country is already cheaper than the New Zealand magazine post.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for the past fifteen years the Postmaster General has been promising reform on this matter?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes, but I have shown that it would be exceedingly unwise to make any such reform.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES —INSANITARY DWELLINGS IN RURAL DISTRICTS.
  MR. HAZELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, seeing that since the passing of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, there has been only one case, that at Ixworth, in Suffolk, in which a rural local authority has taken action under Part 3 of the Act to improve the dwellings of the labourers in its district, and in view of the insanitary and overcrowded condition of such dwellings in many cases, as revealed in the Reports of the Assistant Agricultural Commissioners to the Royal Commission on Labour, the Board will consider the desirability of issuing a circular to all rural local authorities throughout the kingdom directing their attention to the powers and duties conferred upon them by that Act.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Chaplin,): I introduced a Bill a few days since which, among other

  209
  things, would simplify the procedure for the adoption of Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, in rural districts. I hope that it may become law during the session, and it would be more advisable, I think, to wait till then before issuing a circular to the local authorities again on this subject, which the Department has done already on a former occasion.

  WORKHOUSE DIETARY REGULATIONS.
  MR. HAZELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can explain the causes of the delay on the part of his Department in issuing reglations based upon the recommendations of the Committee on Workhouse Dietaries in the year 1898; and whether he is able to name the date when such regulations will be issued.
  MR. CHAPLIN:I am afraid there has been some delay in this matter, but it is not quite so simple as it might seem at first sight. The delay has been mainly caused by the great care that has been requisite in framing the model dietary scales which the Committee recommended should be issued. I am unable to name the date when the regulations will be ready, but they are being pressed forward, and there will be no avoidable delay in their issue.

  COTTAGE HOMES BILL.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Government propose this session to introduce any Bill to carry out the recommendations in regard to the Poor Law unanimously made by the Select Committee appointed last session to consider the Cottage Homes Bill.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg at the same time to ask the President of the Local Government Board what steps, by order or otherwise, he proposes to take in order to carry out the recommendations contained in the Report of the Select Committee on the Cottage Homes Bill of last year, with reference to the treatment of the aged and deserving poor as regards indoor and outdoor relief.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I will answer these questions together. I should be very
  210
  glad to introduce a Bill on the subject referred to if it is found to be practicable during this session. The matter is under consideration, but I am not able to give any more definite pledge on the subject at present.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to issue any instructions to the Board of Guardians?
  MR. CHAPLIN: Well, Sir, I have said that I should be glad to introduce a Bill, and that the question was under consideration, and the hon. Member must, I think, be aware that any regulations I might make upon the subject must be dependent, in great measure, on the introduction and passing of a Bill.

  STOURBRIDGE POOR LAW UNION AREA.
  *Mr. MARTIN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the grounds upon which the Local Government Board propose to base their decision to divide the Stourbridge Poor Law Union into two parts; and if they have any reason for disregarding the expressed wishes of the union and its representatives; and, if so, if he will make that reason public.
  MR. CHAPLIN: The workhouse accommodation of the Stourbridge Union is very unsatisfactory, and the Local Government Board have for many years past been urging on the guardians the necessity for its improvement. The union, however, is partly in Staffordshire and partly in Worcestershire, and the workhouse, which is situate almost at one end of the union, is not conveniently placed as regards many of the Worcestershire parishes, and a petition was presented to the Board from some of the guardians of the Worcestershire parishes and others, asking that unless a workhouse on a central site was erected the union might be divided. In 1897 the Board received a deputation on this question, and subsequently an exhaustive local inquiry was held with regard to it. In April last the Board informed the guardians that in their opinion the evidence taken at the inquiry clearly showed that a now workhouse should be built on a central site, and that failing such a site being obtained within a reason-

  211
  able time, they considered that the Worcestershire parishes should be formed into a separate union. A central site has not been obtained, and the Board have accordingly decided that a division of the union should take place.

  BETHNAL GREEN INFIRMARY.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Board of Guardians of St. Matthew's, Bethnal Green, applied some months ago for sanction for the appointment and salaries of the nursing staff for the new Bethnal Green Infirmary, and that, although that institution is completed and ready to receive patients, and was formally opened yesterday, the sanction has not been accorded; and, if so, will he take immediate steps to comply with the request of the guardians.
  MR. CHAPLIN: The Local Government Board have received the application referred to, and there has been considerable correspondence on the subject. The Board's decision in the matter has been communicated to the guardians. They have sanctioned the number of nurses required, and I hope that the matter may now be regarded as settled or far advanced towards settlement.

  INEBRIATES ACT, 1898.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the remarks of the police magistrate at Westminster on 26th February, in the case of Margaret Devine, an habitual inebriate, to the effect that although the Inebriates Act of 1898 had been in force fourteen months there was no place to which he could send a female inebriate, and his statement that excluding Roman Catholics there were only fifteen women in homes, and that the Act was practically a dead letter; and if he would state how many persons, male and female, have been committed under the Act, and what steps are being taken to increase the accommodation for the class of cases with which the Act is intended to deal.
  MR.HAZELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that other magistrates are making the same complaint?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): If so, they are in the same case as the magistrate referred to in the question. I have seen a report of the remarks referred to, and I can only say that if it is accurate the magistrate is under a misapprehension as to the facts of the matter. And I regret that statements so inaccurate as those attributed to him should be circulated on apparently high authority. In reality, 100 females and two males have been committed to and received in certified reformatories, and of these fifty-nine are Protestants. Further accommodation is no doubt needed, and action is being taken by many local authorities with the view of providing it; but the arrangements necessarily take time. Perhaps the best account of the progress which is being made is given in a letter from the inspector under the Act which appeared in The Times on the 6th February. I have sent the hon. Baronet a copy.

  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONGRESS —CHILD LABOUR.
  MR. GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the formal assent given by Her Majesty's Government in 1890 to the proposal made at the International Labour Congress, held in Berlin, that the age at which children might be permitted to work underground should be raised from twelve to fourteen, any steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to give effect to that proposal; and, if not, whether the Government contemplate legislation upon the subject during the current session; and whether he can state which Continental Powers represented at the Berlin Congress assented to the proposal, and what steps have been taken by them to give effect to their pledges.
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: No steps have been taken in this country since 1890 in the direction of raising the age below which children may not work underground; and the Government does not contemplate legislation on the subject this session. The resolution of the Congress was, I think, practically unanimous; but as far as I can ascertain, France and Norway are the only countries where there has been legislation on the subject since 1890; and even in those countries

  213
  the employment underground of children of twelve years of age and upwards, though placed under restrictions, has not been actually prohibited.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Is it not the case that in France child labour under thirteen years of age is entirely prohibited? Will the Government give favourable consideration to a Bill raising the age to thirteen?
  *SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I understand the right hon. Baronet has introduced a Bill extending the age to thirteen. Of course the Government will be prepared to give the Bill full consideration, and I dare say that it may be a favourable one, but I cannot pledge myself.

  AVOCH (ROSS-SHIRE) FISHERY LOSSES.
  MR.WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that the storm of 18th February last resulted in a serious loss to the fishermen of Avoch, Ross-shire, nearly a dozen fishing boats being damaged against the pier, and eighty entirely destroyed; and, in view of this loss, will he consider the expediency of arranging for a grant-in-aid for a harbour at Avoch.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The Secretary for Scotland is aware that on 18th February, during a gale of exceptional violence, five boats were totally wrecked and five damaged in Avoch harbour. Avoch is not within the area falling under the administration of the Congested Districts Board, and the Secretary for Scotland cannot therefore hold out hope of a grant-in-aid. He is, moreover, informed by the Fishery Board that any effective improvement of the harbour would involve a large expenditure.

  SCOTTISH DEER FOREST STATISTICS.
  MR.WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state at what intervals assessors in Scotland require the proprietors of deer forests to furnish the acreage and other information which may be necessary for the purposes of valuation; and will he say what are the penalties attaching to proprietors for a misstatement of facts.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: As I have already explained to the hon.
  214
  Member, the acreage is not a factor in the valuation of a deer forest. The other information which may be necessary for the purposes of valuation is already required yearly. As regards the last portion of his question, I must refer the hon. Member to Section 7 of the Lands Valuation Act, 1854.

  POULTRY BREEDING IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that the Congested Districts Board, with a view to encourage and improve the breed of poultry, sent an expert last autumn to lecture in Sutherland and Caithness, will he state whether the Island of Lewis and the outlying congested districts in other crofting counties outside the line of railway will be visited at an early date; and will he say in what districts sittings of eggs have been distributed.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I am informed by the Congested Districts Board that they cannot at present say whether an expert will be sent, but they are considering how best to convey instruction to crofters in outlying districts. Sittings of eggs have been distributed—In Argyll: Coll and Mull; in Inverness: Barra, Duirinish, Harris, Kilmuir, and North Uist; in Ross: Gairloch, Lochs, and Ullapool; in Shetland: Cunningsburgh, Hillswick, Vaila and Whalsay.

  IRISH POOR RATES AND SMALL TENANTS.
  Major JAMESON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the difficulty there is in collecting the poor rate from tenants whose valuation is not more than £4 owing to the inability of such tenants to pay these rates, he will consider the advisability of levying these rates as before on the immediate landlords.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): I am not aware that any difficulty is experienced such as indicated in the question. The alteration in the law suggested would be entirely opposed to the principle on which the local Government Act was founded, namely, that the burden of the rates should fall on those to whom the electoral power is given.

  CLARE MAIL SERVICE.
  MAJOR JAMESON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware of the very late hours at which the morning mail arrives at Kilrush and Kilkee, County Clare; and will he take steps to see that the mails are made to keep their schedule time, which is 8 o'clock in the morning.
  MR. HANBURY: The delay has occurred on the West Clare Railway, and representations on the subject have been addressed to the company, who have promised to take measures for improving the working of the service.

  KILDYSART UNION—MR. P. K. HALLORAN.
  MAJOR JAMESON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain why the Local Government Board have taken steps to remove Mr. P. K. O'Halloran from acting as district councillor on the council of the Kildysart Union, seeing that Mr. Halloran represents the Labour party in that district, for which he was elected by a large majority.
  MR. ATKINSON (for Mr. G. W. BALFOUR): The Board have not taken steps to remove Mr. O'Halloran from the office of district councillor. His election as a representative of the Labour party would not, of course, disqualify him from acting as councillor, but it having been ascertained that he is a tenant of a labourer's cottage, held from the district council, the Local Government Board have expressed the opinion that, as such, he is disqualified by the provisions of Article 12, paragraph 4 (e) of the Application of Enactments Order from being a member of the district council to which he is tenant. The Board are about to obtain ajudicial decision in order to test the validity of this opinion, and in the meantime no further proceedings will be taken against Mr. O'Halloran.

  QUARANTINE REGULATIONS FOR DOGS LANDED IN GREAT BRITAIN FROM IRELAND.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in consequence of the recently introduced quarantine regulations between England and Ireland, sporting and show dogs are debarred from
  216
  being used for sporting purposes, competition in field trials, or for exhibition, entailing a monetary loss on owners of well-conducted kennels; and whether performing dogs are free from restrictions, and greyhounds are allowed to pass for the purposes of taking part in coursing meetings, while setters, pointers, and spaniels are excluded from taking part in field trial meetings. I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether cattle drovers and dealers are now prevented taking their dogs with them when crossing to England, thereby experiencing trouble in disembarking and managing the cattle; and whether, if the English Board of Agriculture considers it necessary to retain the quarantine regulations in any form, exemption will be granted to sporting, show, and cattle dealers' dogs, provided they are certified by the owner and by a duly qualified veterinary surgeon not to be suffering from rabies and not to have been exposed to any risk of contagion for a period of three months, and that in these cases a licence without any restrictions be granted.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. LONG,): In reply to these questions I would say that in view of the fact that rabies continues to exist in Ireland, whilst it may be said to be practically extinguished in Great Britain, I felt it necessary to impose restrictions on the landing of dogs brought from Ireland until such time as the disease may have been stamped out there. The restrictions have been somewhat relaxed in a few cases of performing dogs and greyhounds where we were satisfied that a concession could safely be made, but it would not be practicable to extend a similar relaxation to so large a class of dogs as that referred to without serious risk of the reintroduction of the disease—a result which, after all we have gone through to secure our present most satisfactory position, I am sure the House would wish me to take every possible means to avoid.
  DR. TANNER: May I ask if the reason why performing dogs are exempted is simply because they are English?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to allow drovers' dogs, which are almost necessary to the Irish cattle trade, to be relieved of these restrictions?
  *Mr. LONG: I have carefully considered that point, and I think that these restrictions are necessary, because, inall probability, greater risks attach to drovers' dogs than to other animals.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: There were fifty Italian dogs in Dublin last week or the week before.

  PORTADOWN RIOTS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he is now ina position to state the cause, and effect on the property of Roman Catholics in Portadown, of the Orange riot which took place there in celebration of the relief of Ladysmith on Wednesday last.
  MR. ATKINSON: The streets of Portadown, like those of other towns in Ulster, were the scene of considerable enthusiasm and excitement when it became known on Wednesday last that Ladysmith had been relieved. It is much to be regretted, however, that amongst the crowds of loyalists who assembled on the occasion in Portadown, there were, unfortunately, a number of persons, mainly boys, who indulged in stone-throwing and breaking the windows in houses the property of Roman Catholics. Windows in the houses of Protestants were afterwards broken by Roman Catholics. The extent of damage done to the houses of Roman Catholics was about £10. No person, I am happy to say, was injured on the occasion, and the respectable inhabitants of the town, in order to mark their disapproval of the reprehensible conduct of these individuals, intend, so I am informed, to have the damage done to windows repaired at their own expense. For some years past every celebration in Portadown has passed off without unpleasant incident. Some eight or nine of the persons who threw the stones on this occasion have been identified, and will be rigorously proceeded against by the police.

  RIOTING IN BELFAST.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, in view of the recentbehaviour of Orange mobs in Belfast, who did damage to Roman Catholic property under cover of celebrations for the relief of Ladysmith, what provision has been
  218
  made to protect the Roman Catholic inhabitants from still further injury in the event of other victories being gained over the Boers; has it come to his knowledge that, in the recent occurrences, the premises of over twenty-five Roman Catholic traders were damaged, the schools of the Christian Brothers attacked, and an assault made on St. Patrick's Roman Catholic Church when the congregation was leaving after evening Lenten devotions; and, in future, will the police be permitted to disperse riotous mobs appearing in the streets of Belfast.
  MR. ATKINSON: There is no foundation whatever for the suggestion that the disturbances in Belfast on Wednesday last were participated in by Orange or riotous mobs under cover of celebrations for the relief of Ladysmith. I have already stated, in answer to a question of the hon. Member for Mid Cork, that the regrettable and reprehensible occurrences of Wednesday were the work of a few individuals only out of the many thousands of loyal citizens of all classes who paraded the streets on the occasion in a perfectly peaceable and orderly manner. The police of Belfast are fully alive to their duty in preserving the public peace, and this duty they will continue to perform notwithstanding the difficulties which they may have to encounter and irrespective of who may be the aggressors.
  DR. TANNER: Arising out of the answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not the fact that these outrages have also occurred on occasions like the defeat of Stormberg, and can he give any assurance that at times when news comes of either a defeat or a victory, due protection will be afforded to the property of Catholics?
  MR. ATKINSON: I am not aware of any riots on the occasion of the alleged defeats, but, of course, the police will be proper protection in all cases.
  DR. TANNER: At the time the three generals were defeated the same thing occurred.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  DEATHS IN MOUNTJOY PRISON— CASE OF THOMAS CASEY.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I bog to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he has seen the verdict of a

  219
  coroner's jury in the case of a life convict named Thomas Casey, who died of pulmonary tuberculosis in Mountjoy prison on Wednesday last, in which a strong opinion is expressed that the man, when found to be hopelessly ill, should have been released; whether he can say when the disease of which Casey died was first diagnosed by the medical officer, and in what prison; is it usual to remove prisoners suffering from this and other serious diseases to Maryborough prison, where the system is less severe and more suitable to invalids than Mountjoy; was Casey in Maryborough prison; why was he sent there, and when; and why was he taken back to Mountjoy, and when.
  DR. TANNER: I beg at the same time to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been directed to the report of the inquest on the prisoner John Casey in Mountjoy prison, on Wednesday, 28th February ultimo, at what time was it discovered that he was suffering from tuberculosis of the lungs; will he explain why, when Dr. O'Keefe stated that the case was hopeless, Casey was not discharged; and, if a similar case should occur in Ireland, if the authorities will take steps to offer the prisoner his liberty directly.
  MR. ATKINSON: My attention has been directed to the verdict of the coroner's jury in the case of John Casey, lately a convict in Mountjoy prison. The deceased suffered from chronic phthisis since the year 1886, when he was confined in Downpatrick prison. In the same year he was removed to Maryborough invalid prison, where he remained until about eighteen months ago, when, owing to structural alterations in that prison, it became necessary to remove him to Mountjoy prison. In both of these prisons he was classed as a hospital patient, and treated accordingly. His case was under consideration in October, 1897, and October, 1898, and again so recently as October, 1899, but on neither of these occasions was there any reason for exceptional treatment of his case by the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. On the 19th January of this year the prisoner's disease suddenly and unexpectedly became acute, and his case was at once brought under the notice of the Lord Lieutenant, who gave directions that every care should be taken of the man, and that Dr. Wodehouse, the
  220
  medical member of the Prisons Board, should have full discretion as to his treatment. Dr. Wodehouse frequently saw the deceased since the 19th January, but the man was never since that date fit for removal or discharge, and on his being asked whether in the event of his illness taking a favourable turn he would wish to be transferred to a hospital outside, Casey replied that he would not unless he was likely to recover.
  DR. TANNER: May I ask how it comes to pass that the opinion of Dr. Wodehouse is now quoted. Is it not the case that Dr. O'Keefe, the medical officer in charge of the prison, a most capable and extremely humane gentleman, diagnosed this case, and why was his report withheld, and only obtained eventually by putting a question in this House?
  MR. ATKINSON: I am not responsible for the conduct of the proceedings.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it a fact that this man was over seventeen years in prison, and is it not usual, in cases of sickness which threaten to result in death, to at once release the prisoner?
  MR. ATKINSON: The moment sickness threatens loss of life, the question of discharge is considered. As I have explained, it was not until 19th January that this man's case appeared serious.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: How many prisoners have died recently in Mountjoy prison?
  *Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is not this the man for whose release Lord Randolph Churchill and Sir Edward Clarke both voted some years ago?
  *Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled to ask that question.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Surely I am entitled to ask whether this man has been dying for many years, and why he was not released?
  *Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to ask an argumentative question.
  DR. TANNER: I shall put further questions on this.

  THE PATRIOTIC FUND COMMISSION.
  MR. HOLLAND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Committee appointed, under the presidency of Lord Justice Henn Collins, to inquire into the administration of the various funds administered by the Patriotic Commissioners and others has arranged to hold its sittings in the evening, namely, from half-past four until half-past six o'clock; whether such hours are customary; and whether they have been selected to meet the convenience of those who will be invited to attend and offer evidence, or whether they have been arranged to suit the professional and other engagements of the Committee itself.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Every Committee regulates its own hours of meeting according to its own discretion. I understand the Committee in question is to meet at four o'clock. Of course, I have no control over their proceedings nor any power of criticising it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask whether any protest has been made by the English Bar Committee against the withdrawal of Lord Justice Collins from his judicial duties to preside over a packed Committee of this kind?
  [No answer was given.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what the business will be on Thursday and Friday, and also next week?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With regard to Thursday, I propose to take, first, the report of the Budget resolutions and the First Reading of the Finance Bill, if we are not fortunate enough to get these tomorrow.
  AN HON. MEMBER: To-morrow?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; after half-past five they might easily come on. Any hon. Gentleman can object if he likes.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I shall object.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall put down second the Soldiers' Enfranchisement Bill, and then the Navy Estimates, Votes 8 to 12. On Friday I shall continue the Navy Estimates, and on Monday I hope to get the Speaker out of the chair on the Army Estimates.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right, hon. Gentleman spoke of the Soldiers Enfranchisement Bill. Do the Government intend that it shall include soldiers who are now excluded by the terms of their service?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I referred to the Electoral Disabilities (Military Service) Bill, the nature of which no doubt the hon. Member is acquainted with. I was not intending to describe the provisions of the measure, but only to indicate when it would be taken.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—NEWS FROM THE FRONT.
  Sir WILFRID LAWSON: May I ask if the report in the papers that General Buller has stated that Natal is quite clear of Boers is correct? Can the First Lord give us any information?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No telegram has reached the War Office later than that already known to hon. Members. I think I should be given notice of a question like this.

NEW BILLS.
  PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS.
  Bill to provide for the better organisation of Professional Accountants, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. Schwann, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. John Wilson (Govan), Mr. J. H. M. Campbell, and Mr. William Field.
  PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS BILL.
  "To provide for the better organisation of Professional Accountants," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 2nd May, and to be printed. [Bill 112.]

  TEINDS (SCOTLAND).
  Bill to amend the Law of Teinds, and to provide for the stated conversion of Fiar's Prices in certain cases in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nicol,

  223
  Mr. Renshaw, Sir Herbert Maxwell, Sir Thomas Gibson-Carmichael, Mr. Gordon, Sir John Stirling-Maxwell, Mr. Robert Wallace (Perth), Mr. Alexander Cross, and Sir Walter Thorburn.

  TEINDS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law of Teindls, and to provide for the stated conversion of Fiar's Prices in certain cases in Scotland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday, May 18th, and to be printed. [Bill 113.]

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

WAYS AND MEANS.

  WAR LOAN.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "(1) That towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the years ending on the 31st day of March, nineteen hundred, and the 31st day of March, nineteen hundred and one, sums not exceeding thirty-five million pounds be raised by either or both of the following methods:—

  (a) By means of the creation of stock or bonds to be redeemed within a period not exceeding ten years, and bearing interest at a rate to be fixed by the Treasury; or

  (b) By means of the issue of Treasury bills;

  and that the principal and the interest on any money so raised be charged on the Consolidated Fund.
  "(2) That all expenses incurred in connection with raising the said sums, including any additional remuneration to the Banks of England and Ireland, be charged on the Consolidated Fund."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Though I do not rise for the purpose of offering any opposition to this resolution, I think the House must be aware that it is about as serious a financial motion as could be presented to the House of Commons. It is now half a century since so large an addition was proposed to the debt of this
  224
  country. For nearly fifty years we have been occupied in a process much more satisfactory to the country—namely, in reducing the debt, and in reducing the interest upon that debt. I know that as to any particulars of the provision to be made for this loan they will more properly belong to the discussion upon the Bill; but I do not think that, even in the initial stage of proposing to add £35,000,000 to the Debt of the country—to which, indeed, you have to add £8,000,000 raised in the last session of Parliament, though not within this resolution—you should leave out of consideration the fact that you are suspending also—and of that I do not complain—the Sinking Fund by which the old Debt would have been reduced to the amount of £5,000,000;so that, in point of fact, you are really dealing with the question of increasing the Debt of the country by a sum of nearly £50,000,000 sterling. We have heard, I am sure, with approval in sentiment and admiration in expression the financial doctrines preached by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night. He appealed to the patriotism of the House and of the country not to rely simply upon loans for dealing with the necessities of this war. He reminded us of the sacrifices that were made by our fathers before us in the great French war, and afterwards in the Crimean War. No doubt those sacrifices were great. We had an income tax in the great war of 2s. in the £. We had an income tax in the Crimean War, with large other additions to taxation, of 1s. 4d. in the £. I referred briefly last night to what was the result of dealing with the expenses of that war. The Crimean War cost £76,000,000, but only £32,000,000 was added to the Debt of the country, as against the £48,000,000 now already contemplated in the case of the present war. Even supposing the expenditure is not larger than is now contemplated, we are already committed to an expenditure of—I don't know what, but at all events not less than £65,000,000. How much more it will be no man can say. If you get off with £76,000,000 as the cost of this war you may consider yourselves extremely fortunate. But in the Crimean War, which cost £76,000,000, there were £40,000,000 raised out of taxation, and only £32,000,000 by addition to the Debt. The fact was that

  225
  taxation so increased the balances that it reduced the added Debt to £32,000,000. The doctrine of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is an admirable one, but it has happened to the right hon. Gentleman and to other Chancellors of the Exchequer that their practice does not always come up to the standard of their doctrine. What is the situation now? The provision we have to make is not for £76,000,000, as in the Crimean War, but for £60,000,000 odd, and the provision we are going to make for this war out of taxation is £12,000,000 out of this smaller total, as against £41,000,000 so raised for the Crimean War, and the Debt is to be increased from that smaller sum by £48,000,000, instead of being increased as it was at that time by £32,000,000. Well, I am afraid that may be described as financial degeneracy. What is the situation? As the right hon. Gentleman very graphically and eloquently told us, since that time there has been a vast increase in the wealth of this country, an enormous increase in income, capital, and population. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not care for unpopularity, but if to attempt the exertions of which our fathers were capable leads to unpopularity it does not indicate a very wholesome state of the public opinion of this country. The sacrifices made fifty years ago in the Crimean War, by a people much less rich and much less capable of bearing taxation than we are to-day, amounted to more than one-half of the sum that had to be met, while that which we now think it possible to call upon the people to pay amounts to one-fifth of the sum that has to be met. There is, I believe, a popular melody very much recited with enthusiasm in the metropolis. It is what may be called, I think, a music-hall ballad, the refrain of which is "Pay, pay, pay." But I am afraid that does not express the real sentiment of the people. The persons who sing the song with the greatest gusto really mean "Borrow, borrow borrow." Though the precepts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer art faultless, I cannot pay him an equal compliment on the scheme he has founded upon them. At all events, if I have to criticise that which is, perhaps, rather the fault of the people for whom he has to provide than his own fault, I do rejoice in the gallant stand which he has made
  226
  for the existing financial system of this country—a system so sound and beneficial that he was enabled to announce a wonderful financial result in the Revenue, of which the country would have enjoyed the benefit but for this war. That system, which was begun by Sir Robert Peel and continued by Mr. Gladstone, and which is the inheritance of their successors, has been the source of the splendid financial harvests which the right hon. Gentleman has had the good fortune to reap in his surpluses year after year. I have heard with satisfaction of the great increase which has been made on the death duties. Of course we all regret very much the loss of the estimable gentleman to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred last night, who lived upon 15s. a day, and bequeathed to the country on his decease nearly a million of money. At least it can be said of him that, if he did not live like a lord, at all events he died like agentleman. I know that all lords do not do the same. There are occasions on which people take measures to defeat the Exchequer; and indeed there are traders, of whom the right hon. Gentleman complained, who also indulge in such practices. There is a ballad well known, I should say, to most hon. Gentlemen, in that admirable publication, "The Poetry of the Anti-Jacobin." I refer to a poem entitled, "Chevy Chase." It begins "Duke Smithson of Northumberland," and goes on to describe his immense property and how he succeeded in preventing the Exchequer obtaining its due. Of course, Dukes in the present day are incapable of such devices. With regard to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman as to the way in which the trade rush in on the days previous to the Budget, may I throw out a suggestion to him for his consideration? We have succeeded in the case of the death duties in preventing evasion to a considerable extent by making it impossible during a certain period before death to defeat the revenue. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether or not by some sort of retrospective action he could not prevent the evasion of the customs and excise duties. If he could see his way to do that he would have at least my support. It is a satisfaction to know that we have no cause to fear, in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, any departure from the established framework and skeleton of the finance of this

  227
  country. I heard him with great satisfaction denounce the theories put for ward in an intelligent journal of the present day. We are invited to reform our finance upon the model of the worst period of the early part of this century—a sort of Budget that Mr. Vansittart might have produced. We have outlived all that. I was extremely happy to hear the language of the right hon. Gentleman upon that subject. I will only refer in one sentence to what the right hon. Gentleman said with reference to the relative allotment between direct and indirect taxation. I do not, however, concur in those remarks; but I will reserve what has to be said upon that subject until we come to the Finance Bill. I do not believe that the resources of direct taxation are exhausted; and, in my opinion, at the rate we are going, we shall have to make great demands upon all forms of taxation—much larger demands than those that are made to-day. What is the scope of this loan bill? I agree very much that it would not be advisable to raise anything like this sum of money upon Treasury bills or floating debt. We should have to pay pretty smartly for Treasury bills. We had to pay for the last issue, which was not a very large one, not far short of 4 per cent. on some of them. [An Hon. MEMBER: Four and a half.] Four and a half per cent.? That is not a pleasant prospect to people who are now accustomed to 2¾ per cent., and nobody knows what may be the market price of the securities that will have to be offered. I do not venture to offer any opinion upon the subject.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): That was in January.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: But you never know what it may be in June. But I offer no opinion upon the subject. Of course the Treasury has means of information which no one else possesses. When you endeavour to obtain information as to matters of this kind I have always observed that the experts of the City are admirable authorities for twenty-four hours, but if you endeavour to extend your vision beyond that I do not find that they know much more about it than anybody else. That is my experience, at least, of what you may call high City authorities. I am sure the right hon.
  228
  Gentleman will do what is best for the country, and make the best bargain he can. I quite understand why he does not wish to commit himself with regard to the exact form in which he will raise this money. I am happy to see in the resolution that this loan is to be redeemed within ten years, whether it is raised by Exchequer bonds or in some other form. But we may take it, at all events, that this is to be a short loan, to be redeemed within a limited time. I think that is a great improvement upon the practice of raising a loan and allowing it to be lost in the mass of Consols, because it ear-marks the loan, it reminds the country that this is a war loan, and I hope that in better days it will lead to the liquidation of the loan, which, perhaps, would not take place if it was hid away in the mass of Consols. The right hon. Gentleman refers to "bonds." I suppose he means Exchequer bonds.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Not necessarily Exchequer bonds.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Exchequer bonds have not been popular securities, but the right hon. Gentleman may mean bonds of other kinds; I do not know what is in his mind. Exchequer bonds have generally been in large sums, and you cannot have a general market for them as you could have in stock of any kind. But I understand the right hon. Gentleman contemplates the possibility of having what is known on the Continent as a popular loan, which is to be raised from the people at large. At the time of the Crimean War that idea was rejected for what was considered to be a good reason—namely, that it might affect the Savings Bank deposits, and so operate prejudicially upon the market of Consols. I do not know that the circumstances of the present day militate against such an experiment, which certainly everybody would watch with much interest. What is much more important, however, is how is this loan to be discharged? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has held out to us the pleasant prospect of an early peace. I hope he is not too sanguine. There is no man but will pray for an early cessation of this terrible war, not only on account of the immense waste of treasure, but still more the terrible effusion of blood. But supposing the right hon. Gentleman's expectation is well founded, let us

  229
  see what he proposes to do. I understand that though this resolution talks of redeeming the Debt, he does not make any proposal at present as to the method by which it is to be redeemed. I can understand that, and I agree, because Mr. Pitt's financial genius, which in the early period of his administration I think the right hon. Gentleman criticised very well, was still more defective in his latter administration, for he created a sinking fund which was an admirable moral principle; but unfortunately his sinking fund was provided for by more borrowing, so that it turned out to be a very unsuccessful operation. No sinking fund, of course, is of any value unless it is derived from surplus revenue. Raising more revenue than your expenditure is the only sound financial basis of a sinking fund. I think the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying, "It would be absurd for me to propose a sinking fund when I am borrowing money." That is obviously the fact. But we must not lose sight of the pledge which this resolution gives, that the loan is to be redeemed within ten years. Let us reflect, at all events, upon what is the probability of that being done in the financial circumstances in which we find ourselves. The characteristic of former great wars—of the great French war and of the Crimean War—was that there was a well-grounded confidence that when the wars were over a period of peace would arrive, and that expenditure, instead of increasing, would diminish. Have you that prospect now? What is your faith and expectation that when you have made peace in September the expenditure of the country will be reduced? That is a main condition in the prospect of redeeming the debt you are creating. After the great French war the people were exhausted, they had learned what the cost of war was, and there was a determination to reduce establishments and to cultivate economy. There was then tranquillity for fifty years. After the Crimean War the same thing took place. For a time, at least, after the great struggle with Russia was over and peace was restored there was a demand at once for a reduction of expenditure. A statesman who will carry great weight with Gentlemen opposite immediately after the Crimean War declared that the first duty was that expenditure should be diminished. In 1856 Mr. Disraeli took
  230
  occasion to impress on the Government the importance of giving their best attention to measures of wise, and at the same time rigid, economy. He said—*
  "I am convinced that this is the only spirit in which we can confirm the principles of finance upon which our system is now generally established, and that will enable us to prepare those resources for the future which, whenever an emergency arises, will enable us to show the same power we have recently displayed."
  He pointed out the mistake of supposing that the mischances and disappointments which had marked the commencement of the late war would be prevented on a future occasion by the maintenance during peace of an army much larger than the needs of the country required, and the only result that we should reap from the support of unduly large military establishments in times of peace would probably be that we should enter upon another struggle without those reserves which, having been accumulated by the wise economy of former years, had enabled the country to face its recent difficulties with comparative ease. That was the Tory doctrine of those days, and I should add one other sentence from the same authority, in which, speaking a few years later on a resolution that the war taxation should be reduced, he laid it down that "we should in the most significant manner express our opinion that it is not advisable that England should become what is called a great military nation." Those are the sentiments of fifty years ago. They met taxation, they cultivated economy. When peace came then they reduced the expenditure. Is that your prospect now? What is the judgment that is passed on the Crimean War and upon the expenditure on that war? Only a year or two ago, reviewing that history and that contest, the Prime Minister said that we had put our money on the wrong horse. Seventy-six millions of the taxation of the people of this country was put upon the wrong horse. I am not quite certain that after the experience of some years we shall be certain that we have put their £60,000,000 on the right horse. I am old enough to remember the fervour with which the people entered upon that expenditure on the wrong horse in the case
  *See The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], Vol. cxlii., page 362.

  231
  of the Crimean War. What do they think of it now? Since that period, and in consequence of that war, the people of this country have been more or less sober, and for nearly half a century we have had peace. God grant that the result of this present conflict may be similar to that. I believe even after all the passion and excitement which attaches to a war, that when the war is over there will be a sobering effect produced on the national mind. That effect has been operative after the two great wars of the last century. Since that time we have, I believe, liquidated nearly £200,000,000 of debt; but at present what is your prospect of the reduction of debt or of the reduction of taxation? The right hon. Gentleman has held out an expectation—I daresay he believes it—that the £12,500,000 of taxation which he is about to put on the people this session will cease with the conclusion of peace. I wish I could feel confident of that. Looking at the rate at which our Estimates increase every year I doubt very much whether this will not be permanent taxation. More than that. I see nothing, at all events, in the temper of these times that points to diminished expenditure. On the contrary, the result of all wars, wars here and on the Continent, has been a large increase of military establishments throughout the world, and certainly all the demands of the present day are in that direction. No, Sir, economy such as was spoken of by Mr. Disraeli does not belong to the temper of the times—I do not mean the newspaper—but of the times in which we live. Everything seems to be in this direction—greater expenditure but less taxation. What is the result of these two desires on the part of the people? Every demand in favour of expenditure is received with alacrity, but when it is a question of raising the taxation upon the wealth of the people to meet that expenditure, then there is no man in greater difficulties than a Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is the prospect which you have before you, and when in this Resolution you speak of redeeming the Debt, I hope, at all events, in the House of Commons and by those people who can influence the judgment of the country the seriousness of the financial situation will be fully recognised. Everywhere I see a disposition to spend more and to pay less. That may be called the fashionable doctrine at the end of the
  232
  century to which we belong. I take note, however, of the pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is to be sincerely hoped that he may long occupy the position he now fills. I hope and believe in his firmness and ability: I have confidence in both, and that he will redeem that pledge. The debt necessarily belongs to the future, and it is that future which, if we have any qualities of statesmen in the House, we are bound to look at. It is not the fashion of to-day; it concerns not the fortunes of the nation to-day, but the fortunes of the people hereafter. Those who went before us have made provision for those who came after them, and we are bound to do the same. Though I call attention to these matters I do not belong, myself, to the noble army of panic-mongers. I was extremely happy to hear in the House, which has charge of the finances of the country, that these panic-stricken doctrines were repudiated by the leaders on both sides. It was a matter of great importance, because there is no condition in which people lose their heads so much as when they are in a state of panic. They do strange things under those circumstances, but I hope that here, at least, we shall keep our heads, and that we shall do what we can to resist a policy which leads to vast expenditure, which is that spirit which the Prime Minister described as proposing "to fight everybody in order to take everything." We have had a little taste of what a little war in a little part of your Empire will cost you. It costs you £60,000,000, and perhaps a great deal more. It will cost you as much as it did to fight Russia fifty years ago; and these are things which ultimately—I do not say to-day—will give the English people pause, and lead them to think that perhaps, after all, they have as much to take care of as they can afford to discharge. This will be a very valuable after-thought if it should arise out of this war. When people get alarmed they even begin to hint at conscription. When we have got aggravated debt, and we add to it conscription, then indeed the twentieth century will not be an improvement upon the century which preceded it. If you want to strike a blow at the industry of this country, if you desire to destroy your finance, then "conscribe" your people. Of all financial operations I should say that was the most disastrous. The right hon. Gentleman has held out to us a prospect with refer-

  233
  ence to the redemption of this debt. I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman was able to give us much enlightenment on that subject last night, but his disposition is admirable. He thinks that the greater part of this debt is to come from the sources which are a main factor in the production of this war. I admit at this moment it is premature to determine how that is to be done until you get control of the Transvaal. I was highly satisfied with that pledge, and I say again, "Long life to the Chancellor of the Exchequer!" that he may redeem the pledge. There are difficulties about it, and I am not sure that anyone will envy him the task that will fall upon him. But there is an old proverb which says that it is a difficult thing to get a bone out of the mouth of a dog; and whether he will succeed in extracting this money out of the gold diggings in the Transvaal, I cannot say. But I was extremely glad to observe for his encouragement that his remark on that subject seemed to receive approbation from both sides of the House, and, therefore, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who in his own mind is well disposed on the subject, will feel that he has general support in making those pay who ought to pay. On that subject I would venture to express an opinion which I hope may commend itself to the House and to the country. This £30,000,000 which it is contemplated to raise by a loan is not too great a contribution within the ten years to which it is limited to expect from the Transvaal. That would be about half the expense of the war. We are about to bear a taxation of £12,000,000 this year, and, as I have said, I believe it will be a very long time before we get rid of that taxation. But with regard to this loan which is limited to ten years, I can see nothing unjust or unfair in expecting that it should be raised upon the wealth of the people in the Transvaal. We have had them promising their shareholders £4,000,000 a year out of the savings to be effected as the result of the war. Why are the English taxpayers to pay £60,000,000 in order to raise the price of these shares on the Stock Exchange? They have not concealed their object at all. They have discounted all this money, and have announced that the result of this war will be the enhancement of the value of their shares, and they have esti-
  234
  mated that enhancement of value at millions of pounds sterling. The right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to deal with the question to-night, but we ought to make that a condition of the loan, which is to be redeemed within ton years. I have not entered upon this discussion at all in an alarmist spirit. I believe in the enormous and inexhaustible wealth of this country, because I have had experience of it. The deeper you drive into this reef the more gold you find. My hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn predicted in 1899 that we should not get anything from the death duties. But who Chancellor of the Exchequer observed that I should be astonished at their yield; and so I was. The resources of this country, if they are only handled prudently, are really inexhaustible. But, I say, let them be handled for the benefit of the people. Do not let them be frittered away. How many plans of reform have been swept away by the war? How many of these plans are to be paralysed and destroyed for years to come by the debt you are incurring to-day and the taxes you are imposing? I say you are diminishing in that way resources that ought to be administered for the advantage of the people at large. I hope I shall be excused for having so imperfectly called the attention of the House and the country to the perils that may be before them in the future in the adoption of unsound principles of finance.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the references to myself which he has been good enough to make, and I do not rise, I assure him, to comment in any hostile manner on the observations he has made. But I really fail to see the precise motive of his speech.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It was not addressed to you.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The right hon. Gentleman looks upon me as a worthy and well-meaning person who belongs to a party which has thwarted all his efforts.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I was not talking of parties.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: That, at any rate, is what I gathered from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. He

  235
  ended his speech with a very eloquent sentence, in which he prophesied all sorts of evils that magnificent plans of reform would be paralysed; that the country would be ruined by increase of taxation, and all the rest of it. But why? Because of the increased expenditure which he foresees as a result of the debt we are about to incur.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I meant a good deal more than the debt of to-day. I meant the spread of expenditure in the future in naval and military establishments, and in other things.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am sure anyone in my position would thank the right hon. Gentleman for all the support that he could give him to resist any unnecessary expenditure. He is quite right in saying that these demands for increased expenditure come not from one side of the House alone, but generally from the nation at large; and though in many cases the increased expenditure we have seen in recent years has been absolutely necessary—as, for instance, that for the naval defence of the country and also in other ways which I need not particularise—I should welcome any aid in checking the tendency to expenditure which makes the position of any Chancellor of the Exchequer one of extreme difficulty. But I wish to address myself to the particular situation in which we now find ourselves, and the particular matter actually before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to assume that I was struggling at the present moment against this great difficulty—that though I had, in a manner for which he was good enough to commend me, proposed that a very considerable portion of this war expenditure should be met by increased taxation, yet that I was met by a sort of feeling—I think the right hon. Gentleman intimated it existed mainly on this side of the House—that there ought to be no such contribution from increased taxation, and that instead of "pay, pay, pay," it should be "borrow, borrow, borrow." I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was fair to those who sit on this side of the House. Anyone who listened to the debate last night, anyone who has observed the general comments to-day upon the proposals which I have ventured to place before the Committee—disagreeable as those proposals must necessarily be—will
  236
  have seen that even with regard to the income tax, which, perhaps, is not likely to be a popular tax on this side of the House, there was a general feeling that we were bound to make provision by increased taxation for the necessities of the moment; and, therefore, it is not fair for the right hon. Gentleman to charge those who sit on this side of the House with a reluctance to make that provision.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I did not make the charge in regard to the other side of the House specially. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has had time to read the London press.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to comment upon the object of the resolution before the Committee, and he said, "You are adding to the debt of the country a larger sum than has been added for a period of a hundred years," or words to that effect.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I said for half a century since the Crimean War.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It is unquestionably a large sum. But the right hon. Gentleman appears to suggest that we should find it practically impossible to pay off that sum within the ten years named in the resolution on account of the increased expenditure which he foresees after the war. I ventured to call the attention of the Committee last night to this special fact—that the Estimates of expenditure and revenue for the year show that but for the war expenditure properly so-called the ordinary revenue of the year, without any increase of taxation, would yield a handsome surplus, notwithstanding that the ordinary Estimates of the year included £3,000,000 extra for the Army beyond the figure at which the Army Estimates stood in the year preceding, and also nearly a million extra for the Navy. No one can be better aware than I am that this expenditure is rising, and that it probably will rise, for I am sure the country at large is determined that our defences, at whatever cost, shall be in an adequate and a proper condition. The right hon. Gentleman referred to previous years, when—for instance, after the Crimean War—large reductions were made in expenditure, and economy was the order of the day. Well, there are two kinds of

  237
  economy. You may go too far in attempting to reduce your expenditure in these matters. Our ancestors went too far in that direction. I remember the result very well in 1885, when war was impending and when we had to throw away lavishly ten or eleven millions simply because the Navy was not in the condition in which everyone would wish the Navy of this country to be; and although when war is over war expenditure ought, of course, to cease, and would necessarily cease, yet I quite admit, and, indeed, we all feel, that the result of this war may be to show deficiencies in our military defences which will have to be remedied, even at the cost of increased Estimates in the future. But have we no hope of meeting this? Why, look at the increase of revenue during the last few years. There has been practically no increased taxation until the present year since the right hon. Gentleman added to the death duties in 1894. And yet the revenue has gone up by leaps and bounds beyond the expectation that anyone could entertain. Our expenditure has enormously increased, but so has our revenue. And why? I would venture to give the Committee two reasons. In the first place, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, it is because our revenue is derived under a sound fiscal system. If we were to adopt the plausible nostrums in regard to these matters which are constantly retailed all over the country by people who have sometimes, in my opinion, not quite adequately studied them, we should risk losing that enormously abounding and increasing revenue which we now enjoy. But there is another reason. However sound your fiscal system may be, a flourishing revenue is not likely to result unless you have rest from political agitation and contentment at home. You do not want a Government which is perpetually thinking of great constitutional changes, and that is another reason, and a not unimportant reason, for the improvement in the prosperity and trade of this country during the past five years.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Is it that which has given us this war?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The right hon. Gentleman thinks we shall not be able to pay off this debt; but in the very next breath he told us how, in his opinion, this debt ought to be paid off. He said, "You may fairly charge 30
  238
  millions on the Transvaal." I was delighted to hear it. I should like very much to charge 30 millions on the Transvaal, but the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that neither I nor any other member of the Government can, in the present circumstances, say more than this—that we are as fully awake to the situation as any of our opponents or our friends. I do not know that I ought to have said anything in reply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. But what he has shown to my mind is this—stick to our present fiscal system and we may rely upon our revenue to meet necessary expenditure. With regard to the Debt the right hon. Gentleman did not allude to the resources to which I referred last night, and to the fact that there were great terminable annuities coming to an end in 1902 and 1904—that is, six years before the ten years would expire—which would provide, together with the reduction of the interest on Consols, no less than five millions a year towards the redemption of any debt which we might incur.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: What does the right. hon. Gentleman contemplate doing as regards the redemption of the debt after peace is concluded?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am not going to bind myself now as to what I will do on the termination of the war. I look first to the Transvaal. Then I look to the sources I have named, and, in one way or another, it will undoubtedly be my duty to provide for the redemption of this debt. I do not wish to detain the Committee further, but I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman opposite for the suggestion he made with regard to a matter which has given me a good deal of trouble in the last few days—namely, the rush to clear goods from bond at existing rates of duty. I do not wish to say anything more on the subject than I said last night, but I do think that it is not to the interest of the public at large or of the revenue, or of anybody except the persons who wish to put money into their pockets which does not quite legitimately belong there, that this kind of practice should be allowed, and although it would be an entirely new proposal that the resolutions imposing taxation should be, so to speak, antedated two or three days before the date on which this House passes them, still, I certainly do propose to consider whether,

  239
  in some form or other, what has happened within the last two or three days may not be prevented on a future occasion.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: My right hon. friend was not unnaturally tempted by the some what comprehensive survey of financial arrangements by the right hon. Gentleman opposite to enter somewhat widely into his own opinion on financial matters. I think it is perfectly obvious that a considerable portion of the expenditure of this year and next year should be met by way of loan, but I certainly am not one of those who entertain the idea that the whole of that expenditure should be met in that way. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that the party on this side of the House is not inclined to advocate a policy of borrow, borrow, borrow. Any system of that kind is certainly not intended for times of peace, and I think it is quite right that those who are responsible for the conduct of affairs should, during their own time, make a substantial contribution towards the expenditure which they sanctioned. But as regards the particular doctrines which my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just laid down, I undertake to say that they are by no means in harmony with the great mass of opinion in this country if he holds out no hope whatever of a more comprehensive view being taken of our financial position than that which he himself has adopted. Of course he was applauded by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire when he talked about adhering to our existing fiscal system, but I undertake to say that, far outside heretic circles like myself, the views of my right hon. friend are seriously controverted. I feel sure that many who do not go anything like the length I do as regards sound finance are not prepared to accept my right hon. friend's doctrine that our fiscal system is equal to the strain which at the present time it is called upon to meet. Looking even to the immediate future, is my right hon. friend prepared to say that the existing system of which he constitutes himself the main champion is capable of meeting any such strain? My right hon. friend knows perfectly well that it is not. I know it is the fashion to lay the blame for our financial stress entirely on the
  240
  Army and Navy. I venture to say that the Civil Service Estimates are mainly responsible for the greater part of our financial stress. It may be said that old-fashioned sound finance was not intended to stand the strain of war, but how are times of peace spent nowadays? They are spent in adding item after item to the Civil Service Estimates. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman opposite is altogether blameless in that respect. He did not offer that strenuous resistance to the importunities of the Education Department during his tenure of office which we might have looked for from such a strict advocate of sound finance. The fact is that profligate expenditure all round is really popular in this country. In the old days, when the person who called the tune had also the privilege of paying the piper, things were somewhat different, but now the great mass of the taxpayers have only an infinitesimal interest in keeping down expenditure, and the result is that we find additions in times of profound peace to our expenditure. Then comes the stress of war, and what happens? The Chancellor of the Exchequer calmly says that our existing financial system is equal to the strain. I undertake to say that my right hon. friend differs from the great mass of people who have studied this question in any shape or form. He knows perfectly well that the bases on which our financial system rest are dangerously small and require to be deepened and widened. He knows that adding to the income tax and increasing other imposts is merely peddling finance. My right hon. friend on the present occasion had a great opportunity. What has he done? He has taken refuge in all the platitudes that he finds in the leaflets of the Cobden Club, and he has failed to grapple with a serious emergency with any approximation to what I venture to describe as statesmanship. I can quite imagine, when all parts of the country are united in a desire to bring the war to a successful determination, that it was undesirable to raise controversial issues. But my right hon. friend did not say that; he said that our existing fiscal system was one that we ought to adhere to for all time. I say that my right hon. friend has sorely disappointed the great mass of those who looked to him to steer us through this financial crisis. With all the respect which I entertain for my right hon. friend, I must realise that true

  241
  financial progress cannot possibly be made under his auspices. The fact is that until we all realise, as I think the bulk of the people are coming to realise, that the remedy is to be found in some wide departure from our existing system of finance, we will have a succession of these peddling Budgets which certainly reflect no credit on their authors. As regards this particular motion. I fail to understand in what form this loan is to be issued, although we are told the forms in which it may be issued. Something was said last night as to the desirability of supplying investors with some available security for their savings. I would ask my right hon. friend whether he can supply investors with some security not subject to the violent oscillations in the market from which all Government securities suffer at the present time. The most gambling stock quoted on the Stock Exchange during the last few years has been, not South African mines, but Consols. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that he had bought in the name of the nation Consols at 114, and they have been since quoted at 98½. If the stock were issued redeemable at par at option that would, I think, keep the security within reasonable limits, and it would not have a tendency to go much beyond or below par. That is a suggestion which persons experienced in financial matters regard as worthy of consideration. If the investor could have recourse to a security of this kind for money which he wishes to keep within call, and not find himself faced with a loss of 14 per cent. or a gambling gain, it would suit the more prudent class of investors. I think it would be perfectly possible to issue a stock of this sort. My right hon. friend yesterday referred to financial cowardice; I am bound to say that this Budget does exhibit a narrowness of resource and an incapacity to realise the realities of the situation which are really lamentable.
  *SIR SAMUEL MONTAGU: I need only say a few words with regard to this Budget, because I find myself to a great extent in agreement with it. I must, however, express my disappointment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not take this opportunity of imposing at least one new tax, and that is a tax on ground values in large towns. As he stated, all classes are expected to contribute to the expenses of the war, but here is a class which ex-
  242
  pected to be taxed a good many years before the war broke out, and although I am a holder myself I would be very pleased if the right hon. Gentleman had gratified the expectations of the owners of ground values. I think I ought to take this opportunity of thanking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having put forward his financial statement at such an early period in the session, and I am very pleased that he has made ample provision for our known liabilities. Last year I joined with others in condemning on principle reducing the Sinking Fund in times of peace, but now that we have war I see no object in paying off debt in one direction while we are incurring debt in another. I cannot agree with my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouthshire in putting down the permanent addition to the Debt at £48,000,000. It can only be £43,000,000, as diverting the £5,000,000 of Sinking Fund cannot be regarded as a permanent addition to the national debt. I am also glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not limit the issue of Treasury Bills and that he has left himself perfectly free with regard to the form of the loan. There are in existence at the present time Treasury Bills to the value of 12½ millions, and if an additional 5 millions were issued the total would almost equal our floating debt in 1888–9. But the country has increased in prosperity since that time, and I think that the market would now stand 10 or 15 millions more of Treasury Bills. With regard to the form of the loan, in ordinary times I should doubt the possibility of placing 30 millions in the form proposed on reasonable terms. There is a similar kind of security at present on the market. The Indian railways issue bonds which now amount to about 16½ millions, the market is very full of them, and no further large amount would be readily absorbed. Bankers, of course, like to keep their reserves in securities that can be readily realised in times of panic or great pressure. I have, however, obtained information from competent judges in the matter, and I am assured that at the present time the feeling is so strong in favour of subscribing to the loan that almost any form of security offered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be a success. I think it is very wise not to depend on the bankers to take up this loan, but to make it a popular loan, and I would ask

  243
  the right hon. Gentleman to give facilities throughout the United Kingdom, not only at banks, but also at post-offices, to enable small investors to take up £50 or £100. I do not think bonds of less than £50 should be issued, because they would interfere with the savings bank, but if the right hon. Gentleman issues bonds with coupons attached and offers facilities for getting them inscribed, I feel certain that a large amount will be taken up. I think also that the term of years might be left optional, if possible. Three years bonds would be very much in request in the City, and it cannot matter what the number of years is if the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets out the loan at about 3 per cent. and receives par value. I should like to know plainly what the right hon. Gentleman intends to do with regard to the contract stamp, as there appears to be a great deal of doubt in the matter.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: It would be better to reserve discussion on that point until the resolution authorising it is reached.
  MR. FAITHFULL BEGG: I only desire to detain the Committee a few minutes on a special point regarding the form this loan ought to take. It is quite impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide a security which will not fluctuate, but it is not a correct description of Consols to say, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet said, that they were the most gambling security on the market. With regard to the loan, my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated last night that he wished to make it a popular loan, and that sentiment has been re-echoed by other hon. Members. I entirely agree with it, but it might be dangerous to make the loan too popular. If, for example, it appealed to savings Bank depositors to any large extent, the result would be that the Government would not get a single penny out of such subscriptions, as they would merely be cross entries. I therefore agree with what has fallen from the hon. Member for Whitechapel that the denomination of the bonds should not be too small. I think it should not be as low as £50, and that £100 would be quite low enough. That would be a security which would appeal to the public without going so far down as Savings Bank depositors. I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
  244
  say that the duration of the loan would be ten years. I would suggest to him an improvement on that which would not infringe his principle. There was a well-known security in this country several years ago which was issued by the United States and was known on the market as the "five-twenties" and "ten-forties." The "five-twenties" bond was a bond redeemable at the option of the Government at the end of five years, but not necessarily redeemable for twenty years. That is an option which might be exceedingly valuable to the Government. I observe that there is a great deal of discussion as to the possibility of fixing a loan on the two South African Republics, especially the Transvaal. I think it is rather premature to discuss that question now; it is very much like selling the bear's skin before the bear is caught. However that may be, if the war is brought to a successful conclusion, and we are in a position to impose a burden on the Transvaal, that burden can be borne by that country to a larger extent than was indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, when he said, rightly and properly, that the capitalists should be made to contribute towards the war. There is an enormous reserve fund in the Transvaal as it stands today. The country has been administered at a cost of 4¾ millions per annum, and, leaving aside charges of corruption and wilful extravagance, we now know that in recent years an enormous sum has been spent on armaments. It would he possible for us to put an end absolutely to such expenditure, and we should have 3¾ millions for the service of the loan.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That would be only with reference to the debt; but the hon. Member omits the great probability of our keeping a large armed force in the country.
  MR. FAITHFULL BEGG: Yes; but the point is that you may take only such a sum as a million and apply it to the service of the loan.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Which is to be redeemed in ten years.
  MR. FAITHFULL BEGG: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is to be redeemed in ton years.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It says so; the resolution says so.
  MR. FAITHFULL BEGG: But it would be perfectly open to the British Government to renew the loan at the end of ten years, if that were desirable. If what I am contemplating now is an indemnity loan, and you could make the period of that loan any period you wish, a thirty million loan for a period of ten years would not be suitable to the general market; it would be bad finance. I should say that an indemnity loan ought to extend over a much longer period than ten years. I think that our own loan ought to be issued in bonds of not loss a denomination than £100, which would be sufficiently low to appeal to the small investor. Lastly, I believe that the period of the loan should be slightly modified, and the security made in the form of what is called a "five-twenty" bond, and I would urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the loan should be issued as soon as possible in order to relieve the markets from suspense.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I confess that when Dives talks in millions the head of Lazarus is apt to get a little dizzy. I was especially glad that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down should have put in a word for the oppressed stockbrokers. I think it is the business of this House to look after the stockbroker. When I heard it suggested that the man in the savings bank was not allowed to invest more than £50, and when, as I apprehend it, his reward has never been more than 2¾ per cent. for the last sixty years, I understand then how it is that that reward is to be a 4½ per cent. loan. [Hon. MEMBERS: No!] I thought I caught some such expression from hon. Gentlemen. Surely this House is turned into some sort of whispering gallery when the great magnates of finance chuck about and across the table expressions which humble people in this quarter are wholly unable to follow. I understand the argument is that the Savings Bank investor has no security; and that there is no money to meet his demand, if made. I have been told by a high financial authority that if he gets a chance to subscribe for the stock of this loan, the result will be an inscription of figures in a ledger, and that there is really no money to meet his demand. But we are told that there is to be nothing less than £100 bonds issued, by way of giving the working man a chance of investment in this loan. I do
  246
  not know myself what a bond is. I never saw a bond, but I know that this means that all these glorious financial arrangements will inure for the benefit of the stockbroker. I think that is possible; that is, I understand, the true result of the doctrine of ransom, which has had a further exemplification from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I understand it, defended his finance from the attacks of the strict Tory party, represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet, who is not sufficiently imbued with the modernity of the Tory party since the advent of the Liberal Unionists. I would advise him to learn to sup with a long spoon. The right hon. Gentleman has defended his finance on this basis. He says, "I will raise twelve and a half millions in taxation of the country, and the remaining thirty-five millions I will borrow. But the borrowing is really only to be on the security of the Transvaal; for this country will never have to pay back the amount, and we will levy the whole amount on what is called the Transvaal." The right hon. Gentleman further said, "I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouthshire declare that he was glad the Transvaal would meet the 30 millions." I confess my knowledge of the Transvaal is chiefly confined to a shilling visit I paid to the African show. [Laughter.] Really, there was a great deal that was instructive in that show, which was got up by Mr. Cecil Rhodes and his friends, before the war, in order to expose to the people of this country the enormous riches of the Transvaal. Why, I had almost a stroke of paralysis when I saw there enormous blocks of gold rising up into the skies, and the British warlike spirit was inflamed by reading that under the gold reefs of Johannesburg there was still waiting to be raised two thousand millions of money. I understand that when we take the Transvaal we will take all that property. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No"; and laughter.] Is not that so? [Laughter, and HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Surely it is so. Surely when you destroy without any hesitation in the world a legally constituted Government—[Hon. MEMBERS: "No"; and laughter.] The hon. Gentleman has said he is opposed to great constitutional changes; but when you destroy a constitutional Government, one with which you have solemn treaties, what hesitation need you have in viola-

  247
  ting the spirit of the Companies Acts? Take all these leading companies—the Consolidated Gold Fields and the Rand Mines. Why should we not swindle them as well as Kruger? I understand we put up a statue to honour Cromwell, who went over to Ireland and there confiscated, without hesitation, the property of every man, woman, and child, and gave it to his soldiers. Why should it be said that our booty in the Transvaal is limited to thirty millions? Is it or is it not the fact that the gold companies in the Transvaal own a property worth two thousand millions? Why should we not steal their property as well as steal the land from the Boers? I want to know on what principle can we say that the Transvaal is only able to bear thirty millions. Why this extraordinary hesitation of the Government? Why does it strain at a gnat and swallow a camel? You destroy a Government and violate the sentiment of liberty of the Boer people, and yet you are afraid of Wernher Beit and Company, and of Cecil Rhodes. That is extraordinary moderation. As I understand, it, the value that we, the Irish people, are getting for this war is, that having to pay down our money, we get the gold mines in exchange. It is not for the sake of giving the Uitlanders the franchise that I have gone to war. I have fitted myself with a Mauser rifle and a bandolier for the purpose of getting the gold mines. But I do not want, on the 30th September, when the British flag is floating over Pretoria, to be told that private property must be left intact. The shareholders of these gold mines are most respectable people, it may be said; but so is Kruger a most respectable person, and all the Boers are Bible-loving and honest Protestants. Is Cecil Rhodes a greater Protestant than Kruger? I do sincerely trust that my confidence in the Government will not be shaken, and that we shall have in good time a proper dividend upon the money we are now asked to invest. I have no hesitation in backing up the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth, that this thirty millions loan will be repaid by the Transvaal. I have no objection, but I want it to be repaid eight or nine times over; and then Ireland, for the first time, will get some benefit from the great partnership of which we are told we ought to be proud. I do hope
  248
  we shall have some clear statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the grounds on which the Irish people are to be asked to join in your great campaign. Although I generally sympathise with and subscribe to the sentiments of the hon. Member for West Monmouth, I rather take the view—but upon wholly different grounds from those of the right hon. Gentleman—that the Government are perfectly right in regard to this grand deed. I would have preferred that the twelve and a-half millions should not have gone in extra taxation, but that all the cost of the war should be borne by way of loan; because, as we are engaged in this profitable buccaneering expedition, I do not understand why this twelve and a-half millions should be provided by the taxpayers of this country, and not got out of the Johannesburg mines. It seems to me to be making two bites of a cherry. It is wholly impossible to expect that the simple-minded gentlemen who preside over the gold mines, and who declare that their property is to be twice doubled in value by this war, will do this; but I heard the other day that they said that after the war they will reduce Johannesburg to the position of Kimberley, that they would drive out all the white labour, and work the mines with natives at wages of 4d. per day, and shut the natives up in compounds, banish the Uitlanders, and put an end to the Uitlander question. I think that is a very practical suggestion from their point of view, but surely they would not deprive the general body of the taxpayers of Great Britain and Ireland of the comfortable knowledge that we are putting our money in a good thing. I should be disappointed if we are not going to annex Johannesburg in the true Cromwell fashion, gold mines and all. I trust we shall have sufficient assurance that tire gold mines shall be British property when this cruel war is over, and that the Irish people will realise that for the first time they have had a sound commercial investment and great profit as the result of belonging to this glorious Empire.
  *Mr. MARKS: Whether it be true or not that Ireland contributes more than a fair share of the taxation of the Empire, we have had evidence in the speech of the honourable and learned Member for North Louth that Ireland does not contribute an excessive share of financial

  249
  wisdom to this House. We have been told that the savings banks deposits have hitherto received 2½ per cent.; that is only a mistake of one quarter per cent., and perhaps not important. We have been told that the new loan is to be issued at 4½ per cent., which is a brilliant effort of the imagination. We have been told that there is no means to meet the deposits in the savings banks, whereas these deposits are invested in Consols. Then we have been told that there is some difficulty as to obtaining a war indemnity from the Transvaal unless we take over the mines in the Transvaal worth several thousands of millions, as we took over the Burma ruby mines. But the Burma ruby mines were never taken over by the Government; they were concessions given to a limited company. The Transvaal revenue of 4½ millions has been chiefly derived from the taxation of the mining industry. More than seven eighths of that was contributed by the Uitlanders. We have espoused the cause of the Uitlanders, and I can conceive of nothing fairer than that the Uitlanders should contribute a substantial part of the expenses of the war. It is an open secret that the Government of the Transvaal, carried on with Republican simplicity, need not cost more than a million. It is easy to see where the rest of the four and a half millions have gone, and for what purposes they have been expended. But if you take a million to defray the cost of the administration of the country, you have three and a half millions to apply to the purposes of the war indemnity. [An Hon. MEMBER: including the cost of the Army of occupation.] Well, one million would amply provide for the service of a loan of thirty millions, which would leave a balance of over two millions for other purposes. I would impress on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the advisability of making some definite announcement at the earliest moment as to what interest the new loan is to bear. We have heard two different opinions, but the matter is of very great importance and should not be left in doubt.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The speech which has just been delivered by the hon. Gentleman gives a pretty good indication of the feeling which has actuated most people in this country who have clamoured for the war. He has spoken with apparent delight of the revenues of
  250
  the Transvaal, and gloated over the millions which he hopes will be drawn from the coffers of the Transvaal Government into the coffers of this Government after the war is over. That goes to prove the theory that the war was entered into not because of any desire to build up a good or just system of Government in the Transvaal, but to satisfy certain speculators in this country and in Africa who wish to acquire the great wealth which the Transvaal holds. I have been in this House a long time, and nothing has astonished me more than the light-hearted way in which million upon million of the taxes of the working people of this country are voted away. We have hardly had a single speech to-night from any representative of the masses, offering the slightest protest against this proposed loan of thirty-five millions. To my mind it is incredible that the people of this country seriously desire this expenditure or are in favour of carrying on the war at such enormous cost. The sum is as great as the cost of the Crimean War, when it was a question, not of facing a few thousand farmers, but of facing the great Empire of Russia. And what is the condition of this country while all this money is being spent? Nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the extreme difficulty with which large numbers of people in this country pay the taxes that are already heaped upon them. It is as much as the masses can do to keep body and soul together, and provide food and clothing for their children, without being asked to contribute millions of money to be spent, not for the purpose of bettering the lives of the people, nor for developing the resources of this country or of Ireland, but for carrying fire and sword and desolation throughout the length and breadth of two small territories, whose total population does not come up to 200,000. It takes 200,000 soldiers and £60,000,000 to bring into subjection these few thousand farmers, and yet we hear people talking about glory, see them waving Union Jacks, and singing "Rule Britannia." The whole world is laughing at the childish trumpeting which has followed the recent successes. I object to this loan because it is a dishonest way of providing the funds for carrying on the war; because, if the Government are honest in believing that the people are so much in favour of the war, why

  251
  do they not ask them to pay by direct taxation the whole cost of it? When the British find that they will have to pay additional taxation now, and additional taxation to a greater degree in the future, because of this loan, the enthusiasm of the people over this war will cool down. From the Irish point of view I object to this loan. Ireland will have to pay an enormous share when the time for payment comes, and we protest against it. One of the most detestable things about this war is that the English people and the English Government will not wage it at their own expense and pay the bill out of their own pockets, but compel the Irish people to share in the expense of a contest which they both hate and despise, and in which they have had neither hand nor heart. Let me make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. If the British Empire is the solid, compact body that it is described at the present time, why not appeal to the colonies—Australia, Queens-land, New Zealand, Canada, and India—to all the enormous race over which the British flag flies in all parts of the world—to bear a portion of this loan? Why not spread it over the Empire as a whole? The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, if to-morrow morning he expressed a hope that a single million would be put on any one of the colonies, that hope would be falsified. He knows full well that, outside this trumpery clamour to take part in a military undertaking, which will always be found among the adventurous men of every land, not one of the colonies would permit for five minutes a tax to be levied on them, and that, after all that has been said and all the doggerel rhymes written by MR. Rudyard Kipling, it comes to this—that it is the toiling millions of England, Scotland, and Ireland who will have to pay, and the great loyalty of the Empire of which we have heard so much is all humbug. I object to sanction the resolution for the reason that, if this war is a war for the Empire, it is only right that all the colonies should bear their share of the expense, and that it is not right to put the whole burden of the £60,000,000 upon the already over-burdened taxpayers of England, Scotland, and Ireland. I desire to have it left on record that, so far as I am concerned, I protest against the resolution sanctioning this enormous loan, and the detestable reflection that we are not
  252
  only obliged to stand by while, as we believe, liberty and justice are being outraged, but we have to pay for it as well. Ireland will pay her share towards the expenses of this war with the greatest possible reluctance. That is the view of eighty Irish representatives in this House, and the view on which we are prepared to face our constituents when the time comes. One of my objections is that this loan is to carry on a war against a people who lived in peace in this country long before English was ever spoken there—[Cries of "No, no!" "Oh, do read history!"]—the cost of which is at the same time robbing the taxpayers of the three kingdoms. If the right hon. Gentleman had come and said that he was going to signalise the end of the nineteenth century by doing something for the mass of the people, and had asked for £35,000,000 for old age pensions, I would have supported him, but I will not support this, because it is not for the benefit of the people, but for the benefit of a gang of speculators.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Would it be in order to move to insert after the word "raised" the words "in Her Majesty's dominions," so as to make this tax applicable to the whole of the Empire?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman means by that to extend taxation to the colonies, that, of course, we cannot do.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I thought anything could be done by Act of Parliament.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLEScomplained that no information had been vouchsafed to the House as to the rate of interest or the conditions of issue of the loan. He gathered that a new plan was to be adopted by which the middleman would disappear; that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to open a department for the sale of stock without the intervention of a broker. What he desired to know was whether it was proposed to make any provision for the repayment of the loan.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Because that would mean an addition of something like £4,000,000 to the expenditure of the country. He now understood that it was proposed to leave this loan without any provision as to repayment, in the hope that it would be made up out of the

  253
  gold in the Transvaal, failing which it would be provided by the falling in of annuities at the end of the year. The hon. Member for North Louth had said that we should take over the gold mines, but that could not be done, because under the proclamation of Sir Alfred Milner the mines were guaranteed to the mineowners. The only way to repay this loan out of the mines of the Transvaal would be by obtaining the consent of the owners of those mines to take the £35,000,000, to do which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to obtain the consent of the shareholders of the mines, who comprised every nationality under the sun, and lived in all parts of the world. The only thing in that regard which could be done was to appeal to the owners of the mines to make a voluntary contribution. In his opinion there ought to be more loan and less income tax in this Budget. The right hon. Gentleman had been very confident as to the gold mines, and no doubt thought he would obtain something. No doubt he ought to do so, and it was to be hoped he would.
  *MR. JONATHAN SAMUELsaid he did not oppose the Vote, but merely rose to call attention to some remarks made by the hon. Member for St. George's in the East, which he considered of a most misleading character. Having regard to the fact that the hon.
  Member was a newspaper editor, the fact that there was so much ignorance through the country on the question of the war was not to be wondered at. The hon. Member had told the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there would be a surplus from the revenue of the Transvaal of about £3,000,000 a year, that the revenue was £4,800,000, and that the administration of the country cost £1,000,000, and the balance would be available. There were two kinds of revenue—the taxable and the non-taxable—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the previous night had pointed out that our non-taxable revenue amounted to over £20,000,000, and came from Post Office, telegraphs, Crown lands, etc. Had the hon. Member for St. George's in the East analysed the Budgets which had come in the Blue-books sent over by Sir A. Milner, he would have found the total taxable revenue in the Transvaal was some £2,600,000, and that the other came from postal telegraphs, railways, the manufacture of dynamite, etc. The ignorance shown by the hon. Member for St. George's in the East was astonishing in view of the fact that the information in the Blue-books was of easy access to any hon. Member of the House.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 161;Noes, 26. (Division List No. 59.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Cornwallis, Fiennes S. W.

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Arnold, Alfred

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Curzon, Viscount

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Denny, Colonel

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Baker, Sir John

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hardy, Laurence

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

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hazell, Walter

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

  Dunkin, Richard Sim

  Heath, James

  Beach, Rt. Hn. W. W. B. (Hants)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Doughty, George

  Hedderwick, Thos. Charles H.

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Bethell, Commander

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Billson, Alfred

  Duckworth, James

  Houston, R. P.

  Bond, Edward

  Dunn, Sir William

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Bowles, T. G. (Kind's Lynn)

  Faber, George Denison

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Finch, George H.

  Kennaway, Rt Hon. Sir John H.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Caldwell, James

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kitson, Sir James

  Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Langley, Batty

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Fry, Lewis

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

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

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Leese, Sir. J. F. (Accrington)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Charrington, Spencer

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Clough, Walton Owen

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Long, Rt Hon Walter (Liverpool

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  M'Crae, George

  Pilkington, R. (Lancs, Newton)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  M'Killop, James

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Strauss, Arthur

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Plunkett, Rt Hn Horace Curzon

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarth'n, E.)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn W. F.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Purvis, Robert

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Monk, Charles James

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. J. Lloyd

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

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

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  Murray, Charles J. Coventry

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Woods, Samuel

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

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

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Rutherford, John

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'l'nd

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Burns, John

  MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn's. Co.

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Crilly, Daniel

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Engledew, Charles John

  O'Malley, William

  Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Hogan, James Francis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Resolutions agreed to.

  INCOME TAX.
  2. Resolved, that income tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April nineteen hundred at the rate of one shilling.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

  BROKERS' CONTRACT NOTES.
  3. Motion made and Question proposed, "That there shall be charged upon a note sent by any person carrying on the business of a broker to his principal advising him of the sale or purchase of any goods, wares, or merchandise, the stamp duty following (that is to say):—
  If the goods, wares or merchandise are—

  Of the value of five pounds and under the value of one hundred pounds

  one penny.

  Of the value of one hundred pounds or upwards

  one shilling."

  —(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have been in communication with several brokers and others in London and Liverpool, and I propose to receive a deputation from them next week. I have no desire to do anything which would cause inconvenience to business.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I have received representations from my constituents on the matter, but in view of what has just been stated by the right hon. Gentleman I think I may with confidence leave the matter in his hands.

  ESTATE DUTY.
  4. Resolved, that in the case of a person dying after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred, property, real or personal, in which that person or any other person had an interest limited to cease on the death of the deceased shall, for the purpose of the Finance Act, 1894, and the Acts amending that Act, be deemed to pass on the death of the deceased notwithstanding that such interest has been surrendered, assured, or otherwise disposed of during the lifetime of the deceased, notwithstanding that such interest has been surrendered, assured, or otherwise disposed of during the lifetime of the deceased whether for value or not to or for the benefit of the remainderman or reversioner, except where the surrender, assurance, or disposition was bona fide made twelve months before the death of the deceased, and bona fide possession and enjoyment of the property was assumed thereunder by that

  257
  remainderman or reversioner immediately upon the surrender, assurance, or disposition, and thenceforward retained to the entire exclusion of the person making the same, and of any benefit to him by contract or otherwise.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

  FINANCE ACT, 1894 (MODIFICATION OF EXCLUSIONS).
  5. Resolved, that the exclusion of property from aggregation under section four of The Finance Act, 1894, shall cease to take effect except as regards property in which the deceased never had an interest, but that a limited abatement or return of the duty may be allowed in certain cases in the event of the aggregation with any other property of property which passes on the death of the deceased under a disposition made by a person (other than the deceased) who died before the expiration of the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and ninety four.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

  FINANCE ACT, 1896 (REPEAL OF EXCLUSIONS).
  6. Resolved, that for the purpose of the rate and the amount of estate duty or settlement estate duty, the exclusion under section seventeen of the Finance Act, 1896, of any fraction from the principal value of the estate shall cease.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS [5th MARCH]— REPORT.
  Resolutions reported:—

  TEA.
  1. "That, in lieu of the duty of customs now payable on tea, there shall be charged, levied, and paid on and after the sixth day of March, nineteen hundred, and until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and one, the following duty (that is to say):—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Tea

  per pound

  0

  0

  6."

  Resolution read the first and second time.
  Motion made and Question proposed:—"That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: The whole question as it presents itself to the Irish Members in this House has been discussed in Committee, and subsequent opportunities no doubt must arise when these questions can be discussed again on the Bills being introduced. Under these circumstances, I do not think we have anything to gain by putting the House to the trouble of four or five divisions at this stage, which would only have the result of marching Members through the lobbies, without putting a serious obstacle in the way of the granting of the money. Under these circumstances the Irish Members will reserve for a subsequent occasion the continuation of our protest against the allocation of this money.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I can quite understand what the hon. Member has just said, and I have to thank him for the manner in which, while preserving his own opinions, he has consulted the convenience of the House.

  TOBACCO.
  2. "That in addition to the duties of customs now payable on tobacco imported into Great Britain or Ireland, there shall, on and after the sixth day of March, nineteen hundred, and until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and one, be charged, levied, and paid the following duties (that is to say):—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Tobacco, manufactured, viz.:—

  Cigars

  the lb.

  0

  0

  6

  Cavendish or negrohead

  the lb.

  0

  0

  6

  Cavendish or negrohead, manufactured in bond

  the lb.

  0

  0

  5

  Other manufactured tobacco

  the lb.

  0

  0

  5

  Snuff containing more than thirteen pounds of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof

  the lb.

  0

  0

  5

  Snuff not containing more than thirteen pounds of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof

  the lb.

  0

  0

  6

  Tobacco, unmanufactured, viz.:—

  Containing ten pounds or more of moisture in every hundred pounds weight thereof

  the lb.

  0

  0

  4

  259

  Containing less than ten pounds of moisture in everyone hundred pounds weight thereof

  the lb.

  0

  0

  4."

  SPIRITS.—EXCISE.
  3. "That in addition to the duty of excise now payable for every gallon computed at proof of spirits distilled in the United Kingdom there shall, on and after the sixth day of March, nineteen hundred, until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and one, be charged, levied, and paid the following duty (that is to say):—

  £

  s.

  d.

  For every gallon of spirits computed at proof and so in proportion for any less quantity"

  0

  0

  6."

  SPIRITS.—CUSTOMS.
  4. "That, in addition to the duties of customs now payable on spirits imported into Great Britain or Ireland, there shall, on and after the sixth day of March, nineteen hundred, and until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and one, be charged, levied, and paid the duties following (that is to say):—

  £

  s.

  d.

  For every gallon of spirits computed at proof, of spirits of any description, except perfumed spirits

  0

  0

  6

  For every gallon of perfumed spirits

  0

  0

  10

  For every gallon of liqueurs, cordials, mixtures, and other preparations entered in such a manner as to indicate that the strength is not to be tested

  0

  0

  8

  And the duties of customs on the articles hereafter mentioned, being articles in which spirit is contained or in the manufacture of which spirit is used, shall be proportionately increased, and shall be as follows:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Chloral hydrate

  …

  the lb.

  0

  1

  4

  Chloroform

  …

  the lb.

  0

  3

  3

  Collodion

  …

  the gal.

  1

  6

  3

  Ether acetic

  …

  the lb.

  0

  1

  11

  Ether butyric

  …

  the gal.

  0

  16

  5

  Ether sulphuric

  …

  the gal.

  1

  7

  5

  Ethyl, iodide of

  …

  the gal.

  0

  14

  3

  Ethyl bromide

  …

  the lb.

  0

  1

  1

  Ethyl chloride

  …

  the gal.

  0

  16

  5."

  BEER.—EXCISE.
  5. "That in addition to the duty of excise now payable in respect of beer
  260
  brewed in the United Kingdom there shall, on and after the sixth day of March, nineteen hundred, and until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and one, be charged, levied, and paid the following duties (that is to say):—

  £

  s.

  d.

  For every thirty-six gallons of worts of a specific gravity of one thousand and fifty-five degrees the duty of

  0

  1

  0

  and so in proportion for any difference in quantity or gravity."

  BEER.—CUSTOMS.
  6. "That in addition to the duties of customs now payable on beer imported into Great Britain or Ireland there shall, on and after the sixth day of March, nineteen hundred, and until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and one, be charged, levied, and paid the following duties (that is to say):—
  In the case of beer called or similar to mum, spruce, black beer, or Berlin white beer or other preparations whether fermented or not fermented of a similar character—

  For every thirty-six gallons where the worts thereof are or were before fermentation of a specific gravity—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Not exceeding one thousand two hundred and fifteen degrees, a duty of

  0

  4

  0

  Exceeding one thousand two hundred and fifteen degrees, a duty of

  0

  4

  8

  In the case of every description of beer other than that above specified—

  For every thirty-six gallons where the worts thereof were before fermentation of a specific gravity of one thousand and fifty-five degrees, a duty of

  0

  1

  0

  and so in proportion for any difference in gravity."

  AMENDMENT OF LAW.
  7. "That it is expedient to prolong the term of certain annuities, and amend the law relating to the National Debt, the Customs, and the Inland Revenue."
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James William Lowther, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Hanbury.

SUPPLY (2ND MARCH)—REPORT.
Resolutions reported:

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.
1. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,527,000, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the expenses of wages, etc., to officers, seamen and boys, coastguard, and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."
2. "That a sum, not exceeding £845,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings, and repairs, at home and abroad, including the cost of superintendence, purchase of sites, grants in aid, and other charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1901."

CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES), 1899–1900.

  CLASS V.
  3. "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £162,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for grants in aid of the expenses of the British Protectorates in Uganda and in Central and East Africa."
  4. "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £58,905, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for sundry colonial services, including certain grants in aid."
  5. "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the subsidies to certain telegraph companies."
  6. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,847, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, to make good the net loss on transactions connected with the raising of money for the various treasury chests abroad in the year 1898–9."

  CLASS VI.
  7. "That a sum, not exceeding £60,686, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, to make good the sum by which the interest accrued in the year ended 20th November, 1899, from securities held by the National Debt Commissioners, on account of 'The Fund for the Banks for Savings' and 'The Fund for Friendly Societies' was insufficient to meet the interest which the said Commissioners are obliged by statute to pay and credit to trustees of savings banks and to friendly societies; and also the sum by which the interest accrued in the year ended 31st December, 1899, from securities held by the National Debt Commissioners on account of 'The Post Office Savings Bank Fund,' was insufficient to meet the interest which the said Commissioners are obliged by statute to pay and credit to depositors and the expenses incurred during that year in the execution of the Acts relating thereto."

  CLASS VII.
  8. "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £500, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the salaries and other expenses of temporary commissions, committees, and special inquiries."
  9. "That a sum, not exceeding £23,327, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for making good certain sums written off from the assets of the Local Loans Fund.

  CLASS III.
  10. "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,440, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the salaries and expenses of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland and of the prisons under their control."

  CLASS IV.
  11. "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March,

  263
  1900, for the Department of Science and Art in respect of Science Schools."

SHOPS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Whereupon Motion made and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Lord Hugh Cecil.)
  The House divided:—Ayes, 110; Noes, 61. (Division List No. 60.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Finlay, Sir R. Bannatyne

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Murray Charles J. (Coventry)

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

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

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Arnold, Alfred

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Godson, Sir A. Frederick

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

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

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. B. (Brist'l

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. Curzon

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bethell, Commander

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bond, Edward

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert W.

  Purvis, Robert

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hardy, Laurence

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin)

  Hazell, Walter

  Richardson, Sir T.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Heath, James

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Houston, R. P.

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Rutherford, John

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cooke, C. W. R. (Hereford)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrw)

  Cornwallis, Fiennes StanleyW.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Curzon, Viscount

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Strauss, Arthur

  Denny, Colonel

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverpool)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Lucas-Shadwell, William

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Webster, Sir Richard E.

  Doughty, George

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Killop, James

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Marks, Henry Hananel

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

  Faber, George Denison

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Monk, Charles James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Field, Admiral (Eastbourne

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Lord Hugh Cecil and Mr. George J. Goschen.

  Finch, George H.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Hedderwick, Thomas Charles H

  Philips, John Wynford

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Austin, M, (Limerick, W.)

  Hogan, James Francis

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Baker, Sir John

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Billson, Alfred

  Kilbride, Denis

  Redmond, John E (Waterford)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Kinlock, Sir John George Smyth

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Burns, John

  Langley, Batty

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Caldwell, James

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Cameron, Sir Chas. (Glasgow)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Sullivan, Donald (Westmeath

  Channing, Francis Allston

  MacDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn's C.)

  Tanner, Charles Kearns

  Clough, Walter Owen

  M'Crae, George

  Thomas, Abel (Glam., E.)

  Crilly, Daniel

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Thomas, David Alfred (M'rthyr

  Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Wilson, Frederick W. (Norfolk

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Woods, Samuel

  Duckworth, James

  Norton, Captain C. Wm.

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Dunn, Sir William

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Engledew, Charles John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

  Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Maddison.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Harwood, George

  O'Malley, William

  Adjourned accordingly at half after Eight of the clock.

Preamble
Francis John Earl of Wharncliffe and Viscount Carlton having succeeded to those dignities on the death of his uncle Edward Montagu Stuart Granville Earl of Wharncliffe, Viscount Carlton, etc., by virtue of a special remainder in a patent dated 15th January, 1876—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
  A petition of Messrs. Sharpe, Parker, Pritchards, Barham, and Lawford, of 9, Bridge Street, Westminster, parliamentary agents, praying for leave to present a petition of Tipton Urban District Council, praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, although the time limited by Standing Order No. 92 for presenting such petition has expired; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and Standing Order No. 92 to be considered on Thursday next in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said petition.
  CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
    MUIRKIRK, MAUCHLINE, AND DALMELLINGTON RAILWAYS (ABANDONMENT) BILL [H.L.]

      WHITECHAPEL AND BOW RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
      CHRISTCHURCH, BOURNEMOUTH, AND WINTON TRAMWAYS BILL.
      ST. DAVID'S RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
      DUBLIN ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL.
      BLACKPOOL, ST. ANNE'S, AND LYTHAM TRAMWAYS BILL.
      Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Monday next.

  CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    DEARNE VALLEY RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
    Committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  UNIVERSAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL [H.L.]
    SCOTTISH WIDOWS' FUND AND LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL [H.L.]
    Reported with amendments.
  FOLKESTONE, SANDGATE, AND HYTHE TRAMROADS BILL [H.L.]
  Read 2a.
  ARMY AND NAVY INVESTMENT TRUST BILL [H.L.]
    NEW RUSSIA COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
      DONEGAL RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
      Read 2a (according to order).
  CHURCH'S PATENT BILL [H.L.]
    EAST STIRLINGSHIRE WATER BILL [H.L.]

      FALKIRK AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.]
      FALKIRK CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
      MOTHERWELL WATER BILL [H.L.].
      EAST SHROPSHIRE WATER BILL [H.L.].
      HEMEL HEMPSTEAD CORPORATION (WATER) BILL [H.L.].
      GREAT BERKHAMPSTEAD WATER BILL [H.L.].
      Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills—Viz.:

      E. Grey,

      E. Camperdown (chairman),

      L. Manners of Haddon,

      L. Saltoun,

      L. Sinclair;

      agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

  ASTON MANOR TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
    HIGAM FERRERS WATER BILL [H.L.]

      IPSWICH CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
      LINCOLN CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS) BILL [H.L.].
      MENSTONE WATER (TRANSFER) BILL [H.L.].
      MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [H.L.].
      NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
      NEWPORT (MONMOUTHSHIRE) GAS BILL [H.L.].
      NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL [H.L.].
      NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [H.L.].
      Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills—viz.:

      E. Lucan,

      E. Verulam,

      E. Dartrey,

      L. Windsor (chairman),

      L. Newton;

      agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ARMY (MILITIA).
  Militia Training Return, 1899.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1900–1901.
  Explanatory Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SHERIFFS' ACCOUNTS.
  Treasury Warrant, dated 27th November, 1899, appointing Benjamin James Bridgeman, Esq., and George William Couch, Esq., to examine sheriffs' accounts. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—TELEGRAMS TO SOLDIERS ON SERVICE.
  *THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General when the scheme of registered telegraphic addresses for the troops in South Africa, promised by the Secretary of State for War, will be put in force; and whether, under that scheme, four words costing sixteen shillings will be insisted on as the minimum for the address of a private soldier; also, whether the arrangements recently announced in the press relating to a registered code word for inquiring about wounded soldiers cannot be modified by leaving out the name of the town or place where the hospital is situated. At the request of the noble Duke, I postponed this question from last week until to-day, with the result that the Postmaster General has been enabled during the interval to bring out the scheme. I do not for a moment complain of this, because my object in putting down the question was to ascertain the cause of the delay. I was beginning to fear that the scheme would not be published until after the completion of the war. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War said, on February 8th, in answer to a question which I addressed to him—
  "The Post Office has considered this matter in conjunction with the Eastern Telegraph Company. A list of code words has been framed, and has been sent out to South Africa, and, I think, must have arrived there two or three days ago. As soon as the telegraphic, authorities at the Cape have informed us, as they no doubt will by telegraph, that they are able to accept the code, the new arrangement will come into force and will be made known by the Post Office here."
  The noble Marquess made that statement nearly a month ago, and no doubt the Postmaster General will be able to explain the cause of the great delay that has taken place. The scheme appeared in last Saturday's newspapers, but for a week before then a most extraordinary state of affairs existed. The Eastern Telegraph Company had been advised, either by the Post Office or the War Office, about this scheme, and for a week before it was made public the company were taking messages under the scheme, with the result that the fortunate man in the street who went direct to the Eastern Telegraph Company was able to send his message at the reduced price, whereas the
  *See The Parliamentary Debates [Fourth Series], Vol. lxxviii., p. 899.

  169
  unfortunate man in the street who used the Post Office was charged at the old rate. No doubt during that week all the messages that were sent by the Post Office through the Eastern Telegraph Company were charged to the Post Office at the reduced rate, and I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether he can see his way to refund to the public the excess charged to them during that week. With regard to the second part of my question, the scheme as I feared insists upon a minimum of four words for the address of a soldier, which therefore costs 16s. The four words consist, first of all, of the number of the private; secondly, of his name; thirdly, of the registered telegraphic address of his regiment; and, fourthly, of "Cape Town." I would venture to suggest that the name is quite unnecessary. A private is known by his number in the regiment, and a number can be safely sent by cable. All business men assert that they are accustomed to accept numbers sent by cable as thoroughly reliable, and if a number is reliable in business it should be reliable enough for this purpose. Moreover, the cable companies always repeat numbers to make sure that they arrive correctly at the other end, whereas they do not repeat a word. The insertion of the name of a private should certainly be left optional. With regard to "Cape Town," I had hoped that the Government would have seen their way to have incorporated it in the telegraphic address of the regiment, for all telegrams go to Cape Town. I should have thought the Government could easily have arranged this with the Eastern Telegraph Company, if necessary by paying them some small sum. But if the authorities do not see their way to go so far as this, I would urge them to approach the Telegraph Company with a view to their charging 2s. instead of 4s. for "Cape Town." Looking to the fact that the Eastern Telegraph Company have had an enormous increase of business in consequence of the war, I cannot but feel that they would be willing to meet the authorities in a liberal spirit and only charge half price. If my suggestions could be adopted the cost of the address would be reduced from 16s. to 8s. or 10s. This would be a substantial reduction, and one which would be very much appreciated. Coming to the last part of my question, I thank the
  170
  authorities for having introduced a registered code word signifying that the soldier is in hospital, but I am sorry to see in the statement that was issued that the name of the town or place in all cases must be added. This will to a great extent destroy the value of the concession, because the idea was that whenever anyone read in the paper that his relative or friend was wounded he might telegraph at once to find out how he was going on. How is it possible for the public to know to what town or place the wounded soldier is taken? It is impossible to know this until some weeks afterwards. Seeing that the authorities have all along taken letters to the troops with simply the words "Cape Colony" or South Africa," and looking to the fact that under this new scheme they are going to deliver telegrams to soldiers not wounded without any town or place being named, they should do the same for wounded soldiers. If my proposal should be adopted I take it that the form would be this. For a wounded soldier you would put his regimental number, the name of his regiment, and the registered code word signifying that he was wounded and in hospital, and the authorities ought to have very little difficulty in sending that telegram to the hospital in which the wounded soldier lies. I hope the Government will consider these proposals, not so much as a concession to the public at home, but as a small concession to the troops who have been fighting so magnificently for us in South Africa.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I hope I may be permitted to say a word on this question before the Postmaster General replies. We all, I am sure, take an interest in the troops in South Africa, and are delighted to find that a certain concession is being made in respect of telegrams to them; but I think every noble Lord in this House and every one in another place will feel that it would be quite possible to do still more. The troops are in the immediate service of the Government, and I do not think it would be too much to to expect that a message might be sent—not only the address but the whole telegram—at a cost of two shillings a word. I am aware that it depends greatly with the Eastern Telegraph Company, but I should think that a great and wealthy corporation would be willing to accede to the

  171
  wish of the Government in this respect. We find that throughout the whole of the country companies and individuals are doing everything they can for the benefit and comfort of those who are fighting so bravely and nobly for us in South Africa. I regard it, my Lords, as the duty of everybody, whether a corporation or an individual, to do so, and I should hope that by a representation to the Eastern Telegraph Company it would be possible to give to the soldier the concession to which I have referred. It may seem a small sum to noble Lords, but 16s. may prevent a soldier from receiving the word of comfort he is longing for in his sufferings. I would go even further and would say to the noble Duke the Postmaster General that, in my opinion, it would meet the general approval if, by the aid of Government, a ten-word message could be sent to wounded soldiers for a shilling. I hardly think that the Eastern Telegraph Company would be willing to take such a reduction, but what would it be to this great country to pay a certain sum out of the Treasury to enable this to be done? We all know how anxious a mother, a sister, a wife, or, it may be, others equally near and dear to those in South Africa, are to have only one word with those of whom they think so much and whom they love so dearly. It would be a great consolation to them if they could obtain only one word direct. It is very different from seeing the news of them in the papers. I cannot think that it is impossible for such a scheme to be carried out, and I hope the advisability of it will go home to the heart of the noble Duke. We are all willing in this country to pay increased taxation that the honour and dignity of the Empire may be maintained and that its solidarity may be assured, and if the proposals of my noble friend cost a few hundreds or thousands of pounds I believe the money would be readily voted by Parliament. I apologise for detaining your Lordships so long, but I believe I have spoken what is the sentiment and the wish of the great majority of the people of this country.
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (The Duke of Norfolk): The noble Earl stated that his motive in putting this question was to ascertain the cause of the delay in carrying out the scheme which was promised by my noble friend the
  172
  Secretary of State for War. I am bound to say that his question does not suggest that that is in his mind. I may say, however, that the delay arose from causes on the other side. The War Office had some difficulty in getting satisfactory replies to the questions which they found it necessary to ask. The answer I have prepared to the question of the noble Earl is as follows:—The scheme of registered telegraphic addresses for the troops in South Africa was put into force on the 3rd inst. Under that scheme the address must consist of at least four words, costing 16s. It must contain the number and name of the soldier (two words), the name of the regiment, which will be counted as one word, and the address to Cape Town, which is also chargeable as one word. I have communicated with the Secretary of State for War as to the possibility of this number being reduced, and if anything further can be done in this direction a notification on the subject will at once be issued. The arrangements referred to in the last part of the question are still under consideration, but the name of the town or place of destination is, of course, a necessary part of the address of any telegram. I am sure every one in this House must feel the fullest sympathy with the noble Lords who have spoken on this subject, but, of course, there are difficulties to be dealt with in the matter. It rests, as the noble Earl said, largely in the hands of the Eastern Telegraph Company. It is not a matter that is in the hands of the Government. It is for the noble Marquess to consider the proposal that the Government should undertake part of the expense. I can only say that the Government have already shown great liberality in similar matters, and I think it is possible they may feel that the pressure is becoming unduly encouraged by what has been done. As regards the statement by the noble Earl, that before our scheme was properly under way the company themselves resorted to this system of code words, that, of course, is their business; but if, on inquiry, it is found that we have been unduly charging the public for soldiers' telegrams which have been sent at the cheaper rate, we shall take all the means in our power to refund any moneys so received by us.
  *THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: I beg to thank the noble Duke for his

  173
  answer, but I cannot look upon it as very satisfactory. He said it was a matter for the Eastern Telegraph Company and not for the Government, but unless the Government approach the company the latter will naturally charge the full rates. I venture to suggest that the Government should consider whether they could not approach the company and get some reduction for the troops and for the public. I hope the noble Duke will reconsider this question. He stated in his answer that the name must be put in, but I still maintain that it is quite unnecessary. With regard to the hospital scheme, I cannot understand how it is possible for people in this country to know in what hospital their wounded friends are placed. Surely, what the authorities are doing for soldiers who are not wounded they could do for soldiers who are, and deliver telegrams at the hospitals where the men may be lying. I hope if any concessions are made a fresh statement will be issued to the public including both the Post Office scheme and the Hospital scheme.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I think the suggestion of the noble Earl follows directly on the lines of the instructions that are given by the Post Office for the direction of letters. I believe the proper way to address a letter for a soldier in South Africa is to give his name, his regiment, and the words "South Africa." It seems to me that a similar arrangement with regard to telegrams might very well be adopted, and the telegram forwarded to the place where the soldier actually is.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Marquess of Lansdowne): We shall be glad to do all in our power to further abbreviate these messages for the benefit of those who desire to send them. Something has been achieved. But, as the Postmaster General has said, it does not lie entirely with us on this side to dictate our own terms. There has been a somewhat troublesome negotiation with the local Post Office authorities, and some time, no doubt, was spent in overcoming those difficulties. I will make note of the suggestion that we might substitute for the soldier's name in these messages his regimental number. If it is possible to carry that out I shall be very glad to facilitate such an arrangement.
  THE EARL OF LICHFIELD: The scheme directs that both the number and the name should be given.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I promise my noble friend to consider his suggestion, and I think he must be content with that. With regard to the other suggestion, that it might be possible in case of inquiries after a wounded soldier to omit the name of the station at which the wounded man might happen to be in hospital, I am told that that would not be an easy arrangement, and considerable delay might be incurred while the principal medical officer to whom the telegram is addressed is finding out at what particular station in Cape Colony or Natal the man for whom the message was intended happened to be quartered, but I shall be glad to look into the matter further if the noble Earl desires it. With regard to the rates per word, they are, I understand, determined by standing arrangement with the Eastern Telegraph Company, and I do not know that it would be an easy matter to obtain a reconsideration of those rates.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Five of the clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten of the clock.