Sitting of 19 April 1901

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  KINGSCOURT, KEADY, AND ARMAGH RAILWAY BILL. (BY ORDER.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. LONSDALE, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said he hoped hon. Members would bear with him while he endeavoured to convince them that this was not a measure which ought to receive the sanction of Parliament, and that it was one that was utterly opposed to public policy inasmuch as it increased a monopoly which had already grown to a too serious extent, in addition to which it might be described as a bold attempt to set aside a well considered discussion of the House of Commons. He trusted that hon. Members would come to the conclusion that it was nothing more or less than an insidious attempt to get round a deliberate decision of Parliament and to adopt a course which was in the highest degree injurious to the public interest. He would not enter into details as to the evil existing from the present railway monopoly. What he proposed to do was to attempt to show that this measure amounted to a breach of faith with Parliament and the public, and that moreover it was being promoted solely in the interests of the monopolists and was contrary to public policy. The new railway proposed to be constructed under the Bill was a junction connecting the Kingscourt and Armagh. Railway with the Great Northern Railway at Castleblaney. It was proposed to abandon a line, the construction of which had been authorised, between Kingscourt and Castleblaney, where it would join the Midland Great Western Railway. The line it was proposed to abandon was really a competitive and alternative route from Dublin to Armagh and other great towns in the
  746
  North of Ireland. One of the striking advantages of the original scheme was that it would open up an entirely new district and would afford competition. That scheme received the sanction of a Committee of the House of Commons, whilst a scheme practically identical with that of the present Bill, which was also brought before the House by the Great Northern Railway of Ireland, was rejected by the Committee. Personally he was in no way financially interested in these railway undertakings, but he was interested as a matter of public convenience, because he looked at the advantages which would accrue from the adoption of a Bill which would enable a competitive route to be opened up. He was of opinion that that competitive line would be very useful to the district. Twenty-five witnesses who were called before the Committee to give evidence in support of the Kingscourt scheme, almost all of whom, having business connections with the district, were unanimous upon the matter. Those gentlemen were farmers, merchants, manufacturers, and others who knew the real requirements of the people and the locality, and they were unanimously in favour of an independent and competitive line. He opposed this Bill because it would create a monopoly which would cause the greatest possible inconvenience to the people of the localities concerned. It would, in fact, be a breach of faith to the people, a flagrant breach of faith with Parliament, and might be described as a gross breach of faith on the part of some of the Kingscourt directors with their colleagues. In his opinion the passing of this Bill would mean defeating of the legitimate expectations of the people of Armagh, Cavan, Monaghan, Fermanagh, Meath, and the adjacent counties. The Bill asked the permission of Parliament for an arrangement that would, as he had before said, constitute a breach of faith with the House itself. The Committee last year recognised the advantages attached to an alternative and competitive route between Dublin and the North—advantages which were insisted upon by a large number of influential witnesses who described the crippling effects upon agriculture and manufactures, of the excessive rates at present charged by the Great Northern

  747
  Railway Company, and Parliament having sanctioned the alternative route and rejected the Great Northern Company's blocking scheme he was surprised that the House should now be asked to deliberately reverse its decision by what he could only describe as a trick on the part of some of the directors of the company. So confident were the Midland and Great Western Railway Company in the success of an independent loop line that they expressed their intention of investing large sums of money in the concern, and the Committee sanctioned the Bill because they were induced to believe in the bona fides of the venture. But shortly after the passage of the Bill of last year arrangements were made by three of the Kingscourt directors, without the knowledge of the Chairman of the Board, practically to hand the line over to the Great Northern Company, and if the scheme were allowed to pass the monopoly of that company in the part of Ireland concerned would be established and confirmed. He moved that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  MR. ARCHDALE, in seconding the motion, said that every public board and every man, whether Nationalist or Conservative, in the northwest portion of Ireland affected by this scheme was against the Bill. The proposal was really in direct contravention of an agreement between the promoters of the Kingscourt Bill and a Committee of the House. The Great Northern Railway had a splendid service between Dublin and Belfast, but it starved other districts. If the present Bill was allowed to pass it would prevent the inhabitants of the district affected having any competing line with the Great Northern Railway, which had a greater monopoly than any line in the country.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words' upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Lonsdale.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. DE TATTON EGERTONthought it his duty, as Chairman of the Committee
  748
  which passed the Kingscourt Bill last year, to point out that the line was originally intended to be an alternative route between Dublin and Belfast, passing through a district which would help to feed the line independently of any traffic from the two ends. The present Bill proposed to do away entirely with the work of that Committee, as it would throw back the whole country into the hands of the Great Northern Company. In view of the necessity for an alternative through route opening up a completely new district, and one which would be beneficial to the public at large, the Committee accepted the evidence placed before them as to the bona fides of the promoters, and passed the Bill. As he understood, the promoters of the present measure had gone behind the back of the Chairman of the Board, and were endeavouring to undo the work of last year. With this statement he would leave the matter in the hands of the House to settle.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid there could be no question that the original scheme was a great deal better in the interests of Ireland than the proposal now before the House. He, however, had received resolutions from the County Council of Louth, the Dundalk Urban District Council, the Dundalk Rural District Council, the Dundalk Board of Guardians, and the Dundalk Harbour Commissioners—all in his constituency—asking him to support the Bill, and in deference to the wishes of his constituents he should reluctantly do so. The hon. Member for Mid Armagh had issued a statement that the Midland and Great Western Railway Company of Ireland were prepared, if the present Bill were defeated, to enter into an agreement by which the Kingscourt Railway, as authorised by the Act of 1900, would probably be constructed, and its competitive character restored and established. The House should remember, however, that during the last forty or fifty years not a single extension of line had been carried out in Ireland except by an existing railway company or by help from the British Government in the shape of a public guarantee. If this Bill was rejected no part of the line would be made.

  749
  He therefore suggested that the Bill should be sent to a Committee; the statement with regard to the Midland Company could then be inquired into, the people concerned cross-examined, and their guarantees to construct the line taken. A clause could also be inserted in the Bill suspending its operation for one or two years, in order to give the Midland Company a chance to carry out the original scheme.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,)admitted there was a great amount of difference of opinion on matters of detail as to what had been and might be done, but to discuss those matters on the Second Reading of the Bill was almost absurd. Members had been reminded that there were a large number of questions at issue between the Great Northern and Midland Companies, but was the House of Commons a fit tribunal to sit upon those questions? The proper course was to send the Bill to a Committee upstairs. The prevailing opinion in Belfast was that the Bill should be so dealt with, for this reason. They had the promise of the Midland Railway Company that the railway would be made by them in its entirety, and if the Bill went to a Committee the value of that promise could be tested. He, therefore, suggested that the ordinary course should be followed, so that the Bill could be discussed before a quasi- judicial tribunal.
  MR. CARVILLurged that the promoters of the scheme had never given the public a chance to find the necessary capital. The ink was hardly dry on the Act of Parliament before these gentlemen were negotiating with the Great Northern Railway Company. It was unreasonable that matters should be allowed to remain as they were for another year by the Bill being sent to a Committee. Such a step would be giving approval to a course of conduct of which it was the business of the House to mark its disapproval. The real question was whether there had been a breach of faith with a Parliamentary Committee as well as with the public. The charge against the promoters was that by certain designs and representations
  750
  they induced the people to believe that if they supported the Bill a measure would be granted by which an alter native route would be provided between Armagh and Dublin. His constituent were deceived as well. They requested him to give evidence, but, as he sail before, throughout the whole length and breadth of Ireland not a single local body could be found to recommend the scheme to the House of Commons He submitted, with all respect, that he had established that these gentlemen had humbugged a Committee of the House of Commons, and it was the bounden duty of the House to mark its disapproval of such conduct. He wished to press on the attention of the House what was stated by Mr. Balfour Browne, who opened the case last yea before the Committee for the promoters He said—
  "Now I propose, with your permission, to tell you something about the Kingscourt, Keady, and Armagh Railway. I appear with my learned friends, Mr. Pollock, Mr. Bushe, avid Mr. Rowlands, for the promoters, and the Bill is for power to incorporate a company to construct a railway from Kings court, through Carrickmacross, through Castleblaney, and through Keady, to join the Great Northern Railway at Armagh, I believe the total length of the railway is about thirty-six miles. It has one very important feature that will be obvious to you on the cartoon—it connects the system of the Great Northern of Ireland with the system of the Midland Great Western of Ireland, the Great Northern lines on that cartoon being indicated by green, the Midland Great Western being indicated in blue. It will make a new route between the North of Ireland and Dublin, and that is one of the most important features of the scheme, and I believe that you will have tables of distances put before you that it will be a route taking Armagh as a common point, five miles shorter between Armagh and Dublin, than by the present existing Great Northern route
  via Newry and Dundalk. That of itself is a very important matter, and it is a matter which was entirely overlooked, I think, by the Committee which sat upon this Bill, and determined the pre amble was not proved last year."
  Later on in his statement Mr. Bailout Browne said—
  "A railway company has no vested right in its traffic. It is there providing a road for the public to use, and if the public wants two roads the public ought to have them unless there are some countervailing disadvantages which would make you respect it. Here, Sir, there is not a word to be said against our line from beginning to end except by the Great Northern Railway, There is not a

  751
  landowner opposing. Every one of the local authorities—every one of the county councils—every body in the district, has petitioned or passed resolutions or is in support of our line, and there is no one here to say that this line should not be made except a company that is dividing 6¾ per cent.—I do not complain of that—but a rich company that wants to maintain its monopoly in the north-east of Ireland. Sir, I do not think that is a ground for rejecting a Bill. I hope it will not be made a ground in this case. Is it necessary that this line should be made?"
  The hon. Member wished the House to understand that the necessity for this line was recognised so long ago as 1837, but matters progressed so slowly in Ireland, especially in industrial development, that here sixty-four years afterwards they were discussing whether the line was to be made at all. Mr. Balfour Browne referred to the fact that in 1837 a Royal Commission on Irish railways recommended that a railway running up from Navan to Armagh should be made, and the learned counsel continued—
  "That is a long time ago, but ever since the people in this district have been urging the Great Northern or somebody to make a line; and in the year 1894 the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland promoted a line running over practically one route from Kingscourt, where they are just now to join the Great Northern at Armagh. The Midland Great Western thought it was necessary. I have an opportunity, from the circular they sent to their shareholders, of giving you the opinion of the directors of that railway company as to the utility of this line. What Happened? When that line was promoted the Great Northern, in order to maintain its monopoly, went and canvassed the shareholders of the rival railway company—of the Midland Company—canvassed them to vote against this line; and so many did vote against the line that the Midland Railway Company did not get the requisite majority—they got a majority, but they did not get the requisite majority, so they had to withdraw that line which they themselves said was necessary in the interests of the public."
  He would not trouble the House with any further quotations from the speech of the counsel for the promoters. He should like, however, to quote a few words from the evidence of the promoters themselves. Mr. Worthington, who was the principal promoter of this railway, was examined by Mr. Balfour Browne as follows—
  "It was said last year that it was your intention to sell the railway it Parliament gave you the power to construct it? There was not the slightest ground for such a statement.
  752
  We had no intention whatever, and I believe it was said after we had called our evidence, when we had no opportunity of contradicting it, but you want to emphatically contradict it now?—Yes.
  "Your object as one of the promoters is to have this railway made?—Yes.
  "With your experience of Irish railways—I will not go over the evidence we have had—do you think, first of all, that the district requires a railway?—Clearly it does.
  "Do you think also that a through rate from Armagh to Dublin will be an advantage to both those great centres?—Undoubtedly.
  "Knowing Ireland well, do you think the district is so good as many others in which railways have been made?—It is a great deal better than many districts in which I have made railways.
  "Besides that, will it develop traffic that does not exist at the present time?—It will no doubt."
  [Cries of "Divide."] He had a great deal more evidence he should like to have the opportunity of reading, but in deference to the wish of the House he would not pursue that course. His apology for troubling the House with these quotations—it was rather curious to have to offer an apology—was that this was a matter that concerned his constituency and the constituency of his hon. friend the Member for Mid Armagh, which almost adjoined each other. They knew the interest the public took in having a competitive and alternative route. Up to the 9th of April the rates on the Great Northern Railway were excessively and prohibitively high, but from a paper he had received from his constituency it appeared that within the last ten days the company had taken a step of the most extraordinary character, which he thought gave an insight into their style of management. There was in the town of Newry an important grass-seed industry. A large warehouse was established there, where seed was prepared for the market. It was not thriving, but it was not quite defunct. He believed that the last regulation of the Great Northern Railway Company was quite likely to destroy it. The rate for grass-seed from Belfast to Dublin was 8s. per ton, and from Newry, which was little more than half the way—he thought the distance was 70 miles against 112—the rate was 9s. 2d. per ton. The rate for potatoes was now raised from 5s. to 7s. 6d.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid these matters were not relevant to the question before the House.
  MR. CARVILLsaid he quite accepted the ruling. He concluded by reading a letter be bad received from a Member of the Committee that sat upstairs on the Bill supporting the views be bad put before the House.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid he understood that his hon. friend the Member for Newry opposed the Bill, though he thought his speech would more incline one to believe that the best way to get out of the tangle would be to send the Bill upstairs to a Committee. The right hon. and gallant Member had signed a whip in opposition to this Bill, because he was not impressed when he signed that whip that the Midland Railway were ready to plank down the money in order that this railway should be made. He was in favour of the railway being made at all hazards, because he thought it would be of advantage to
  a considerable part of Ireland. He should be very glad at the same time to see the competitive element brought into the railway scheme. But if the railway was not to be made, and the Midland Railway Company did not mean to plank down the money and defeat the object of the Great Northern, then he thought the best thing they could do was to send the Bill to a Committee upstairs. He ventured to say that next year, if the Committee found that either company had been acting unfairly and had no intention of carrying out a railway which would be beneficial to the country, the House would carry some scheme which would nave the effect of giving to that part of Ireland the railway accommodation it required. Personally he hoped that the result of the deliberations of the Committee would be that the railway, when made, would be made on the competitive principle.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I do not rise in order to express my opinion on the merits of the Bill, for that, indeed, is not the question before the House. The question is whether we shall or shall not this afternoon depart from the usual practice of sending such measures up to a Committee. That question has been very keenly argued. A somewhat strong case has been made out by the Member for Mid Armagh, who was reinforced by the Member for the Knutsford Division.
  754
  On the face of it, and on the argument they put forward, it looks as if there has been a breach of faith on the part of the promoters, and that they secured the assent of the Committee to their scheme on promises which have since been broken. If that argument stood alone, and if we were able to accept that argument altogether, then I think a case would have been made out for taking the unusual course of rejecting the Bill on the Second Reading; but after listening to two or three speeches I should hesitate to pronounce definitely upon an intricate case of that kind, and should like to hear witnesses examined before I would dare to say that the promoters are not acting in good faith. It would be a serious matter if this House were to reject the Bill on the Second Reading after listening to two or three speeches without offering the promoters an opportunity of showing that they are acting in good faith. The only other argument to which I shall refer is this. A suggestion has been made that the Midland Company gave some encouragement to the promoters of the Bill of last year, and that they are not making good that encouragement. If this through line cannot be made without the assistance of the Midland Company, and the Midland Company have given no sufficient evidence of the fact that they intend to give that assistance—what a difficult question that is to resolve in this House! Surely that is a question on which we should need to hear evidence and assure ourselves whether the Midland Company do or do not mean to assist in making the through route. But when we have to decide upon the relative probability of each, and upon the value of one by comparison with another, then I must say for my part I could not come to a decision without the assistance usually given by a Committee upstairs.
  MR. FIELDsaid he took great interest in the railway affairs of Ireland. He remembered reading long ago that one of the most eminent railway experts said: "If the State does not govern the railways, the railways will soon govern the State." It appeared to him that they had arrived at that stage. They had the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the Secretary to the, Admiralty, the ex Chief Secretary, and present President of

  755
  the Board of Trade making the suggestion that what was determined by the House of Commons last session should be thrown altogether overboard, and that they should give the Great Northern Company an opportunity to so manipulate affairs that they would be able to gain the end they had in view. Where were they now? They had the Government and several interested Members on one side, and they had public utility and the Members representing the district on the other. He had some experience of what railway monopoly in Ireland meant. Practically the carrying companies claimed to detain stock as long as they liked, and to deliver it in what condition they chose. He gave the Chief Secretary credit for doing the best he could, but he had as much knowledge of this subject as any Member on the Ministerial Bench, fie was for nearly six monthson the Select Committee appointed to inquire into railway and canal rates and charges, and as the result of his experience he came to the conclusion that the object of railway managers and railway witnesses was to befog the Committee. The end of it was to make confusion worse confounded. There were in Ireland at present four or five railway companies, and they were absolutely kings and lords of the districts in which the lines ran. They had and exercised the power of assessing the residents through rates and charges, and of unduly favouring certain centres at the expense of other districts. Except on the great main arteries between Dublin and Belfast, the autocrats of the Great Northern treated the public in whatever way they thought proper. He trusted the Government would not actively interfere in this matter. If they sent this Bill to a Committee of the House, and if it came back recommended by the Committee, hon. Members would argue that they could not go against the recommendation of the Committee. The, scheme of last year was the proper one to adopt. The House was getting almost tired of railway Bills, and the railway managers ought to be a little more considerate in taking up the time of this House. A Grand Committee should take up this question, and lay down definite principles, in order to prevent the time of the House being wasted by private railway Bills of this character. The great element of an alternative way, which would make this
  756
  railway useful as a competing route from Dublin with the Great Northern Railway, had been absolutely left out of this Bill. He believed that the common sense and the commercial instincts of hon. Members of this House would defeat this Bill. They should not allow it to be read a second time, because the element of public utility, which ought to be the basis of all legislation, was absent. He trusted therefore that the House would reject the Bill, as the entire management of the Irish railway system called for immediate and drastic changes.
  SIR JAMES HASLETTsaid the chief question before the House was whether there had been a breach of faith with the Committee of the House. They had to ask themselves whether a reasonable prima facie case had been made out in favour of this Bill going to a Committee. They were now in a position to investigate the statements which had been made pro and con, and the question was whether it was not the duty of this House, after having heard conflicting statements, to send this Bill to a Committee of the House, which, presumably, would take evidence without bias, and would report to this House the result. It was more than clear that among five members of the Kingscourt Railway board there was some conflict of opinion, and if there was a difference of opinion between those five members, surely that was not a question which this House could arrange, and it was a matter that should be brought forward fairly and squarely before a Committee of the House. It had been suggested that there would be a breach of faith if this Bill was adopted, but one of the clauses in the Bill passed last year actually opened the door for this Bill. There were certain running powers in connection with the Midland Railway. Sub-section 7 of Clause 51 says—
  "Provided that the running powers over the railway of the Midland Company granted by this section shall cease in the event of the undertaking being sold or of the railways being worked by the Great Northern Railway."
  That was the very thing that was being done or contemplated by the Act which the House were now asked to send to the Committee. Surely if there were any means of interpreting plain language it was clear that, inferentially, such a scheme was contemplated. Evidence was taken

  757
  upon that point, and the result was that this clause was added to the Bill. They had been told that this railway could not be made without a subsidy, and up to the present, so far as they knew, not one solitary farthing of capital had been planked down. They had had a great many hazy statements brought before them, and a great many had also been reported in the press. A Bill was now brought forward to make a railway through a paying part of the line where the manufacturing districts in Ireland required it. Tho representatives of every leading manufacture in the districts between Armagh and Keady were unanimous in favour of this Bill. [Cries of "No, no."] Yes they were, for he had gone into the matter with them. He thought this difference of opinion showed the necessity for having this Bill referred to a Committee. The argument in favour of referring this Bill to a Committee was irresistible. When the Midland Railway were approached by the other company they declined to carry out their verbal agreement, and now the line was being auctioned between two companies, and bandied about as in a game of battledore and shuttlecock. They would rather not have any Bill at all than not have the whole Bill. He thought it might be very fairly claimed that, under the circumstances, this Bill should be sent to a Committee where witnesses could be examined on oath. He earnestly asked the House to pass the Second Reading of this Bill, and let the measure go to a Committee in order to sift the evidence and find out what were the real wants and necessities of the district.
  MR. DALYsaid that out of the thirty-six miles of railway dealt with by this Bill twenty miles passed through his constituency. He desired to point out to the House that there was not a public body in all Monaghan, from the county council downwards, which was not opposed to this Bill, and in favour of the Bill passed last year. The Bill before the House prevented Dublin having the benefit of any competition, and gave a monopoly to Belfast. He was very sorry that the Member for one of the divisions of Belfast, who was a member of the Government, had interfered in this matter. If this
  758
  Bill was passed it would prevent for all time the establishment of a competitive line of railway with the Great Northern line, which was so much needed in Ireland. Was the House of Commons going to be a party to allowing two railway companies to divide Ireland between themselves, in order that those monopolies might extract all the money they could out of the unfortunate traders who were obliged to send their goods along those railways? In Ireland they were quite differently situated to England and Scotland, because in those countries the people were able to consume nearly all their own produce. In Ireland, however, most of the produce had to be sent to England and Scotland for consumption, and the Great Northern Railway Company were practically squeezing the life-blood out of the people of the constituency which he represented by charging such high rates. It cost them more at the present time to send one hundredweight of oats to Dublin than to Liverpool. By the line sanctioned last year the people living in the north-east portion of Ireland would be provided with a competitive line, by which they could send their goods to the capital of Ireland and to Belfast. If the Bill before the House was passed, who was going to fight it upstairs? If it was sent upstairs the whole energy of the Northern Railway Company would be used in favour of the Bill, and he hoped that it would be rejected at the present stage.
  COLONEL WELBYsaid that as a Member of the Committee which adopted the Bill of last year, he wished to place before the House his recollection of what took place before the Committee. They inquired very carefully into the needs of the district, and they found that for the general benefit of that district it was necessary that there should be a competing line. They came clearly to the conclusion that the rates charged by the Great Northern Railway were high, and that if it was allowed to have a monopoly it would be detrimental to that district. They were very careful to ascertain that it was the intention of the company not to sell it to the Great Northern Railway for a certain number of years. It was on the understanding that the line would not be sold to the Great

  759
  Northern Railway that the preamble of the Bill was passed. If Parliament were now to go back upon the decision arrived at last year he believed that they would be doing great harm to the district concerned.
  MR. EUGENE WASONsaid he wished to corroborate most emphatically what had been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Taunton, and also what had been stated by other hon. Members, that if this Bill was passed there would never be any competitive route established at all. He entirely endorsed what had been said by his colleagues on the Committee in regard to this Bill.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I should like to say a word upon this question with reference to the attitude which the House is bound to assume towards its own Committee, and the carrying out of an honourable understanding and pledge given to that Committee. The Chief Secretary for Ireland has stated that there was a conflict of evidence as to the transactions which took place at the Committee, which ought to be examined by a fresh Committee. After hearing the evidence of hon. Members who have spoken, of the Chairman of the Committee, and also the letter from another member of the Committee, I venture to say that such a reason as that given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland falls to the ground. We have heard the evidence of four of the members of the Committee which passed the Bill of last year, to the effect that there was a distinct and honourable understanding given with reference to future action in respect of this railway, and if the House now allows a wealthy railway company to endeavour to upset the bargain made in the Committee upstairs it will strike a fatal blow at the carrying on of private Bill business in an honourable manner. I think the reasons given by hon. Members from Ireland with reference to the needs of the district and the necessity for a competitive line in that district have not been answered, and are unanswerable. But apart altogether from this, I say that this House ought to uphold the decisions and bargains entered into by its Committees, and I shall certainly vote against the Second Reading of this Bill.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)said that there was no doubt whatever that the present Bill would destroy the arrangement made by the Bill of last year, but the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that there was serious danger that if the Bill before the House were not allowed to go to a Committee, not necessarily to be passed, the result would be that neither the scheme of the Bill nor the scheme of last year had any chance of being carried out. There was considerable evidence to show that there was an understanding on the part of the promoters, rightly or wrongly, last year, that they would be assisted in the construction of the railway by the Midland Company, and if there was any such understanding—he did not wish to express a definite opinion regarding it—the Midland Company had now withdrawn from it, with the consequence that there was no prospect of raising capital for the construction of the line. That brought a new chapter into the matter, and it appeared to him that the House would be well advised to allow the Bill to go to a Committee in the usual way. The Committee could examine as to whether there was anything which deserved the title of a breach of faith, and if there were, the course that would be adopted was clear enough. But if there was not a breach of faith, and it was thought desirable that the question should be considered afresh, then it would be possible for the Midland Company to come forward and make a definite offer as to what they were prepared to do. [Sir H. FOWLER: Who is to pay the costs?] There was something besides costs to be considered, and that was the public interest. Having listened most carefully and in an impartial spirit to the discussion, he did not think that it would be to the public interest that the House should decide the question itself.
  MR. NOLANsaid he would have preferred to give a silent vote on the question but for some of the observations made in the course of the debate. His hon. friend had stated that there had been certain corrupt influences at work to promote the Bill, but as far as he was concerned he wished it to be

  761
  distinctly understood that he had not been approached by anyone in favour of the Bill. On the other hand, he had been very strongly urged to oppose the Bill. It had been stated that local opinion was opposed to the Bill, but he held in his hand a resolution passed by the county council of Louth in favour of it. With regard to the statement of his hon. friend the Member for Newry that Dundalk had been subsidised by the Great Northern Company, he wished to say publicly that he knew two of the gentlemen concerned, one of whom was a friend of thirty years standing, and that there were not two more honourable or upright men in Europe. He had
  nothing to say with reference to the merits of the Bill, but he thought there was a great deal of force in the argument of the hon. Member for North Louth, with whom he did not always agree, that the Bill should be sent to a Committee and that the Midland Company or others who desired to have the Kingscourt and Armagh Railway constructed in accordance with last year's Bill should be given an opportunity of submitting their proposals.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 114; Noes, 244. (Division List No. 129.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex, F.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Garfit, William

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Aird, Sir John

  Gibbs, Hn A G H. (City of London

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Percy, Earl

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Purvis, Robert

  Arrol, Sir William

  Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

  Randles, John S.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Gunter, Colonel

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Hain, Edward

  Ropner, Col. Robert

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

  Rutherford, John

  Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Bond, Edward

  Henderson, Alexander

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Brassey, Albert

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampst'd)

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.

  Brookfield, Col. Montagu

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, F.)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Butcher, John George

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Gl'sg'w

  Horner, Frederick William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir Wm. H.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Wharton, Rt. Hn. J. Lloyd

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lawson, John Grant

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u-Lyne

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Whitmore, Chas. Algernon

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Denny, Col.

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

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lowe, Francis William

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cum Penr.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Dixon Hartland, Sir Fred. D.

  Macdona, John Cumming

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B. (Cambs.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriessh.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hn. George

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Younger, William

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Fison, Frederick William

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  Sir James Haslett and Mr. William Johnston.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Nicholson, William Graham

  NOES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.

  Asher, Alexander

  Bell, Richard

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Asquith, Rt Hn. Herbert Henry

  Bill, Charles

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Blundell, Col. Henry

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Boland, John

  Ambrose, Robert

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Boyle, James

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Brigg, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Pilkington, Richard

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Burns, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Burt, Thomas

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Holland, William Henry

  Price, Robert John

  Caine, William Sproston

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside

  Caldwell, James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rea, Russell

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Reddy, M.

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

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

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Renwick George

  Cawley, Frederick

  Joyce, Michael

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (St'ly bridge

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

  Roberts, J. H. (Denbighshire)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Labouchere, Henry

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Lambert, George

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Robinson, Brooke

  Colville, John

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Leamy, Edmund

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Leng, Sir John

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Levy, Maurice

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Crombie, John William

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cullinan, J.

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lundon, W.

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Daly, James

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tynesi'e

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Delany, William

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Spear, John Ward

  Dewar, T. R (T'rH'ml'ts, S. Geo.

  M'Cann, James

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (N'rth'nts

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  M'Crae, George

  Spencer, E. (W. Bromwich)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Dillon, John

  M'Govern, T.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Strachey, Edward

  Doughty, George

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Duffy, William J.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Tennant, Harold John

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r

  Dunn, Sir William

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Minch, Matthew

  Thompson, E. C. (Monaghan, N.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Mooney, John J.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  More, Robt. Jas. (Shropshire)

  Tomkinson, James

  Faber, George Denison

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Morley, Rt. Hn John (Montrose

  Tully, Jasper

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Morton, Arthur H A. (Deptford)

  Ure, Alexander

  Field, William

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Wallace, Robert

  Flower, Ernest

  Murnaghan, George

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Forster, Henry William

  Murphy, J.

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans

  Nolan, Col John P. (Galway, N.

  Webb, Col. William George

  Gilhooly, James

  Norman, Henry

  Weir, James Galloway

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE. (Taunton

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Gore, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

  O'Dowd, John

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Grenfell, William Henry

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Groves, James Grimble

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

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

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  O'Mall'ey, William

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Hammond, John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Shee, James John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Partington, Oswald

  Mr. Lonsdale and Mr. Morris.

  Harwood, George

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

  Second Reading put oft for six months.

  PRIVATE BILLS (PETITION FOR ADDITIONAL PROVISION) (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with viz.:—
  Great Central Railway Bill.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, the standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—
  London United Tramways.
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  GRAVESEND GAS BILL.
    NEATH HARBOUR BILL.
    Read the third time, and passed.
  MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
  As amended, considered; A Clause added; Amendments made: Bill to be read the third time.
  TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPETED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—
  London and India Docks (New Works) Bill.
  Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—
  Arlesey Gas Bill [Lords].
  Folkestone Corporation Bill [Lords].
  Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—
  Berwickshire County Town Bill [Lords]
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—
  Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time upon Monday next.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERET- COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of

  767
  Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with viz.:—
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time upon Monday next.

  DORKING GAS BILL.
  Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY).
  Petition, and Bill ordered to be brought In by Mr. Cohen and Mr. John Burns.
  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Secretary of State under The Military Lands Act, 1892, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Brodrick and Lord Stanley.
  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS RILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Secretary of State under the Military Lands Act, 1892," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 143.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Billericay (Rural), Drighlington, Heston, and Isleworth Sunderland, and York, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Grant Lawson and Mr. Walter Long.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Billericay (Rural), Drighlington, Heston and Isleworth, Sunderland, and York," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill
  144.]

  ILKESTON AND HEANOR WATER BOARD RILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  PETITIONS.
    AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT, 1896.
    Petition, from Rochdale, against re-enactment; to lie upon the Table.
    BEER BILL.
    Petitions, in favour, from Chichester; Nacton; Bentley; Levington; Southampton; Bucklesham; Fulkenham; Thorington; and Staffordshire; to lie upon the Table.
    BURIAL PLACES (EXEMPTION FROM RATES) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Petition, from Bothwell, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    BURIAL GROUNDS (LOANS) (SCOTLAND) RILL.
    Petitions, in favour, from Bothwell; and Royal, Parliamentary, and Police Burghs of Scotland; to lie upon the Table.
    CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
    Petition, from Hornsey, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.

    COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
    Petitions, in favour, from Bickershaw; Bamfurlong; Digby; New London; Sutton; New Summit; Bentinck; Plumtree; Eastwood; Silver Hil (Nos. 1 and 2); Butcherwood; Annesley; New Hucknall; Dunston; St. John's; Staveley; Renishaw Park; Parkhall; Hartington; Norwood; Muirkirk; Talk o' th' Hill; Sandford; Hill; Hanley (No. 3); Bulwell; Pendleton; Cinder Hill; Broxtowe; Hartshead; Heage; Topcliffe; East Ardsley; Robin Hood; Thorn hill; Old Roundwood; Shaw Cross; Bruntcliffe; Mirfield; Whitwick (No. 6); Whitwick (Nos. 1 and 2); Coleorton; Snibstone (No. 2); South Leicestershire (No.
    1) South Leicestershire (No. 2); Ibstock (No. 1); Ibstock (No. 2); Nailstonewood; Ellistown (No. 1); Little Hulton; Marlpool; Pentrich; Codnor; Ripley; Stanley; Ilkeston; Marchay; Turton

    769
    Moor; Micklefield; Halton; Amington; Tame Valley; Hockley Hall: Birch Coppice: Alvecote; South Kirkby; Featherstone; Kippax; Glasshoughton; Ackton Hall; and Allerton Silkstone Collieries; to lie upon the Table.

    EDUCATION (YOUNG CHILDREN) (SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Petition, from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (HIGHER GRADE AND EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS).
    Petitions, for alteration of Law; from Stockton-on-Tees; and Brighouse: 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 Sheerness; Chesterfield; Godstone; Workington; Wilmslow; and Birmingham; to lie upon the Table.
    MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
    Petition, from St. Mabe, against; to lie upon the Table.

    MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
    Petitions, in favour, from Digby; New London; Sutton; New Summit; Burntcliffe; Bentinek; Plumtree; Silver Hill (Nos. 1 and 2); Butcherwood; New Hueknall; Annesley; Bamfurlong; Hindley Green; Muirkirk; Parkhall; Renishaw Park; St. John's: Staveley; Dunston; Norwood; Talk o' th' Hill; Sandford Hill; Hanley No. (3); Pendleton; Broxtowe; Cinder Hill; Bulwell; Hartshead; Topcliffe; East Ardsley; Robin Hood: Thornhill; Old Boundwood; Shaw Cross; Mirfield; Dillwyn; Gwendraeth; Crosshands; Cawdor; Gellicendrim; Ammanford (No. 1); Emlyn: Brynhenllyn: Rhos; Isllwyn; Eastwood; Ibstock (No. 1); Ibstock (No. 2); South Leicestershire (No. 1); South Leicestershire (No. 2); Snibston (No. 2); Coleorton; Nailstonewood: Ellistown
    (No. 1); Ellistown
    770
    (No. 2); Whitwiek (No. (6); Whitwick (Nos. 2 and 5): Pentrich; Ripley; Stanley; Ilkeston: Little Hulton; Turton Moor; Halton; Micklefield; Whateley; Kingsbury; Alvecote; Birch Coppice; Amington; South Kirby; Featherstone; Glasshoughton; Skelmersdale; Marchay; Marlpool; Ackton Hall; Kippax; and Allerton Silkstone Collieries; to lie upon the Table.

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
    Petition, from Samuel Crossland and others, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
    Petitions, in favour, from Sheffield (six); Helensburgh; Coupar Angus; Abram; Cardiff (seven); United Free Church of Scotland; Highgate; Catrine; Coatbridge; Meersbrook Park; Birmingham: Nottingham; Lochs; Stamford Hill; Midsomer Norton; Llantrissant (four); Morley (two); Middlesbrough; (three) Landovery (four): Crompton; Blackburn; Leeds: Launceston; Great Grimsby (four); Great Coates; Glossop; Midsomer Norton; Brixton; Calderhead; New Monkland; Waltham; Thomer; Cleethorpes (two); Denaby Main (two); Taunton (three); Stainland; and Aberdeen: to lie upon the Table.
    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Petitions, in favour, from Straiton; Bonhill; Coupar Angus; Clunie; Bendochy; Kinnaird; Coldstream; Old Monkland; Dailly; Colmonell; Slamannan; Cadder; Muiravonside; Kirk-; michael; Prestonkirk; Unst; Prestonpans; Nairn (two); Blairgowrie (two); Sleat; Westray; Stronsay (two); Lerwick; Tingwall; Edina; Barry; Barvas; Ladybank; Newport; Fraserburgh; Queensferry; Dumbarton; Cumnock; Dunipace; Old Cumnock; Urquhart; Maryculter; Aberlour; Cambuslang; Marykirk; Johnstone; Bothwell; and, Port Glasgow; to lie upon the Table.
    SOVEREIGN'S OATH ON ACCESSION BILL.
    Petitions, against, from Hampstead; and St. John's Wood; to lie upon the Table.
  RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
    REVENUE (COLLECTION OF TAXES).
    Return [presented 18th April] to be printed. [No. 129.]
    GREEK LOAN OF 1898.
    Account presented, up to 31st March, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 130.]
    EGYPTIAN GUARANTEED LOAN OF 1885.
    Account presented, up to 31st March, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

    CROWN'S NOMINEE ACCOUNT.
    Abstract account presented, of Receipts and Payments of the Treasury Solicitor, in the year ended 31st December, 1900, in the Administration of Estates on behalf of the Crown, and Alphabetical List of Intestates' Estates in respect of which Letters of Administration were granted to the Treasury Solicitor as Crown's Nominee, and of other cases (partial Intestacies. &c.) in which accounts were opened in the Books of the Treasury Solicitor in the same year in respect of moneys received by him as Crown's Nominee [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    [No. 131.]

    RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT.
    Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Bideford and Clovelly Railway (Abandonment) Bill and the objects thereof
    [pursuant to Standing Order 158A]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.

    POLLING DISTRICTS (CITY OF WAKE-FIELD).
    Copy presented, of Order made by the Council of the City of Wakefield, altering certain Polling Districts in the City [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
    Copy presented, of Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 19th April, 1901, amending the terms of Article 89 (b) of the Code of 1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
    Charitable Endowments (London).—Further Return relative thereto [ordered 2nd August, 1894; Mr. Francis Stevenson]; to be printed. [No. 132.]
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—FINANCE OF THE WAR.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will lay upon the Table a Return giving the total estimated cost of the South African War, and showing the way in which the cost has been, or is to be, met from additional taxation; from the application of realised surplus on ordinary expenditure and suspension of Sinking Fund; and by loan, Exchequer issues, or in other ways.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH.): Yes, Sir.

  SURRENDERS AT LINDLEY, ETC.— ARMY ORDER, 11TH APRIL.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Special Army Order, issued on 11th April, announcing that any officer or soldier who, when in the presence of the enemy, displays a white flag or other token of surrender, will be tried by general court-martial, is retrospective and applies to the cases of the surrenders at Nicholson's Nek, Reddersburg, Koorn Spruit, and Lindley: and whether he will now give the names of the irresponsible persons who raised the white flag at Lindley, or state his reasons for withholding their names.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg at the same time to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state to what regiment or command did the person belong who raised the white flag at Lindley; and, if it is alleged that he was one of any Irish company, will a court-martial or inquiry be ordered.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,):

  773
  The order will not be retrospective, though in certain cases of surrender inquiries or courts-martial have been ordered. In reply to the second paragraph and to a similar question put by the hon. Member for North Louth, the persons responsible for raising the white flag at Lindley were Lieutenant Robins and Corporal Jacques, of the 47th Company Imperial Yeomanry, Duke of Cambridge's Own. Lieutenant Robins was severely wounded and could not attend the court of inquiry. Lord Roberts is making a further inquiry respecting his case. Corporal Jacques had been invalided and discharged before the inquiry was held.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Neither of these gentlemen, I am happy to say, is Irish.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman said whether the names of the persons responsible at Nicholson's Nek and Reddersburg would be given too.
  MR. BRODRICK: No; Nicholson's Nek took place in November or October, 1899, and is too far back.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: You do not know them, I suppose?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  LORD METHUEN'S ILLNESS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what was the ailment from which Lord Methuen was suffering which rendered it necessary for him to go to hospital, from which, according to the list of British casualties published on 11th April, he was discharged on 7th April: how long was Lord Methuen in hospital; by whom were the duties of his command discharged in his absence; when did the news of Lord Methuen's illness reach the War Office: and what explanation, if any, is there that the fact of his illness was not communicated to the public.
  MR. BRODRICK: The only notification as to Lord Methuen's illness which has reached the War Office was the notice that he was discharged to duty
  774
  on 7th April, and this was duly published. It has not been thought necessary to inform the War Office when generals in South Africa go on the sick list, unless the illness is serious.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: How did the Government get the information that General De Wet was mad?
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask whether the Government will consider the desirability of allowing Lord Methuen to come home for a rest?
  MR. BRODRICK: Lord Methuen has recently carried out a variety of operations to the entire satisfaction of Lord Kitchener and the Government.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: What about Magersfontein?

  PEACE NEGOTIATIONS WITH GENERAL BOTHA
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any objection to state the exact terms of the verbal message received by General Louis Botha from Lord Kitchener, which is referred to in a published letter of General Botha dated 13th February 1901.
  MR. BRODRICK: We do not know the terms if the verbal message alluded to; but we assume it was only a statement by Lord Kitchener that if General Botha desired to meet him he was ready to arrange a meeting.

  GENERAL COLVILE'S CASE—PERSONAL EXPLANATION—MR. BRODRICK AND MR. DOUGLAS.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have to ask the House to allow me to make a personal explanation in reference to a statement which has appeared in the public press in regard to a reply I gave to the hon. Member for North-West Lanark. The hon. Member, speaking in Scotland, alluded to an answer I had made in the House of Commons to a question from himself, and in commenting upon it said my statement was false, and that it was a very serious matter for a Member of the House of Commons to find that a truthful answer was not given to a plain question by a

  775
  Minister. The question put to me was† whether I would publish a particular report sent by General Colvile to the Commander-in-Chief respecting the battle of Paardeberg. I replied to that that reports were furnished by officers commanding divisions only to the senior officer present, and did not accompany his despatch to the Commander-in-Chief. I said in consequence General Colvile's despatch or report was sent to General Kelly-Kenny, who was in immediate command, and was not sent to Lord Roberts. Search had been made in Lord Roberts's papers and the report could not at the moment be traced. Since the hon. Member used the expressions in Scotland to which I have referred I asked Lord Roberts to make further search among his papers, and this morning the report was found in a box among a good many other papers of a similar kind, where they had been placed after an abstract of the recommendations in them had been made for the Commander-in-Chief's use. I need hardly say how much I regret to have been the channel of giving any inaccurate information to the House, but the House will realise that, amid so many hundreds and thousands of papers passing officially at a period of active service and removed on many occasions, it is not always possible to find a particular paper of that kind at the moment when it may he required. Although it is not the rule to lay papers of this description on the Table, I have not the slightest objection, as it is asked for, to lay this paper on the Table. But I ought to add, to avoid any misapprehension, that the report in question has reference to the battle of Paardeberg, and not in any way to incidents in the subsequent career of General Colvile which formed the subject of debate a few nights ago.
  MR. DOUGLAS: After the statement the right hon. Gentleman has made, perhaps the House will bear with me for a few minutes while I make a personal explanation. I think it is evident from the tone of the right hon. Gentleman in his remarks that he has somewhat misunderstood what I said. He seemed to have supposed that some observations of mine were a reflection on his private character. My observations
  † See preceding volume, page 60.
  776
  were only intended to apply to the answers themselves and their substance. I exceedingly regret that, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that no such intention or thought was in my mind, and such an intention I wish to disclaim as publicly as I made the statement in question. But perhaps the House will consider with me that the state of, matters appeared somewhat anomalous and serious. A question was asked whether a despatch had been addressed to Lord Roberts or not, and it was said in reply it had not been so addressed. In the course of the debate on General Colvile's case I communicated to the right hon. Gentleman across the floor of the House that the despatch was in existence, that it had been addressed to Lord Roberts, and I offered the right hon. Gentleman a copy of it. Three days afterwards the hon. Member for the Stroud Division asked the right hon. Gentleman whether that was the case or not, and the statement was contradicted without any reference to what had passed during the debate. I thought this a matter of so much importance that, being questioned in my I constituency, I could not allow it to rest where it was. I exceedingly regret that I should have been betrayed into any statement that could be supposed to be a reflection on the personal honour of the right hon. Gentleman, and hope he null regard the explanation I have made as satisfactory as the statement he has made is to me.

  CHINESE LABOUR IN SOUTH AFRICA.
  MR. HAVILAND-BURKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the resolution passed by the Buluwayo Chamber of Mines affirming the principle of the introduction of Chinese labour, but under Government restrictions with regard to the return of the labourers to China; and whether His Majesty's Government will exert its influence to prevent the introduction of Chinese cheap labour into any part of His Majesty's dominions.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have seen a statement to this effect in the newspapers. I am not prepared to give any pledge, as Chinese

  777
  labour is already employed in several of I His Majesty's colonies.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very heavy poll tax has been placed upon Chinese labourers in many of our colonies, and will the right hon. Gentleman countenance such a tax in Rhodesia?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No. I am not aware of that.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is not a high sum demanded for every China man landed in New South Wales?
  MR. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I will give notice of the question.

  REPORTED SHOOTING BY THE BOERS OF MR. WESSEL, PEACE ENVOY.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Mr. Andries Weasel, who is described as a peace envoy, and who was reported to have been shot at Klip fontein in January last by order of General De Wet, was an accredited agent from Lord Kitchener, or any other British general, to General De Wet, or any other Boer general; whether he is aware that it is now reported from Craddock that Mr. Wessel is alive; and can he inform the House what are the true facts; and whether, if the former report be false, any steps will be taken to trace its source, and to prevent similar false-hoods being telegraphed to this country.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have no information of this matter beyond that Mr. Wessel was reported to have
  been shot. I will, however, make inquiries.

  DISPOSAL OF CAPTURED CATTLE.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the military authorities in South Africa have decided to slaughter for food all captured cattle, and whether, if such action is or has
  778
  been taken, consideration has been given to the importance of keeping a stock of acclimatised cattle in that country, and the cost and loss that would be entailed by restocking with cattle not acclimatised to the country.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): The local authorities are alive to the importance of the question, and Government stock farms have been established.
  MR. LAMBERT: But have the military authorities decided that the cattle should be slaughtered?
  LORD STANLEY: I anticipate that if they are required for food they are slaughtered. I cannot say more.
  MR. LAMBERT: Will the noble Lord get the information by Monday?
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir.

  OBSERVANCE OF PAROLE.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether British soldiers, who are not commanding officers, and who are captured by the enemy, are permitted to give their parole or to take an oath not to take any further part in the war; and whether, if such parole is given or oath taken by a soldier, he is, on being liberated by the Boers, permitted by our military authorities to observe parole or oath.
  MR. BRODRICK: According to custom of war, officers other than commanding officers are not permitted to give parole either for themselves or their men, and soldiers are not allowed to do so. A State has no power to force its subjects to act contrary to parole.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: May I ask whether, if parole is given or oath taken by a soldier, he is, on being liberated by the Boers, permitted by our military authorities to observe his parole or oath.
  LORD STANLEY: If they are not allowed to give parole at all, no parole can be given.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: When it is given, and they are liberated, are they forced to fight or not?
  LORD STANLEY: Certainly.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Does the same rule apply to the Boer army?
  [No answer was returned.]

  WAR GRATUITY—CIVILIAN HOSPITAL ORDERLIES.
  MR. GUTHRIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the civilian orderlies and other employees of the various field and stationary private hospitals who served in South Africa are to receive the war gratuity authorised by the Special Army Order, dated 8th December, 1900; and, if not, whether he will state the reason for making a distinction between these men and the orderlies of the Royal Army Medical Corps, who performed exactly similar work.
  LORD STANLEY: As I have previously explained to the House, the war gratuity is not applicable to civilians employed on specific terms during the war.

  RETURN OF TROOPS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War on whose advice and on whose responsibility, having regard to the statement of Sir Alfred Milner that the last half-year of the South African War has been a period of retrogression, were troops sent home in September and October last.
  MR. BRODRICK: I understand this statement of Sir Alfred Milner's to have been made on a review of the whole situation, which could not be foreseen in September and October last. The troops were sent home by Lord Roberts with the full concurrence of the Government.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Was the war then over?

  RETURN OF THE HOUSEHOLD BRIGADE.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, having
  780
  regard to the repeated requests for mounted troops for South Africa, whether he can explain why were the Household Brigade, a cavalry corps, sent home, and infantry volunteers kept at the front.
  MR. BRODRICK: At the time when the Household Cavalry were sent home the want of mounted troops in South Africa was not felt—cavalry drafts had been suspended. Great difficulty was also experienced in finding remounts for such heavy men. Some infantry Volunteers were sent home at the time, but subsequent events postponed the return of the remainder or of any other troops.

  IMPERIAL YEOMANRY—NEW ARMY ORDER.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can explain why the Imperial Yeomanry Order has been issued before the House of Commons has had the opportunity of considering the effect of the proposal upon the Volunteer Force and the possibility of getting recruits for the Yeomanry under the new conditions, and in what way commanding officers of Volunteer corps are to be compensated for having at the invitation of the War Office raised within the past few months, at great expense and trouble, companies of mounted infantry, and supplying them with uniform and accoutrements in consideration of a certain number of years service under them; and whether the Government have power compulsorily to transfer men who have joined particular regiments of the Volunteer force, and bound themselves to serve for four or five years, to another regiment and to another branch of the Army, serving under entirely different conditions.
  The following questions also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Army Order relating to the Yeomanry published on Thursday forms part of the scheme formulated in the resolution of which he has given notice for a future day; and, if so, why he has proceeded to put in execution a

  781
  policy which has not yet received the approval of the House.
  COLONEL WELBY: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that an Amendment to the motion of the Secretary of State for War (Army Organisation) to retain the Yeomanry as at present, and to increase the Mounted Infantry to 25,000, instead of the 35,000 Yeomanry as proposed, was put on the Notice Paper before the recess, and whether he will suspend the Army Order issued yesterday until the House has had the opportunity of discussing this question.
  MR. BRODRICK: I will reply at the same time to the questions of the hon. Member for Dundee and of my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Taunton. It has been necessary to issue an Army Order affecting the Yeomanry because the training of the force for the year begins in May, and the Commander-in-Chief has strongly recommended that the training and equipment of the force should be altered. The change in the status of the Yeomanry undoubtedly forms part of the general army reform now in progress, but the resolution of which I have given notice deals merely with the establishment of the Yeomanry. The present establishment will not be raised until the resolution is passed by Parliament, but it would be impossible to allow the training of the Yeomanry to proceed or the recruits to be raised under the old system which has been definitely abandoned. The question of establishment and the points raised by the Member for Taunton are open to debate and decision, as they were before the issue of the Order, which cannot be suspended. In reference to the question of the Member for Central Sheffield, there is nothing in the Yeomanry Warrant which forces a transfer of Volunteer Mounted Infantry to Yeomanry, but the military authorities are not prepared to continue the isolated companies of mounted troops hitherto raised, and if commanding officers can prove a pecuniary loss to their corps, they will be safe guarded against this result. I may add that from all parts of the country, and from many Members of the House, I have received urgent appeals that, on the
  782
  ground of expense as well as convenience, the new system of training and equipment of the Yeomanry should be at once made public.

  COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF'S SALARY.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state what is the salary of the new Commander-in-Chief Lord Roberts, and whether it is larger than the salary paid to Lord Wolseley, the late Commander-in-Chief; if so, can he say the reason of such increase?
  MR. BRODRICK: The salary of the new Commander-in-Chief is £5,000. It is £500 more than that of the late Commander-in-Chief, as it was considered desirable to make provision for house allowance.
  MR. DALY: Had not the late Commander-in-Chief a house?

  MILITIA TRAININGS.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what Militia regiments, if any, will be embodied this year; and whether the regiments not so embodied will be called out for annual training.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not in a position to make any statement on this subject at present. We desire to avoid calling on the Militia as far as possible.

  IMPERIAL YEOMANRY—IRISH REGIMENTS.
  DR. THOMPSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if it is the intention of the Government to establish in Irish counties regiments of the Imperial Yeomanry.
  MR. BRODRICK: No decision to this effect has been arrived at.

  TITLE OF YEOMANRY FORCE.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the omission of the title Imperial from that

  783
  part of his resolution that relates to the Yeomanry was intentional or a printer's error; and whether he is aware that that omission has led many to believe that it was intended to reserve the title Imperial for those troops, whether raised at home or in any other part of the Empire, that will be available for Imperial purposes.
  MR. BRODRICK: The omission was intentional. I am not aware that it had the effect referred to in the second part of the question.

  ARMY RECRUITING—INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can now state when the Annual Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting will be circulated.
  LORD STANLEY: It is hoped that it will be in the hands of Members on Tuesday.

  ARMY MEAT CONTRACTS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the terms of the new contracts for the supply of meat to the Army will exclude foreign meat; and whether these conditions will apply to contracts for the supply of meat to the troops stationed in Ireland.
  LORD STANLEY: Foreign meat is excluded, and the conditions will apply to Ireland.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: What precaution will be taken to prevent the evasion of the terms of the contract?
  LORD STANLEY: Every precaution possible.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I ask whether the contractors who import foreign meat for other purposes will be permitted to tender for these contracts?
  LORD STANLEY: Certainly, so long as they fulfil the conditions of our tender.

  VOLUNTEER CLOTHING CONTRACTS.
  LIEUTENANT-COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether new regulation drab serge clothing and a head-dress for drill and manœuvre purposes for the Regular and Auxiliary forces have been sealed; and, if not, whether a decision may be arrived at at once, as there are several Volunteer corps which have to be reclothed before their annual camp this year, and which, unless the orders are placed in the hands of contractors at once, will be without uniform.
  LORD STANLEY: The patterns of the articles forming the proposed service dress of the regular forces are at present under consideration. These changes in pattern will not affect Volunteer corps, unless so desired by the corps.

  NAVY—RETURN OF FLEETS.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now state on what day the Return of Fleets will be circulated to Members.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): I hope to-morrow.

  THE BUDGET PROPOSALS—EEFECT UPON RUNNING CONTRACTS.
  MR. PLUMMER: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will be prepared to consider the question of exempting from the export duty on coal contracts already entered into, in view of the fact that such duty, if persisted in, must necessarily fall on the exporter, and cannot be recovered in the price to be paid by the buyer abroad.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes, Sir. I am at present considering this matter with the members of the Board of Customs, and I hope to have the advantage of some communications on the subject this evening from the hon. Member and those who
  are associated with him.
  MR. WARR: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Ex-

  785
  chequer whether, having regard to the provisions of Section 20 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, and of Section 8 of the Finance Act,
  1900, the seller will, in cases in which sales of coal or sugar have been effected without express provision to the contrary, be at liberty to add to the contract price an amount equivalent to the duty to be imposed under the Budget resolutions.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The answer, generally speaking, appears to be in the affirmative, as regards any sugar not cleared prior to the incidence of the duty, though of Course it will depend in each case on the actual terms of the contract. The section would not apply to coal, but I propose to insert a clause in the Finance Bill which would have a similar effect.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that business at Cardiff is practically at a standstill owing to the uncertainty as to the incidence of the new coal duty, and if in view of the suffering that will follow a paralysis of the trade of the district and the consequent cessation of work at the mines, he will take immediate steps to make known to the shippers of coal and merchants at Cardiff the precise liability of buyers and sellers of coal for export under existing contracts and future sales.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I think the hon. Member is confusing two matters—the liability for the duty in the first instance, and the ultimate incidence of that duty. The payment in the first instance is clear, and the question of exemptions so far as existing contracts are concerned is a matter which, as I have explained, I have under consideration, and I hope shortly to make an announcement to the House. Meanwhile, so far as I can see, there is no reason why the duty should not be paid in Cardiff as elsewhere.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: The confusion, if any, has not arisen in my mind, but in that of the merchants of Cardiff.

  CHINA—CLAIMS OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.
  MR. NORMAN: I bear to ask the Under Secretary of State
  786
  for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office caused to be published in the newspapers on 8th April an announcement that all claims of British subjects against the Chinese Government must be notified to His Majesty's Minister at Peking by 1st May; and, if so, whether he will inform the House by what route letters posted in England on 9th April could reach Peking by 1st May.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,): Yes, but it was stated in a previous notice issued in March that claims should be forwarded to the Foreign Office, when necessary. Such claims have been, and will be, transmitted to His Majesty's Minister by telegraph.

  NIU-CHWANG MARITIME CUSTOMS BUILDINGS.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what flag flies over the Chinese Imperial Maritime Customs House at Niu-chwang; by whom the customs receipts are collected, and what is their destination.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The Russian flag was hoisted over the Maritime Customs buildings on 4th August, when the Russian force occupied the town. The work is being carried on by the Chinese Customs staff, and the receipts are being collected by them under Russian supervision, and are held in trust by the Russian authorities subject to a future settlement.

  PAPERS ON CHINA.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state when he will lay upon the Table further Papers on China, and whether he will include in the next Papers presented those concerned with the Manchurian Convention down to the date of the refusal of China to sign the Convention, and those concerned with the recent dispute between the Russians and English at Tientsin.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Papers containing the correspondence down to the end of December are nearly ready, and will be presented very shortly. Further Papers will be presented in due course, but I am unable to give any pledge at present as to the subjects which will be included.
  MR. DILLON: Why does the Government only include correspondence down to the end of December in the next batch of Chinese Papers?
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I think the hon. Member will recognise that the preparation of these Blue-books requires a very great deal of care, and the Foreign Office has had such a tremendous amount of work lately that it really has not been able to get through it in sufficient time. But I quite feel that Papers ought to be presented soon, and I will do my best.

  COAL EXPORT RETURN.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Return relating to the export of coal from each port in the United Kingdom to various foreign countries, and ordered to be printed on 2nd April, will be issued to Members.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I am informed by His Majesty's Stationery Office that the Return will be issued next Tuesday.

  SCHOOL BOARDS AND HIGHER ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it is proposed to permit school boards to spend school board rates upon maintaining schools recognised under the higher elementary minute which forms part of the Education Code for 1901.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The Board of Education are advised that higher elementary
  788
  schools may be established and maintained by school boards out of the school fund. But if this right were disputed, the question would have to be decided, not by the Board of Education, but in the first instance by the Local Government Board auditor, and ultimately by the courts of law.

  CATTLE BREEDING IN COUNTY WESTMEATH.
  MR. KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction has been approached by the County Live Stock Committee of the County Westmeath for leave to grant premiums for this year for thoroughbred bulls three and four years old exhibited at the County Westmeath or other shows, on the grounds that it will be impossible to obtain the necessary number of younger bulls owing to restrictions on importation! consequent on the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in England, and seeing that otherwise small farmers will be obliged to breed from indifferently bred bulls, and that half of the grant for premiums is contributed by the ratepayers, can he state whether the Department is entitled to ignore the views of their committee, and will he take steps to give effect to them.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM.): Cattle-breeding schemes approved by the Department must be voluntarily accepted by a county council before any charge can fall on the rates, hence there is no danger of local views being ignored. As the main object of the scheme is to promote the introduction of young bulls, preferably yearlings, the Department was not able to consent to the exception proposed by the Westmeath Committee. I am inquiring whether the difficulties due to restriction on importations from England were fully considered before the decision was arrived at.

  IRISH REGISTRATION LAWS.
  MR. FIELDI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the

  789
  Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in many Irish parliamentary divisions hundreds of qualified voters have been annually disfranchised through the neglect of agents, landlords, or others failing to fill in and return the requisition forms; whether he can explain why no prosecutions were instituted against such offenders in accordance with the provisions of The Representation of the People Act, 1884; and whether he will, in future, take measures to have the law on this point carried into effect in Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The duty of prosecuting is imposed by statute on the local authorities, and without communicating with these authorities the Local Government Board is not aware that it is the case, as alleged, that no prosecutions have been instituted against persons who have failed to comply with the provisions of the Act of 1884.

  IRISH RAILWAYS—STATE PURCHASE— GERMAN STATE RAILWAYS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the German State Railways have realised a profit of £23,200,000 last year, and that this sum was utilised by the Government for revenue purposes; and whether he will appoint a commission to inquire into and report upon Irish railways with a view to their acquisition by the Stale and the reduction of taxation in Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no information on the first paragraph. The reply to the second paragraph is in the negative.

  DAY INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS IN IRELAND.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has considered the advisability of providing day industrial schools in Ireland; and, if so, whether he can state what steps he proposes to take.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Legislation would be necessary for the purpose; and I am
  790
  unable to give any undertaking on the subject.
  MR. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman further consider this question?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I will consider any matter brought before me, but I cannot promise to introduce legislation.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—MUSKETRY INSTRUCTION.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 17th inst. the Inspector of Constabulary for Limerick county came over from Ireland to Great Britain in company with several sergeants and constables of that force in connection with some manœuvres or drill practice; whether he will say where those manœuvres are being held, and whether they are of a military character; and who will be obliged to defray the expenses thus incurred.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir; these officers proceeded to England to undergo instruction in musketry at Hythe. The same course has been adopted in previous years. The expenses will be defrayed from the Constabulary Vote.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the Government send these men and their rifles to South Africa?
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: With what object do the constables undergo this training?
  MR. WYNDHAM: To perfect their markmanship.

  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES BILL.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, seeing that it has been the practice to introduce a Land Tax Commissioners Names Bill in the course of each Parliament, and that (except in the case of the last Parliament) it has been the practice to introduce the Bill during the first session

  791
  of Parliament, whether a Land Tax Commissioners' Names Bill will be introduced during the present session.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I understand the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in supposing that it has been the practice to pass this Bill in the first session of a new Parliament, and I am told that it is not necessary.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: To introduce it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I see no object in introducing the Bill if it is not to pass.
  MR. CHANNING: A great deal of interest is taken in this question, and I have received several communications on it within the last few days.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No evidence has come before me showing that there is great interest.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL'S QUESTIONS.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLproceeded to ask a question in which he asked for the publication of the Report of the South African Commission, from which the Secretary to the Admiralty had quoted in a speech during the Easter recess.
MR. SPEAKER: The question is not in a form in which it would be received at the Table.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I gave the notice at ten o'clock, and remained in the House till twenty minutes past two, yet the Clerk at the Table did not tell me it was out of order.
MR. SPEAKER: I did not know the hon. Member handed the question in at the Table; I spoke from what I heard the hon. Member say.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Are the questions proposed to be put by Members of this House to be censored by the Clerks at the Table? Where do we stand?
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will ask it in proper form—
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I did put it, in writing, in proper form, and the Clerk ruled it out of order.
MR. SPEAKER: It is sufficient for me to say that the question is out of order now.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I will put it in another form. Is the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House aware that the Secretary to the Admiralty referred to this Report in a speech he made at Belfast, and is there not a rule that when a Minister of the Crown refers to any public document it shall be published?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member, I understand, is referring to matters which have passed outside this House, and is using them by way of argument.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I will tell you what I wish to do, Sir. The first part of my question was, no doubt, relevant. Then my contention was that, having regard to the fact that the Secretary to the Admiralty, a Minister of the Crown, and the Chairman of the Commission, referred to this Report, which has not yet been published, this House ought now to have it before it.
MR. SPEAKER: That is not a question on a matter of fact. It is a matter of argument.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: May I ask—
MR. SPEAKER: I hope the hon. Member will take the usual course of putting the question in writing, and then refer to me if any objection is taken to it at the Table.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: With great respect, Sir, this is a matter affecting the rights of every private Member of this House—it affects our rights of interrogation. I did hand in this question at ten p.m., and remained here till 2.30 a.m. Surely it was the absolute duty of the Clerk, if he objected to it,

793
to refer the matter to you and to tell me? I cannot have my questions suppressed by the Clerk.
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member has any complaint to make, the proper and usual course is to come to me. I will make inquiries, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what course of business is proposed for next week.
COLONEL WELBY: Will the Amendments of the Army Annual Bill be taken after midnight to-night?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is necessary to go on with the Army Annual Bill, for the day is approaching when it must pass into law. The business for next week it is impossible to foresee until we know how long debate will be upon the remaining Budget resolutions. But probably the chief business next week will be getting the Speaker out of the Chair for the Civil Service Estimates and the remaining stages of the Budget resolutions. The Report of the resolutions I am anxious to take at a time that will allow of the opportunity for debate.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
MR. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures:—Mr. Kemp; and had appointed in substitution, Mr. Griffith-Boscawen.
MR. HALSEYfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure the following Fifteen Members in respect of the Isolation Hospitals Bill; Mr. Charles Allen, Mr. Bill, Mr. Colston, Mr. John Dewar, Lord Edmond
794
Fitzmauriee, Sir Walter Foster, Sir Robert Gunter, Mr. Charles Hobhouse, Mr. Grant Lawson, Mr. Walter Long, Mr. Herbert Roberts, Sir Thomas Roe, Mr. A. H. Smith, Mr. Strutt, and Mr. Tomlinson.
MR. HALSEYfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure the following Fifteen Members in respect of the Cremation Bill [Lords]:—Mr. Banbury, Mr. Broadhurst, Sir Michael Foster', Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Jeffreys, Colonel Kenyon-Slaney, Mr. Lowe,' Dr. MacDonnell, Mr. M'Crae, Mr. Seton-Karr, Mr. Samuel Smith, Dr. E. C. Thompson, Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. Luke White, and Sir Frederick Wills.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY).
Ordered, That the other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply.—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

MORNING SITTINGS.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In moving that until Whitsuntide the House do meet on Tuesday at Two of the clock, and that the provisions of Standing Order No. 56 be extended to such morning sittings, I may at once say I hope that but few words will be considered necessary in explanation of the motion. Everybody will admit the importance of getting through our financial business, and there is much to be said in favour of morning sittings under these circumstances. No one will seriously maintain that the Government can afford to give the whole of Tuesdays to private Members. I trust the compromise I have adopted will meet with approval from all parts of the House, and that those friends of the Government who are most anxious for the rights of private Members will feel that the Government have done their best to preserve them.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That until Whitsuntide the House do

795
meet on Tuesday, at Two of the clock, and that the provisions of Standing Order No. 56 be extended to such Morning Sittings:"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I hesitated in rising, because I could not believe that a motion of this kind would be allowed to pass without some protest in behalf of the rights of private Members in this House. I rise, of course, to speak on this question from the purely Irish point of view. If the practice of the Government in taking Tuesdays year after year is to be persisted in, it would be far more honest, far more straightforward, and far more convenient to abolish altogether the supposed right of private Members to have the Tuesdays for the discussion of private Members' business, and to annex Tuesday once and for all as a Government day. Let me say a word on the general question. We are dealing at present with a session of Parliament in which there is practically no legislative programme, and from the very commencement of the session the Government has found it necessary to appropriate private Members' time. I ask the House of Commons to consider seriously what is the probable future before this House, if, in the case of a session where there is no legislative programme, the Government are forced to annex the time of private Members. It means that when a Government comes into office with a legislative programme it will be absolutely necessary for the House of Commons to sit the whole year through, if there is to be any legislation at all. These are serious considerations, which I think hon. Members ought to bear in mind. For my part I do not think the case is as bad as that. My conviction is that if the management of the business of the House were conducted as it used to be in the old times, more in a spirit of conciliation and less by the violent use of the brutal methods of the closure and coercion, it would be possible for the House of Commons, notwithstanding the enormously increased business which has been thrown upon it of recent years, still adequately to fulfil its duties in discussing Supply and to have a margin for a legislative programme. But I leave that part of the question to be discussed by hon. Members who will take part in
796
this debate solely from the point of view of the rights of private Members. I wish to put the case of Ireland.
In the King's Speech the Government promised to introduce legislation dealing with the question of land purchase in Ireland. I say it is discreditable to the Government, having given that promise in the King's Speech, on a matter of such vital importance to Ireland, that they should continue to maintain silence upon it. Before the House adjourned for the holidays I asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he could say, as representing the Government, if he had any real, serious intention whatever of introducing a Bill on this question this session. He would not give a definite answer, but he gave an answer which led everybody to believe that he had no such serious intention at all, and he based his argument, if I may say so, on the ground that there was no time. Now, I would be prepared even to sacrifice my interest in private Members' rights to allow the right hon. Gentleman to get morning sittings on Tuesdays for the rest of the session, if he would undertake to devote the time to redeeming his pledge for legislation; but he will do nothing of the kind. I do not know whether the Government have made up their mind as to what they propose to do on this Irish land purchase question. I do not know whether they have got a Bill ready or not. It seems to me that if they have not made up their mind, and if they have not prepared a Bill, it was a most improper thing for them to have put that statement into the King's Speech. If they have made up their mind, I say it is a discreditable attitude to take up to refuse to disclose their proposals, and in the same breath to ask private Members of the House of Commons to sacrifice their rights on Tuesdays for the rest of the session. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to put the Government Bill on Irish land purchase on the Table of the House, so that we can see what the ideas of the Government are. If the Government are not prepared to pledge themselves to devote sufficient time for the passage of such a Bill, let them produce a Bill so that we may know in what direction the mind of the Government is tending on the question.

797
The right hon. Gentleman has more than once admitted the urgent importance of the question. Scarcely a day passes on which there is not a question from some Irish Member dealing with some phase or other of this land purchase question—showing the urgency and importance of it in every part of Ireland. I say it is monstrous for the Government to come down now and ask for Tuesdays without giving any indication as to how they intend to use that time or any indication that they intend to fulfil the pledge they gave on Irish land purchase. I resent keenly the off-hand manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Mouse gets up and proposes to annex the whole of the Tuesdays for the rest of the session, and says: "This is a motion, the effect of which will be merely to deprive private Members of all their rights, and therefore it does not require many words to justify it."
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting what I said.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I submit that I am giving a fail translation of the right hon. Gentleman's words.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman tails to give a fair translation.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: If my translation is not a fair one, then I at once withdraw it. But I do assert, and, of course, the whole matter is in the recollection of the House—it has occurred only within the last few minutes—that the right hon. Gentleman proposes this serious motion to take away Tuesdays for the whole of the rest of the session. [An HON. MEMBER: Only till Whitsuntide.] That remark conies from some very inexperienced Member of the House; for anybody who has any experience of the House knows that whatever pressure there may be on the Government to take Tuesdays up to Whitsuntide, the pressure will be overwhelming after Whitsuntide. To take Tuesdays up to Whitsuntide means to take them for the whole session. Well, that serious proposal was made by the right hon. Gentleman in a two minutes speech, and in an off-hand manner, as if the subject did not
798
deserve the earnest consideration of the House of Commons, and as if the proposal ought to be passed without practically any discussion at all and as a matter of course. I say that is a fair translation of the speech and of the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. I keenly resent these large demands being made on the I time of private Members in this off-hand manner by the Government. I can only speak in behalf of the Irish Members, and so far as we are concerned we resent this keenly, and let me say to the right hon. Gentleman, that it would be more honourable for him in making this proposal to say that if he gets this time he will redeem the pledge given in the King's Speech, and introduce the Irish Land Purchase Bill.
MR. WHITLEY: I have been but a few weeks in the House, but I feel I must rise to join in the protest against the unbusinesslike methods of the Government. We are now at an advanced stage of the Parliamentary year, and there seems no hope of any reason able progress being made with any of the many questions in which hon. Members are deeply interested. I have been a member of other assemblies than this, and those in charge of the business of these assemblies at least use the time which is given to them to businesslike purpose. For instance, on the great question of education, on which we have been trying for long enough to gel a lead from the Government, we had an answer this very day from the Vice-President of the Council to the effect that he is not certain whether his own minutes are legal or not, and practically inviting some—I was going to say—I some junior Member of the Government, but perhaps I ought to say, some prospective Member of the Government, to upset his latest edict on the higher grade school question. Now, I do think it is time that the House made a stand and said it will not give this additional time to the Government unless they say clearly that it is going to be used for some intelligent purpose. For my part I am willing to give a good deal more, time to the Government if it is to be used in pressing forward even the legislative programme set forth in the King's Speech, such as that relating to education

799
and temperance. I submit it is mere foolishness on the part of the House to give them more time unless we are to know how it is going to be used. The Leader of the House only the other day gave an unnecessarily long holiday to the Members of the House—[Cries of "No, no."]—and I know that he has the theory that it is absolutely necessary that the House should rise before the 12th of August. But there are some of us who think that the discharge of public business is of more importance than shooting grouse, and we are getting very impatient indeed. I hope that a strong protest will be made against a suggestion of this kind, seeing that we have practically no Bills before us.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: The House is always in a great difficulty in discussing this inroad on private Members' time by Government taking the Tuesdays, because we are not in order in alluding to the better use that might be made of that time. Mr. Courtney, on this motion for taking Tuesdays, threw out the suggestion of giving various sections of the House more power over private Members' time by recognising syndicate motions. We are always in difficulty in debating such suggestions at all efficaciously, and we get little support from either of the front benches when definite proposals are before the House. The House will remember that on several occasions when hon. Members have tried to bring this matter before the House they have been met in the most hostile fashion. The Leader of the Irish party and the hon. Member who has just sat down have asked the Government to tell us a little more definitely than they have yet done what is the use they propose to make of the time they ask for. I think the Irish Members are within their right in pressing for a declaration in regard to the Irish legislation of the Government; and we are equally within our right in pressing, and we are bound to press, for some more definite declaration in regard to proposed legislation on factories and workshops, which affects the whole United Kingdom. The statement of the Leader of the House was extraordinarily vague, much more
800
vague than usual when such a demand is made. He alluded only to financial business, and hardly mentioned at all any other business. The promised Irish Land Purchase Till, and the promised Education Bill have not yet been introduced; and the Government have only shown some desire to go forward with the Factories and Workshops Bill. Everyone who has taken an interest in this question concurs in the view that that Bill is a great improvement on the Bill of last year; but it is a Bill on which we shall have many observations to make in Grand Committee, if it goes there. The Bill, being a considerable improvement on that of last year, forms a most valuable basis for discussion before the Grand Committee. But will the Government tell us whether they seriously mean business with that Bill? Last year we had a Bill of about the same bulk as the present Bill. It contained clauses to which some of us objected, and omitted clauses which we wanted, but last year the Grand Committees were starved and ruined by the mode of conducting business in the House. Now, here is a chance of giving a Grand Committee solid, serious work to do, as it did when we passed the Factories Act of 1895. Do the Government mean business? Will they give a day, or more if necessary, to the Second Reading of the Factories and Workshops Bill, in order that the Grand Committee may be relieved from the process of sterilization which has prevailed for the last year or two? Hon. Members are discouraged when they find that after their solid, heavy, and very hard work on these Grand Committees no good comes out of it, and that their labours are wasted, Here we are, through no fault of our own, but solely because the Government met Parliament too late at the beginning of the session, with no progress made with any measure promised in the King's Speech. I confine my question to the one important Bill which has the slightest chance of passing into law this session—I mean the Factories and Workshops Bill—and I ask whether the Government mean to persevere with that Bill?
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I desire to acknowledge the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House;

801
but as a private Member I desire to protest against these repeated encroachments against the rights and privileges of private Members. It has been almost impossible of recent years for private Members to do anything whatever; we have been reduced absolutely to voting machines. When I first entered the House private Members' days were never encroached, upon, or very rarely indeed. Up till Whitsuntide we had a chance of bringing on Bills and getting them advanced a stage, or of moving resolutions. I have no doubt that a private Member could get forty of his friends to make a House for him at nine o'clock, but it is an exceedingly difficult thing to do. I candidly confess that I have done it, by asking them to dine with me in the House; but that is a process which one cannot repeat indefinitely; and of course the cost is very great. There is another difficulty in forming a House for a private Member. A count will be moved immediately after nine o'clock, and unless there are forty Members present the House adjourns. Indeed, instances can be quoted where the Government have engineered a count. Now, if the Government ask us to adopt this resolution to-day, will they assure us that they are bound to form a House for private Members at nine o'clock, and not put on private Members the onus and difficulty of securing a quorum? I shall vote against this resolution unless the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will assist private Members in forming a quorum at nine o'clock on Tuesday nights.
MR. NORVAL W. HELME: I would ask the Government whether they will bring in the Bill promised in the King's Speech in regard to the prevention of drunkenness; and, further to state whether, should the proposal now before the House be granted, they will give an opportunity for the consideration in Committee of the Bill to prevent the supply of drink to young children which passed its Second Reading with such a large majority, made up of Members on both sides of the House, representing the intense interest existing throughout the country. Speaking as a new Member for himself and many around him,
802
here for the first time charged to take some slight share in the business of the nation, I would appeal to the responsible leaders of the Opposition on the Front Bench to voice our wishes and bring such pressure to bear on the Government as will force their hands to bring in the Bill promised in the King's Speech, and also to assist the consideration of the Bill to prevent the sale of drink to young children.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am sorry to find, on my return to this House, that the Members of the Government are still engaged in the same old task of taking the time of private Members; and that in so doing they are driving another nail into the coffin of this House. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich the other day solemnly informed us that power was departing from this House, that this House was losing credit with the country, and that power was going from this House to a Cabinet composed mainly of a family whom we all honour! Well, it is so, and the reason is that this House has lacked spirit. On every appeal which a Minister makes for further time for the purposes of the Ministry there is no resistance, but a blind following of the Ministry into the lobby. We have had disorderly manifestations of spirit even this session. Nobody regrets them more than I do. I am shocked when events of that kind occur; but I cannot acquit His Majesty's Government of all blame. If they are determined to exaggerate the holidays, and to call the House together ten days or a fortnight later than it ought to have been called, and to crush into that small amount of time until that fatal
31st March all the amount of work we have got to do, then scenes are certain to occur. As I have said, I regret these scenes; but let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that if he goes on attempting to shut down the safety-valves of the House there will be other explosions. Why does he not try to ride the House like a horseman? I ask, why does His Majesty's Government want these Tuesdays? No reason has been given. Possibly we shall hear of one before the debate is concluded; but let me point out this, that he has already taken our

803
Fridays for Supply. He has got the whole of the session before him, and now he asks for Tuesdays up to Whitsuntide. That, of course, means all the Tuesdays of the session. Why is there this pressure of business? is it because we began our sittings too late, or because we have had too long a holiday? Is it because of some determination on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that, whether the business of the nation is ended or not, we shall rise on the 10th August in order to enable hon. Gentlemen whose nervous tissue is too slack to go to the moors in Scotland by the twelfth? I repudiate all this. There are gentlemen who are moving Heaven and earth in order to get into this House. I should prefer that such persons should not be in the House at all. I should prefer to see the House composed of a smaller number of Members who mean Parliamentary business. Now, as to Tuesdays, it is a very strong demand on the part of the Government to be made so early in the session. The compromise which my right hon. friend suggests is absolutely no compromise at all, because when hon. Members come down to the House at two o'clock, and the Government exhaust the whole of the morning sitting at nine o'clock, not even the hon. Member for Central Sheffield could keep a House except he asked hon. Members to dinner. It is no compromise at all; but this is a motion not merely for the taking of Tuesdays up to Whitsuntide, but to take them with the condition that Standing Order 56 shall apply to Tuesdays. What is Standing Order 56? It is that when Supply is down for discussion the Speaker shall leave the chair "without question put." The old opportunity to raise a question upon the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair is gone from us, and now the right hon. Gentleman asks for Tuesdays. He asks that the same conditions shall apply as apply to Mondays and Thursdays. Why? Is the right hon. Gentleman going to put down Supply for Tuesdays? He puts down Supply for Fridays. He has taken Fridays from us, and now he is going to take our Tuesdays, but unless he means to put down Supply on Tuesdays, Standing Order 56 would have no applicability to the motion.
804
I am sorry to find I have to stand almost alone in defence of the rights of those unplaced, unpaid Members who really compose the House of Commons. It is not that I am anxious to introduce Bills. I have never put my name to a Bill since I have been in the House; I consider it my mission rather to criticise, and sometimes endeavour to prevent legislation; but I am sorry to see the House deprived of every opportunity which it possesses for private legislation, and I hope that some rag of spirit will arise, if not among these dry bones, at any rate from some quarter of the House, and put a stop to the continual taking away of private Members' time by one Government after another.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman cannot be surprised at the ebullition of feeling which we have witnessed during the last half hour. It comes with especial strength from my hon friend who has just sat down, who is always conspicuous for standing up for the private Members of the House; but even it all the private Members' time is absorbed by the Government, I think my hon. friend would still find opportunities to address the House with advantage to, the debate and satisfaction to himself, I was more surprised by the importation of a fresh element into this ordinary discussion, with which we are so familiar. That fresh element comes from two hon. friends behind me who are new Members, and who expressed with ingenuousness and frankness the circumstances; they fully expected that, having come into the blouse, they and others like them would have ample opportunity given to them to prosecute those projects of legislation which they have been advocating for many years in the country, and which expectations the Government, for this session at all events, have effectually prevented being realised.
The right hon. Gentleman was able up to Easter to make some sort of case for the strong measures which he put upon us, because he was able to
threaten us with the dreadful consequences which would ensue if the financial business was not completed by the 31st of March. We pointed out again and again that even

805
if that state of things with which he threatened us did arise, it was his own fault, because he had neglected to foresee the circumstances. Now he goes on, after a prolonged Easter holiday, in the same perfunctory manner to propose a new inroad into the time of the House, but in this case
we expect to hear some new reason. Nothing, however, is said to us. We are told there is certain financial business to be got through, which we understand; but there is no fixed time for that, as before Easter, and something is said about legislative necessity—necessary legislative measures. We want to know what those necessary legislative measures are. The only indication we have received was in the Speech from the Throne. Where are the measures, and what progress has been made with those which have already been introduced, and which could be proceeded with? Those are the points upon which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman is bound to give the House a great deal more information than he has vouchsafed to us.
I was rather astonished when I saw this motion on the Paper, because it is an unusually early time to commence these morning sittings. I am not sure that if we investigated the matter precedents, with which the right hon. Gentle man is so perfectly familiar, would not be found to show that some motion of this sort may have been taken at such an early period of the session as this; but if that be so, it was on the ground of absolute necessity—on the ground that there was such a, mass of legislative business that it was absolutely necessary to take morning sittings. We have had no such assurance upon this occasion, and we ought to have that assurance from the right hon. Gentleman before he can expect us to agree with this proposal.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is my painful duty, but I am sorry to say a familiar one, to bring forward these resolutions curtailing the privileges of the unofficial Members of the House, and to be abused for an hour or two once or twice during the session for performing my painful part. The present debate has been, perhaps, as vigorous as any to which I have listened upon the subject. My hon. friend behind me, the Member for King's Lynn, has come back with renewed
806
vigour from his foreign tour, but I am unable to say, so far as I can judge, however much the Bay of Biscay has improved his health and renewed his vigour, that it has in any way improved his temper. He spoke upon a familiar theme, upon which we have often heard him before, and upon which, I trust, we shall often hear him again, because I hope he will long remain a Member of this House, and so long as he remains a Member he will speak upon it, either from this or the other side of the House. But I do not think he has ever thrown himself into the part with greater
verve than upon the present occasion. I have noticed, and I hope the House has also noticed, the extraordinary inconsistency between the two sets of arguments we have heard on the present occasion. That inconsistency appeared in different speeches of different speakers, and sometimes it appeared in one speech. The Government is abused first of all for not bringing forward legislative measures, and secondly for taking private Members time, [A voice: "Wasting it."] An hon. Gentleman says we are wasting time. We are doing so! I do not assert that time is not being wasted; I do not indulge in so paradoxical a statement as to suggest to the House—to the Members of the House who have sat through our debates since we met in February—that there has not been a waste of Parliamentary time. All I deny is that we have wasted it.
It is the duty of the Government to lay before the House, firstly, the business absolutely necessary for carrying on the Government of the country, and secondly, those legislative schemes they are desirous of passing. Very well, that is admitted: so far we have not done very much towards carrying out the second part of our duty, but nobody will deny that we have done the first. The business we have introduced so far is the business which must be carried through, if the Government of the country is to be carried on at all. The business was financial. If that business has taken too long a time, it is not the fault of the Government. I am, indeed, told that if we had met on the 10th of February instead of the
16th—[A voice: "We met on the 14th."] Well I do not propose to argue that case. I have told the House that the date upon which

807
we met was an appropriate date, and Members will agree with me when I say that during the time between then and Easter, without any undue protraction of the debates, we could have done all the necessary work, and have done also something to carry out those projects of legislation which we are as anxious to pass as any hon. Gentleman opposite.
Is it not rather absurd to say on the one hand that we shall not have Tuesdays, and on the other that we shall bring forward these projects of legislation? The only chance we have of carrying out the schemes which we have indicated to the country in the Speech from the Throne is to get through the financial business of the year. How are we to get through the business unless we get the credits we ask for? Can anything be more absurd than to accuse us in the first place of not getting through these projects of legislation, and on the other hand to refuse to give us Tuesday mornings? Let us remember that the financial business of the session is this year exceptional. You have a most exceptional state of things to deal with—we have a, Budget to deal with which everyone must admit is a Budget of great importance, and of exceptional character, raising questions of the utmost public interest, and we have the Civil List. Are we not to have this privilege to carry out these necessarily difficult matters? And until we know how long those discussions will last is it reasonable to ask us to give a definite pledge as to what we shall do between this and the end of the session? It is the habit of the Opposition to ask how the Government intends to allocate the time of the House. I wish the process could be reversed, and that the Opposition could be asked how long they intend to discuss this or that measure.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Let us see your measures; we have not seen them yet.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: You have seen the Budget. Will the hon. Member give me an indication of how long the necessary financial business will take? If he will, I will give some rough estimate as to the amount of time which will be given to legislative business, It is the
808
practice now, as it was been ever since I came into the House, twenty years ago, to accuse the Leader of the House of not managing the business of the House as he should, but, after all, that matter rests with the Opposition and the critics of the Government.
MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: There never was a Government which had so little regular opposition to deal with.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then the matter rests with the irregular Opposition! If the irregular Opposition will tell me how long they intend to discuss the Civil List and the Budget, I might be able to satisfy their curiosity on the other questions which have been put. The House will observe that I am only asking this privilege up to Whitsuntide. This motion only relates to the time between this and Whitsuntide. Can hon Gentlemen, regular or irregular, hold out any hopes that after the Budget and the Civil List have been disposed of there will be any leisure for important legislation before Whitsuntide?
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon Gentleman produce his Irish Land Purchase Bill?
MR. A. J BALFOUR: Does the hon. Member propose a bargain across the floor of the House—to let me have the Budget without difficulty or debate it he happens to like the Land Purchase Bill? There are many other persons interested in the Civil List and the Budget, and it is quite clear, and everybody who knows anything about the House knows at all events, that the bulk of the time between this and Whitsuntide must be occupied by financial business, owing to the action of the critics of the Government, regular and irregular, whether legitimate or illegitimate. If my expectations are happily deceived, and the business is got through with great rapidity, the Government will of course proceed with their programme of legislation at once. Those who press upon the Government the necessity for proceeding with that programme are the very persons who ought to give the necessary facilities for getting through the financial business. So I

809
hope the House will not attempt to seriously hamper the Government, and will assent to this motion. The Leader of the Irish party and others referred to the fact that the present condition of business and the apportionment of the time of the House was unsatisfactory. I am not at all disposed to disagree with that statement The result is not, however, due to the action of Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench or on the Front Opposition Bench. It is due to much larger causes. I have no intention of dilating on this theme at present; but if I have the privilege of occupying much longer the position which I now hold I shall certainly have to bring the matter before the House in a substantive form. The matter undoubtedly requires the attention of the House, and I am the last person to say that this enormous amount of time should be taken up by discussions in Supply on matters that must be passed, and that private Members' resolutions and opportunities for legislation should be as much curtailed and diminished as they have been. It is perfectly clear that the present position is not due to anything which the Government have done, or to their having pressed forward too many subjects at once. There must be, and ought to be, further debate on the great financial proposals of the Government; and until they have been substantially dealt with, it is impossible to make great progress with the legislative programme. In order to reach that programme without delay, I ask the House, and especially the critics of the Government, to give the Government the privileges for which we ask.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I confess I am a little surprised at the tone of irritation which the right hon. Gentleman has displayed at the criticisms and protests against the proposal he has made. The right hon. Gentleman has called his proposal a painful one, and so it is. But when a person is inflicting pain, he should not be surprised if there were some complaint on the part of the sufferers. In former days, happily long gone by, I have stood in the same painful position as the right hon. Gentleman, and have asked for the indulgence
810
of the House. But then I thought i becoming on such occasions to appear in the attitude of a suppliant. I came before the House with a halter round my neck, so that if the House did not support me it might execute me; but the right hon. Gentleman has only scolded those who have ventured for a moment to object to or protest against the taking of all their time. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to expect that the House should go like a lamb to the slaughter—
"Pleased to the last, he crops the flowery food,
And licks the hand just raised to shed his blood."
The right hon. Gentleman seems to expect that the whole of the House of Commons except himself should gladly yield to the Government that time to which the House is entitled. What my hon. friend next me asked for is that the Government should give some special reasons for the course proposed, and for the privilege they sought. I never remember a demand of this kind being made to the House without the Leader of the House making his prayer to the House and setting forth the special reasons on which it was to be granted. The right hon. Gentleman has advanced no reason but exceptional financial business. Surely this exceptional financial business was of so popular a character that there would not be the smallest difficulty in passing it. It seems as though the right hon. Gentleman had not the confidence he should have in the Budget of his colleague. The right hon. Gentleman might have told the House without pledging himself to particular measures what were the measures to which the Government attached particular importance. It has always been the habit to give this information. The Government might even have introduced the Bills, so that the House, and the country might have had time to consider them. Therefore, according to my experience and recollection, we have not had such a declaration of the intentions of the Government as we might have expected from them. The hon. Gentleman behind me has spoken of a particular measure passed by a great majority in this House. There is a strong desire that an opportunity should be given for that Bill to pass into law. If all this time is given to the Government

811
we have a right to expect that they should provide such an opportunity. Then there is the measure referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean, a measure which, I am sure, a greaf majority of the House desire to see pass, dealing with youthful labour in mines. I cannot help suspecting that the late period at which the House met after Easter had some connection with the extinction of the hopes of that Bill. The ordinary course would have been for us to meet on the Monday after Easter, and then we should not have lost that Wednesday upon which a Bill of such special importance was down for consideration. I must say, having listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, that I think the protest which has been made, though ineffectual, is perfectly justified, and I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman should not have been able to give some satisfactory answer to my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition as to the legislative intentions of the Government.
MR. BARTLEY: I think that these inroads upon the time of private Members are becoming more and more serious, and that we have certainly a right to make some protest. It is quite true that when we do have a certain amount of time it happens in some way or another that the Irish Members get the greater part of it, and as a London Member I think they really get an unfair share of private Members' time. How this is to be avoided I do not know, but certainly there are many points which we London and English Members desire to bring before the House, but have not the opportunity. The question as to why the Government do not let us know some of the measures they intend bringing forward is a very serious one. If the Leader of the House would bring forward some of those measures—whether on education, Irish land, or the temperance question—even though they were introduced under the ten minutes' rule, we should see what they were, and have something to consider and digest. But some of us almost fancy that the Government have not made up their minds upon these questions. I think it is only reasonable that we should
812
know what these measures are, and that if we give this time—reluctantly, because we are compelled to—the Government should give a pledge that the main points upon which they intend to legislate this session should be placed before the House. There are not many questions mentioned in the King's Speech; it is a very meagre fare, but I think it is reasonable we should know what the Government propose to do. We must make a certain protest against our time being taken, and, although it may be of no use we are bound to support our rights to the best of our ability.
MR. DILLON: The first feature in the present debate is, to my mind, the tone in which the Leader of the House made this motion to-night. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth said, it is the custom on such occasions for Ministers to appear in an attitude of apology at least, and to put forward some special grounds on which they make this large claim on the rights of private Members. On the present occasion the only apology the First Lord offers is for not taking the whole of the Tuesdays up to Whitsuntide. When I heard the right hon. Gentleman I was reminded of an occasion in
1895, when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House, the present Member for West Monmouth, ten days after the Address
proposed to take Tuesdays up to the 31st March for the necessary financial business of the year. He made that motion in a speech occupying five or six pages of Hansard, giving a long and detailed explanation of the grounds on which he based his claim. What was the result? Although then the private Members still retained their rights to Fridays (which have now been taken from them), no sooner had the right hon. Gentleman sat down, than up sprang the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, quivering with indignation, and delivered a speech extending to ten pages of
Hansard, denouncing the proposal. Here is a passage from that speech. He said—
"But if anyone would examine the series of precedents in this matter he would find that those precedents were growing, he would find that the Government of the day—be it a

813
Liberal Government or a Conservative Government—never went back upon a precedent when once it was made, so that year after year more of the time of the House and more control over the House were obtained by the Government. Now what was the precedent they were asked to establish on this occasion? Within ten days of the termination of the debate on the Address, private Members were to be deprived of any opportunity of bringing forward motions, except after nine o'clock on Friday evenings, and of any chance of having discussions on Hills which they bad introduced, unless they had been fortunate enough to secure the first or second place on the thirteen or fourteen Wednesdays before Whitsuntide. That might be a necessary change in their procedure; circumstances might have arisen which rendered it right and proper to make it. But he was absolutely certain that this resolution, or something more stringent, would again be proposed after Easter, and would practically apply to the whole of the session."
That was the grievance complained of with indignation by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1895, in a session when there were large and important Bills to be introduced, and a considerable programme of legislation indicated in the Queen's Speech. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
"What had happened already? When hon. Members were deprived of the opportunities allotted to them by the ordinary rules of the House for bringing forward matters in which they took an interest, they persistently bubbled up on every other occasion. Adjournments were moved, and deflates were started on questions of principle in Committee of Supply, instead of Supply being confined, as used to be the case, solely to questions of finance."
The right hon. Gentleman evidently approved of the cause of the then Tory Opposition, and yet the present Leader of the House thinks he is entitled to complain, now that he has drawn the bonds of discipline against the rights of private Members infinitely tighter than they were then proposed to be drawn, if hon. Members "bubble over," and other opportunities are sought for pressing questions in which they are interested upon the attention of the House. To use the language of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, I ask the House to consider what precedent they are setting this year. Every Tuesday up to the present has been taken by the Government. It is a mockery to talk about giving us nine o'clock sittings; the Government might as well take the whole of the day, as such sittings are
814
almost invariably counted out. Where do the private Members come in? In view of the action of the Government this year, I say it would be more decent and honest to abolish altogether the Standing Order giving private Members any rights on Tuesdays or Fridays.
I have never known a session in which less business was placed before the House by the Government, and yet this is the session in which such a precedent is being set. If the House agrees in such a, session to part with all its Tuesdays, what argument will there be for any private Member against the Government taking the whole of the Tuesdays in a session in which there is legislative business to be brought forward? But that is not all. This is being done in a session when the closure has been used with greater stringency and frequency than I ever remember being the case before. I venture to say that while there will hardly be a statute of importance added to the Statute-book, it will be shown at the end of the session that the closure has been used with more frequency and stringency than at any time in the history of the House of Commons. When a Minister talks of the waste of public time, I want to know what he means by that. The Leader of the House is armed with greater powers than any Minister ever had before for putting an end to discussion, and whenever he thinks that discussion has gone far enough he does not scruple to use those powers, and yet the business of the country is in a state of paralysis. The business of a Minister like the right hon. Gentleman is to conduct the business of the House in a reasonable and a fair way, and it was to my mind a most preposterous position for the right hon. Gentleman to take up, when he said that if there was a difficulty and congestion of business it was entirely the fault of the Opposition. It is an old saying that a bad workman quarrels with his tools, and the real difficulty in this matter is that those upon whom the responsibility for the conduct and management of the business of the House must rest have so managed it that there is congestion, and that public time has been wasted, and when the results are made manifest the Leader of the House, instead of examining his own conscience, turns upon

815
the Opposition and seeks to thrust the blame upon them. When the Leader of the House talks of some measure which he is revolving in his mind, by which the business of the House is to be re-distributed, I warn him that that problem has been tried over and over again. It is the problem of trying to put a gallon into a pint pot. You cannot by any redistribution of the time of the House or by appointing Committees get this House to deal with more business than the time at its disposal is able to allow it to cope with. The only way in which you will solve this problem is by getting rid of some of the business of this House, and letting it be done by those who better understand it. Why is this House in such a state of paralysis that the business of England. Scotland. Ireland, and Wales must be thrown into the background? Why, it is simply due to the policy of Imperialism
and expansion. You are not content with doing the business of Great Britain and Ireland, you must undertake to extend this Empire into every part of the habitable globe, and having undertaken to manage the business of all those multitudinous races you have not time to attend to the business at home. The House of Commons cannot manage the affairs of the whole world, and it is this Imperialism and expansion, this abominable policy, that is really responsible for the deadlock in the House of Commons, and until you understand that, and base your remedy upon that understanding, you will never get the machine so adjusted as to do the business of this country satisfactorily.
MR. HARWOODsaid it was allowed on all hands that their business was being done under pressure, which was not good for the business or the credit of the House. He believed the explanation was that the business of the House was increasing. The hon. Member for East Mayo had condemned our Imperialism. He did not condemn it at all, but the House of Commons as a gathering of sensible men should consider what it involved. Whether they were in favour of it or not they should, as business men, recognise the consequences it carried with it. It must be obvious to anyone that if we were to
816
enlarge our business we must give more time to the business or do it worse. The Leader of the House had referred to the Civil List and the Budget, but surely the right hon. Gentleman knew quite well before the House met that there would be a new Civil List and a special Budget. Why did not the Loader of the House anticipate this and give more time to do the business? The House had a right to complain of the Leader of the House, who would not look the facts in the face. The right hon. Gentleman had lengthened the holidays instead of shortening them. Reference had been made by the Member for Greenwich to the circumstance that the House of Commons was falling in public credit. He agreed with that, and he would say that it would fall further in public repute unless it did its business better than now. He submitted as a plain business man that the Government had not recognised the fact that the House had more business to do, and had not given proper time to do it.
MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House stated that the arrangement was required on account of the Budget and the Civil List. But on looking at the Paper to-night I find that the next business after the Budget is the Demise of the Crown Bill. I would like to ask the Government whether we are to take the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as an assurance that none of these Tuesdays will be devoted to the Demise of the Crown Bill. If that assurance was given it might mitigate the hostility we feel to the present motion. Unless the right hon. Gentleman confines his motion to the Budget and Civil List, he must let us see what is in his bag. He says, "If you tell me what the Opposition will do, I can easily tell you what Bills we can and will produce." But surely when the Government brought forward the King's Speech they knew what kind of opposition they would have to face. And yet they put forward in the King's Speech a certain programme of legislation. We wish to know whether it is not a fact that, as a rule by Easter, and certainly by the week after Easter, it has been the constant tradition of the Government to let the House know what their Bills are.

817
But here in this case when we ask the Government what its programme of legislation is, the right hon. Gentleman says, "Tell me how the Opposition will behave." I heard the right hon. Gentleman make a most ferocious attack on the Front Opposition Bench, which has never done any harm. I have begun to realise what is the great antipathy the right hon. Gentleman feels to the Front Opposition Bench, and I will tell hon. Gentlemen what it is. The Government, I fancy, after the speech of yesterday, are extremely anxious to get out of office, and extremely anxious that others should wash up the dish, and every time the Government are anxious to get into a minority the Front Opposition Bench votes for them. The Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition do not want to be forced into office at the present juncture. That is really the present position of affairs. The right hon. Gentleman has asked for these Tuesday sittings, and he has used all this kind of abuse, but I do not suppose that there is anyone more tired of the right hon. Gentleman's Government than himself. We see this unfortunate Government, though they have only normally been one session in office, more weak, limp, and jaded than any other Government I have ever known. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman tell us what his Irish programme is at the present stage? It is not the Nationalists that he is afraid of at all, for he knows perfectly well that we are ready and anxious to further any legislation of a useful character for Ireland. He is afraid of the hon. Gentlemen on his own side, who are never willing to take up useful legislation for Ireland in the month of April. If any such legislation were introduced in April the Orange and landlord party would tear it to pieces, and it is only when this House is thoroughly jaded and tired that you can have Irish legislation brought in, when hon. Members think that the holidays are more important than legislation. Why does the Leader of the House not communicate with the Leader of the Irish Party as to what his plans are? We know that there is only one Bill to be passed for Ireland this session so far as the Government is concerned. Is it not easy to say, "We will bring forward this excellent Bill; here it
818
is. We dare not show it to the Orange party, for we cannot trust them, but we can trust the Nationalists." The right hon. Gentleman has practically admitted that the business of the House is really done behind the Chair and not upon the floor of the House. The real difficulty is that the Government do not take into their confidence that section of the House which was not represented on the Civil List Committee.
MAJOR JAMESONsaid he wished to make his humble protest against what had been proposed by the First Lord of the Treasury, and his reason for so doing was that he belonged to a section of humble Members of this House who did not say much and who did not get much chance of saying anything. Members of the House might be divided into one-column men, half-column men, quarter-column men, and one-line men. On behalf of the one-line men, he protested against the First Lord of the Treasury taking away the only chance they had of making themselves heard. The way in which Bills were brought into the House of Commons reminded him of the American incubator, where they put the eggs in at one end and the chickens came out at the other. When Bills were brought forward the one-column men had their innings, and the one-line men never got any innings at all. In earlier days the First Lord of the Treasury had been only a one-line man, and he ought to look back with some affection to those days and remember that one-line men wanted a chance occasionally. If the right hon. Gentleman required more time, let him bring forward a Home Rule Bill, and let the Irish Members go home to manage their own affairs. So long as they sat in this House they would do their best for their constituencies, and they would do it whether they were closured or not. The First Lord of the Treasury was now proposing to take away about the only chance they had got of laying their grievances before this House in a proper form, and he trusted the motion would be withdrawn.
MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he did not desire

819
to detain the House more than one or two moments, but he wished, as a new Member, to add his protest against the action of the First Lord of the Treasury upon this question. During this session the new Members had more than once tried to help the Government to carry through the business of the country. The First Lord of the Treasury now asked for all the Tuesdays up to Whitsuntide, and gave no reason at all which appealed to new Members for doing so. A debate followed, and Members on this and on the other side of the House had put specific questions to the right hon. Gentleman. He had been asked whether he would help private Members to keep a House on Tuesdays, and they had very good reason for asking that, because on the last Friday when the private Members got a chance they would remember that the Government walked behind the Chair in order that a count might be taken, and the right hon. Gentleman himself was one of those who walked behind the Chair. Having disposed of the motions, there was a very small Bill brought before the House which endeavoured to give some—
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now going into the case of a particular Bill in a manner that is not relevant.
MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid he had no intention of discussing that Bill, and he was only endeavouring to show why some of them were anxious to keep a House that night. They had very good reason for asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he was going to follow this course again, and whether, after they had come down to the House from two o'clock to seven o'clock to help through the Government legislation they were going to have any help from the Government to keep a House. Were they going to give facilities for the Children's Bill, or for Higher Education, which some of them cared about if the right hon. Gentleman did not? The Member for Forest of Dean had inquired what was going to be done with regard to the Factory Acts. The right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, did
820
not devote a single word to dealing with the questions which had been asked him. He had delivered an adroit and brilliant speech which was everything but what a speech ought to be on such a question from the Leader of the House. He (the hon. Member) knew very little—[Ministerial cries of "Hear, hear."] Would hon. Members opposite kindly allow him to finish his sentence? He knew very little about the Leadership of the House, but there were two duties acknowledged to be foremost among the duties of a Leader: the first was so to arrange the business that the legislation could be carried forward easily and quickly, and he ventured to say that when the Leader of the House endeavoured to do this he always got the assistance of the House. What was the course pursued by a former Leader of the House—the late Mr. W. H. Smith—who had not half the debating ability of the present First Lord of the Treasury? He took the House into his confidence, told them what he wanted to do, and how he proposed to do it. He did not keep up his sleeve the measures he intended bringing before the House, and he got the assistance of the House, The second duty of the Leader of the House was to protect the rights of all the Members on all sides of the House, and he very seriously complained of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he walked out of the House the other night. He claimed that private Members ought to have the assistance of the Leader of the House in order to keep a House. The example set by the right hon. Gentleman did more to destroy the rights of private Members than all the polite and courteous speeches which he was always making about his desire to help private Members. He hoped that before they went to a division they would have a statement of the attitude the right hon. Gentleman was going to take up with regard to Tuesday nights. If they found that he was not going to protect the rights of private Members, he hoped hon. Members would take the matter into their own hands and set their faces sternly against the attempt to take the whole time of the House for Government business.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he had often heard a similar motion made in this House from the Government Benches, but never one made in a more cavalier manner than the motion made by the First Lord of the Treasury that evening; and he was not surprised at the manifestations of impatience which had been exhibited by hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative side of the House, because the example had been set them by their own chief. He would like to discover how many hon. Gentlemen opposite had humbugged their constituents by pretending they were going to produce legislation, and who had introduced large numbers of Bills to which they had referred at public meetings in their constituencies, and which they were presently going to prevent from being proceeded with by voting for the motion before the House. Of course the usual excuse would be forthcoming, that but for the Irish Members the measures would have been passed. He would next day take out from the division lists the names of all those Members who had so humbugged their constituents. The First Lord of the Treasury
had stated that but for the Irish Members, the irregular opposition, the Government would have had time to pass the necessary financial business of the session. Why was not Parliament called together before? Why were the holidays so long? and why all this waste of time? In all our great colonies there was no trouble, and there was no necessity to take private Members' time. In the colonies one seldom hoard of all-night sittings. Why? Because they conducted the Legislature on business lines, and met at a reasonable hour in the morning, and the hours at which the Parliaments met were not arranged merely for the convenience of Members who liked to be up late at night and sleep till late on in the day. He hoped when the right hon. Gentleman took this matter in hand, as he had threatened to do (and he hoped he would do it on a nearly day), that he would say that this House should meet at a reasonable hour—9–30 or ten o'clock in the morning—like men engaged in any other work, and that the House should cease its labours at a reasonable hour,
822
so as to give an honest and plain interval to Members of the House to feed.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question before the House is not what interval shall be allowed for dinner.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he would not suggest any further alterations; he would merely say that the impatience manifested in the House, with the most surprising regularity, between 7–30 and nine, was not due to any burning interest which the Members took in the matter under discussion in the House on which they desired to vote. It was not because on the present occasion they were most anxious to destroy the only chance they had of passing Bills which they themselves had introduced—it was for quite a different reason, the same reason that had caused him to intervene. It was due to the fact that the hours of the House were so wrong, and the Rules so incongruous and absurd, that Members could not go home to their dinners without feeling that something dreadful would happen in their absence. He quite conceived that this was a motion which the First Lord of the Treasury should be called upon by the country to explain. If the motion was carried, it would in all probability kill the Bill for the purpose of prohibiting the sale of drink to young children, and the Eight Hours Bill for miners, and if the time of the private Members was to be taken, then it should be made clear to the people of the country that it was done by those who voted for it for the express purpose of killing legislation. Let hon. Members be honest, and say they did not believe in legislation, and were prepared to let the Government have as much time as they pleased. If they took that straightforward and honest course, he ventured to hope that when the next General Election came round a great number of them would be relieved from attendance at the House of Commons for evermore.
MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put. "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 198 Noes, 147. (Division List No. 130.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

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

Nicholson, William Graham

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Allsopp, Hon. George

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Parkes, Ebenezer

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rH'ml'ts

Pemberton, John S. G.

Arnol, Sir William

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Percy, Earl

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Pilkington, Richard

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Graham, Henry Robert

Plummer, Walter R.

Baird, John George Alexander

Grenfell, William Henry

Purvis, Robert

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

Groves, James Grimble

Randles, John S.

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Gunter, Colonel

Reid, James (Greenock)

Banbury, Frederick George

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Remnant, James Farquharson

Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

Hain, Edward

Rentoul, James Alexander

Bartley, George C. T.

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Renwick, George

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

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

Richards, Henry Charles

Beckett, Ernest William

Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Bigwood, James

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

Bill, Charles

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Robinson, Brooke

Blundell, Col. Henry

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Bond, Edward

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

Round, James

Boulnois, Edmund

Heath, J. (Staffords, N. W.)

Rutherford, John

Brassey, Albert

Henderson, Alexander

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Brookfield, Col. Montagu

Higginbottom, S. W.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Bull, William James

Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Edw. J.

Bullard, Sir Harry

Hope, J. F. (Sheffi'ld Brightside

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Butcher, John George

Howard, John (Kent, Fav'rsh.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Gl'sg'w

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Carson, Rt. Hon. St. John

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

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

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Smith, H C (North'um. Tynes'de

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

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Kenyon, Jas. (Lancs., Bury)

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Keswick, William

Spear, John Ward

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Law, Andrew Bonar

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Lawson, John Grant

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Chamberlain. J. A. (Worc'r)

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Charrington, Spencer

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

Stroyan, John

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

Thornton, Percy M.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Valentia, Viscount

Cranborne, Viscount

Madona, John Cumming

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Maconochie, A. W.

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Denny, Colonel

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Wason, John C. (Orkney)

Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mlets, S. Geo.

M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B. (Cams.

Webb, Colonel William George

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Welby, Lt. Col. A. C. E. (Tauntn

Dickson, Charles Scott

Malcolm, Ian

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Williams, Rt Hn J. Powell (Bir.

Doughty, George

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

Wills, Sir Frederick

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

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

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

Morrison, James Archibald

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

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Mount, William Arthur

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

Finch, George H.

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

Muntz, Philip A.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Fisher, William Hayes

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Fison, Frederick William

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Sir William Walrond and

Forster, Henry William

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Mr. Anstruther.

NOES.

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

Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herb. John

O'Dowd, John

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud)

Grant, Corrie

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

Ambrose, Robert

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Malley, William

Asher, Alexander

Hammond, John

O'Mara, James

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydv'l

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

O'Shee, James John

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hayden, John Patrick

Philipps, John Wynford

Bell, Richard

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

Power, Patrick Joseph

Boland, John

Healy, Timothy Michael

Priestley, Arthur

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Helme, Norval Watson

Rea, Russell

Boyle, James

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

Reddy, M.

Brigg, John

Holland, William Henry

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Jacoby, James Alfred

Redmond, William (Clare)

Burke, E. Haviland-

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

Burt, Thomas

Joicey, Sir James

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jones, William (Carnarvons.)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Caine, William Sproston

Jordan, Jeremiah

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Caldwell, James

Joyce, Michael

Robson, William Snowdon

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Kennedy, Patrick James

Roche, John

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Lambert, George

Schwann, Charles E.

Cawley, Frederick

Lay land-Barratt, Francis

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Channing, Francis Allston

Leamy, Edmund

Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

Clancy, John Joseph

Leng, Sir John

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Cogan, Denis J.

Lough, Thomas

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Lundon, W.

Soares, Ernest J.

Colville, John

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

Condon, Thomas Joseph

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Sullivan, Donal

Craig, Robert Hunter

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Cremer, William Tandal

M'Crae, George

Tennant, Harold John

Crombie, John William

M'Dermott, Patrick

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Cullinan, J.

M'Govern, T.

Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

Daly, James

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan Gower

Dalziel, James Henry

Markham, Arthur Basil

Thompson, E. C. (Mouaghan, N

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Mather, William

Tomkinson, James

Delany, William

Minch, Matthew

Tully, Jasper

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Mooney, John J.

Ure, Alexander

Dillon, John

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Wallace, Robert

Doogan, P. C.

Murnaghan, George

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Murphy, J.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Duffy, William J.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Weir, James Galloway

Duncan, J. Hastings

Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

White, George (Norfolk)

Dunn, Sir William

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidst.

Norman, Henry

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Farrell, James Patrick

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

Field, William

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Sir Thomas Esmonde and

Furness, Sir Christopher

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

Captain Donelan.

Gilhooly, James

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Question put accordingly, "That until Whitsuntide the House do meet on Tuesday at Two of the clock, and that the provisions of Standing Order No. 56
be extended to such Morning Sittings."
The House divided:—Ayes, 192; Noes, 145. (Division List No. 131.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

Baird, John George Alexander

Bond, Edward

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Boulnois, Edmund

Allsopp, Hon. George

Banbury, Frederick George

Brassey, Albert

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

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

Brookfield, Col. Montagu

Arrol, Sir William

Beckett, Ernest William

Bull, William James

Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Bullard, Sir Hairy

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

Bigwood, James

Butcher, John George

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Bill, Charles

Campbell, Rt Hn. J. A (Glasgow

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Randles, John S.

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

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Reid, James (Greenock)

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

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanl'y

Rentoul, James Alexander

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

Renwick, George

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Henderson, Alexander

Richards, Henry Charles

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Higginbottom, S. W.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

Hope, J. F. (Sheffi'ld, Brightside

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Charrington, Spencer

Howard, John (Kent, Faversh.

Robinson, Brooke

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Round, James

Colomb, Sir, John Charles Ready

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Rutherford, John

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Cranborne, Viscount

Keswick, William

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Law, Andrew Bonar

Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Edw. J.

Denny, Colonel

Lawson, John Grant

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'ml'ts, S. Geo.

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Dickson, Charles Scott

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Smith, Abel H (Hertford, East)

Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

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

Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tynes'e

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Doughty, George

Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

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

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. E.

Spear, John Ward

Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

Macdona, John dimming

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Maconochie, A. W.

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverp'l)

Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B. (Camb.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Finch, George H.

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Stroyan, John

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Malcolm, Ian

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Fisher, William Hayes

Max well, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

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

Fison, Frederick William

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Thornton, Percy M.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Valentia, Viscount

Flower, Ernest

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Forster, Henry William

Morgan, David J. (Walthamst.

Warr, Augustus Frederick

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

Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Morrison, James Archibald

Webb, Col. William George

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C E (Taunton

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

Mount, William Arthur

Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'ml'ts

Muntz, Philip A.

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell- (Birm

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wills, Sir Frederick

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

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

Graham, Henry Robert

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Grenfell, William Henry

Nicholson, William Graham

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

Groves, James Grimble

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Gunter, Colonel

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Parkes, Ebenezer

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Hain, Edward

Peel, Hon. Wm. Robert W.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Pemberton, John S. G.

Young, Commander (Berks, E.

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

Percy, Earl

Hamilton, Marq of (Lond'nd'ry

Pilkington, Richard

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Sir William Walrond and

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Plummer, Walter R.

Mr. Anstruther.

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Purvis, Robert

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

Brigg, John

Colville, John

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Allen, Charles P (Glouc. Stroud

Burke, E. Haviland-

Craig, Robert Hunter

Ambrose, Robert

Burt, Thomas

Cremer, William Randal

Asher, Alexander

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Crombie, John William

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Caine, William Sproston

Cullinan, J.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Caldwell, James

Daly, James

Bartley, George C. T.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Dalziel, James Henry

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Bell, Richard

Cawley, Frederick

Delaney, William

Boand John

Channing, Francis Allston

Dillon, John

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Clancy, John Joseph

Doogan, P. C.

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Cogan, Denis J.

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark),

Boyle, James

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Duffy, William J.

828

829

Duncan, James H.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Remnant, James Farquharson

Dunn, Sir William

M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

M'Crae, Georye

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

M'Dermott, Patrick

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

M'Govern, T.

Robson, William Snowdon

Farrell, James Patrick

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Roche, John

Field, William

Mather, William

Schwann, Charles E.

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

Minch, Matthew

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Furness, Sir Christopher

Mooney, John J.

Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh'e

Gilhooly, James

Murnaghan, George

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Murphy, J.

Soares, Ernest J.

Grant, Corrie

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants.

Griffith, Ellis J.

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

Sullivan, Donal

Hammond, John

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil

Norman, Henry

Tennant, Harold John

Harmsworth, R. (Leicester

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Hayden, John Patrick

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r

Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Md

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r

Healy, Timothy Michael

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Thompson, E. C. (Monaghan, N.

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Tomkinson, James

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.

Tully, Jasper

Holland, William Henry

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Ure, Alexander

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Dowd, John

Wallace, Robert

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Joicey, Sir James

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

O'Malley, William

Weir, James Galloway

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Mara, James

White, George (Norfolk)

Joyce, Michael

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Kennedy, Patrick James

O'Shee, James John

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Lambert, George

Philipps, John Wynford

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Power, Patrick Joseph

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Leamy, Edmund

Rea, Russell

Leng, Sir John

Reddy, M.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Lough, Thomas

Redmond, John K. (Waterford)

Sir Thomas Esmonde and

Lundon, W.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Captain Donelan.

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Reid, Sir K. Threshie (Dumfries)

Resolved, That until Whitsuntide the House do meet on Tuesday, at Two of the clock, and that the provisions of Standing Order No. 56 be extended to such Morning Sittings.

NEW BILL.
  VAGRANTS' CHILDREN PROTECTION.
  Bill for the further protection of the Children of Vagrants, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Warr, Mr. Yerburgh, Mr. John Burns, and Mr. Hay.
  VAGRANTS' CHILDREN PROTECTION BILL.
  "For the further protection of the Children of Vagrants," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday 30th April, and to be printed. [Bill 145.]

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

WAYS AND MEANS.

  LOAN.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and two, sums not exceeding sixty million pounds may be raised by all or any of the following methods:—

  (a) by means of the creation of two and three-quarter per cent. Consolidated Stock within the meaning of the National Debt Conversion Act, 1888; or

  (b) by means of the issue of further War Stock or War Bonds under the War Loan Act, 1900; or

  831

  (c) by means of the issue of Treasury Bills; or

  (d) by means of the issue of Exchequer Bonds;

  and that the principal of, and interest on, any sum so raised be charged on the Consolidated Fund.
  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.)
  MR. FIELDreminded the House that when the Vote of £10,000,000 was asked for last session he opposed it, on the grounds that the amount was totally insufficient, and that it was impossible accurately to forecast the amount of money which would be required. The views he then expressed had been borne out by what had occurred, and Ireland had the same objection to sharing the fresh burdens now proposed as on the former occasion. In addition to the war expenditure the Estimates were characterised by enormous extravagance in almost every Department of State. If a Member criticised any portion of the Government's proposals he was looked upon as an enemy of the country, with the result that the expenditure progressed with fearful rapidity. This absolute want of economy had brought about a position that the National Debt amounted to £687,797,000, an amount larger than the National Debt of any other civilised State. It was a mistaken financial system to draw cheques on posterity in order to gratify the desires of certain individuals who desired to make war on unoffending nations. The annual expenditure was now £187,000,000, and a larger expenditure was incurred in regard to the Army and Navy than in France and Germany. The imperial taxation had almost reached the limits which the people could bear. The only security for the enormous National Debt was Great Britain's commercial supremacy. It would therefore be necessary to take those facts into consideration. He held the opinion that England was living upon its capital. The imports
  832
  were enormously increasing, and the supremacy of Great Britain as a commercial nation was gradually vanishing, and owing to the peculiar system of taxation the foreigner selling goods in this country paid nothing towards this enormous amount of £187,000,000, the burden of which fell mainly upon the native producer. He did not propose to discuss at any great length free trade, fair trade, or protection, but would ask the attention of the House to the points most germane to the question. The Government did not appear to know their own mind, and were pursuing a zig-zag policy to obtain the end they had in view. Whilst on the one hand there was an import duty levied on sugar, on the other there was an export duty to be levied on coal. So far as he individually was concerned, he was opposed to export duties altogether. He was a free trader, but the policy of England was free imports not free trade, and therefore he maintained there ought to be a reasonable duty put upon all manufactured articles coming into this country.
  England had been prosperous in spite of free trade. In principle he was a free trader, but in theory and practice there was sometimes a very wide divergence, and what was called free trade in this country was not in reality free trade. He reiterated it was a policy of free imports, and the result, he maintained, was to lessen employment at home and destroy native agriculture. If Cobden and Bright and those who advocated free trade for this country could return to the scene of their labours, they would not recognise the policy which was called by their name. The Government taxed many imported articles, and the articles most heavily taxed were those consumed by the poor. A resolution had been passed to tax sugar. Why not put a moderate import duty on butter, and enable home producers to give work to labourers? The result of allowing the free importation of flour, so far as Ireland was concerned, was that there was not a river in the country capable at the present time of running a mill profitably, and no doubt the same statement was equally true with regard to England. Why not give the millers and farmers and labourers a chance against the foreigner who neither contributes

  833
  to rent, rates, revenue, nor employment. The cost of production had been so lowered that foreign manufactured goods were being sold at less money than they could be produced in Ireland, which must necessarily do away with a considerable amount of the labour of the country. Goods made in German prisons were brought over and sold in open competition with articles made by free labour, and some effort should be made to keep convict-made goods in their own nation.
  As the imports were increasing and the exports decreasing, the land was being allowed to go to waste. The National Debt and the expenditure of the country was enormously increasing, whilst at the same time the employment in the country was decreasing, and the commercial supremacy of England gradually vanishing. Where was the security for the National Debt? Where was this enormous annual charge of £187,000,000 to come from in future? The position of this country was that if foreign supplies of food were stopped it would be starved in between, three and six weeks. Was that a satisfactory state of affairs? Commercial supremacy had kept up this country, but that state of things was changing. There was a time when America, imported into this country raw material; they now sent in the manufactured article, and beat you in your own markets. Liverpool got its electric plant from Germany, whilst Glasgow, the greatest iron manufacturing district in Great Britain, had lately been importing steel rails from America. The American manufacturers were absorbing nearly all your foreign markets. Where was it going to end? The Manchester school of thought, which looked upon anything like an attack upon free trade as a sort of commercial suicide, may cry out, but the fact remained that the colonies were protected against the Mother Country. They had been obliged to protect themselves; it was the only way they had to raise revenue. Yet so-called free-traders could not see that every country in the world was banded against it. According to the views of English economists, it should not have been possible for America and Germany to progress and prosper under protection; but the Americans had changed the
  834
  character of their exports from raw material to manufactured goods, and at the same time immensely increased the exports, whilst diminishing their imports. He did not advocate protection in the rigid sense of the word, but he would advocate that upon all manufactured articles a moderate duty should be paid. It appeared to him that nobody had the courage to face the problem. Foreigners were not only allowed to import into this country articles free of duty, but they were actually protected by preferential railway rates. Some time ago the rate per ton for the carriage of native meat on the London, and North Western Railway was 50s., whilst the rate for foreign meat was 25s., so that practically foreign meat was bounty-fed, so jar as the London and North Western Railway was concerned, to the extent of 25s. a ton. The same state of things existed with regard to foreign imports at the present time on all the railways in the three kingdoms. These great private monopolies, aided by the State, actually gave a bounty to foreigners to bring their goods to the markets which should belong to the producers of this country. In Germany the State railways had realised a profit of £23,200,000, which was applied to the reduction of taxation in Germany. In New Zealand, where the colony also owned the railways, they made a profit on the railways of no less than £2,500,000. This was not the only advantage derived by the colonies and countries like Germany, where the State owned the railways; there was not only the advantage of low rates and the profit and the reduction of taxation, but also the fact that there was a realisable asset as security for the, National Debt, which England did not possess. The policy of this Parliament seemed to be to place power in the hands of these great carrying companies, who controlled the House of Commons, and through them the country, and he hoped the views he expressed would receive consideration.
  In conclusion, he would say it was a wrong system to pay our debts by drawing cheques upon posterity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not like the idea of war loans, and, if he could have managed it financially, would have infinitely preferred to have met the expenditure as it came along out of

  835
  income; but if the, extraordinary extravagance of expenditure was to be allowed to continue, and private Members were to be closured and prevented from discussing the Estimates, then they had arrived at a condition of things when all financial business was to be engineered by the Front Bench, and when wholesome agitation and criticism from the House would enable the right hon. Gentleman to exercise a certain amount of control over the Treasury with regard to what was called national expenditure. It was for such reasons that he had criticised the proposal to obtain this money by means of a war loan. He did not propose to enter into the protest of the shipping interest regarding the coal tax, which he thought would create grave cause of complaint in Ireland against the Mercantile Marine, because the Mercantile Marine was protected by the British Navy, to which Ireland had to contribute far more than its share, and the business of the Mercantile Marine was to collect and carry produce from all parts of the world and bring it over at cheap rates to British markets in competition with Irish produce. He had no desire to see the price of food raised, but Ireland could not live out of the profits of English manufacture. Englishmen could not live out of the profits of manufacture, but must have a certain amount of agriculture. The burden of taxation ought to be put upon the shoulders of those who were best able to bear it, and foreign manufactured articles ought to take their share. He could not vote for the war loan. He felt, as an Irishman, that they were obliged to pay a far larger amount of money than their share of the taxation which would be levied in various directions, and he suggested that some arrangements ought to be made to lessen the burdens so far as Ireland was concerned. He drew attention to the fact that the income tax was originally only to be levied in certain parts of Ireland for a certain period, and that it was a very exceptional tax, and it would be an act of simple justice on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would arrange that an amount equal to that levied through income tax in Ireland should be returned to that country in the shape of grants for reproductive purposes.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am not quite sure that the House would be entirely prudent in leaving to the Chancellor of the Exchequer such a large choice with regard to the manner in which the loan is to be raised. The first method proposed is by means of the creation of Two-and-Three-Quarter per Cent. Consolidated Stock within the meaning of the National Debt Conversion Act, 1888. I do not know what price the Chancellor of the Exchequer will obtain for sixty millions of 2½ per cent. Consols; it may possibly only be 91 or 92.
  MR. LOUGH:
  89.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: An hon. Member says 89; that surely would not be a very profitable bargain. The other methods are by means of the issue of further war stock or war bonds under the War Loan Act, 1900; or (c) by means of the issue of Treasury Bills; or (d) by means of the issue of Exchequer Bonds; and that the principal of and interest on any sum so raised be charged on the Consolidated Fund. I am not convinced that the right hon. Gentleman would be perfect in his choice of method which all these opportunities open to him. Great complaint was made of his manner of dealing with the last loan without adequate notice, and his selection of American financiers, and at the time of the Greek loan, secured by France, Russia, and this country, the right hon. Gentleman so contrived that English contributors to the loan paid 1 per cent. more for their contributions than either the French or Russian contributors. Now I come to the Budget. This is the most appalling Budget I have ever seen. I do not say so by way of blame; it was inevitable. It is appalling not only on account of the enormous amount but also on account of the entire absence of any promise or probability of any reduction next year or any succeeding year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer confesses to an expenditure of £187,000,000, but that is not the whole of the expenditure. It is one of my complaints that our public accounts are deliberately falsified and that people are deceived, and I am obliged to correct the right hon. Gentleman.

  837
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer puts the Exchequer expenditure at £187,600,000, but to that sum we must add the nine or ten millions which the right hon. Gentleman intercepts for local purposes, and also the eight or nine millions of appropriations in aid. That eighteen millions is part of the national expenditure, though it is concealed by the form in which the accounts are kept, and brings the Exchequer expenditure up to
  £205,000,000. But apart from that there is the local expenditure, which is at least £100,000,000, so that in the coming year the total expenditure will be £300,000,000. The National Debt is stated to have been increased by £59,000,000, and now stands at
  £688,000,000; but that is not all, there is a further sum of £14,700,000 which the right hon. Gentleman describes as re-productive moneys, so that the National Debt has actually been increased to £702,000,000. That, added to the local debt, which is certainly not less than £300,000,000, makes the total debt of this country £1,000,000,000. These figures are appalling and point to a most alarming prospect, to a state of things which will be extremely difficult for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to handle. At the present time it has been a very difficult matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is far from diminishing the gravity of the facts he laid before the House last night; in fact he had a tendency to exaggerate rather than to diminish the gravity of the situation. I was struck by the tone of the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than by his remarks. He seemed to have come to the House for the purpose of washing his hands of his colleagues. The right hon. Gentleman says that his colleagues are to blame for all this, but I am not quite so sure of that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not entirely without blame, for he must share the responsibility. From the year 1895 to 1899 there was a swelling revenue, and we had surpluses every year. But from 1899 up to the present time it has been a very different story indeed. It is Pharaoh's dream over again. In the years of prosperity the right hon. Gentleman squandered the surpluses that he had, and he would not allow scarcely a farthing to go towards the reduction of the debt. There
  838
  was nobody to whom he would not give a, million, and he was a most extravagant Chancellor of the Exchequer. He not only squandered all the surpluses, but he also laid hands upon the Sinking Fund, a thing which shocked every sound financier. Therefore it could not be said that he was entirely without blame in the matter. It is like the case of the seven well favoured fat fleshed kine and the seven ill favoured lean fleshed kine in Pharaoh's dream. But Pharaoh has awoke, and the prospect is that which the right hon. Gentleman has placed before the House with such great courage, candour, self-denial and readiness. I have never been an absolutely unqualified admirer of the finance of the right hon. Gentleman. I think
  that when he has in any way departed from the lessons of the great masters of finance he has followed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, and whenever he has done things out of his own head he has often been on the verge of failure. I think he was on the verge of failure when he removed the tobacco duty, a step which he said would bring in a golden harvest, but which he afterwards admitted brought in no harvest at all. He was mistaken also with regard to the Greek Loan. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has the courage of his opinions, and he is not afraid to profess and openly avow to the full extent every proposal that he makes. I for one was sorry to note a sort of tone about him last night as though he was looking forward to defeat upon his Budget, and to a removal of himself from his present sphere of usefulness. Of course the first reason that occurs to one to account for this appalling Budget is the war; but that is not the only reason. Even what the right hon. Gentleman calls the normal expenditure has so increased that he was obliged to say last night that, even apart from the war, he would not be able to give us any remission of taxation.
  Putting that aside, I come to the war. I think that in the history of English Government there never has been such a series of miscalculations and falsified promises as those which have arisen in connection with this war. We look to the English Government, who are supposed to be in possession of full and secret information of all sorts from

  839
  all over the field, for the formation and announcement to us of an adequate opinion as to the probable extent and cost of any undertaking in which they are about to engage. We also look to the Government for proper and adequate financial provision for such undertakings. The Government bad full information with regard to this war. It is not disputed that their Intelligence Department had provided them with absolutely correct information as to the whole of the Boer armaments, and as to their preparations for war, but the Government failed to comprehend that information. This reminds me of the wise man who said—
  "Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom, but with all thy getting get understanding."
  The Government had the wisdom but not the understanding. They knew the facts, but they were incapable of appreciating them. The result is that in consequence we have to face this enormous Budget. From the very beginning there was, and even up to yesterday there has been, a most extraordinary and a most noticeable optimism on the part of Her Majesty's Government as to the duration and the conduct of the war. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was, up to yesterday, always telling us that the war was going to end before the next time he had to face the House of Commons. He was always explaining to us that his financial demands, which might appear heavy, were purely temporary, and he was always telling us that he would get a large share of the expense out of the Transvaal. In September last the right hon. Gentleman believed that the war was entirely over, that we were in possession of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, and that we had obtained possession of them at the cheapest rate ever heard of in history. He made a speech to his constituents in Bristol to that effect. He said on the 29th of September last year—
  "If they considered that from small increases in taxation the country had been able to bring to a conclusion one of the greatest wars—perhaps the greatest war—in which it had been engaged since the early part of the century, he thought they would be satisfied that the Government had not extravagantly wasted the resources of the country…. We had added a territory of vast value to the
  840
  Empire without imposing on it a greater burden than it could bear. He believed that with a fair field and no favour English manufactures could beat the world, and it was in that belief and looking to the union it had brought about between them and their great colonial possessions he felt that even the war in South Africa would prove in the end to be a blessing to their country."
  I am only quoting this to show that the right hon. Gentleman on the 29th of September last believed that the war was ended, and shared the extraordinary optimism which His Majesty's Government has shown in regard to it. I have not shared that optimism from the beginning. On the 27th of October, 1899, I warned the House that this would be one of the most unexampled conflicts for its importance and seriousness within living memory. I warned the House that we should have disasters and reverses. I told the House that we were dealing with courageous and capable adversaries, and that the House must be prepared for a long war. I know that I was rebuked at the time by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield and the Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool, and I was told that I was uttering ridiculous non-sense. When I found the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 29th of September declaring that the war was ended, and that we had annexed these two States at a very cheap rate, I began to think that I had been a false prophet. I told my constituents what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that the war was ended, and I got elected. [Opposition cheers.] Alas! it was not myself who was the false prophet, but the false prophet was a person in a higher position than myself. Even now, many months after the 29th of September last, we find Sir Alfred Milner, in February last, saying that he can foresee no definite point of time at which we can consider peace in sight, and he even declares that during the last six months things have retrogressed. So that even at this moment, long after the 29th of September, when the General Election has long been passed and a new Cabinet has been formed, mainly consisting of the ablest family in the country, we are still as far off as ever from any ability to name

  841
  the precise moment when we shall be able to say to ourselves in truth what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said to his constituents in September last, that the war in South Africa is over. But if the military authorities miscalculated the military aspect of the war, surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer must take to himself no small amount of blame for having so seriously miscalculated the financial aspects of the problem. He has never
  ceased to tell us that he expected to get a large amount towards the war from the Transvaal. He began to tell us that in October, 1899, at the time I was warning the House that the war would be a long and costly one. He told us that he meant to get a large proportion, or at least a considerable portion of the cost, from the Transvaal, and if possible the whole of it. On the 6th of March he said—
  "I look for the cost of the war first to the Transvaal, and then I look to the other sources of revenue which I have named."
  I did not even then share his view of the financial possibility of getting money out of the Transvaal, and I ventured then to tell him that he would never get anything at all unless he got it as voluntary contributions from the mines. Therefore it will be seen that in 1900 the right hon. Gentleman believed we should get a substantial contribution from the Transvaal to the cost of the war; but in 1901, after having sent out an expert to obtain evidence as to the precise amount of this financial contribution, he presents to us now a picture of a ruined country and a bankrupt people. He says to-day that it is a hopeless case, and all he has to say about this substantial contribution, upon which he based his system of finance, is,
  "We will keep alive our claim"—a claim against a ruined country and a bankrupt people. Is it not childish? I think in this part of his speech the right hon. Gentleman showed a little want of that candour and courage which he displayed when he was dealing with the shortcomings of the rest of his colleagues.
  Now I come to the specific proposals of this Budget. First of all I will take the income tax. My belief is that there is no tax in the world so good as the income tax, if it is levied equally and fairly all
  842
  round. Let no man tell me that the working man would not cheerfully pay his share of the income tax. I am convinced that the working man is as ready to pay income tax as any man in this country, and more ready to pay any tax that he is persuaded is required by his country, whether a tax of money or of blood. But you must not surround the tax with such conditions as obtain at the present time. The same sum which is produced by an income tax of 1s. would be produced by an income tax of 4d., if instead of only taxing equally all incomes over £700, as you do now, and granting abatements and total exemption to the rest, you were, to tax the whole of them equally, and devise a simple and convenient method of collection of the smaller sums. My belief is that this is not beyond the possibility of achievement by a Chancellor of the Exchequer. At present you charge incomes over £700 1s. 2d. in the £, because you think that other people would not be willing to pay an income tax of
  3d. or 4d. in the £. I do not believe this. I believe that if you will make the payment easy to the working man he would be ready to contribute towards any reasonable object, and I believe he would be perfectly ready to contribute towards the war in South Africa, and to pay his
  3d. or 4d. in the £ as willingly as anybody else. I think this is the true doctrine of fiscality, that your object should be, not to get large sums from a small number of people over a small area, but you should base your finances upon a system of getting a large, number of small contributions from a large number of people spread over a large area, by simple methods. This is the true method, and it is the method which you already pursue in the Post Office, There it is your penny stamp that produces the enormous revenue of £13,000,000 or
  £14,000,000 without any danger or trouble to anybody. I commend that process to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for I believe it to be the true one, and in future I hope he will try, not to levy large contributions upon a small number of people, but seek more to levy small contributions upon a larger number. So long as this tax is so unequally levied, and abatements and exemptions are allowed, so long as you impose this tax in this way, I think it

  843
  imprudent, and it is bad finance, to add to the tax itself, while leaving its incidence so partial and unequal. The average income-tax payer is indeed not a person who will openly complain, and the burden of the income tax will be more or less silently borne; but it will not be borne without resentment, which may, upon some future occasion, transform itself into open hostility to the Government. I come now to the sugar duty. There I see a more dangerous experiment. I do not understand what polarisation means. We have had no explanation of it. I do not understand what is to be ascertained by the instrument. Is it the essential part of sugar, which I believe is called sucrose? [An HON. MEMBER: "Glucose."] No, I believe the essential part is called sucrose. Saccharin is a different thing, which makes you think you are taking sugar. I do not understand what polarisation is intended to ascertain. Is it intended to ascertain the amount of the essential part of sugar which I have called sucrose, just as we ascertain the amount of alcohol in wine and spirits? It appears to be an incomplete method, but I pass that for the moment, and what I come to is this—the price of the lowest quality of sugar in this country at present is, I believe, 1¼d. Now that same sugar is imported from Hamburg, and at Hamburg it costs about 3d. The difference between the 3d. and the 1¼d. is paid for us in the shape of a bounty by the foreign country, and thus we get cheap sugar at the cost of the foreign taxpayer. We pay 1¼d. and he pays the other 1¾d., and it is in consequence of the great influx of cheap sugar that a considerable number of important new industries have grown up, and are still growing up in this country. We must all have observed the great increase in confectionery and sweetmeats, but what we may not have observed is that the British manufacturer of preserved fruits is positively driving the native out of the market in places like Germany, Spain, and France, and the reason is the extra-ordinary cheapness of sugar here. Now mark the result. You are going to put, broadly speaking, ½d. per pound on sugar. Don't you think that foreign countries, who have been intending for some time to alter the bounty system, will take this opportunity of getting rid of their bounties—
  844
  in other words, of depriving our sugar of the contribution of 1¾d. per pound which they now make? They have now, I think, the opportunity of doing a bad turn to England, and it is extremely likely that the imposition of this ½d. per pound may lead to the
  1¾d. bounty being abandoned by the foreign country. If so, the result will be that our sugar, instead of being 1¼d. per pound, will be 3½d. per pound. That would be sufficient to kill the whole of these young industries. They are vigorous and enterprising industries, which have sprung up owing to the cheapness of sugar. They are young, and they will fight, and let the Chancellor of the Exchequer believe what I say—they will not have their trade destroyed, as it may be, or injured, as it surely will be by the tax, without a struggle. I am warning the Chancellor of the Exchequer to expect opposition. I have myself received strenuous representations begging me to oppose the duty on sugar, and although I am accustomed to do what I think right without much regard to representations from outside, I am free to say it does add to the difficulty I have in voting for the sugar resolution of the Government.
  I have only one thing more to say, and that is in regard to the proposed export duty of 1s. per ton on coal. That, I think, is the most important, and I venture to say the most unfortunate proposal of the whole Budget. Will the House bear with me while I read a statement on export duties in general by one of the best of the economic writers—I mean Dr. Bastable. There is no doubt that an export duty is a relic of barbarism. There is no kind of duty that so dislocates trade, introduces such confusion into the operations of commerce, or is so extremely doubtful in its effects in the incidence of the duty and the damage caused. Dr. Bastable says—
  "As employed in mediaeval times"—
  It is astonishing how the mediæval argument resembles the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman last night—
  "As employed in mediaeval times it was intended partly to tax those foreigners who used the staple product of the country, and partly as an impost on the producers or owners of natural agents. It is evident that the incidence of the tax will vary according to the

  845
  position of the article taxed. That the home traders will try to raise the price is certain, but their success in this endeavour will depend on (1) the extent to which outside competition is possible, and (2) the need that foreigners have for the article. Where several sources of supply exist the effect of taxing one will be to turn demand to the others, and where increased price checks demand it tends to bring about a fall. Thus it may be said, that in most cases the export duty is chiefly paid by the country that imposes it. Unless the country has a complete monopoly of the product, and the foreign demand remains unaffected by a rise of price, the whole burden cannot be transferred to the consumers. This case is, it need not be said, rarely found, but an approximation to it will partly pass the tax to the foreign consumers. Still, as a practical result, the bulk of the duty falls immediately on the producers of the taxed product, though it might be shifted by them to the owners of land, skilled labour, or fixed capital concerned in the business. A large number of export duties might even by diminishing foreign trade lower the rates of wages and interest generally."
  It is always the producer concerned in the business who has to suffer, according to Dr. Bastable, and I entirely agree with him. I believe there is no duty more mischievous in its indirect effects than an export duty. You have to double the task of the preventive staff. They have to look after not only what comes into the country, but what goes out. It changes the character of your preventive service in respect that it doubles the aspect. Now as to this coal tax. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to except bunker coal. What is bunker coal? According to the view of the trade, bunker coal usually is intended to mean coal carried in bunkers for the use of the ship; but that is not the view the right hon. Gentleman takes. But how is the amount of bunker coal a ship is to carry to be fixed? How is bunker coal to be defined? I have never seen nor heard any definition that would include bunker coal and exclude all other coal. There is another question I want to ask. Is the duty to be levied on coal shipped in one English port to be delivered in another English port? [Sir M. HICKS BEACH shook his head.] I presumed it would not. I am right there. Is it to be levied on coal shipped at an English port for an English possession. [Sir M. HICKS BEACH: Yes.] It is well to observe the result. A foreign ship takes bunker coal at Cardiff and pays nothing on that coal, but an English
  846
  ship goes for coals at Malta and pays 1s. per ton on that coal. You give an advantage to foreign ships bunkering in England. You give them an advantage over the native. If the duty is to be levied on the coal you send from an English port to a British possession, it is certainly a very new departure indeed. The Secretary for the Colonies, whose absence during this interesting discussion I much deplore, proposed to give the colonies special advantages by customs and fiscal regulations, and he even suggested entering into an Imperial Zoll-vereiu, with a view to a closer connection with them. This tax places the colonies at a greater disadvantage, and tends rather to disunion than to union.
  In the case of the Sugar Tax, what we are to look to is the essential thing, namely, the sucrose. I will use that term while waiting for another from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the case of coal it is coal you are going to tax, but it takes three tons of coal to make a ton of iron, and consequently when you are exporting a ton of iron you are exporting three tons of coal. I know that is refining the argument, but what is good for one product in the way of taxing the essential thing is, I submit, good for another. But that is not my real and main objection. I will take one example. This tax, I think, will act most prejudicially in the case of certain places abroad. Gibraltar is one of the most important of our mercantile coaling stations. It supplies from 500,000 to 600,000 tons of coal to merchant ships in the year. The competition is very keen indeed between the coaling stations at Algiers and Gibraltar. Sometimes Algiers gets the upper hand, as in 1893, when the amount supplied at Gibraltar fell to 300,000 because of the competition. So great importance does the Government attach to the coaling at Gibraltar that in the year 1895–6 they agreed to spend £700,000 on the creation of a coaling mole, of which the Gibraltar merchants are to pay out of the profits of the coal trade £400,000. If you are going to put 1s. per ton on the coal that goes to Gibraltar, and if Gibraltar continues to use 500,000 tons per annum, you are putting a very large tax on Gibraltar. If you are going

  847
  to put a tax on Gibraltar coal and expose it to the keener competition of Algiers, you may increase the price of coal at Gibraltar, and ruin the coal trade there altogether, rendering it impossible for the coal merchants to pay the £400,000, and you may find that you have expended
  £700,000 without any prospect of getting the £400,000 you expect in diminution of the amount. If it is thus at Gibraltar I think it probably may be the same in other cases. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
  "This coal is exported, as I have shown, mainly to ports in Europe and the Mediterranean. They are short voyages, If the merchant chooses he can devote more bunker-space in his ship to coal and less to his cargo, and escape the duty altogether."
  But the shipowner only carries coal for the sake of carrying cargo, and to say that he may escape the tax by carrying more coal and less cargo is like saying that if a bird had more wings and less stomach it would be very much lighter. But merchants and shipowners cannot be dealt with as if they were Cherubim and Seraphim. If they want wings to fly with, they also want something to sit down upon. I cannot imagine where the Chancellor of the Exchequer got the notion. But he has suggested one still more amusing fallacy as regards coal. He said—
  "I think the law should he framed so as to enable a person who had made a contract here to break his contract, unless the person with whom he made the contract abroad were willing to pay the 1s. duty. That is the effect of the action of the Act of last year, but practically the duty has to be added to the price agreed upon, so the person who might take the delivery of the coal would not pay out of his own pocket."
  I really think that a doctrine of that kind, coming from a Chancellor of the Exchequer, was never heard of in this House before. If you have made a contract for coal with a foreigner you are to break the contract unless the foreigner will agree to pay the extra shilling per ton which it has pleased the Chancellor of the Exchequer to impose on coal—an amazing and impossible doctrine. I think he can scarcely have considered what he said at that moment, and I am quite sure that on reconsidering it he will see that is a
  848
  kind of doctrine that cannot be acted upon. It would be entirely idle to put such a clause in an Act of Parliament. Now, the whole effect of what I have been saying comes to this. I do earnestly beg and implore His Majesty's Government to drop this duty on coal. I believe if they adhere to it, it will get them into serious trouble at home, and the reason I urge so strenuously that they should abandon it is really largely this—in my opinion, it is of the greatest importance that this Government should stay in office until the war is over. It has no right to imperil its own existence. It appealed to the country to give it a majority to finish the war, and whatever its difficulty may be, and whatever differences may be found within its own ranks, it cannot abdicate its position. The reason it cannot abdicate its position is because there is nothing over there
  (pointing to the Front Opposition Bench). I should not feel all the anxiety I do, nor express with so much earnestness my desire to maintain the precious life of His Majesty's Government, were it not that I see no alternative Government in esse or in posse, and scarcely the chief of a possible Government. Therefore, I look with the greatest possible apprehension on the situation, knowing that His Majesty's Government may be diminishing their popularity and diminishing their support in large portions of the coal mining districts, and possibly imperilling their existence, because I do feel that after this Government we shall be in the presence of something like political chaos. It is for this reason that I have risen to make these remarks, which were longer than I intended. I thank the House for listening to me. I do earnestly beg His Majesty's Government not to invite danger, not to invite disaffection and loss of seats, small majorities, and all those accidents which are the preludes to the dissolution of a Government, by persisting in the coal tax, which is newfangled and mischievous, and which cannot fail injuriously to affect the industry of the country.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid that as one who had strenuously and consistently opposed the war, not only after it commenced, but in

  849
  anticipation of it, he was able to look with a considerable amount of equanimity at the consternation exhibited by hon. Members on the other side who strenuously supported the Government and egged them on to the war. Now, when they are asked to pay for the war they begin to whine of the danger to their seats. They ought to have considered that before they egged the Government on to the disastrous course they entered upon. Instead of weakening the hands of the Government in imposing taxation to pay for the war, those who supported the war ought to strengthen the hands of the Government. Those who opposed it were entitled to oppose all payment for it; they were not responsible for the war; but those who were responsible were under an honourable obligation to support the Government, at the cost of popularity and their seats, in getting them out of the mess they had entered upon. The taxation of industries was always an unpopular measure, and it was always an undesirable measure, but if large expenditure was incurred it was always an unavoidable measure. But if they taxed industries they ought to find a method by which the burden would be universally and not locally felt. That was the strong objection to the coal duty in its present shape. If the duty was confined solely to the coal exported the burden would fall unequally. There were some coalfields whose output was almost entirely exported, while there were others that exported practically none. Those districts producing coal
  for export would be heavily taxed, and other districts not less responsible for the war would escape altogether. He would prefer that the tax should be made not an export duty but an Excise duty of 1s. per ton on all the coal produced in the country. It would then fall on the coal consumers, and that would be the entire country. Every householder—with the exception possibly of the very poorest class, who ought to be exempted, he meant the Crofters of the Highlands and Wales and the peat burners of Ireland—would feel the imposition of an Excise duty on coal. He entirely agreed with the view expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the working classes ought to be made to feel the burden of this war as well as any other class. They might be the victims of misrepresentation, like other parties, but they willingly fell into it, and they were as intollerant as any in not permitting a contrary expression of opinion to what they felt. He would like to draw the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention to a further point.
  This observation excited some laughter, as the Treasury Bench was at the time entirely deserted. The, hon. Member then moved to report progress.
  Motion made, and Question put. "That the Chairman do report progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Bryn Roberts.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 127; Noes, 171. [Division List No. 132.]

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Colville, John

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Gilhooly, James

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Grant, Corrie

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Cullinan, J.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Daly, James

  Hammond, John

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Bell, Richard

  Delany, William

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Boland, John

  Dillon, John

  Harwood, George

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Burt, Thomas

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Buxton, Sidney Charles

  Duffy, William J.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Caldwell, James

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Holland, William Henry

  Cawley, Frederick

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Jameson, Maj. J. Eustace

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Joicey, Sir James

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Field, William

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Joyce, Michael

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Labouchere, Henry

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Lambert, George

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northnts

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Strachey, Edward

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Lewis, John Herbert

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

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Lough, Thomas

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Thomas, Dav. Alfred (Merthyr

  Lundon, W.

  O'Dowd, John

  Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower)

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Thompson, E. C (Monaghan, N.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.

  Tompkinson, James

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  O'Malley, William

  Tully, Jasper

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  O'Mara, James

  Ure, Alexander

  M'Crae, George

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  O'Shee, James John

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  M'Govern, T.

  Partington, Oswald

  White, George (Norfolk)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Rea, Russell

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Minch, Matthew

  Reddy, M.

  Whiteley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Mooney, John J.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Murnaghan, George

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Murphy, J.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Mr. Bryn Roberts-and Mr. William Jones.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lawson, John Grant

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants. Fareham

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Dyke, Rt Hon. Sir William Hart

  Leighton, Stanley

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N S.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

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

  Finch, George H.

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

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Macartney, Rt Hn. W G Ellison.

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Flower, Ernest

  M'Calmont, Col. H. L. B. (Cambs.

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

  Gibbs, Hn AG H.(City of London

  Malcolm, Ian

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Bigwoud, James

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Bond, Edward

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow.

  Brassey, Albert

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Brookfield, Col. Montagu

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Depford

  Bull, William James

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Butcher, John George

  Groves, James Grimble

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Middx

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

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

  Hamilton, Manp of (L'nd'nderry

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

  Heath Arthur Howard (Hanley)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

  Parker, Gilbert

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Percy, Earl

  Colomb, Sir John Chas, Ready

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Pilkington, Richard

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hope, J F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Horner, Frederick William

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh.

  Purvis, Robert

  Denny, Colonel

  Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

  Randles, John S.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Remnant, James Farquharson.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

  Renwick, George

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Keswick, William

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (St'lybr'dge

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

  Doughty, George

  Lawrence, William F.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  852

  853

  Ropner, Col. Robert

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Rutherford, John

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Stroyan, John

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wyndham, Rt. Hn. George

  Seely, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Wason, John C. (Orkney)

  Younger, William

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Webb, Col. William George

  Smith, H. C. (N'rthb., Tyneside

  Whiteley, H (Asht'n-und-Lyne

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Sir William Walrond and

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

  Williams, Rt Hn J. Powell- (Bir.

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Spear, John Ward

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Original Question again proposed.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I am anxious to say that I think the hon. Gentleman opposite was under some misapprehension. I had not the slightest intention of showing any discourtesy to him. I was called out to speak to another hon. Member for one moment, and should have been here in another second.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid that he had not moved to report progress owing to the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, as he had been listening to the debate most patiently all the time, and he was quite aware that the light hon. Gentleman had gone out of the Chamber for a minute on business. But at this hour of the night, half-past ten o'clock, there ought to be some Member of the Government to represent the Government, and it was because there was no Member of the Government in the House that he moved to report progress. He had been dealing with the question of the coal duty. His contention was that there should be an Excise duty of 1s. per ton rather than an export duty, because then the burden would be felt generally, instead of by only a few coal dealers. An Excise duty of 1s. per ton would bring in no less a sum than eleven millions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The total output of coal last year was 220,000,000 tons, and an Excise duty of 1s. per ton on that amount would, as he had said, yield £11,000,000, which would be felt by the whole country. That was the only principle on which direct taxation should be levied. The only consistent course would be to select for taxation some article of universal consumption, and not confine it to one or
  854
  two industries of a local character. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that he would take into consideration the question of existing forward contracts. The hon. Member for King's Lynn suggested that contracts with foreign dealers should be cancelled, but he would point out that these contracts would not be enforced in this country by our courts of law, but would be taken to foreign courts, who would pay no attention whatever to our legislation. It was true that the contracts could not be enforced against property in this country, but they could against the property of the contractors abroad, such as stores and depots. The proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be absolutely futile. It operated successfully in the case of the tea duties, but it was because the tea was consumed in this country, and, therefore, the persons who took advantage of the breach of contract were subject to the jurisdiction of our courts.
  On the general question, the courage of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been deservedly recognised, but he could not compliment the right hon. Gentleman without qualification, for while the Chancellor had expounded courageously to the House the true facts of the case, when he came to grapple with the situation which resulted from those facts he did not display equal courage. What was the position? This lamentable war had cost us in round numbers £150,000,000; but did any man in or out of the House believe for a moment that, even if the whole mess was wiped up and the war stopped to-morrow, that sum would cover the whole cost? Why, the cost would be found to be at least
  £200,000,000. Now, how was that to be met? The Chancellor of the Exchequer very properly said that he would be no party to carrying on a war of this

  855
  kind and throwing the whole debt on to posterity. He ought to have gone further, and said that he would not throw the principal part of the cost on to posterity. He thought that the whole of the debt ought to be placed on the present generation. On what conceivable ground could it be said that this generation ought not to show as great a patriotic feeling as our fathers did in the days of the Crimean war? The timidity which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown in this respect was not his own timidity, but had been forced upon him by his colleagues, and indicated what was the real opinion of His Majesty's Government as to the popularity of the war. If they really believed in the patriotism of the country in making this war on the small and brave nation of Boers, and that the country thoroughly supported the war, why should they shrink from imposing the chief burden on the people? They shrank because they knew in their hearts that the patriotism was false and spurious, that it was not the better sense of the country, that if the country had time to realise its thoughts it would repudiate with indignation responsibility for the war. Hence the rushing of the elections, and if it had been possible they would have rushed the Budget. Unfortunately for them, the Bill would have to be met after the war was at an end. Only when the people have recovered their senses, and when the worthier portion of the community were able to make their voices heard, would there be seen the appalling disparity between the causes of the war and the consequences of the war. The cause of this war was simply a question of two years for the franchise for the Uitlanders. On what ground could the throwing of the greatest part of the cost of the war on to posterity be justified? It was said it was to maintain the Empire. No, it was not to maintain the Empire; it was to throw the expenditure caused by the blunders of the Government on to the shoulders of posterity. What right had they to throw the punishment of their mistakes on to unborn generations? Did anybody believe for a moment that if Mr. Gladstone had been alive, and if the Liberal party had been in office, and had been actuated and governed by the principles of Liberalism, this war would ever have
  856
  been undertaken? It would have been impossible. This war and the whole expenditure was due to the blunders of the Government, and the first blunder was the Jameson raid.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the hon. Member is entitled to go into that question in discussing the resolution before the Committee.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid that his point was that the war was due to causes that were avoidable, but supposing that even by the exercise of perfect wisdom it was unavoidable, it was not reasonable to put the cost of it on posterity. The whole initiative came from this country. By the admission of the Government, and of the Colonial Secretary himself, we interfered with the internal affairs of the Transvaal, a thing we had no right to do. And it was that interference on our part, at the instigation of big capitalists in South Africa who had the Colonial Secretary under their heel, it was owing to that criminal blunder that we were led into this war. Further than that, they would not have made that blunder had they not thought that the result would not be war. So that the whole expenditure of £150,000,000 was the disastrous result of a foolish attempt to bluff the Transvaal Government by the Government of the day. Why should posterity pay because we had a foolish Government which thought that they could serve the capitalists in South Africa by a little bluffing? Was not that unreasonable? He would go further, and say that if we threw this loan on posterity, posterity would be perfectly justified in repudiating it. He did not agree with Henry George in everything, but he did in this, that if a loan for the purpose of carrying on a wanton and wicked war was thrown on posterity, posterity would have a perfect right to repudiate it.
  He proposed to move an Amendment to the resolution. They had been reminded more than once that it was only right the Transvaal should pay a great part of the cost of the war. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not yet abandoned the hope that it would be made to do so. At any rate, he fancied

  857
  that the right hon. Gentleman wished to keep the hope alive, and, consequently, he desired to assist him in that very laudable undertaking. When he spoke of the Transvaal they would readily understand that what he really meant was the gold mines of the Transvaal, for there was no other taxable property in that country. What he had to propose was to leave out of the resolutions the words, "Consolidated stock within the meaning of the National Debt Conversion Act, 1888" in order to insert the words, "Transvaal Land Stock to be secured primarily by a charge on the assets of the Transvaal Colony and guaranteed by the United Kingdom." This would mean the creation of a 2¾ per cent. Transvaal Loan, and the floating of such a loan would be equally as easy as one based on the Consolidated Fund, because it would have behind it the guarantee of the British Government. At the same time it would constitute a notice to everybody concerned, and to the mine-owners in particular, that it was intended that in due time those gentlemen should pay a great part of the cost of the war. No doubt strong objection would be made by the South African capitalists to the proposal. They had already bad a book written and published for the express purpose of deprecating any attempt to
  throw this burden upon their shoulders. But it had been pointed out that, by their own admission, one result of this war would be a saving of five millions in the working of the mines. That was the minimum benefit which they themselves anticipated deriving from the war, and that in itself represented a capital sum nearly sufficient to pay two-thirds of the cost of the war. But was it reasonable that they should sacrifice nothing but the increased profits which they expected to accrue to them from the war? His answer to that was an emphatic negative. He held that, if possible, every shilling of the expense should fall upon their shoulders, seeing that they instigated the war, and that it was entered into entirely in consequence of the agitation which they organised, financed and buoyed up in every possible way. They exercised influence in high quarters in this country in order to support their schemes. True, the result might be that their anticipations might be falsified. Indeed, a
  858
  good many anticipations had been falsified in the course of this war. At first it was thought that ten millions sterling would cover all the necessary outlay, and that three months would be the outside of time required for bringing the war to a conclusion. There was not a single miscalculation made by the Government that was not put practically into their mouths by the capitalists of South Africa. It was said that the Boer Army was small and ill-equipped for the conflict. That bubble had certainly been pricked. Who was it that said that? Was it the Army Intelligence Department? No, it was Mr. Cecil Rhodes. They were told, too, that the Boer Army would not fight. True, they did not fight until they had exhausted every effort to avert and avoid war. They made concession after concession, they reduced the franchise qualification from fourteen years to nine years and even to seven years—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I fail to see what these remarks of the hon. Member have to do with the Amendment.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid he was asking that the capitalists who led the country into the war by their misrepresentations should be made, as far as possible, to pay the cost of it. He was showing that they were responsible for the war, and that they were the men who ought to pay. He was asking the House to make the loan a primary charge upon their properties. He was proving to the Committee that they were the people responsible for making the representations which led the Government into the war, and he was suggesting that they and not the innocent British taxpayer should bear the burden. He was arguing that every miscalculation which had resulted in great loss of life and treasure to this country was due to the misrepresentations of the Transvaal capitalists. Why then should they not pay? He quite recognised what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said with regard to the probability that they would get no immediate help from the Transvaal in the payment, of the cost of the war. But, at the same time, he held that they should show their determination to throw the entire burden on the mines, even although

  859
  they might not be able to recover a single shilling for two or three years. There was no reason why the stock should not now be created as Transvaal stock, and the liability at once placed upon the colony. It was true that the interest for this year, next year, and the year after might not be paid by the colony, and that this country might have to pay a large proportion of it for a great number of years. But that was no reason whatever why the burden should not be placed primarily upon the colony. Among the inducements held out in order to induce the Boers to surrender was the promise to give them representative government at the earliest practicable moment. Nobody supposed that the grant of such a government could be made coincident with the conclusion of the war. But the liability for the payment of the debt should at once be placed on the right shoulders. Unless the burden was now definitely placed upon the Transvaal, was it likely that, when representative government had been given and Home Rule practically established, this country would be able to induce the Colonial Government to take over the debt? They certainly would not do it willingly, and in the event of their refusal, how would it be possible to make them accept the liability? Could we do it by force? We had had some experience of that in the past, and he did not think that that experience was such as to induce a revival of the experiment. It was necessary that Parliament should make clear its determination to compel the mineowners to pay the expense. They might grumble and groan as much as they pleased, but the taxpayers of this country were fully justified in compelling them to bear the consequences of their own misdeeds. It might be argued that many of the shareholders in the mines were not British subjects. He did not know how many of them might be the subjects of Germany or France. The more the better, so far as he was concerned, for his contention was that if they chose to entrust their money to the
  people who engineered this atrocious war their property should be made to pay the cost of it. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 5, paragraph (a), to leave out the words from the words 'per cent.,' to the end of the paragraph, in order to insert the words 'Transvaal Loan Stock to be secured primarily by a charge on the assets of the Transvaal Colony and guaranteed by the United Kingdom.'"—(Mr. Bryn Roberts.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Member desires by this Amendment to place the loan, which it is necessary now to raise, upon the mine-owners or capitalists or other persons in the Transvaal whom he considers the authors of the war.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Primarily.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Primarily, but I do not want to discuss that matter at all. I am as anxious as the hon. Member can be that those who own the wealth of the Transvaal should make a contribution, as I have always said, towards the expenses of the war. But let me point out to the Committee that the object of the hon. Member will not be gained by passing this Amendment, through which he would get nothing from these mine-owners or capitalists, or from the wealth which they own. I was obliged to admit last night that the Transvaal at present is not in a condition to pay anything towards this loan, or even to pay the interest on it.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: For a year or two.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Quite so, but it cannot at present, and therefore there is no question of charging the Transvaal or anybody in the Transvaal at present in this matter. The effect of substituting a 2¾ Transvaal stock for an Imperial Government security would be to saddle the taxpayers of this country with a much larger charge than I have ventured to propose to the House. It is very well known to any one who studies these things that English Government stocks command a much higher price in

  861
  the market than the stocks which merely have the guarantee of the English Government, and the effect of the hon. Member's proposal, therefore, would be that we should have to issue this stock at a lower rate than we issue the security of the kind I propose. But more than this. I venture to
  say it would be deluding the public. What is the use of issuing a security which is nominally a charge on the Transvaal for the cost of the war at a moment when we know that the Transvaal cannot pay the interest? I do trust that the Committee will not sanction any such suggestion as the hon. Member has made. It is in the interest of the taxpayers that we should raise the loan on the best terms we can—that is, on our own credit. I can assure the hon. Member that I have so arranged the borrowing which has hitherto taken place that it is necessary from time to time during the next ten years for those borrowings to come under review by Parliament, and then, of course, will be the time for any contribution obtainable from the Transvaal to be obtained. May I make an appeal to the Committee? I trust we may be permitted at any rate to come to a decision on the Amendment without delay and to pass this resolution this evening. Last night I appealed to the Committee to pass the resolution then, but in deference to an appeal from the hon. Member for Waterford I did not press it, thinking it quite reasonable that further time should be given for the discussion. But the position is this. Of course I was obliged in my Budget speech to announce the fact that I proposed to go to the market for a considerable loan, and directly that announcement is made by a Chancellor of the Exchequer all kinds of rumours get about and all kinds of dealings and speculations take place, and there are persons who make it their interest to lower certain stocks to the utmost possible point in order that they may be able to obtain any new loan more cheaply. I cannot put it too strongly to the Committee in the interests of the public and of the taxpayers of the country that they should come to a decision upon this resolution to-night. I cannot as Chancellor of the Exchequer take the responsibility of holding the matter back any
  862
  longer. It is necessary for us to act upon this. If the Committee consider that the Amendment is preferable to my proposal, let them accept it, or, if they decline to sanction the issue of the loan, let the resolution be rejected; but I entreat the Committee to come to a decision to-night.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that evey Member of the House of course recognised that the passing of this resolution was only the first step, and it did not imply they would have no further opportunities for discussing the subject. It had already been announced that on the following Tuesday the matter would be brought up on Report, and in addition to that, other opportunities would arise for discussing the various stages of the Bill which would have to be introduced. While he entertained the strongest possible opinion against the whole policy of the resolution, he could not, in fairness, deny that the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a reasonable one. Hon. Members in every quarter of the House were under a great obligation to the right hon. Gentleman for the perfect candour and courage with which he had put the full facts of the financial situation before the House, and, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's appeal, he certainly should advise his hon. friends around him not to prolong the discussion. But, having met the right hon. Gentleman in that fair spirit, he thought he was entitled to make an appeal to the Leader of the House on another matter. It had been intimated that there was an intention to take the next stage of the Army Annual Bill that night. The Bill was one which involved considerable discussion, and he hoped that the Government would allow it to stand over instead of making it necessary to sit after midnight. With regard to the Amendment which had been moved by the hon. Member for the Eifion
  Division, while he was in entire sympathy with every opinion he expressed, and while he had the highest possible respect for him, he was bound to say that he did not think the Amendment would have the effect of competing the mine-owners to pay the cost of the war.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member for Waterford has most fairly met the appeal of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With regard to the appeal which he has made to me, although it is important that we should get on with the Army Annual Bill, I am very unwilling to put any unreasonable pressure upon hon. Members, and if the House will allow the Bill to pass up to the point on which it is non-controversial, we might then move to report pro-progress.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: When will it be resumed? Will it be on Monday, and, if so, will it be taken before Twelve o'clock?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It must pass before the end of the month. I will do my best to bring it on at as early an hour as possible.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I be allowed to say that if there is really no controversial matter before Clause 4, the right hon. Gentleman will gain nothing by getting these clauses. I do not know whether there is any matter requiring discussion in the clauses before Clause 4, but I really think the right hon. Gentleman would not be endangering the rapid and convenient passage of the Bill by letting the whole matter stand over.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Gentleman tells me he has no desire to—if I may use the term—obstruct, I am quite prepared to meet him, and will accept his statemnt.
  MR. BAYLEY: I rise to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he had taken the same excellent advice in the case of coal as he did in the case of sugar—
  THE CHAIRMAN: An Amendment having been moved, the discussion must be confined to that until it is disposed of.
  MR. LOUGH: As my hon. friend has got a sympathetic answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, perhaps
  864
  he would be good enough to withdraw his Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has treated the subject very satisfactorily, and he has pledged himself over and over again to get all the money he can out of the Transvaal I do not believe he will be able to get anything out of it, but I think it would be unfair to load the taxpayers now with the large interest which would be the result of adopting the Amendment of my hon. friend. I would therefore appeal to him to withdraw it, in order that something may be said about the resolution itself in the short time now left to us.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question with reference to the matter raised by the Amendment? He has told us that it is his intention to make the Transvaal goldfields pay a substantial contribution towards the cost of the war. Assuming the Transvaal becomes a Crown Colony, will the right hon. Gentleman say how he purposes to collect any contribution which he may levy on the goldfields in the Transvaal? Has he thought of any means by which the proposed contribution would be levied apart from that suggested in the Amendment of my hon. friend? If he has, of course that would simplify matters very considerably, but unless he has some scheme it seems to me that some such safeguard as that embodied in the Amendment is absolutely indispensable. As has been pointed out, we have no power to enforce taxation on a colony of the Crown, and no power to collect it even if we sought to enforce it, and in the event of these patriotic mine-owners refusing to pay the contribution asked from them, what steps will be taken to forestall them, in the possible contingency of their refusal, by obtaining some lien over the still untouched wealth of the goldfields of the Transvaal? The question seems to me to be one of considerable moment, and I trust the right hon. Baronet may enable my hon. friend to withdraw his Amendment by giving the House some assurance that his desire to obtain a contribution towards the cost of the war from the Transvaal goldfields is something more than a desire.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Member is asking me to cook the hare before I have caught it. He must remember that in the first instance the Transvaal will, of course, be a Crown Colony under the Imperial Government, and it will be for the Imperial Government to deal with the matter as soon as the finances of the Transvaal are able to bear it. Of course, when a more responsible Government is given to the Transvaal, arrangements will have to be made in the matter, as has frequently been done. There will be no difficulty in the matter.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: As this will not be the last war loan, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give us an assurance that, in the event of further money being raised, the particular way in which this sixty millions is to be raised will not be treated as a precedent, and that the hands of the Government will be free to deal with the matter as circumstances arise.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have often been found fault with for the variety of ways in which I have borrowed, on the unfortunately numerous occasions on which I have been obliged to go into the money market for loans. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the fact that I am borrowing in a particular way now will not be treated as a precedent for the future.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I am afraid unless we look a little more carefully into the matter these toads will be able to get outside the harrow; but my hon. friend should remember that we will, on a future occasion, be able to take a vote on his Amendment. At the present moment, undoubtedly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made an excellent case why the resolution should be passed before twelve o'clock, and it seems to me that my hon. friend would consult his own views and the views of the many who agree with him if he would not take a division to-night, but bring forward the question on a future occasion.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I desire to withdraw the Amendment, and, in
  866
  doing so, I wish to state that I do not withdraw in any sense or form from my determination to get if possible this money from the Transvaal. I may say that, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a member of a Tory Government. I have some amount of confidence in his declaration that he will make every effort to get this money from the Transvaal. I recollect the very sturdy speech, he delivered when Mr. Cecil Rhodes endeavoured to get the cost of his railway from this country, and I hope he will be equally determined in this matter.
  Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. BAYLEY: I am now in order in speaking on the question of the export duty on coal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not get the same advice in regard to coal as he did with regard to sugar. The question of coal was not as well thought out. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer really realise how far-reaching this duty on coal will be? Whose interests is it going to affect? It will affect the interests of the miners, the mine-owners, the railways, and the owners of ports, and harbours in this country, and will also affect very much the interests of Manchester and the Ship Canal. The coal export trade is a struggling one in many of our new ports, and I sympathise very much with the hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn, who knows perfectly well that if this duty is carried on the lines proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer there is not the slightest chance of any supporter of the Government being again returned for King's Lynn.
  I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at the effect of his proposals. Take a place like Port Said Coal sent there from this country will have to pay this duty, and will have to compete with Australian coal, so that actually if this duty is carried we will be putting Australia in a far better position than ourselves. The same applies to our other colonies. It would have been far better if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken a bolder

  867
  course, for there is always safety in boldness, and made the income tax 1s. 4d. That would have been more satisfactory to the country. Take my own constituency. It is a large mining constituency and exports a great deal of coal which goes through the Manchester Ship Canal to all parts of the world. If this duty is passed the quantity of coal exported will decrease from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. I think the ratepayers of the city of Manchester, who have a very large interest in the Canal, will have something to say as to why this money could not have been found in a way which would not inflict such an injury on Manchester and the Ship Canal. My constituency—Chesterfield and the neighbourhood—is more or less dependent on the mines, and if this duty is passed the value of the mines will go down from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. If that goes on for three or four years the value of property in Chesterfield will decrease from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. It is a very serious matter to cripple in this manner one of the fundamental industries of the country. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider this question, and that he will think out some other means of finding the money required. The present proposal is certain to be exceedingly unpopular in the country.
  MR LOUGH: I think it is a great pity that the suggestion which I understood you, Sir, to make yesterday, and which I think commended itself to the First Lord of the Treasury and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was not more strictly carried out this evening. I thought when we discussed sugar and coal last night that these subjects would be then postponed, so that we might have an opportunity of discussing this very important resolution. The hon. Member for King's Lynn, however, devoted himself almost exclusively to the subjects which were discussed last night, but I should now like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a few words of explanation with regard to the steps he intends to take on this important matter. I myself was not able to join in the very enthusiastic congratulations made on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's
  868
  statement last night. He said, however, that he would not be the man to come to the House and ask for power to borrow an undue proportion of any charge for war, and he suggested that as long as he was Chancellor of the Exchequer he would insist on raising a fair proportion of the sum required for war from taxation. Now, I challenge the right hon. Gentleman as to whether he has done so on the present occasion. I will take an immediate test. Last year we were also at war, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a deficit of thirty-seven millions. He insisted on raising twelve and a half millions, or a third, by taxation. This year he has a deficit of fifty-five millions, and he proposes to raise eleven millions, or one-fifth, by taxation, so that he is borrowing four-fifths this year, whereas he only borrowed two-thirds last year. The main point I wish to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is this. He has created a great deal of discontent in financial circles in London by the way in which he has raised money up to the present time. He has had Exchequer bonds, Treasury bills, and war loans, but I think the present proposal is the worst of all. The right hon. Gentleman claims the right to take one large loan in Consols instead of short loans. Anyone familiar with the City knows that there is a great deal of discontent at the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has raised his money. The story is that, having taken advice through the usual channels, and having got a unanimous opinion, he did exactly the opposite. The result has been that within the last year or two we have seen the most alarming fall in securities, especially consols, that we have had in this country for a generation or two. Consols have fallen
  20 per cent. during the last few years, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must acknowledge that he is responsible to a large extent for this unfortunate circumstance. The question of the price of Consols is of great importance, because it affects other securities, and the alarming fall in Consols has brought down home railways and every other good security. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might do something to avoid increasing the evil. The advice he got was to raise the money by a plain addition to the National

  869
  Debt. The mistake he made in the earlier stages of the war was to take too hopeful a view of the situation; now, I believe, he takes rather too pessimistic a view The right hon. Gentleman has had plenty of temporary loans, and I think the Committee might have an assurance from him that he would raise the money now required by a simple addition to the National Debt. At any rate the market would like a definite announcement as to the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At present no one knows what he intends to do, and surely he
  ought to take the Committee into his confidence.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: If I could take the Committee into my confidence without also taking everyone else into my confidence, I should be glad to do so; but at present I think I had better keep my own counsel.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 186; Noes. 117. (Division List No. 133.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Leighton, Stanley

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Finch, George H.

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

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

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

  Eitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Macartney, Rt. Hn W. G. Ellison

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Forster, Henry William

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Banbury, Frederick George

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

  M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  M'Calmont, Col. H. L B (Cambs.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriessh.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Bill, Charles

  Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rfi'mlt's

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Bond, Edward

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Kings Lynn

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Brassey, Albert

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'y)

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Bull, William James

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Muntz, Philip A.

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

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Midx

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nde'y)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Chamberlain, Rt Hon. J. (Birm.)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore.

  Harris, E. Leverton (Tynemth.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Charrington, Spencer

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Percy, Earl

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Henderson, Alexander

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Price, Robert John

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Purvis, Robert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Randles, John S. G.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Renwick, George

  Denny, Colonel

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Joicey, Sir James

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon Sir John H.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Keswick, William

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Dorrington, Sir John Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Doughty, George

  Lawrence, William F.

  Round, James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lawson, John Grant

  Rutherford, John

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B; Stuart

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Smith, H. C (N'th'mb., Tyneside

  Wason, John C. (Orkney)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

  Webb, Col. Wm. George

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

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

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u-Lyne

  Younger, William

  Spear, John Ward

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Sir William Walrond and

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Stroyan, John

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  NOES.

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

  Hammond, John

  O'Kelly, James (Rossc'mm'n N.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Malley, William

  Allen, C. P. (Glouc, Stroud)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Mara, James

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale

  O'Shee, James John

  Harry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Partington, Oswald

  Boland, John

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Brigg, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E

  Rea, Russell

  Burt, Thomas

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Reddy, M.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Caldwell, James

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lambert, George

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Leamy, Edmund

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Colville, John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (North'nts

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cremer, William Randal

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Cullinan, J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Thomas, David Alfred Merthyr

  Daly, James

  M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

  Thomas, J. A. (Gl'm'rg'n, Gower

  Delany, William

  M'Crae, George

  Thompson, E. C. (Monaghan, N.

  Dillon, John

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Tomkinson, James

  Donelan, Captain A.

  M'Govern, T.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Doogan, P. C.

  Minch, Matthew

  Tully, Jasper

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Mooney, John J.

  Ure, Alexander

  Duffy, Wm. J.

  Murnaghan, George

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Murphy, J.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Norman, Henry

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Field, William

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Mr. Lough and Mr. Schwann.

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  O'Dowd, John

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  It being after midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday
  872
  next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.
  Adjourned at a quarter after Twelve of the clock till Monday next.