Sitting of 23 April 1901

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
  King's consent signified. Read the third time, and passed.
  TAFF VALE RAILWAY BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  COLWYN BAY AND COLWYN URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL. (BY ORDER.)
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  LONDON UNDERGROUND RAILWAYS. (BY ORDER.)
  Ordered, That a Select Committee of Five Members be appointed to join with the Committee of the Lords on London Underground Railways as desired by their Lordships.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
  Ordered, That Sir William Arrol, Mr. Ashton, Mr. Cawley, Sir Michael Foster, and Sir John Dickson-Poynder be Members of the Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and resords.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
    METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (HAM) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (ORPINGTON) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP H).
MR. ARTHUR ELLIOTreported from the Committee on Group H of Private Bills, That the parties promoting the Dublin Equalisation of Rates Bill had stated that the evidence of John Mallon was essential to their case; and, it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said John Mallon do attend the said Committee on Monday next, at Twelve of the clock.
Ordered, That John Mallon do attend the Committee on Group H of Private Bills on Monday next, at Twelve of the clock.

HORLEY DISTRICT GAS BILL, AND CRAWLEY GAS BILL, CONSOLIDATED INTO "THE HORLEY DISTRICT GAS BILL."
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Committee:—

1. "That, in the case of the North British Railway Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to introduce their additional Provision, if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

2. "That, in the case of the Barry Railway, Petition for Bill, the Standing
1058
Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

3. "That, in the case of the West and South London Junction Railway Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that the following Clause be inserted:—

Nothing in this Act shall authorise the West and South London Junction Railway Company to enter upon, take, or use (except by agreement) any cellar or vault in or under any street belonging to or connected with any building, or the sub-soil under such cellar or vault, unless such cellar or vault, or the building with which it is connected, is described in the deposited books of reference.

And also a Clause to the effect that they shall not take or use (except by agreement) not only the cellars or vaults belonging to or occupied by the memorialists. His Grace the Duke of Northumberland, K.G., the Right Hon. the Lord Iveagh, K.P., the Hon. William Frederick Danvers Smith, M.P., but also the sub-soil under such cellars or vaults.

That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

4. "That, in the case of the Winsford Urban District Gas, Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."

5. "That, in the case of the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway, Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."

6. "That, in the case of the North British Railway Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 129 in the case of the Petition of Sir James Sivewright against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."

7. "That, in the case of the Great Central Railway Bill, Petition for addi-

1059
tional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to introduce their additional Provision, if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

Resolutions agreed to.

BARRY RAILWAY.
Report [this day] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alfred Thomas and Mr. David Thomas.

SHANNON WATER AND ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings taken before the Committee on the Shannon Water and Electric Power Bill, 1899, be referred to the Committee on Group H on the above-named Bill.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Sheffield District Railway Company to raise additional capital by the creation and issue of debenture stock for the purposes of their undertaking." [Sheffield District Railway Bill [Lords].
SHEFFIELD DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  BEER BILL
  Petition from Hereford, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
  Petition from Monmouthshire, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (HIGHER GRADE AND EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS).
  Petitions for alteration of Law, from Bradford; and Aspatria; to lie upon the Table,
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL
  Petitions in favour, from Staines; Dorking; Weardale; Burton on Trent; Twrcelyn; Menai Bridge; and Norwich; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING ACTS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition of Royal, Parliamentary, and Police Burghs of Scotland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Carluke, against; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL
  Petitions against, from Plymouth; and Selby; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL
  Petitions in favour, from Waverley; Brook; Varteg; Pwllbach; Poynton; Cwauncaegurwen; Treeton; Nunnery (No. 1); Penrhier and Woodfield; Park Lane; Cannock Chase; Chase Town; Brereton (No. 2); Ashton Moss; Bagworth; West Cannock (No. 1); Oakwell; Balgonie; Westfield; Lumphinnans; Halbeath and Kingseat; Lassodie; Windygates; Crossgates; Methilhill; West Wemyss; Rosebank; Kelty; Lochore; Donibristle; and Cardenden Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Cathcart, against; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL
  Petitions against, from Rochester; Whitchurch; Berkhampstead; Reading (two); Shrewsbury; Derby; Osgold-cross; Nottingham; Westbury-on-Trym; Thornbury; Hawkesbury Upton; Chipping Sodbury; Morley; Oldland Common; Birmingham; Fishponds; Idle; Upper Hackney; Matlock Bridge; Matlock Town; Hartle-

  1061
  pool; Kingswood; and Hythe; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour, from Rotherham; Derby; London; Sheffield (two); Halifax (four); Rhayader; Swansea; Gorseion; (two) Llansamlet; Goole; Masham; Rothesay; Failsworth; Hallifield; Plaistow; Stanwix; and Royal, Parliamentary, and Police Burghs of Scotland; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL
  Petitions in favour, from Sheffield; Epsom; Halifax; and Queensbury to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Petitions in favour, from Lochmaben; Annan; Barry; Thornliebank (five); Cathcart; Lonmay; Rathen; Kinning Park; Lesmahagow; Dunfermline; Logie Port; and Swinton; to lie upon the Table
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  ALIENS
  Address for "Return showing the names of all Aliens to whom Certificates of Naturalisation have been issued, and who have taken the oath of allegiance, between the 1st day of January, 1900, and the 31st day of December, 1900, giving the country and place of residence of the person naturalised, and including information as to any Aliens who have during the same period obtained Acts of Naturalisation from the Legislature (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 113, of Session 1 of 1900)."—(Mr. Jesse Callings.)

  IMPRISONMENT OF A MEMBER-MR. PATRICK ALOYSIUS M'HUGH.
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had received the following letter from the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland relating to the imprisonment of Mr.
  1062
  Patrick Aloysius M'Hugh, a Member of this House:—
  In the High Court of Justice in Ireland,
  King's Bench Division,
  Four Courts, Dublin,
  22nd April, 1901
  Sir,—I have the honour to inform you that Mr. Patrick Aloysius M'Hugh, Member of Parliament for North Leitrim, having been prosecuted by the Right Honourable the Attorney General for Ireland, by ex officio information, for publishing in his newspaper the Sligo Champion certain seditious libels charged as calculated to prejudice and affect the administration of Justice, and having been found guilty was this day sentenced by me to six calendar months imprisonment as a first-class misdemeanant for such offence, and committed to Kilmainham Prison accordingly.
  I have the honour to be, Sir,
  Your obedient Servant
  Brien,
  Lord Chief Justice of Ireland
  To the Right Honourable
  The Speaker of the House of Commons
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I be allowed to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, as a matter of privilege, it will be competent for me to draw the attention of the House to the circumstances of the conviction.
  MR. SPEAKER: No; not in the case of a criminal conviction.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Under those circumstances I will presently ask the First Lord of the Treasury to put the Attorney General for Ireland's salary down for discussion on an early date.
  MR. SPEAKER: Notice of that question must be given in the ordinary way.

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—JAMESON RAID—POSITION OF THE CHARTERED COMPANY,
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the assets of the late Transvaal Government which he is advised do not pass to His Majesty's Government, for example, the claim against the Chartered Company in respect of the Jameson Raid, will be made available to meet pro tanto the just and lawful liabilities of the late Transvaal Government incurred before the outbreak of hostilities; and how His Majesty's Government

  1063
  propose to deal with the proportion of these liabilities which may not be met out of such assets.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have already pointed out that such assets cannot be made available. With regard to the just and lawful liabilities of the late Transvaal Government, in so far as they are just and legal liabilities against his Majesty's Government, they will be recognised to the extent to which they can be fulfilled out of the revenue of the Transvaal.
  MR. BLACK: Does the answer to the first paragraph apply equally to such assets as arrears of taxation and arrears of royalties?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That point does not arise out of the question.

  MR. MERRIMAN'S LETTER OF 14TH NOVEMBER, 1899.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Hon. J. X. Merriman, who has been a Cabinet Minister in several Governments at the Cape, from his place in the Legislative Assembly of Cape Colony moved on 17th September for information as to the methods by which his private letter, dated 14th November, 1899, came into the hands of the British authorities and was published in a Parliamentary Paper issued by the Colonial Office on 23rd August, and that Sir Gordon Sprigg, the Prime Minister of Cape Colony, promised a post office inquiry; and what was the result of that inquiry.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The manner in which the letter came into the hands of Sir Alfred Milner is described as follows in a Parliamentary Paper presented to the Cape Parliament—
  "All that the Governor knows about the matter is that this letter fell into the hands of the military authorities after the second occupation of Dordrecht, and was sent to him in the same way as other correspondence captured from the enemy…. The idea that the letter was intercepted in the post is entirely erroneous."
  1064
  This statement was made at a later date than the promise of a post office inquiry, and the information it contains appears to have rendered that inquiry unnecessary.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Did the right hon. Gentleman himself suggest to Sir Gordon Sprigg that it should be merely a post office inquiry?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly not.

  COST OF THE WAR.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the approximate war cost of £1,500,000 per week is in addition to the ordinary expenditure on the military services.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): Yes, Sir.

  LORD ROBERTS'S TELEGRAMS.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether there would be any and if so what objection to laying upon the Table of the House of Commons a reprint of the various telegrams, not primarily designed for publication, which Lord Roberts sent to the late Secretary of State for War in the course of the campaign, having regard to the difficulty incidental to the comprehension of the despatches without the aid of the telegrams.
  MR. BRODRICK: I cannot undertake to publish telegrams which have passed, nor am I aware of any telegrams despatched by Lord Roberts to the late Secretary of State for War, not primarily designed for publication, which would facilitate the comprehension of despatches as suggested by the hon. Member.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: IS the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Roberts's despatch about Paardeberg consists of twelve lines only?
  [No answer was given.]

  MEAT CONTRACTS.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown was taken with reference to the action of the South African Cold Storage Company in supplying troops in the field with 2,250,000 lb. of frozen meat instead of freshly-killed meat, under the terms of the contract entered into on the 27th October, 1899.
  I beg also to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the contract with the South African Cold Storage Company, dated the 27th October, 1900, was entered into in this country or in South Africa.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): The reply to the first question is in the negative. The reply to the second is that the contract was made in South Africa.

  AID FOR DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
  MR. LEVY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Private S. Groves, 5,046, 1st Battalion Leicestershire Regiment, who contracted enteric at Lombard Kopt and was discharged from Netley in November last as unfit for further service, has up to the present been in receipt of only 1s. per day, although still unable to walk without the aid of a stick and altogether incapacitated for employment, and if there is any special reason in this case why the 2s. 6d. per day to which he is entitled on the authority of the Paymaster-General has not been paid.
  LORD STANLEY: The man is reported by the medical authorities as partially able to earn a livelihood. At the time of his discharge 1s. a day was the maximum rate provided by the Royal Warrant, but under a new regulation he is now eligible for a rate of 1s. 6d. His case is one of a large number which are being considered as rapidly as possible.

  RETURN OF TROOPS.
  MR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary
  1066
  of State for War whether he can hold out any hopes of immediately relieving the Militia regiments now serving and who have been serving in South Africa for more than twelve months.
  MR. BRODRICK: In view of the arrival of four fresh battalions of Militia who volunteered for service in South Africa, Lord Kitchener has intimated to us that he is sending home 6th Battalion Warwickshire, 4th Battalion Derbyshire, 3rd Battalion Durham Light Infantry, which were the first three battalions to embark, and the 4th Battalion Scottish Rifles, which is relieved by the 3rd Battalion of the same regiment.
  MR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can hold out any hopes of immediately relieving the different companies of the Imperial Yeomanry now serving and who have been serving in South Africa for more than twelve months.
  LORD STANLEY: I am not at present in a position to state when the Imperial Yeomanry companies can be relieved. Special consideration has been shown in cases of hardship reported by commanding officers.

  MILITARY COURTS OF INQUIRY.
  MR SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that non-commissioned officers and men punished for offences and dissatisfied with the award of the commanding officer are entitled to demand trial by court-martial, whereas officers aggrieved by the action of the authorities, taken after the consideration of the proceedings of a court of inquiry, are not entitled to trial by court-martial if they should desire it; and whether, having regard to the fact that courts of inquiry can be and are held in the absence of the accused, who are at times not informed of the evidence brought before them or of the gravamen of the charge of which they have been found guilty and condemned, the privilege of open trial by court-martial will be accorded to officers who demand it.
  MR. BRODRICK: I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to a very similar question put by my hon. friend the Member for Chester on the 28th February.†

  LINKED BATTALIONS.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether in the Government scheme of reorganisation the system of linked battalions, one battalion in each regiment being liable to be sent abroad, will be adhered to.
  MR. BRODRICK: Yes, Sir, so far as two-battalion regiments are concerned.
  MR. BLACKwas understood to ask if the answer applied to army corps designed for purely home defence.
  MR. BRODRICK: That would not affect the linked battalions.

  ARMY REORGANISATION—HIGHLAND REGIMENTS.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in the Government scheme of army reorganisation, the Highland regiments will all be attached to the army corps having its headquarters in Edinburgh.
  MR. BRODRICK: No pledge can be given, but the desirability of quartering Scotch regiments in Scotland will not be lost sight of.

  CHINA—COMMAND OF ALLIED FORCES—CORRESPONDENCE.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will he state when the Correspondence embodying the negotiations between Great Britain and the Bowers with reference to the affairs of the Generalissimo of the Allied forces in China will be published; and whether he can state the reasons on which the objections of the Powers to an English Officer as
  Generalissimo were based.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,): Corre-
  † See Debates, Vol. xc, page 27.
  1068
  spondence on this subject will be found in China No. 1, 1901, pages 60 to 74. No question of a British Commander-in-Chief was ever brought forward.

  FIGHTING IN CENTRAL ARABIA.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAG-GREE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to the effect that a battle has been fought between the followers of Mubarek, the Sheikh of Koweit, and Ibu Raschid, the original ruler of Nejd, in Central Arabia, and that about 5,000 men were killed; and can he state whether Ibu Raschid has recovered his kingdom of Nejd; and whether he has any information regarding the fate of Mubarek.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: According to the information which has reached His Majesty's Government, a fight is reported to have taken place on the 17th of March last between the forces of Mubarek, the Sheik of Koweit, and those of Ibu Raschid, the Ameer of Nejd. The losses are said to have been heavy on both sides, but no details have transpired. Mubarek, who is now at Koweit, is said to have been defeated. The Ameer of Nejd is at Boreyda, a place in Nejd near which the battle was fought.

  KHORAT RAILWAY CONTRACT.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if compensation has been obtained from the Siamese Government for Messrs. Jardine, Matheson, and Co., who were forcibly ejected in August, 1896, by that Government from their contract known as the Khorat Railway Contract; and if he will state the total amount obtained and also the amount offered in full settlement by the Siamese Government and refused by Messrs. Jardine, Matheson, and Co.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The contractor for the Bangkok-Khorat Railway was Mr. G. Murray Campbell, and the dispute between him and the Siamese Government in regard to the execution and cancellation of the contract was

  1069
  referred to the arbitration of Sir Edward Clarke, whose decision was announced on the 28th ultimo. I will inquire whether there is any objection to publishing the terms of the award. We have no information of any previous offer being made by the Siamese Government and refused by the contractor.

  THE NEW SUGAR DUTY
  MR. GODDARD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state how his new taxation would apply in the case of a merchant who has sold to a brewer sugar for delivery weekly during 1901, and can he state who will have to pay the duty; and how will his proposed new duty apply in the case of a merchant who has sold to a brewers' sugar maker raw sugar for forward delivery; will the brewers' sugar maker be obliged to accept delivery notwithstanding the fact that raw sugar will no longer be available for brewers' use, owing to the duty which puts it at a disadvantage in comparison with malt and flaked maize.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): In the case referred to in paragraph one the merchant who imports the sugar will pay the duty, but will be entitled to increase his contract price with the brewer by the amount of the duty. The imposition of the duty will not entitle the brewers' sugar maker to break his contract. I cannot admit the assumption that the result of the duty will be to render raw sugar no longer available for brewing.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether with a view to avoid the further dislocation of many trades now occasioned by the Customs delaying delivery of consignments pending analysis for duty purposes, he will consider the possibility of accepting declarations by the producers in the country of origin as to the amount of added sugar, subject to occasional checking by the Customs Laboratory.
  I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether be is aware that the
  1070
  Customs are assessing and collecting duty on condensed milk upon the assumption that the full bulk weight comprises sugar, whereas the quantity contained is far less than half the amount charged, and whether he will take immediate action to prevent the continuance of this action.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: So far as the Customs is concerned, no delay is taking place in the delivery of imported articles subject to the new sugar duties. In regard to the sugar not cleared at the highest rate, the foreign certificate of polarisation is accepted, subject to no question arising as to authenticity. In regard to articles partly composed of sugar, I do not think such declarations could be accepted; duty is at present being charged, in accordance with the law, on their full weight—among them is condensed milk. But samples of such articles are being taken in order that the amount of duty on them may in such a case be ultimately adjusted as far as may be possible with reference to the amount of sugar, under powers which will be inserted in the Finance Bill.
  MR. KEARLEY: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman make it a little more clear?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: We have to act under the Customs Tariff Act, 1876. We cannot fix the duty until the amount of sugar in the articles has been ascertained. Samples are now being taken, and we shall soon be in a position to come to a decision.
  MR. KEARLEY: Am I to understand that every article which comes into the country will be charged the full sugar duty on its total bulk?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: When the matter has been properly adjusted, any over duty will be returned. We are obliged, in accordance with the law, to charge articles on their full weight.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it in accordance with the law? Does the Act of 1876 not prescribe that as to an article containing spirit the duty shall be levied on the spirit? Has the

  1071
  right hon. Gentleman seen the schedule of the Act?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes, Sir.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Shall I read it for him?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: On this point I think I know as much as the hon. Member. The schedule of the Act of 1876 has two provisions—one relating to spirit and one relating to all other articles. The duty with regard to spirit is charged on the amount of spirit, and the duty on all other articles is charged on the weight. I assure the hon. Member that the delay will not be as great as he imagines.
  MR. KEARLEY: May I ask—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! This matter cannot be discussed in the form of questions across the floor of the House.

  THE NEW COAL DUTY—AGRICULTURAL LAND RATING ACT.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the objections to the proposed duty on exported coal, the Government will withdraw that proposal in favour of an equivalent gain to the Exchequer by the non-renewal of the Agricultural Land Rating Act.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, Sir.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the operation of the Customs Order, G. O. 32, 1901, 18th instant, will in effect injure the business of steamers engaged in bringing into port catches from the fishing fleet, by causing delay in entering and clearing on account of shipping two or three tons of bunker coal; and whether, having regard to the element of time being of importance in such transactions, he will cause the matter to be investigated with a view to ascertaining whether arrangements should be made to enable entry omnibus forms to be given, say, weekly or fortnightly.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No delay will be caused to steam fishing vessels on entering the fishing ports in connection with the duty on coal, and no delay need occur on their departure, inasmuch as the entry for shipment of such bunker coal as they require may be passed in anticipation. There will be no objection to the entries being passed weekly or fortnightly, as may be most convenient, and steps will be taken for giving effect to this.

  EXPORT STATISTICS.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the total weight of all goods exported from the United Kingdom in 1900.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am afraid that the information for which the hon. Member asks cannot be given.

  FOOD ADULTERATION PROSECUTIONS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a person charged with selling articles of food in contravention of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts must be informed to the exact nature of his alleged offence, and of the alleged adulteration, as stated in the analyst's certificates, while persons charged with selling diseased meat under the Public Health Act, 1875, are not informed of the exact nature of the disease, but are vaguely charged with selling meat which is diseased or unsound or unfit for food; and, as under these circumstances the defendant cannot prepare his defence, whether he will take steps to oblige sanitary authorities to state the exact nature of all such charges, and medical officers of health to furnish to the person whose meat is seized a certificate of the exact nature of the disease affecting the meat seized.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I am aware of the different requirements of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts and of the Public Health Act with regard to the matters referred to. I may point out that the adulteration

  1073
  of food and drugs can ordinarily be discovered only by the application of chemical tests. This is not so as regards meat which is diseased or unsound or unfit for food. The two classes of cases do not therefore seem to be parallel. I cannot say I think there is any sufficient ground for proposing such a change in the law as that suggested in the question.

  MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the local Government Board whether he will grant a Return showing how many medical officers of health there are in England and Wales, and distinguishing those part of whose salary is paid by Parliament, and showing how many have diplomas in public health.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I do not think it necessary that there should be a Parliamentary Return on this subject, but I shall be happy to give the hon. Member the information which he desires. It will take some little time to prepare, but I hope to be able to send it to him in the course of a week or ten days.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL'S TOTTENHAM HOUSING SCHEME.
  MR. JOSEPH HOWARD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been directed to the proposed scheme of the London County Council for the erection of workmen's cottages on a site in Tottenham for the purpose of housing about 35,000 persons, at a cost of
  £1,500,000; and whether, as this will necessitate an outlay for the erection of new board schools, and also an expenditure for sewerage and other necessary works, any and what relief can be afforded out of public funds to the ratepayers of the district; and what steps should be taken for this purpose.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am aware of the proposed scheme. Assistance of the kind referred to in the second paragraph of the question could not be given, but I may point out that the erection of dwelling houses on vacant land largely increases the rateable value of a district, and from investigations which I have caused to be made elsewhere, I do not
  1074
  think it should be assumed that the result of the scheme would necessarily be to increase the burdens on the ratepayers.
  MR. JOSEPH HOWARD: Will the local authorities be given an extension of borrowing powers?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am not quite sure I follow the hon. Member. Does he mean an extension of the time for repayment of the loan they may have to contract in order to carry out the works? Of course any such application will be considered, but I do not think there are any special grounds in this case for differentiating it from similar cases.

  PENRHYN QUARRY DISPUTE.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any endeavour has been made by the Board of Trade to settle the Penrhyn Quarry dispute, and whether any steps will be taken to bring about an amicable settlement.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The Board of Trade have received no application from the parties to take any action with reference to the Penrhyn Quarry dispute, and they have no reason to believe that such action would lead to any useful result.
  MR. BELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in accordance with the powers conferred upon him by Section 2, Sub-section (a), of the Conciliation Act, 1896, he has inquired into the causes and circumstances of the dispute existing between Lord Penrhyn and his workmen; and, if so, will he present a Report to the House.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is not the practice of the Board of Trade to institute a formal inquiry with regard to a dispute unless they consider that such an inquiry is likely to promote a settlement. In the dispute referred to in the question they have no reason to think that this is the case.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: Would it not conduce to a settlement if the

  1075
  fight hon. Gentleman were to send some one down to ascertain the real facts?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have paid close attention to the progress of the dispute, and I do not think any intervention on the part of the Board of Trade, at any rate at present, would he effectual.

  BELFAST ORDERS FOR AMERICAN STEEL.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Messrs. Harland and Wolff. Belfast, have placed an order to the value of £156,000 sterling with Messrs. Carnegie, Pittsburgh, from the importation of which manufactured steel under our free import system no revenue will be derived; and whether he can state how much duty would be levied by the American Government upon a similar order placed in Great Britain.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir, I have no information as to the dealings of Messrs. Harland and Wolff, and in the absence of particulars of the nature of the goods referred to in the question it is impossible for me to make any statement with regard to the duty leviable thereon by any foreign country.

  LOCOMOTIVE EXPLOSION ON LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY.
  MR. BELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received the report of the inspecting officer who held the inquiry into the cause of the explosion of locomotive 676 on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, and if so, when will it be published.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir, and the necessity of making some chemical inquiries will probably delay the preparation of the report.

  INSTRUCTION IN FORESTRY.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state what provision has been made by the Government for instruction in forestry in the United Kingdom.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY, ): In England provision is made for instruction in forestry at the Durham College of Science, at the South-Eastern Agricultural College at Wye, at the Yorkshire College at Leeds, and by the Board of Agricultural Studies at Cambridge University, to all of which institutions grants are made by the Board of Agriculture. Lectures in forestry are also given at the colleges at Cirencester and Downton and other institutions not in receipt of grants from the Department. Examinations in forestry are conducted by the Surveyors' Institution. Perhaps the hon. Member would be so good as to address inquiries with regard to the analogous grants in Scotland to my right hon. friend the Lord Advocate, and with regard to instruction in forestry in Ireland to my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary.

  BRUCE GROVE POST OFFICE—PROVFSION OF CHANGE.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the refusal to supply postal orders at Bruce Grove Sub-Post Office, when a £5 and a £10 Bank of England note were offered in payment, on the ground that there was not sufficient change in the office; whether he has satisfied himself that this is the case; and, if so, what means are being taken to prevent inconvenience to the public by such offices having insufficient money to cash postal orders when presented if they exceed in the aggregate £10, or to enable the public to secure postal orders or money orders when bank notes are tendered.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): Yes, Sir. A representation was received at the post office, dated the 6th instant, to the effect that an application had been made on the 4th instant at the Bruce Grove Post Office for a postal order for five shillings and for three stamps, and a Bank of England note for £10 tendered in payment; and that the sub-postmistress had been unable to change the note. It appeared on inquiry that the sub-postmistress could not give change of a £10 note at the time

  1077
  without inconvenience and risk of leaving herself without sufficient cash for other customers, and she asked the person who tendered the note for something smaller. On a recent occasion change for a £5 note had to be refused under similar circumstances. There was nothing irregular in the matter, so far as the sub-postmistress is concerned, as, according to the rules of the Department, postmasters are not bound to give change, although they may do so when no inconvenience is likely to be caused. The circumstances were all fully explained to the person who wrote to complain.

  POSTAL ACCOMMODATION AT THORPE HESLEY.
  MR. HOLLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that the post office at Thorpe Hesley has been closed since 15th April, to the inconvenience of a population of about 3,000, who are compelled to walk nearly two miles in order to obtain stamps or postal orders; and if he can state what steps are intended to be taken to provide proper postal facilities for the place.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The closing of the post office at Thorpe Hesley, Rotherham, is due to the fact that the late sub-postmaster has resigned his appointment, and that no eligible candidate for the sub-postmastership has as yet come forward. All possible efforts shall be made to avoid inconvenience to the public and to fill the appointment as soon as possible.

  IRELAND—MORTALITY AMONGST CALVES.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that much mortality has taken place for some time past among calves in Ireland, which has caused losses to the farming classes in Ireland, and whether he can recommend any remedy.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The Department of Agriculture is now
  1078
  investigating the causes of the serious mortality amongst calves, and for this purpose has secured the services of the eminent bacteriologist, Professor Nocard. The principal of the Royal Veterinary College of Ireland will assist him in his researches.
  MR. DILLON: Will Irish farmers be invited to give evidence in the course of the investigation?
  MR. WYNDHAM: That I cannot say.
  MR. DILLON: I will put down a question.
  MR. DALY: Will a copy of the Report, when presented, be furnished to the Irish county and district councils?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am quite alive to the importance of this question, and will do my best to communicate the results of the investigation to all concerned.

  GRAZING LAND TENANCIES.
  DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to state the decision arrived at by the Congested Districts Board as to the status of eleven months tenants in the occupation of grazing lands about to be purchased by the Board.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Board purchases directly from the owner of estates in the congested districts, and consequently steps into the position of a landlord. This introduces no modification into the status of tenants on estates so purchased.

  LAND PURCHASE IN CO. WEXFORD.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what are the intentions of the Government with regard to land purchase in the county of Wexford, in view of the fact that in that county a large number of tenants have arranged to purchase their holdings, but that the purchase of these holdings cannot be proceeded with owing to lack of funds.
  MR. WYNDHAM: In view of the fact that time will not, in all probability, admit of any comprehensive land legislation during the present session, the Government has prepared an interim Bill to deal with the difficulty in county Wexford and with similar difficulties which may arise elsewhere. Such a Bill cannot, however, be introduced and passed unless some assurance be given that it will be discussed as an interim measure to meet an emergency.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: When will the Bill be printed and circulated so that we may see its provisions?
  MR. WYNDHAM: If I can receive any assurance—I do not wish to press it too far—there will be no objection to circulate it on an early day.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman must see that we cannot give any assurance about a Bill which we have not seen. Is the Chief Secretary's statement to be taken as a declaration of the Government's abandonment of the promise contained in the King's Speech to deal with the question of voluntary land purchase?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. It is premature to make any statement as to the business of the House.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It has just been made.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I asked the Chief Secretary, arising out of his answer to the question on the Paper, whether the Government abandon their promise to introduce a Voluntary Land Purchase Bill.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I made no declaration. I merely alluded to a possibility.

  LAND DISTURBANCES IN COUNTY LONGFORD.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any report has been received from the Edgworthstown Police Station as to a disturbance created in the townland of
  1080
  Lisnanagh, county Longford, by the two emergency men guarding the evicted farms there; is he aware that one of them bombarded the house for several hours with stones, and was only prevented from committing further excesses by the arrival of the police; and will any steps be taken to bring these disturbers of the public peace to justice for such conduct.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member has been misinformed. The occurrences referred to in the first and second paragraphs did not take place.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have not been misinformed, but he has by his subordinates.

  LONGFORD GUARDIANS' SURCHARGE.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Local Government Board have issued a sealed order confirming a surcharge of 8s. upon three members of the Longford Board of Guardians, the price of a coffin granted in which to inter the remains of a poor man who had died near Ardagh; whether, seeing that this poor man was on outdoor relief and had no friends or relatives to see to the interment of his remains, he can explain on what grounds the auditor made the surcharge; and did he know that the man was virtually a pauper, and as such entitled to be buried at the expense of the union; and, will he call his attention to the fact that no surcharge should have been made in such a case.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The provisions of Article 4 (4) of the Union Accounts Order were not complied with, and in the evidence adduced the auditor could not find that the expense was incurred in the burial of the deceased. I am making further inquiries. It is not a very large matter.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: But there is a principle involved.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN THE GRANARD UNION.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant

  1081
  of Ireland whether he is aware that at the recent inquiry into representations under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts in Granard Union two evicted tenants named John Farrell and John Heslin, both of Lisnanagh, county Longford, were refused cottages mainly because they were evicted tenants; whether he is aware that there is a scarcity of labourers in the portion of the county in which they applied, and that for nearly seven miles the country round Lisnanagh is a grazing plain on which there are but few dwellings; and will he call for an explanation from the inspector of his reasons for advising the rejection of these men's representations.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The inspector who held the inquiry reported that three cottages had already been erected under the Labourers' Acts in the townland of Lisnanagh, and that there were also in the locality six or seven other houses, two of which were unoccupied and fit for human habitation. Under these circumstances there was no case for erecting these cottages.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: Did the inspector tell the right hon. Gentleman that the two houses in question were houses from which men had been evicted?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think that is material to the question.

  BUTLER ESTATE, CO. GALWAY.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the
  Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the reasons for the delay in the sale of the Butler estate in county Galway.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A request for an inspection of this estate under the 40th section of the Act of
  1890 was received by the Land Commissioners in January last, and an assistant commissioner was deputed for the purpose of carrying out the inspection. I have drawn the attention of the Land Commission to the matter.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: How many years have these negotiations been going on?
  MR. WYNDHAM: We have no knowledge of the negotiations until the matter comes before the Land Commission and an agreement has been arrived at.

  POOR LAW OFFICERS' (IRELAND) SUPERANNUATION.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Irish Poor Law Officers' Association has made itself responsible for a statement to the effect that the passage into law of the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation (Ireland) Bill would mean a saving to local rates, and that solely on the strength of this representation certain boards of guardians are giving sanction to the Bill; whether the Government will obtain a report from a competent actuary as to the probable effect of the Bill on local rates, having regard to the experience of the working of the English Act of 1896, and to the fact that the Bill proposes to include those giving only a portion of time to the service; and whether the information so obtained will be placed in the hands of Members before the Second Reading of the Bill.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Bill is down for Second Reading on Friday, 3rd May. The Government will be prepared to accept the Second Reading on the understanding that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, with a view to ascertaining the ultimate actuarial effect of the measure on local rates. For this purpose it is proposed to employ a competent; actuary.
  MR. TULLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that before the English Bill became law the cost was £6,200 annually, whereas it is now
  £74,000?
  MR. MURNAGHAN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it his duty as the representative of the Irish Government in this House to place in the hands of hon. Members a statement as to the probable effect of this Bill on the rates of Ireland?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, and I propose to accomplish that object by placing the

  1083
  information at the disposal of the Select Committee.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: But we want it before the Second Reading.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I cannot give it before the Second Reading, but if hon. Members will allow the Bill to be read a second time—
  MR. DILLON: Certainly not.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: This is a matter of the utmost importance.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. DALY: Considering the importance of this measure to the ratepayers of Ireland—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to preface a question by arguments and comments.
  MR. DALY: Cannot we have the information before the Second Reading?
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has twice answered that question.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the Government are prepared to take the time of the House to promote the interests of a certain organisation in Ireland. Why will he not also take time for necessary legislation?
  MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to resume his seat.

  FRENCHPARK WATERWORKS.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state on what grounds the Local Government Board propose, in opposition to the wishes of the Rural District Council, to make a union charge of the cost of the French-park Waterworks, which will serve only a few hundred people.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The action of the Board in this matter has been in accordance with their general policy as to
  1084
  chargeability of rural sanitary expenses since May, 1899. The area of charge in this case has not yet been fixed. The district council wish to fix an area of so limited an extent that the annual charge thereon in respect of the loan would be about 10d. in the £, whereas if the dispensary district were adopted it would be only 4d., and if the whole rural district were adopted it would be about ·09d. This was fully explained in a letter addressed to the council on the 1st instant.

  CARRICK-ON-SHANNON PETTY SESSIONS CLERK.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any objection has been received to the election of Mr. Devenish by a majority of one vote as clerk of Carrick-on-Shannon Petty Sessions district on the 12th instant; whether he is aware that Mr. Devenish resides in the county Roscommon, and is already a petty sessions clerk in that county; and whether, as he has no residence in the county Leitrim, his appointment under these circumstances to an important centre like the county town of Leitrim will be sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to the first and second paragraphs is in the affirmative. Mr. Devenish resides four miles from Carrick-on-Shannon. A petty sessions clerk is not required to reside in the district of which he is clerk. The appointment of Mr. Devenish has been sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant.

  IRISH RAILWAYS-STATE PURCHASE —GERMAN STATE RAILWAYS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the German State railways realised a profit of £23,200,000 last year; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing the system of State ownership in Ireland, with a view to decrease the burden of taxation, and to increase transit facilities by cheaper rates for goods and passengers.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This question is similar to one put by the hon. Member

  1085
  and answered by me on Friday last.* As soon as I obtain information on the first paragraph I will communicate with the hon. Member.

  ROAD LABOUR IN IRELAND.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, before laying upon the Table of the House the draft Provisional Order regarding direct labour, he will communicate to the Irish Members the decision of the Government as to the Amendments suggested by them and forwarded to him.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes. Sir; but I must not exclude from myself the right to insert or object to any amendment of the provisions of the Bill on the Committee stage.

  DAVID FINLAY'S ESTATE, CO. CAVAN.
  MR. M'COVERNI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he state on what date the tenants on the estate of the late David Finlay and others, situate in the county of Cavan, signed agreements to purchase their holdings through the Irish Land Commission; on what date were these agreements lodged with the Irish Land Commission; and what were the reasons that these agreements had not been lodged at an earlier date.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No agreements have been lodged between the landlord and tenants of this estate, and consequently I have no cognisance of any proceedings in respect of its sale.

  THE KING'S ACCESSION—PROCLAMATION AT LIMERICK.
  MR. LUNDONI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the proclamation of King Edward the Seventh as King the high sheriff for the county of Limerick requisitioned the Dublin Castle authorities for a guard of honour composed of a half battery of artillery, a half squadron of cavalry, and a half battalion of infantry
  * See page 789.
  1086
  for the proclamation in the towns of Bruff, Rathkeale, and Newcastle: whether the Castle authorities refused on the grounds that they could furnish no expenses unless the high sheriff would in person defray expenses from his own private purse; and whet her he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence connected therewith.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The high sheriff, in February last, communicated to the Executive Government a copy of a correspondence that had passed between him and the military authorities, who felt unable to comply with his requisition for troops for the purpose mentioned. The high sheriff was informed that the matter was not one calling for the intervention of the Executive. The answer to the last paragraph is in the negative.

  CULLOVILLE (IRELAND) POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will inquire into the inconvenience caused to the people of Culloville by not having a Sunday delivery of letters, as is the case in the surrounding post office districts; and whether he will arrange a collection of letters, for this district each evening later than that now existing, and also erect a pillar box at Culloville.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General has caused inquiry to be instituted, and the result shall be communicated to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
  MR. DALY: How soon? The people of this district are greatly inconvenienced.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say, but the result shall be communicated as soon as the Postmaster General has had time to form an opinion on the inquiry.

  CORK POST OFFICE REVISION.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can explain why, although

  1087
  the revision of the Cork Post Office staff took place on the 4th July, 1899, under which the clerks' class was increased with the authority of the Treasury given on that date, the sorting clerics and telegraphists promoted on the 16th February, 1900, only received the increased pay from the latter date, notwithstanding that in the case of the superintendent of telegraphs and the female supervising officer at Cork the increased pay was allowed from the date of the Treasury latter; and seeing that in the case of the revision of the Dublin telegraph staff the promoted officers' promotions were eventually antedated to the date of the Treasury sanction, and that this is the practice at large offices, whether it will now be arranged that the officers in Cork are paid from that date.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In regard to the superintendent for telegraph duty, the revision merely authorised an improvement in his scale of salary, and as regards the woman supervisor the revision merely converted the assistant supervisorship into a supervisorship, so in these two cases the revision could be carried out at once. As regards the promotions to new appointments arising from the revision considerable difficulties were experienced in making the selections, and it was not until the 16th of February that the recommendations received the Postmaster General's approval. It is the practice to date all promotions from the day on which they receive the Postmaster General's approval unless there are any special circumstances in the case which justify a different course, and the Postmaster General sees no reason to depart from the practice in this case.

  HIGHER ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  DR. MACNAMARAI beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education what steps, if any, it is proposed to take to place beyond challenge as to legality the right of school boards to assist the maintenance out of the school board rates of schools recognised under the Higher Elementary Minute now incorporated in the Education Code for 1901.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): I have nothing to add to the statement I made a day or two ago, that the Hoard of Education are advised that higher elementary schools under the conditions of the Code may be maintained by school boards out of the School Fund.

  REX v. COCKERTON.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Ford of the Treasury whether, in the event of the School Board proceeding no further with the appeal against the Cockerton judgment, the Government will undertake to deal with the matter in the present session.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I cannot give any pledges at the present time with regard to the legislation of the session, as I informed the hon. Gentleman a few days ago.

  ROYAL DECLARATION AGAINST ROMAN CATHOLICISM.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the First Ford of the Treasury whether he can state the present intentions of the Government with regard to repealing that portion of the Royal Accession. Declaration, which describes Roman Catholic beliefs as idolatrous.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask him if the Royal declaration by which King Edward VII. sits upon the Throne is not part of the Bill of Rights and of the Art of Settlement?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a comment, and not a question.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUE: I understand that the present position of the matter is as follows:—There was originally a proposal in the House of Fords to appoint; a Committee to investigate the terms of the Oath. It appeared to me that if the subject was to be, investigated it had better be by a Joint Committee, and I threw that suggestion out in the House. The Opposition have intimated that they

  1089
  do not propose to serve on the Committee, and therefore that proposal falls through. I presume that the Committee appointed by the House of Lords will investigate the subject on their own account, as was originally proposed.

  SATURDAY SITTINGS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can arrange to have the House meet on Saturdays for Government business, with a view to preserve the rights of private Members on Tuesday.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir: I cannot imagine that any arrangement for Saturday sittings would meet with the approval of hon. Members.

  DECIMAL SYSTEM OF COINAGE.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government propose to take the necessary steps to substitute the decimal system of coinage for the system at present in use.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON IRISH UNIVERSITY EDUCATION.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is yet in a position to name the members of the Royal Commission on Irish University Education and to give the terms of reference.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, we are not in a position as yet to state the names of the Members of this Commission. It will be in the recollection of the hon. Gentleman that an appeal was made to us not to settle finally either the members of the Commission or the terms of reference until the debate which took place last night had been concluded. We hope to proceed very rapidly now with the business of appointing the members of the Commission, and finally settling the terms of reference.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON LOCAL TAXATION.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he
  1090
  can state when the Royal Commission on Local Taxation is expected to report; and whether that Report will be in the hands of Members before the Agricultural Rating Bill is renewed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that no date can yet be fixed, but every effort is being made to press on the Report. It is impossible to give the pledge asked for in the second paragraph.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will postpone the discussion on the Report of the coal tax resolution until next week. On Thursday there is to be a meeting of the Federation of Miners from all parts of the kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman will see that the miners are not able at once to place their views before him as the coalowners and merchants can do; and yet it is highly desirable that they should have an opportunity of placing their objections to the tax before the Government. That cannot be done if the Report is taken on Thursday.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Of course I shall be very happy to receive and consider any views which the minors may present to me on this subject. I may say that I have already undertaken to receive deputations from other interests affected; and of course I shall consider anything which may be said. But I confess I do not quite see why the Report of the resolution should be postponed. The invariable course has been—and both I and the right hon. Gentleman remember the opposed Budget of 1885—to allow the Report of the resolution to be adopted by the House and to be embodied in the Finance Bill, before the House is really asked to express a decision on the subject. There will be ample time before the Second Reading of the Finance Bill for any representations to be made and considered; and therefore I hope I shall not be pressed to postpone the Report of the resolution, which is treated invariably as a formal stage binding the House to nothing. The postponement would

  1091
  make a very inconvenient delay in the introduction of the Bill.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It is quite true that there have been occasions on which this resolution has been passed without discussion; but that has not been the usual course. There are very special reasons in this case why the right hon. Gentleman should have an opportunity of knowing the feelings of the miners on this subject, and that there should be a full discussion on the resolution. That being so. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make arrangements for postponing the resolution, because the opportunity of which he speaks may not occur for a considerable time.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Of course I will consider the suggestion, and I will communicate with the right hon. Gentleman on the subject; but I may add that I am not convinced by what he has said.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, who no doubt is aware of the communication which you, Mr. Speaker, read to the Mouse at the commencement of business, whether he will put down Irish Supply and the Attorney General's Vote on the earliest possible day, to give to Irish Members an opportunity of discussing the prosecution of the lion. Member for North Leitrim.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will do my best to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen; but though I cannot at present give an absolute pledge without consultation, as at present advised, I see no obstacle to putting down the Vote on Friday week. As I understand, hon. Members will not be able to discuss in Committee of Supply the sentence passed on a Member of this House or the action of the judge in passing it. The only subject of discussion would be the conduct of the Irish Executive in ordering the prosecution.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: As to the point of order, that may be dealt with when it arises. All we ask is that the Vote for the Attorney General's salary shall be put down at the earliest possible day. I understand the right hon.
  1092
  Gentleman to say be cannot put it down before Friday week.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already announced that Votes in Class III. will be put down on Friday next, and there is considerable objection to upsetting an arrangement already made.
  MR. BARTLEY: Inasmuch as we have had Irish debates during almost the whole time of the session, could not the right hon. Gentleman allow Friday week to be given to something connected with England?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not quite see the point of that request. Next Friday will be devoted to English questions, and there must be a certain number of days in the session devoted to Irish Supply. I do not know that it is more inconvenient to
  discuss Irish Supply on Friday week than on any other Friday If any special inconvenience could be shown either for English or Irish Members, alterations might be made.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: When will the Army resolutions be taken?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am anxious to bring them on as soon as possible, for it is inconvenient to the War Office that the final decision should not be quickly taken. But progress must be made with the Budget and the Civil List proposals before those resolutions can be brought on.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of providing English Members with a Parliament for themselves?

  THE NEW SUGAR DUTY—MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the levying by the Customs authorities of duty on the bulk weight of articles containing sugar, instead of on the sugar itself.
  MR. SPEAKER: That can hardly be said to be a matter of urgency. It has already been stated that the Report of the sugar tax resolution is to be taken very shortly, and is to be followed by the Finance Bill. Therefore the question can hardly be said to be urgent.
  MR. KEARLEY: It is a matter of extreme urgency. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew that he was going to levy the duty, my complaint is that he did not make his investigations beforehand. The matter is urgent in this way. Unless we get an assurance that this will be rectified, it is impossible that the trade can be carried on. The whole trade is demoralised.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The hon. Member is making a speech on the question.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am as anxious as the hon. Member can be that the matter should be settled, and I will do my best to settle it.
  MR. KEARLEY: Why did you not make your inquiries beforehand?

  WATER COMPANIES (LIABILITY FOR STORAGE OF WATER) BILL.
  Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Water Companies (Liability for Storage of Water) Bill, with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.—(Mr. Louis Sinclair.)
NEW BILLS.
  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION ACT (1897) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Infant Life Protection Act, 1897, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Spear, Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Duke, Mr. Peel, Mr. Schwann, and Mr. Cawley.

  INFANT LIFE PROTECTION ACT (1897) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Infant Life Protection Act, 1897," presented, and read the first
  1094
  time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 1st May, and to be printed. [Bill 146.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1888) AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Local Government Act, 1888, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Spear, Mr. Duke. Mr. Oldroyd, and Mr. Taylor.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Local Government Act, 1888," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 1st May, and to be printed. [Bill 147.]

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

WAYS AND MEANS.

  INCOME TAX.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Income Tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, Nineteen Hundred and One, at the rate of one shilling and twopence."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid the proposals contained in the Budget with regard to the augmentation of the income tax had very properly been taken great exception to. But he wished rather to draw attention to the general features of the Budget taken as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had had a great opportunity presented to him in connection with the Budget, and he had missed it, although he had advanced somewhat from the hopeless and impracticable attitude which had been the vogue for many years past. They were used to being told on these annual occasions how our glorious and beneficent fiscal system had enabled this country to surmount all difficulties

  1095
  and dangers. But he noticed the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not this year passed the usual eulogies upon our broken-down financial system. The right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire had indeed spoken of it—possibly reading from some old notes—as the envy and admiration of the world. But the world had shown its envy of the system by universally discarding it.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the only subject that can be discussed on this resolution is the incidence of the income tax. He cannot enter on a general review of the fiscal position.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: We were assured by the Government that as they were most anxious to get certain resolutions involving new taxes passed at once, that being a matter of urgent necessity, the Committee would be allowed to take the general discussion upon the remaining resolutions.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT:I asked for an assurance from the Government, and received it, that there should be a general discussion.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That understanding only applied to the next day—Friday—when the general discussion was taken—if I may be permitted to say so—very inconveniently. I never understood that the undertaking would apply to this day.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: The Chairman has, no doubt, quite correctly stated the general practice. But on this occasion it was pointed out that it would be extremely inconvenient for these new duties to remain in abeyance while the whole Budget was being discussed. I certainly understood the Government to undertake that indulgence would be extended to those hon. Members who had in the public interest refrained from taking part in the general discussion of the Budget on the earlier resolutions. Anyhow the Government deliberately pledged themselves to such a course in the face of Parliament. The Chairman of Committee was not a party to the under
  1096
  taking, which was, I think, given in the whole House, but the Government distinctly made the promise.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I am sure that nothing which I said ought to have given rise to that impression. On Friday night the discussion was certainly general, including as it did a disquisition on the South African war, but I did not understand that the general discussion of that evening was to apply to every day upon which the Budget was put down.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there was not a whole night's debate on Friday, but only half a night's. It commenced at half-past nine.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I certainly understood that there was to be a general discussion now. There was some doubt about the arrangement at the time, and I asked a question specifically in order to obtain a definite answer. I asked whether the arrangement would apply not merely to the duties which were then discussed, but to the other duties.
  MR. KEARLEY: Mr. Speaker refused to allow my motion, for the adjournment of the House on the sugar question, on the ground that the matter was to be discussed to-night.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is mistaken. It was refused on the ground that it could come up on the Report stage.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: But can we discuss it on Report? We are told we cannot.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I never said that. It certainly can be discussed on the postponed Report. As soon as the other resolutions in the Budget are passed in Committee the resolution on sugar will come up for discussion—probably on Thursday, as far as I can judge.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: In these circumstances I understand that the discussion now will be a general one.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I must stop the right hon. Gentleman. That is certainly not my understanding of the agreement entered into. I was not consulted with reference to the setting aside of the ordinary rules of the House, and was no party to any such arrangement. My duty, therefore, now is to see that the ordinary rules of the House are maintained. The general discussion can take place on the first or second resolution of the Budget, but when subsequent resolutions are reached, then the debate should be confined to the subject-matter of those resolutions. I understood the agreement come to on Thursday evening to be limited to the next sitting of the Committee, but not to extend beyond that day. [Cries of "Move to report progress."]
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid a suggestion had been made to him that he should move to report progress, but he recognised that the Chairman's duty was to carry out the rules of the House. The Government, however, distinctly undertook to sanction the arrangement of a general discussion now, and they had the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that he had received an assurance that a discussion of a general character would be allowed to take place on all resolutions. But he did not wish to press the point, and he would therefore deal with that most obnoxious imposition the income tax. He would, however, tell his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had introduced a very unpopular Budget, and that he was trying to smuggle it through without discussion. The income tax was the impost of all others most closely associated with the Cobdenic school. It had gone up by leaps and bounds. Designed originally as a war tax, it had since become a favourite instrument for constructing sensational Budgets in time of peace. It had been the refuge of those who wished to evade their difficulties and to retard the fulfilment of their obligations. Our fiscal system had been described as the "envy and admiration of the world."
  1098
  But the "envy and admiration of the world" for the income tax had not hitherto been very marked. Foreign countries had discarded it; indeed, the income tax was highly unpopular in all the countries of the world. No Government—autocratic, a limited monarchy, or a Republic—appeared to approve of it. Our own colonies had not followed the example of the mother country in this respect. They preferred to extract taxes largely from the foreign producer; and it was worthy of notice that the affection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for this form of taxation exclusively was cooling somewhat. The foreigner hitherto had been a sacred person whose pocket must in no way be touched, but now he was getting somewhat out of favour. One of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's imposts was openly avowed by him as intended to relieve the British taxpayer out of the needs of the foreign consumer. The war was not responsible for the breakdown of our much-vaunted economic system, which it was at last admitted had signally collapsed; it had been the growth of our normal expenditure, which had caused the present difficulties, and no one could predict where it would stop. It was not expenditure upon the defensive forces of the nation which could be held mainly responsible for our difficulties. How about the bloated Education Estimates, the money flung at the heads of the county councils to squander on so-called technical education and matters of that kind, and which was recklessly spent? They did not raise the money, and they did not care how they spent it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke about holding a fair balance between direct and indirect taxation, but he had pointed out before that this balance was based on erroneous premises, because the payers of income tax were relatively also large contributors to indirect taxation. The right hon. Gentleman entirely ignored the fact that the income-tax payers were also large contributors to indirect taxation. Let them take as an instance the increased duty on sparkling wines: was it not the income-tax payer who had also to pay that, and could that be fairly quoted as a contribution from the classes who do not pay income-tax, and which made it necessary to increase direct taxation to balance

  1099
  it. For such really was the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he spoke of the equal apportionment of direct and indirect taxation. He quoted that to show that the right hon. Gentleman on this point was entirely erroneous in his premises. At the present moment the, direct taxpayer was far more heavily burdened than the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated to the House. His system was the knocking off of the duty from the numerous articles which formerly contributed to the revenue, and the concentration of all the efforts of the Exchequer upon a few selected articles.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Hear, hear.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: But that system had broken down and collapsed. To increase the income tax at a time when direct taxation had been contributing far more than its fair share of the total liabilities appeared to be indefensible. His right hon. friend had been afforded a great opportunity in connection with the Budget, and it was in his power to have taken I advantage of the patriotic outbursts throughout the, British Empire to draw closer the commercial ties which were the surest means of maintaining the unity of the Empire. There was a general desire for the free interchange of commodities as far as could be in the various parts of the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman had always had strong objection to the cultivation of friendly commercial relations with their colonies. He always treated the foreigner and the British subject upon identical terms, and he knew no difference between the Belgian and the Canadian—indeed he thought that the right; hon. Gentleman preferred the Belgian, as being nearer home. That was what he called Little Englandism. If ever there was one principle which had made greater progress during the last few years it was the establishment of preferential duties between this country and the various parts of the Empire. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must not think that he was asking him to adopt some reactionary protection doctrine, because he was talking of
  1100
  revenue, and as a substitute for his income tax he might have done better if he had consulted an eminent gold medallist at the Cobden Club. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. That gentleman was received with open arms at the Cobden Club, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer might even hope to get the gold medal himself if he would only adopt the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. What had he done? Why he had so arranged the duties as to accord preferential treatment to inter-British trade? Sir Wilfrid Laurier had, in fact, given a preference of 25 per cent., since increased to 33⅓ per cent., to inter-British trade, and was forthwith decorated with the gold medal of the Cobden Club. Why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer not adopt some statesmanlike and patriotic attitude of that kind? Why was the right hon. Gentleman so devoted to Little England finance? The missing of this opportunity had caused great disappointment, not merely in Canada where they had shown the lead and given us for some years past great commercial advantages, but it had also created great disappointment in the new Commonwealth of Australia where they relied upon the Customs revenue but were perfectly ready to reciprocate friendly overtures. This was a principle which his right lion, friend need not think was by any means dead. He might pass it over, but it was making the greatest progress throughout all parts of the Empire, and he would find himself confronted with a strong demand that he should no longer stand in the way of what was a true British demand. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had consoled himself with an addition to the income tax and certain other imposts which it would be irregular to discuss at the present time. Without any very great effort he could have supplied himself with the sum which his income tax was expected to produce without any substantial interference with the habits or the mode of living of the people. The right hon. Gentleman took credit to himself that at any rate this duty would not benefit any British subjects more than the inhabitants of the most distant realms. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would realise that he had missed a great opportunity, that he had

  1101
  created vast disappointments, and he had done more to retard the general advance of the British Empire than any of his predecessors.
  MR. McKENNAsaid he experienced the greatest difficulty in following the line taken by the right hon. Gentleman who bad just sat down. He complained of the income tax being put at 1s. 2d. in the £, and in that complaint he was cheered by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Those very hon. Gentlemen who were applauding the right hon. Gentleman had supported this Government through thick and thin, and the Government were responsible, not for 2d., but for 6d. on the income tax. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends must recognise that as a consequence of their support of the present Government in its extravagant ways they must accept not only an occasional twopenny increase in the income tax, but a shilling in the
  £1 as a permanency. It was their duty to examine the reasons for this expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that they had got to provide for a permanent increase of expenditure, amounting in the last five years to no less than £28,000,000 a year. What did that mean? That the 1s. income tax had become permanent. [Cries of "No, no."] They could not point out to him any probable new sources of revenue which were likely to reduce that shilling to a lower figure. They could not look to any reduction so long as they had at the head of affairs a, Prime Minister who had publicly rebuked the Treasury for its parsimony, Before Lord Salisbury could have got to the point of declaring in public that his difficulties were increased by the parsimony of the Treasury what an amount of pressure he must have put upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to induce him to consent to every kind of extravagance—an extravagance which had landed them to-day with an income tax of 1s. 2d. in the £. Personally, he should not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but rather defend him; he bad been attacked, not from the Opposition side, but by the Prime Minister.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No.
  MR. McKENNAsaid it was within the recollection of the Committee that an attack was made upon the Treasury, and the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the policy of the Treasury. The hon. Member for King's Lynn the other evening declared himself unwilling to drive home the responsibility of the Government for the increase of expenditure, and in very forcible language he appealed to the Government not to imperil their existence, because he saw no possibility of an alternative Government. It was surprising to hear the hon. Member say-that he could see no possible alternative to a Ministry of which he was not himself a member. But although the hon. Member might hold that opinion as to the necessity of maintaining those particular gentlemen in office, he for one did not believe that any such opinion was held by the country at large. On this side of the House they had been twitted that they were not a united Party. [Ministerial cries of "Hear, hear."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cheered that statement, but those who were present when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Budget statement had a very extraordinary spectacle presented to them. Hon. Members opposite could not see it, but it was apparent to Members sitting on the Opposition side. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, after making a brilliant, capable, and honest Budget statement, lasting a very considerable time, sat down between two right hon. colleagues, one on his right and the other on his left, who received his speech with stern silence, with implacable coldness, almost with resentment. In order to bring himself in order he would suggest that that resentment was due to the proposed increase of the income tax, but if he might give his honest opinion he should be inclined to attribute it to the light hon. Gentleman's frank statement that during the last five years the expenditure of the country had been increased by £28,000,000 sterling. It was said that the Government were not responsible for that expenditure, but that the House as a whole was responsible. More than that, it was said that the constituencies were responsible. That statement might very well be made upon a public platform, but he was astonished that anyone

  1103
  should adduce it in that House, where "a miserable and divided Opposition" had learned through bitter experience that they were absolutely impotent in opposing the Government. With the knowledge that year by year they had had their rights and privileges taken from them, were they to be told on this side of the House that they had been responsible for the extravagance of the Government? Not so very long ago Lord Salisbury told the country that the Treasury were too parsimonious. They must look to the head of the Government for the responsibility for the extravagance, and not to those on the Opposition side, who, in season and out of season, had endeavoured by every means in their power to resist that extravagance. It was difficult to put one's hand on each particular item of expenditure, and to say whether it ought to be reduced. He would give the House one instance of extravagance. There was the question raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, with respect to the docks which were being built at Gibraltar. A scheme was introduced in the 1892 Parliament which was to cost something like £2,000,000 for the Gibraltar docks.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that this matter was not relevant to the resolution before the Committee.
  MR. McKENNAadmitted that he laboured under a difficulty in referring to the subject. He would only name it, without going into detail. The hon. Member for King's Lynn, after personal examination of the subject on the spot, found that a very large increase in the expenditure, covering several millions, undertaken by the present Government, was wasted money. A Commission was appointed, of which the lion. Member was chairman. He understood that the Commission had unanimously reported—the Report had not yet been made public—but it was quite obvious, since it was unanimous, and the hon. Member for King's Lynn had already made up his mind on the subject, what the nature of the Report would lie. It was a Report that would justify the pamphlet written by the hon. Member, in which he charged the Government with having wasted
  1104
  a considerable amount of money. If they went to any part of the world where the Government had been carrying on warlike or peaceful operations, they would find that there had been extravagance after extravagance of small sums here and there, contributing largely to the total increase of £28,000,000 during the five years the Government had been in office—apart altogether from the war in South Africa. In the three years during which the late Liberal Government had been in office the public expenditure had increased by only three millions. During the previous twenty years it had increased by only twenty-three millions. Had there been anything in the condition of the world during the past five years to justify an increase of twenty eight millions in the public expenditure? Germany, which had not been behindhand in pushing its policy, had increased its expenditure during the same period by only ten millions. He did not understand the objection of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the increase in the income tax. As they had to swallow a pill, they ought to do it with cheerful countenances. They told their constituencies that they had Heaven-sent Ministers to guide them, but in the House they grumbled and said those Ministers were extravagant. Let them be true to themselves either in the House or in the country.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid he did not propose to wander quite so far as the hon. Member had done in his speech, but certainly he was encouraged to do so by the amiable indulgence which the Chairman had shown to the hon. Member. He wished to join his right hon. friend the Member for Thanet in expressing regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought it necessary to increase that onerous and most unfair impost, the income-tax.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Hear, hoar.
  MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid the satirical cheers of his right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouthshire did not disturb him. It was not because the increase in the tax fell upon him or upon his friend that he objected to it, but because it was morally unjust in its incidence. That

  1105
  tax fell alike upon the man who had a wasting security and the man who had a permanent security; it fell upon the man who had to earn his livelihood by his own labour or brains, which were subject to exhaustion; and it fell no more heavily upon the man who had a settled income from Consols. It might be said that the middle-classes, to whom the increase in the income tax was a serious matter, had made a mistake in returning the Government to office. Constituents wrote to him saying that they were not going to vote for him again. He was sure that hon. Members would be pleased to hear that these constituents were not going to vote for him; but that did not distress him particularly. He might, however, say that these gentlemen would only get out of the frying-pan into the fire, and he did feel a very great sympathy with them in this matter. A constituent had written to him that day on a small matter, but evidently under a misunderstanding. He inquired if the amount which he was entitled to deduct in respect of the landlord's property tax would be limited to 1s. He did not think there was any difficulty in the matter; for of course the answer was that when the tax was 8d. the deduction was limited to 8d.; when the tax was 1s. the deduction was limited to 1s.; and when the tax was
  1s. 2d. the deduction was limited to 1s. 2d. He would be glad, however, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make the point clear. The hon. Member who last spoke joined the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a strong demand for economy. He sympathised with that demand; although he fully recognised that there was no party in the House—at least not more than half a dozen Members—who acted together in insisting on economy in national expenditure at all points. Where there was continuous temptation to extravagance, and to which the House fell a victim, was owing to the fact that civil servants had been given votes. [Cries of "Oh, oh."] He knew that that was an unpopular argument, but it was the true thing to say. It was a thing which every man would say in private, but not in public. Here were large bodies of civil servants organising and pressing hon. Members by notes and circulars and in every way to grant their demands, with the implied
  1106
  threat that the votes of a considerable body of men in their constituencies would be withdrawn from them if they did not grant these demands. Well, human nature was human nature, and great was the temptation put before any hon. Member who very much desired the honour of a seat in this House, and who had a very small majority, to succumb to the demands of, say, a very fine body of postmen in his constituency. He did not say that the postmen were unjustified in the demands which they made; but even if they were unjustified they would find Members of Parliament to support them. He asked the House seriously to consider whether a grave blunder had not been made in granting the franchise to the civil servants. It was a serious question, which affected in a most material degree the complaint which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made. He was debarred, owing to the unfortunate misunderstanding which he and almost every Member of the House had fallen into in regard to the bargain which the Government had made with them, from touching on any other subject than the income tax, and he would only ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to seriously consider what he had urged as to the strong distinction which existed between wasting securities, whether of brain or capital, and those which were maturing.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he need not traverse the general unfairness of the incidence of the income tax, but he wished to point out the extreme unfairness of an increase without readjustment. The impost would fall with extreme severity on the smaller class of income tax payers. In 1894 the late Chancellor of the Exchequer—the result of whose financial statesmanship must be very agreeable to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer just now, although he opposed it strongly at the particular time—increased the income tax from 7d. to 9d., but in such a way that no fewer than
  500,000 income tax payers paid less at 8d. than they would have done under the old system at 7d. That was to say, the smaller class of income tax payers got off more cheaply, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day raised the exemption from £150 to £160,

  1107
  and widened the range of abatements. He wanted to know why that policy had not been pursued now. Why should not the Chancellor of the Exchequer be able to get all the additional revenue he required without increasing the impost on the smaller income tax payers? There were no more estimable and blameless members of society than the small middle class people, who were ground down with taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might find cold comfort in saying that the income tax was 2s. in the £1 at the time of the Peninsular War: but the men for whom he pleaded had to bear far heavier burdens, in the way of local taxation particularly, than were known at the time of the Peninsular War. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that at the time of the Crimean War the income tax was 1s. 1d., and therefore 1s. 2d. should be paid cheerfully now. But there was then a differential rate of income tax—the small payer paid 11½d and the larger class paid 1s. 4d. He confessed he did not know whether that was good political economy, but he would like to go back to the differential rate, and put a much heavier impost on the linger incomes. He pleaded for the lower middle class of people, who had so many burdens on them, and who lived a godly, righteous, and sober life, and who were the cream of the community. The education of their children was expensive, the State not having provided cheap secondary education. They were, perhaps, buying their houses through a building society, and had often poor relatives to assist. Convention demanded a measure of respectable living and clothing which was a severe drain on their small incomes. He would take the opportunity to test the question as to whether or not, even in this Budget, some plan could be devised to relieve that class from additional imposts on incomes up to and including £500 a year. It ought not to tax the ingenuity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his officials to lay out a scheme in the Schedule on the lines of his own scheme of 1899, and to go back to the days of the Crimean differential rate by relieving incomes up to
  £500 of any further impost, and yet be able to get the revenue he required. It was said that they ought to be punished for "Mafficking," but there
  1108
  was no public policy in telling a man that, because he was deluded into a mistaken act two years ago, he should be overburdened with taxation. Moreover he did not think that it was the class for whom he was pleading that did the "Mafficking."
  MR. BARTLEYsaid he would like to say a few words on the income tax. There was no doubt that the extra 2d. was necessary at the present time, but it was a fact that it was causing a great deal of annoyance among a most estimable body of the community. Inasmuch as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had raised two thirds of his additional revenue from indirect and only one third from direct taxation, he thought all would agree that, taking it as a whole, it was a fair arrangement. He strongly urged on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the question whether some arrangement could not be made on the lines of the suggestions of the hon. Member for the St. Albans Division. A good many years ago he himself had brought forward a scheme of differential rating on incomes from old investments and on the reward of present-day labour; and he was sure there would never be a perfectly fair income tax until a distinction was made between these two sources of income. Of course a change of this sort involved a great deal of trouble, and a Chancellor of the Exchequer did not like to embark on a new and difficult system of taxation which involved that. The tax would be less unpopular if a differentiation could he made between incomes derived from labour and incomes derived from investment. All taxes were unpopular, especially the income tax, and therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer should levy it with as much consideration as possible. He was afraid that that was not now done. He brought before the House last year an instance as to the system of claiming arrears of income tax on the higher rate, a matter which he supposed concerned a great many persons, and which seemed to him to be sharp practice on the part of the Treasury. In some instances especially most extortionate demands had been made in connection with

  1109
  arrears. He would again mention the ease of the. Jamaica Railway, which was established practically by the English people in order to promote the well-being of Jamaica. The great bulk of the money required to build the railway was raised on debentures, and there was a clause in the agreement that if the railway did not answer they should be exchanged for Colonial Bonds. Of course the railway did not answer, and the debentures became Jamaica Bonds. Three years elapsed before the arrangement was completed, and in the meantime the income tax had been raised from 8d. to 1s., and because the income tax for the three years was paid on the 10th of April instead of on the 30th of March, a 1s. tax was claimed for the entire period. That seemed to him to be a system of imposing the income tax which made the tax very much more unpopular than it otherwise would he. It was not fair, and if a tradesman had acted in that way he would not be supported by the law. No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer was acting within his right, but such a system as that tended to make people dislike and resent the payment of the tax.
  The whole question of the income tax had been many times debated in the House of Commons during the last half century. Mr. Gladstone had an idea of amending its various anomalies, but the matter proved too difficult even for him to carry out. With the income tax at its present enormous high rate—and in his opinion it would not be much lower—it was essential that it should be leyied on a fairer and more equitable system. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about the enormous increase of expenditure was a matter which should he considered by all who had the interests of the country at heart. No doubt the enormous increase in the national expenditure was largely due to hon. Members themselves. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was about the only man in the House who really seemed to try and control expenditure. With reference to the remarks of his hon. friend on the various phases of the public service, the Chancellor of the Exchequer once said that it might be necessary to disfranchise public servants,
  1110
  if they went on clamouring in the way they did for more pay, while their appointments were clamoured for by hundreds of people who could not get them. The Government should be fair and liberal, but it was never intended that an organised body should exist for the purpose of increasing the salaries of the class to which they belonged. While being fair and liberal to the servants of the country, the system of always endeavouring to increase payment, whether it was deserved or not, ought to be discouraged. The current expenditure of the country was growing in a way that was very alarming, apart altogether from the war. The enormous expense of war was, to a certain extent, an advantage, because it prevented people going into war as readily as they otherwise would, and he thought it was providential that war was so enormously expensive. How could the increasing national expenditure be stopped? It was quite clear that unless the Government with the largest majority of modern times was firm and strong—and it ought to have, if any Government ever had, the power of putting a stop to unnecessary expenditure, whether it was popular or not—unless they had the pluck and determination to arrest the development of expenditure, they would have to regard 1s. as the normal income tax, and would have to increase taxation in many directions. The infliction of suffering on the part of the poorer people was a matter which should also be considered, and they would not be worthy of the position they held in the House of Commons unless they insisted on the Government doing something to prevent the enormous growth of national expenditure from year to year.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that after discussing several subjects on the Budget they had at last settled down to the income tax, but he was afraid that it was very unfortunate that they were confined to one subject. After the ruling of the Chair, he did not desire to revert to the general question, as no doubt there would be another opportunity of dealing with it. The hon. Member who had just sat dowm desired an income tax which would fall with equal weight

  1111
  on every income-tax payer. He desired to tax the individual income, but that was an impracticable position. It had been attempted more than once, and had been found impossible. In 1853 Mr. Gladstone proved, as far as a proposition could be proved, that it was impossible to deal with the individual income, and that incomes must be dealt with by taxing them at their source. The hon Member would distinguish between one class of income and another. Personally, he did not pay any income tax as an individual. His sources of income were already taxed before they reached his hand; but under the system of individual taxation he would have to make a return of his full income, and he was afraid his inclination would be not to put his income higher than he possibly could. Permanent income at the present moment was derived from realised property, which was subject to a tax which was not unreasonable. The high death duty did away with a good deal of the injustice of the inequality of taxation. Year by year the actual pressure of the tax on precarious incomes had been diminished by abatements and concessions. The system of graduated taxation upon free incomes of the lower class, under which incomes up to £160 were altogether exempt, was a complete system of graduated taxation so far as it went, and he thought that that system should be extended to a much higher figure. He should not hesitate to graduate income tax in that way up to incomes of £1,000 a year or more. That was a proposition which any Government might accept, because Governments of both parties had from time to time given greater exemptions and abatements in regard to income tax. He was in accord with the hon. Member for Camberwell that when the income tax was raised it should be graduated to a greater extent. He regretted that he could not support this proposal as a whole, He was not, he said, one of those who thought the additional 2d. ought not to have been placed on the income tax. In his opinion a yet further addition of 2d. should have been placed upon it. We were in the middle of a long war, which was to cost
  £170,000,000, and yet it was only proposed to raise £27,000,000 by extra taxation. In his view the amount raised
  1112
  by extra taxation was inadequate to the total amount of the war. His general objection to the whole Budget was that the Government were not raising enough by extra taxation to meet the great burden placed upon the country. That observation also applied to indirect taxation, which did not produce sufficient revenue, taking into account the cost of the war and the disturbance to trade that would be involved by the imposition of the sugar and coal duties. He was glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not given way to the clamour against taxing the rich at all, on the ground that the poor relations of the rich would suffer. He should support this resolution.
  MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done as well as he could under the circumstances. He cordially supported the proposals as to sugar and coal; but he accepted the increase of the income tax as a disagreeable necessity, forced upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the desirability of winning some measure of support from the front Opposition bench. The income tax was one which was levied mainly on British industries, while incomes derived from investments abroad were largely exempt, not theoretically, perhaps, but for all practical purposes, because those who held shares in British concerns had their income tax deducted from the dividends when paid. In the case of those who had investments abroad the dividends had first to be traced. It was not too much to say that there was a large amount of leakage in that respect, and that many persons who ought to pay income tax paid nothing at all. There was also a good deal of money which ought to be collected which was not collected. There were a great many people employed in the colliery districts who were well known to be in receipt of £200 or £300 a year who never contributed. He supported the Budget, and would vote for the extra 2d., on the income tax because he believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not avoid, placed in the position he was, putting it on. The speech of the hon. Gentleman who had preceded him represented largely the view of the opposite side of the House

  1113
  that there ought to be more than 2d., but with that view he could not agree. There could not be in a large form a worse tax than the income tax. He greatly regretted that it had not been possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose that the foreign importations into this country, which contributed nothing to the revenue, and many of which entered into competition with our industries, should bear some portion of the burden, instead of it being imposed upon the unfortunate British taxpayer in the shape of income tax. He should, however, not oppose the income tax resolution, but support it as a disagreeable necessity forced upon the Government by the obvious common sense position in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer found himself, of being obliged to follow the line of least resistance.
  MR. FLYNNsaid that many extraordinary economic heresies had from time to time been put forward in the Committee, but the view of the hon. Member for the Kirkdale division really beat all. If hon. Members who held such opinions attempted to put their theories into practice they would all within a couple of years cease to represent any commercial community in the country. With regard to the income tax, he thought that where it was desirable that direct taxation should bear the largest possible proportion of the taxes Irishmen would be in favour of the direct taxation being in the form of an income tax. The incidence, of course, whether between individuals, employments, or countries, was quite another matter. He and his colleagues were all in sympathy with the graduation of the tax, so that the higher the income the larger the proportion of the tax imposed. Up to 1853 Ireland was recognised as a separate fiscal entity as regarded the income tax. Owing to the disastrous years of scarcity in 1847–8, large local sums for relief became due, and these amounts were paid by the English Treasury. Shortly afterwards Mr. Gladstone imposed for the first time the income tax in Ireland, in order to counterbalance the sums the Treasury had paid. The tax was avowedly imposed as a temporary charge—for eleven years—but forty-seven years had since
  1114
  passed, and still the income tax remained. In discussing the general financial relations, the Treasury usually urged the difficulty of arranging the matter with regard to indirect taxation generally without erecting custom-houses and creating trade barriers in Ireland, but here was a tax in regard to which the Treasury could, without any such alteration, give some effect to the findings of the Royal Commission of four or five years ago. One could not help having a feeling approaching contempt for the men who hurrahed and shouted for the war, but were now grumbling through The Times and the Standard at the paltry addition of 2d. on the income tax which they were called upon to pay. If there was any portion of the Empire which under present circumstances ought to escape this additional income tax it was Ireland, not only because of the historical fact to which he had alluded, but also because the increase was undoubtedly due to the enormous expenditure on the costly and bloody war in South Africa, against which Ireland had always protested, and therefore for which she should not be called upon to pay.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTconsidered that the Budget as a whole was as fair a Budget as could under the circumstances have been devised, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to be congratulated on having made the additional burden of taxation fall as equally as possible on all classes and interests. Those who were disposed to criticise the income tax should remember that such questions had to be regarded not only from their financial and ecomonic aspect, but also from their political aspect, and it would not be possible for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to put taxes on sugar and coal—both of which were commendable under present circumstances—without also increasing to a moderate extent the income tax. The hon. Member for Poplar was not likely to get many to join in his regret that an additional 4d. was not put on the income tax, and that the taxes on coal and sugar were not 2s. 6d. per ton and 1d. per pound respectively.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONpointed out that his regret was that the taxation

  1115
  imposed this year was not twice as much, considering the amount of the debt.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid that was practically the same thing. From that point of view the criticism of the hon. Member was very unfair. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had hit upon a very happy mean in the amount he had imposed upon present taxpayers and that which posterity would have to pay. The war was one for which posterity would gain to a much larger extent than was the case with regard to many wars in which this country had been involved, and therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government were quite justified in placing a very considerable portion of the burden upon the shoulders of posterity. British trade with South Africa amounted to about £20,000,000 before the war. He believed that ten years after the war had finished and peace been restored that trade would have doubled, and no one could say that that would not be a great benefit to future generations and to the present generation. The hon. Member who had just sat down took the same line which was taken the other night by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire and other speakers on the opposite side in throwing the whole responsibility for this great expenditure upon the present policy of His Majesty's Government. He held that that was a most unjust charge, for the persons who wore really responsible for it were those who caused the war originally by the capitulation after Majuba. This extra 2d. on the income tax was due to their action far more than to the policy of His Majesty's Government. All the expenditure upon this war might have been averted by timely action, but who were the persons responsible for preventing that timely action? Why, the hon. Gentlemen sitting on the opposite benches. In every single case they carried on a policy of inaction. In 1884, 1894, and 1896, they were the persons who prevented action being taken when it would have saved all this expense. Hon. Gentlemen
  opposite had no right to throw the responsibility for these increases on His Majesty's Government. The war in South Africa was forced upon this country, and a great British conspiracy in South Africa
  1116
  rendered the war inevitable. [Nationalist cheers.] Hon. Members opposite were always ready to take advantage of a slip. He should have said that a great anti-British conspiracy had rendered the war inevitable, and the persons who could have avoided that war, or at least made it easy and
  inexpensive, were those persons who should have dealt with that anti-British conspiracy in time. He protested against the way in which hon. Members opposite had charged the Government with responsibility for this expenditure, when they themselves were the cause of it.
  With regard to the incidence of taxation, he was not aware that the income-tax payers had raised any outrageous cry against the tax. There had been a certain amount of correspondence in the press, and he had heard much complaint from the Ministerial Benches. Although everyone regretted the increase in the income tax, yet he thought the income tax payers as a whole had behaved much more creditably than the coalowners and great coal merchants, who had made an outcry of which he was thoroughly ashamed. Nobody had gained so much by this war from the increased price of coal, carriage, and transport as they had; they ought to pay, and he was glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to make them pay, although he believed that in the long run the tax would fall rather on the foreign consumer. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on his Budget, in which he had made a very equal division of the taxation. He believed this Budget was an original, bold, and fair one, and one which would be popular with the country.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTONsaid that the hon. Member who had just sat down had managed to wander somewhat from the strict subject of the debate. The whole of the speakers on the opposite side of the House had, with the exception of the hon. Member who had just spoken, been harping upon the imposition of 2d. upon the income tax, and he could not help feeling that underlying some of the speeches made on the other side was the desire, perhaps unconscious, to return to protectionist theories and practices in the taxation of this country. Two hon. Members—the Member for Thanet and the Member for

  1117
  Liverpool—blurted out that they did desire to return to protection; indeed, one hon. Member bad spoken of the exploded theory of free trade. The income tax was of all existing forms of direct taxation the one against which most reasons might be urged, and there were, he understood, insuperable practical difficulties in the way of graduating it. But, after all, he approved of that form of direct taxation far more than the two other methods by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to raise additional taxation.
  The hon. Member for Thanet had made his contribution towards the settlement of this difficult question of the finances of the country which they were considering at the present moment, and he had spoken of the bloated expenditure upon education. He could understand the hon. Member saying that until his anti-educational policy was carried out there would be little chance of inducing the mass of the people to agree to his theories with regard to protection. If it were accepted that £11,000,000 was to be raised by the three distinct methods proposed, then he thought the right hon. Gentleman had not proposed a sufficient increase of the income tax in proportion to the other methods. If they took the average family of a labourer with a wage of £1 a week, they found that the indirect taxation he would pay on sugar would amount to
  1–54th of his income, whereas the increase in taxation to the man with an income of £1,000 a year, owing to the increase of income tax plus the tax on sugar, would amount to 1–105th part of his income. So that the labourer with £1 per week would pay almost double the proportion of his income that the man with £1,000 a year and upwards would pay. Seeing that every additional penny added to the income tax yielded loss than the last one, he could not help thinking that it would have been a more just and economical way of dealing with the question if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had gone as far as to increase the income tax by 4d. in the £1. He knew perfectly well that he was excluded from considering the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a whole, but he presumed he was not precluded from expressing the utmost possible dissent from the principles that
  1118
  underlay the speeches of hon. Gentleman opposite with respect to the increase of the income tax. The view that underlay those speeches in most cases was that this country should return to the protective system. He believed that such, an attempt was hopeless. He believed that the people of this country were convinced by two generations of human life as to the enormous advantages we derived as compared with foreign nations from the system of free trade. Our national finance was based to a greater extent than that of any other nation in the world upon direct taxation. It seemed somewhat late in the day to have to argue that in the House of Commons. We could not by putting a duty on imports tax the foreigner. We were often told that good trade was the result of having a Unionist Government in office. But we had now removed almost all restrictions on trade, and there was no opportunity for a Government by its policy to produce good trade. But, although a Government could not produce good trade, it might by its legislation produce bad trade. It was the duty of every free-trader to nail to the counter such a false coin as the suggestion that we should return to the evil system of protection which sixty or seventy years ago well nigh ruined the country. By getting out of it, practically the recent prosperity of this country was wholly due.
  MR. FIELDsaid the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division had alluded to certain points on which he desired to say a few words. The hon. Member had endeavoured to put the blame for the war on previous Governments. He had no desire to enter into useless discussion in regard to the origin of the war, because the constituency he represented, and the people of Ireland generally, were opposed to the war, and had been from the commencement. They could not understand why they should be called upon to support a war upon which they were not consulted, and of which they disapproved. In regard to the way in which the war was begun, he could hardly understand the want of system that existed in this country, which was supposed to be a constitutionally governed country and under the

  1119
  management of the House of Commons. This war was manipulated and brought about by a capitalist clique altogether outside this House, but when the cost of the war was to be paid an appeal is made to Parliament which was not consulted, and they were obliged through their constituents to meet the expenditure. It appeared to him that a great constitutional principle was being lost sight of by the House, and he thought it would be well in future, when war was looming in the distance, that the First Lord of the Treasury should call the House of Commons to consider the question, and to consult it as to the advisability and necessity of plunging into war which the country would have to pay for in men, money, and social suffering.
  The object of just taxation ought to be to adapt the financial burden to the capability of those who were called upon to hear the tax. He held that the wealthier classes did not pay a proportionate share of the income tax. A business man was called upon to make a hypothetical return of the amount of profit he was likely to realise in the ensuing year. That was a preposterous way to levy taxation. The poor governess was disproportionately burdened. Brains were taxed entirely out of ratio with rentals or royalties. The whole subject required to be reformed, and greater gradations of payments introduced. The income tax in Ireland was introduced in 1853 by Mr. Gladstone, who said it was to be a tax for seven years, but it had been continued ever since. British financiers when they got hold of a tax seldom relinquished it. The Irish people were told that it was in exchange for the payment of £260,000 a year, in connection with the Consolidated Fund annuities, that the income tax was imposed. The income tax amounted to double the amount of the Consolidated Fund annuities, and the result was that they had paid something like
  £30,000,000 in income tax since then. In his opinion Mr. Gladstone was the most expensive friend that Ireland ever had, from a taxpayer's point of view, and the sooner his system of taxation was abolished the better. For what had been the result of that
  1120
  financial policy? It had increased taxation and decreased population. For according as the population decreased, the incidence of taxation increased. Now that was a result that had not been attained or attempted by the Government of any civilised country in the world. While the population had decreased by one half since Her late Majesty came to the throne, the taxation had increased three-fold. These were very serious facts, and demanded the immediate attention of everyone in this House who had any interest in Ireland. He entirely traversed the statement made by the last speaker in regard to free trade. He did not believe that it was a policy of free trade. It was a policy of free imports; for they received everything from all parts of the world, while there was a wall of protection against British and Irish products and manufactures wherever they were exported. The Manchester school and all those who had obtained prosperity under so-called free trade looked upon a man as an utter fanatic who had the courage of his convictions on this question; but he believed that the time was approaching when the whole fiscal system of this country would have to be reconsidered and reconstituted, because if they went on as they were going—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the income tax is the subject of debate.
  MR. FIELDsaid he was coming to the income tax. If the community of Great Britain ceased to earn money, then they could not pay anything, even income tax. That was what he was trying to prove. If the exports decreased and the imports increased to the same extent as had occurred during the last few years, then the income tax, instead of increasing, would diminish to such an extent that they would be obliged to put the taxes on something else. He maintained that they must reconsider the basis and the principles which governed the whole fiscal system of this country, because if it was continued, and the main burden of taxation was paid by the producer for the benefit of the consumer, the system could not last. England was living on its capital rather

  1121
  than its earnings; manufactures were declining, and the cultivation of land did not pay. In regard to Ireland and the Irish income tax, he found that it had decreased between 1896 and 1900 by no less a sum than. £10,000. Now, that was a very important fact, and the Government naturally desire to keep up their Imperial revenue. This might be accomplished by revaluation through a Government department. The city of Belfast had recently been revalued, and the result was that the people of that city had to pay £13,000 per annum more in income tax. And what did they find? Loyal Belfast, which was supposed to open its arms to receive the burden of taxation, or any other gift, from this country was up in arms against that increase of the income tax. If this revaluation was to go on all over Ireland, and was calculated on the same basis as in Belfast, the result would be that the over-taxation of Ireland would be increased by more than a million a year. That was a very serious consequence. They were overtaxed by a sum of no less than three millions; and under this new Budget it would be almost four millions. What did that mean? There was a population of only 4½ millions, and it meant that every man, woman, and child would pay £1 of Imperial over-taxation. If the money was spent in the country there might be some justification for it; but it was nearly all exported and spent out of Ireland, so the financial ruin of Ireland was accelerated. As a Nationalist he protested against the income tax being increased, because after all he had no desire to see the wealthier classes of Irishmen leaving the country. On the contrary, his desire was that every Irishman should be able and willing to live at home. But if this system of increasing the income tax, and taxation generally, was persisted in, it was not alone the working people that would leave the country, but also the wealthier classes, and there would be fewer people to tax by and by. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh, but that was a very serious statement. The population had decreased by nearly five millions in the last fifty years. He had been examining the emigration statistics,
  1122
  and he found that there had been a larger emigration last year than the year before. That was a subject which ought to interest the sympathy of humane men, instead of exciting laughter. After all, the people were the State, and if they had no people they would have no State, and if they had fewer people in Ireland they would get less taxes. He protested against this increase of the income tax in Ireland, though he did not object to an increase of the taxation on the wealthier classes by further graduating the income tax. He suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should give them some scheme whereby he would remit to Ireland the same amount which he proposed to take out of it by the increase in the income tax. An equal sum ought to be given back in the shape of a grant for some useful reproductive national purpose; some practical proposal should be offered and considered. A suggestion had been made in the Report of the Financial Relations Committee of giving a grant for reducing the rates of freight and fares on the Irish railways, which he commended to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When Sir Robert Peel introduced his Income Tax Bill in 1842 it was strongly pressed on him to include Ireland, but he declined to do so on the ground that, having regard to the relative resources of both islands, Ireland as a whole already contributed to the Imperial revenue a quota relatively to her means quite as heavy as the people of Great Britain would have to contribute with the addition of income-tax, therefore the justice and necessity of remission and restitution to the overburdened Irish taxpayer.
  MR. CATHCART WASONsaid that an hon. Gentleman who had spoken had criticised the system which allowed the Government to go to war without the consent of Parliament. The Government did not go to war; it was the Boers who commenced to raid our territory and destroy the property of our settlers. There was no country in the world, so far as he knew, in which Parliament was consulted in regard to war. In the great American Civil War—which was the only one that had any resemblance to

  1123
  this war with the Boers—war was not declared by Congress but by the rebels. This war was also declared by the rebels.
  An HON. MEMBER on the Irish Benches: They were not rebels, but a free people.
  MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he did not know what constituted a rebel in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Loyalty and rebellion in their minds seemed to him to be very mixed up. It was a rebellion. [Cries from the Irish Benches of "It was not."]
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting far from the resolution before the Committee.
  MR. CATHCART WASONsaid that he would not have intervened in the debate were it not for the refreshing remarks of the hon. Member for Devonport. The hon. Member resembled the worshippers in a barbaric country who set up an idol for themselves, worshipped it, then took it down, turned it inside out, put a bit of gilt paper on it, and then set it up again. The very suggestion of Protection had induced the hon. Member to tell the Committee what free trade had done for the country, and what would be the result of any modification of the present fiscal system. He was quite certain that the time would come when the country would have to reconsider its entire fiscal arrangements. Recent events had shown that the country stood almost alone, though not quite alone, as she had the hardy sons from her colonies around her. Just as America, a great nation which could stand alone against any foreign combination, had declared itself a Protectionist State, as had also the colonies, England would have to resort to Protection.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must connect his remarks somehow with the resolution before the Committee:
  MR. CATHCART WASONsaid, with reference to the taxation of incomes, he did not altogether hold with the system proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought the time had arrived when some distinction ought
  1124
  to be made as regards the source from which incomes were derived. Whether an income came from a man's professional work or from realised wealth should be considered, and an increase might be put on incomes from the latter source. It would also be an improvement to carry the graduation of the income tax very much further. He agreed that it was a very difficult matter to impose new taxation, and he was sorry that the Government had not seen fit to throw the whole cost of the war on the Transvaal and Orange Free State.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That does not arise. The matter has been discussed on another resolution and cannot be reopened.
  MR. CATHCART WASONsaid that he would only say in conclusion that in his opinion it would have been much wiser and better if a graduated tax had been imposed, graduated not only in reference to the amount of the income, but also in reference to its incidence, so that it would not press too heavily on professional men whose incomes died with them, but should rather press on persons whose incomes were derived from realised wealth without having to work for it. The position of the taxpayer was not altogether a fortunate one, and he would simply have to make the best he could of it.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid he had no intention of following the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken into the realms of idolatry. But there were two suggestions made by the hon. Gentleman with which he heartily agreed. During the debate very little attention had been paid to what, in his opinion, was the most important question connected with the resolution—namely, the incidence of the income tax. When the tax stood at 8d. it was a very annoying and very oppressive one, but now that it had advanced to 1s. 2d. it was for certain classes of the community an almost intolerable tax. He did not propose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should receive from the income tax less than he proposed to raise by his present scale, but he suggested that some regard

  1125
  should be paid to the taxable capacity of the various classes who would be called upon to pay the tax. Five years ago he put down a series of Amendments to the Finance Bill, his object being to obtain a graduated scale of taxation so far as the income tax was concerned. The right hon. Gentleman then said that it was practically impossible to adopt a graduated scale, but in the following year he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to extend the principle of graduation which existed as regards incomes up to £500, and the right hon. Gentleman did extend it to incomes up to £700. It was perfectly possible to graduate the income tax by means of exemptions. There was absolutely no difficulty whatever in taking that course, because the right hon. Gentleman and the Department over which he presided would only be following on the lines of existing legislation and existing administration. Was it right that a man with an income of £500 should only receive an abatement on
  £120, whereas a man with an income of £5,000 or £10,000 from invested funds was not required to pay a penny more in proportion, always excepting the small allowance he had mentioned. He would very earnestly support the appeal made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that a distinction should be made between incomes earned by a man's own exertions and incomes derived from investments. Such a distinction was drawn in one of the great colonies of the Empire and there was no reason why it should not be drawn in Great Britain also. He would urge on the right hon. Gentleman that there was absolutely no difficulty whatever in graduating the income tax up to any desired point by means of exemptions.
  MR. MOULTONsaid he fully appreciated the importance, as regarded public convenience, of restricting the discussion to the resolution. He did not mean to traverse the ruling of the Chairman that the discussion must be thus restricted, and yet there was never an occasion on which it was more difficult, he might a most say impossible, to discuss the resolution without entering on the question of alternative taxation. When
  1126
  expenditure was such as to require further taxation, it was idle to criticise a proposed tax merely on the ground that it created inconvenience. Every tax must do so. The only effective criticism was to show that the money could be obtained in some other way with less inconvenience. But the importance of thus treating the question was specially great on the present occasion. In the speech on the introduction of the Budget—a speech which they all felt did the right hon. Gentleman great honour—the Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed for his Budget that it should not be regarded as a temporary expedient. He unflinchingly put before the House of Commons all the difficulties of the country, all its new indebtedness and all its increased expenditure, and he said that they should no longer consider the taxes he proposed as temporary expedients to tide over a temporary difficulty, but that they should be looked upon as changes in the normal taxation of the country. Therefore, they had to consider the income tax now proposed as being substantially the normal income tax in the future, and would have to compare it not with the 1s. tax of last year, which was confessedly temporary, but with the income tax as it stood before the war. Viewed in this light the normal income tax had been raised from 8d. to 14d., and they would have to consider whether it was right to almost double the income tax as a permanent measure. They could not of course criticise the tax properly without considering what substitute should be provided for it, but he did not propose to examine generally the alternatives that might be suggested. He was going to assume that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right, and that he was obliged to raise by direct taxation as much as this increased income tax would yield. But the fact that the sum was to be raised by direct taxation did not necessitate its being raised entirely by the income tax. Our system of taxation would be a very unfair one if the income tax was the only form of direct taxation. Both the previous speakers had pointed out that one of the greatest objections to the income tax was that it fell alike on those who earned their incomes by their own skill

  1127
  or brains, and on those who derived their incomes from realised property. It taxed the owner and the earner alike, and now that the income tax was doubled the inequality of taxing the earner as much as the owner had become more serious. A man with an income from £10,000 in Consols paid neither more nor less income tax than a clerk who earned £275 a year. But those hon. Members had not realised that in this matter of direct taxation the inequality between those who earn and those who own was redressed in this country by means of the death duties. These fall solely on realised property, and though for the sake of general convenience they are levied once for all at a man's death, they are equivalent to an annual tax which is paid on realised property by those who own it, and which does not fall on the year's earnings. Thus a fair adjustment can be made between the direct taxation falling on owners and earners by properly proportioning the rates of the income tax and the death duties. When those duties were fixed the income tax was at 8d., and very careful calculations showed that in those circumstances those who derived their income from earnings paid just about half the rate per pound paid by those who derived their income from realised property. No one could say that such a proportion was unduly hard upon those who derived their income from realised property. But that balance had now been wholly destroyed, because the income tax had been nearly doubled, and there had been no increase in the capital tax levied by the death duties. The consequence was that by adopting this as a permanent method of raising revenue an undue proportion of the new burden was laid on the weaker shoulders. He did not attach any religious sanction to this particular balancing of the two sources of income, although he thought the proportion of two to one very reasonable under existing circumstances, but the arrangement was made by Parliament as being a fair proportion between those who had realised property and those who had not, and the burden on the back of the earner ought not to be increased without taking care that this proportion was being kept, and
  1128
  in this manner they could best satisfy the aims of those who wished to introduce a graduated income tax. It was easy to graduate the death duties, and therefore those who desired a graduated income tax could get all they wanted by making the death duties increase pari passu with the income tax. That not only enabled them to fairly divide the burden between the owners and earners and to effectually graduate the income tax, and what he regretted was that this great increase had been made in the income tax instead of the money being raised by increasing simultaneously and in the same proportion the income tax and the death duties.
  MR. TULLYsaid the House was indebted to the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down for the advice which he had given to it. It was largely owing to his advice that the death duties had been the success they were, and he hoped that the views of the hon. Gentleman would receive due consideration from the Government. He could not agree with those who had protested against the increase of the income tax; it was they who had returned to power the gentlemen responsible for the policy which had resulted in the war and this increased taxation, and he had no admiration for the men who, having voted for the war, now came squealling to the House because an additional 2d. was put upon the income tax. In his opinion the increase should have been 2s. The gentlemen responsible for the war should be made to pay. One hon. Gentleman suggested a universal income tax of 4d. in the
  £, so that a labourer earning £50 a year would have to pay 17s.; he would not imagine that such a tax would be popular, and thought it would be a pity that hon. Gentlemen who advocated it did not address their constituents upon that subject. If they did, the House probably would not be burdened by their presence for long. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had truly said that much more taxation could not be put upon Ireland; the result of increasing the income tax from 8d. to 1s. had only been to secure an increased amount of £24,000, and such figures told the tale of poverty that all classes in Ireland suffered from when increasing the income tax by half only

  1129
  brought in such a paltry amount. When the income tax was imposed in 1873 upon Ireland it was distinctly stated by Mr. Gladstone that it was only to be levied for seven years; nevertheless, it was still being levied, and it had been increased until it had reached the straining point. The way in which this impost was levied in Ireland was absolutely iniquitous. Every year the persons responsible for gathering the tax increased their demands, until the unfortunate people who had to pay were forced to appeal to the courts, and the small traders of Ireland who were so forced had to disclose their poverty at the very worst time of the year for them, and the result was, in several cases, to his knowledge, within a very few months of applying to the court, those unfortunate persons found themselves in the Bankruptcy Court. He protested against such a system being allowed. Irish Members were entitled to protest on every possible occasion against any increase in the taxation imposed upon Ireland, as since
  1893–94 the total amount levied in that country had increased from £7,568,000 to £8,664,000, and the present proposals would mean the addition of another £500,000. The persons mainly responsible for the present increases were the small income taxpayers, who, through their jingoism, forced on the war in South Africa. These were the people who were now complaining, but they had previously had very little regard for the suffering and desolation caused by the policy of fire and sword, which, through their votes, they were the means of bringing into South Africa.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I will not attempt to go into the question raised by the hon. Gentleman who last sat down, because, after all, I think if there be a grievance in Ireland with regard to taxation it is not in regard to the income tax. I have never been able to see why a person who is above the income-tax limit should not pay income tax in Ireland just as well as in Great Britain, and to excuse persons from the payment of income tax because they live in Ireland would seem to me to be an utterly unreasonable proposition to I advance in regard to the taxation of the United Kingdom. This debate has been an interesting one to me. From one side
  1130
  have come theories as to taxation; from the other side have come other theories, but I do not think anybody has questioned the fact that we must raise more taxation this year, and that we must raise part of it at any rate by direct taxation. My right hon. friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet has with great skill utilised the opportunity for ventilating his peculiar theories upon the subject of our fiscal system. He almost suggested that if we would follow those theories we might abolish the income tax. At any rate, I think he went as far as this—that if I had adopted his theories no increase of the income tax would be necessary this year. Sir, I prefer the increase of the income tax to the adoption of his theories. I believe it to be better for the country, and I believe it to be fairer. Though I hope he may live for many years, I do not think he is likely to sec the adoption of those theories by any Chancellor of the Exchequer, no matter to what Government he may belong. Hon. Members on the other side of the House, so far from objecting to the resolution which is now before the House, have rather blamed me for not proposing that, instead of 2d. additional to the income tax, 4d. additional should be levied this year. I endeavoured very carefully to balance the burden which this Budget has thrown upon the taxpayers of the country, together with the burdens which they were already bearing, and I think if I had adopted such a proposal as that it would have been unfair to the payers of direct taxation. Those who argue in favour of this, with the exception of one hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for the Launceston Division, forget the heavy burden thrown on the payers of direct taxation in other ways. A good deal of the afternoon has been occupied with the discussion initiated by my hon. friend the Member for Hertfordshire with regard to the taxation of what he calls wasting incomes, or incomes derived from brain power, as compared with incomes derived from property; and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Launceston went so far as to say—so I understood him—that any addition to the income tax, as compared with 8d. in the pound, at which it stood in the year 1894, ought to be balanced by a corre-

  1131
  sponding addition to the death duties. That certainly is not my view. I think the death duties were put in 1894 at an extremely high point. And I think the hon. Member has omitted to consider this, that to make the death duties a varying tax, which you might increase or decrease as you increase or decrease the income tax from year to year, would be extremely unfair to persons whose estates might be subject to the death duties within a particular year in which the tax was increased, while it would be extremely favourable to those persons whose estates became subject to the death duties when the duties were diminished.
  MR. MOULTONwas understood to express the belief that it was to be a permanent increase.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am a little more sanguine than the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not look forward, though he may, to a permanent income tax of 1s. 2d. in the pound. I have hopes still lingering in the bottom of my mind that the additional taxation proposed in this year will turn the thoughts of the country, as I think it has already turned the thoughts of many members of this House, to the virtues of economy. Therefore a 14d. income tax may not be one of our permanent institutions. Another suggestion was, I think, made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Flint Boroughs, who has taken great interest in this question, and has always been good enough to do me justice with regard to it, that there should be some further graduation of income tax in favour of the possessors of small incomes. One hon. Member, speaking from that side of the House, went so far as to suggest that the possessors of all incomes not exceeding £500 should be free from the additional income tax imposed for this year. I think such a proposal as that would be by no means a fair one. I should be very sorry myself in a year with an increased income tax to single out a particular class of income-tax payers as a class to be relieved of that increase. I think that that, financially, would be an extremely immoral course: it would be almost purchasing the support of that class in favour of an increase of
  1132
  taxation which, however unpopular it may be, ought to be levied by Parliament, so to speak, all round. And when the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Flint Boroughs invites me to a further graduation this year I must remind him that my last proposals of abatements, though accepted by Parliament, were not by any means universally approved of at the time by this House. There were comments precisely of the nature which I have just made myself, although in that year the income tax was not increased. I should be sorry to raise the rate of exemption from income tax. I think you could hardly make a greater mistake in our financial system.
  With regard to the increase of abatements to a higher level, I confess that to my mind a limit of £700 does seem a reasonable point to which abatements may extend. It is too often forgotten by the possessors of small incomes and by those those who advocate their cause that with regard to the lowest grade of incomes on which income tax is paid the abatements system does give a very large relief now. I think it ought to. I do not say it might not be increased, but I should not think it right to make a proposal for increasing it at such a time as that with which we are now dealing. There is no difference, so far as I know, in the House as to the necessity of further taxation, and I think there is very little difference as to the necessity, at any rate, of a considerable part of that taxation being raised by an increase of the income tax. Therefore, as we have had a discussion of some length dealing with many aspects of the income tax, I would venture to ask the Committee whether we might not
  now be allowed to come to a decision on a matter on which, I think, we are generally agreed—that there should bean increase of the income tax to the extent of 2d. in the pound. So far as I have noticed there is only one other point in the discussion to which I ought to refer. My hon. friend the Member for North Islington criticised the administration of the tax with regard to the question of arrears. He referred to a matter that happened last year, and has not been repeated now, at any rate. The tax is levied, and must I be levied on income which accrues to the possessor in the course of the year

  1133
  That income accrued—though the possessors were unfortunately kept out of it for some time—in the course of the year in which the tax was increased. That was unfortunate for them. But it might have accrued in a year in which the tax was lowered, and then we should not have heard any complaint. I by no means say that the income tax is a perfect one. I do not know any tax that can be so described; but if any Iron. Members think that they can easily make the income tax more perfect than it is now, I cannot give them better advice than that given by the hon. Member for Poplar—namely, to read that remarkable speech made by Mr. Gladstone on the income tax in 1853. A good many points have been raised as to the unfairness of the incidence of the income tax as between incomes derived from trade and brain work and incomes derived from those sources which are permanent; but of this I am quite certain—that as a new kind of direct taxation has been derived from the enormous increase of the death duties, the burden is now practically fair as between persons who derive their income from their brains on the one side and those who are the possessors of property on the other side. Although it may be possible in quieter times and with less difficulties in regard to taxation to amend the income tax, still I do not think it would be easy, and I do not think that any other country has ever devised a better system on the whole than that system which we now possess.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I agree so entirely with what has fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the course he has adopted that I shall not detain the Committee more than a few seconds in referring to the income tax. All taxes are bad, but taxes are the fruit, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown, of extravagance, and whenever this House or the country makes up its mind no longer to have extravagance,
  then we shall diminish the income tax, and not before. But I observe that the people who most denounce the income tax are those who most promote extravagance. You will find that extravagance is not really discouraged in this country; on the contrary, it is encouraged, and encouraged to a very great degree by those who most complain of the income tax. There is a great desire, no doubt, that the whole burden of taxation should be cast upon those who have an income of less than £160 a year, which is the low limit of the income tax. The people who want to get rid of the income tax are those who wish to levy the whole of this extravagant expenditure on the poorest classes of the community. ["No, no."] It is so. I cannot now go into an argument on the subject. Allow me to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is able now to make any reply to the appeal which I made to him earlier in the evening, at question time, to postpone the Report stage of the resolution as to the coal tax until an opportunity has been given for the miners to make representations to him on the subject.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes, Sir; I have considered that matter, and I will undertake that the Report of the resolution shall be postponed until next week; but may I express the hope that the Committee will decide as to the present resolution now, and then the remaining resolutions can be taken on Thursday?
  MR. O'MARAargued that there were many reasons why the proposed increase in the income tax should not apply to Ireland. Within the last seven years there had been a great falling off in incomes in Ireland. There was also a historical reason why the increase should not apply to Ireland—
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 363; Noes, 88. (Division List No. 138.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bain, Col. James Robert

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Arrol, Sir William

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Balcarres, Lord

  Aird, Sir John

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

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

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Austin, Sir John

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

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

  Faber, George Denison

  Kearley, Hudson E.

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

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

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

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Finch, George H.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Black, Alexander William

  Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

  Keswick, William

  Blundell, Col. Henry

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kimber, Henry

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Bond, Edward

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Kitson, Sir James

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Langley, Batty

  Brigg, John

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Lawrence, William F.

  Bull, William James

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lawson, John Grant

  Billiard, Sir Harry

  Garfit, William

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Burt, Thomas

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

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Butcher, John George

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Leighton, Stanley

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Caldwell, James

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederi'k

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J A (Glasgow

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

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'rH'm'ts

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham)

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

  Gord, Hon. F. S. Ormsby-

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Gorst, Rt Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Lowe, Francis William

  Cawley, Frederick

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbu'y

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Macartney, Rt. Hon. W. G. E.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Gretton, John

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Chapman, Edward

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Charrington Spencer

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Coddington, Sir William

  Gunter, Colonel

  M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M' Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hain, Edward

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  'Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Malcolm, Ian

  Colville, John

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midd'x

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hamilton, Marq. of L'nd'nderry

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hare Thomas Leigh

  Mather, William

  Crombie, John William

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Maxwel L Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Haslem, Sir Alfred S.

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Milward, Colonel Victor

  Denny, Colonel

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Mitchell, William

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

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

  Heath, James (Statfords, N. W.

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Helme, Norval Watson

  More, Robert J. (Shropshire)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Henderson, Alexander

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hampstead

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Doughty, George

  Holland, William Henry

  Moss, Samuel

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Mount, William Arthur

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Dunn, Sir William

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Edwards, Frank

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Button, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Myers, William Henry

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Emmott, Alfred

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Newnes, Sir George

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

  Joicey, Sir James

  Norman, Henry

  1136

  1137

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Ure, Alexander

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Partington, Oswald

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Warde, Col. C. E.

  Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Hemberton, John S. G.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Percy, Earl

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Perks, Robert William

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

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

  Pilkington, Richard

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne

  Plummer, Walter R.

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Price, Robert John

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

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell- (Birm

  Purvis, Robert

  Spear, John Ward

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

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

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

  Rankin, Sir James

  Spencer, Eriest (W. Bromwich)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Stanley, Hn. Archur (Ormskirk

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Rea, Russell

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

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

  Renwick, George

  Scone, Sir Benjamin

  Wolff Gustav Wilhelm

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Stroyan, John

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

  Ridley, Hn. M. W (Stalybridge

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

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

  Rigg, Richard

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

  Wylie, Alexander

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Hoe, Sir Thomas

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Younger, William

  Round, James

  Tomkinson, James

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Russell, T. W.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Rutherford, John

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Allen, Chas. P. (Grouc., Stroud

  Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Chas. H.

  O'Donnell, J. (Mayo, S.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Dowd, John

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Mara, James

  Bell, Richard

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Blake, Edward

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Shee, James John

  Boland, John

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Boyle, James

  Lambert, George

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cameron, Robert

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Reddy, M.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Leamy, Edmund

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Levy, Maurice

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lundon, W.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Roche, John

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Neill, John Gordon Swift

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Daly, James

  M'Govern, T.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Delany, William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dillon, John

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Thompson, E. C. (Monaghan, N.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Minch, Matthews

  Tully, Jasper

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Mooney, John J.

  Wallace, Robert

  Duffy, William J.

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  White, Patrick (Meath, N.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Murnaghan, George

  Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)

  Kenwick, Charles

  Murphy, J.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Field, William

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Gilhooly, James

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Sir Thomas Esmonde and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Harrington, Timothy

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

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

  And, it being after ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

EVENING SITTING.
  CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
  MR. SPEAKERinformed the House that he had received from the Judges appointed to try the several Election Petitions the following Certificate and Report relating to the Monmouth Boroughs:—

  MONMOUTH ELECTION PETITION.
  The Election Petition for the Monmouth Boroughs.
  The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868.
  The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Acts, 1854–1895.
  To the Right Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons.
  We, Sir William Raun Kennedy and Sir Charles John Darling, Judges of the High Court of Justice, and two of the Judges on the rota for the time being for the trial of Election Petitions in England and Wales, do hereby certify, in pursuance of the said Acts, that, upon the 29th and 30th days of March and 1st and 2nd days of April of this year, we duly held a Court at the Town Hall, Newport, Monmouth, for the trial of, and did try, the Election Petition for the Monmouth Boroughs between Thomas Embrey and Christopher Sweeting, Petitioners, and Frederick Rutherfoord Harris, Respondent.
  And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, we report that at the conclusion of the said trial we determined that the said Frederick Rutherfoord Harris, being the Member whose Election and return were complained of in the said Petition, was not duly elected and returned, and that the Election was void on the ground of illegal practices by the said Frederick Rutherfoord Harris and by his agent; and we do hereby certify in writing such our determination to you.
  And whereas charges were made in the said Petition of illegal practices having been committed at the said Election, we,
  1140
  in further pursuance of the said Acts, report as follows:—

  (1) That an illegal practice was proved to have been committed by the said Frederick Rutherfoord Harris, in that he during the said Election, for the purpose of effecting the return of a candidate at such Election, made and published false statements of fact in relation to the personal character and conduct of such candidate.

  (2) That the following persons were proved guilty of illegal practices, namely:

  Frederick Rutherfoord Harris,

  Henry Longstaff,

  Reginald Bath Cleaver,

  Thomas Jeke.

  (3) That although it was proved that illegal practices were committed at the said Election, it was not proved, nor have we reason, upon the evidence before us, to believe that illegal practices extensively prevailed at the said Election.

  (4) That the said Frederick Rutherfoord Harris was guilty by his Election agent, Henry Longstaff, of an illegal practice, in that the said Henry Longstaff failed without such authorised excuse as is mentioned in the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, to make a true return respecting the Election expenses of the said Frederick Rutherfoord Harris.

  (5) That, in the course of the investigation of the last mentioned charge, it appeared to us that the said Frederick Rutherfoord Harris was by his said Election agent, Henry Longstaff, guilty also of an illegal practice under the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, Section 9, Sub-section 1, in that the said Henry Longstaff induced and procured Thomas Jeke aforesaid to vote at the said Election knowing that he was a person prohibited; but no charge under this section was alleged in the said Petition.

  (6) That we have given certificates of indemnity to the several persons whose names are set out in paragraph (2).

  A copy of the evidence and of our Judgment, taken by the deputies of the shorthand writer of the House of Commons, accompanies this certificate.
  Dated this 22nd day of April, 1901.
  WILLIAM RANN KENNEDY.
  CHARLES DARLING.

  STEAMSHIP COMMUNICATION— GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES.
  MR. EVELYN CECILrose to call attention to the absence of direct British steamship communication between Great Britain and East Africa; and to move, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the system of subsidies to steamship companies under foreign Governments, and the effect thereby produced on British trade; and to consider and report upon the political and commercial advantages to be gained by encouraging British steamers to circumnavigate Africa, especially having regard to the East coast, and to report upon the best means of giving them such encouragement." He said: I have been fortunate in the opportunity of raising this subject both in regard to time and to form. So far as the form is concerned it is important, because the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the Post Office, so far as it deals with the mails, and the Board of Trade are interested; and had I raised the question on the Votes of any one of these offices I should probably have been ruled out of order in respect of what I wished to say regarding the other three, and the House would have missed the importance of the subject through its being argued in driblets. I am fortunate as to the time, because this year the German Government has increased the subsidy to the German East African line of steamers, in order to enable them to go right round Africa, from £45,000 to £67,500. I am also perhaps fortunate in bringing forward this motion, because, with the exceptions of the hon. Member for Bermondsey and the hon. Member for Ormskirk, I believe I am the only Member of the House who has travelled the whole distance along the East Coast of Africa.
  There is, I submit, much to inquire into with regard to this subject. It raises many wider issues than it at first sight appears to do. It deals with our trade throughout the world. In mentioning more particularly East Africa I do not want to exclude the question of subsidised lines of foreign steamers in other parts of the world. The North German line is subsidised, and it runs to every continent except America. The Messa-
  1142
  geries Maritimes line is subsidised, and runs to every continent. The difference between our system of subsidies hitherto—with one exception, which has now been established in the West Indies—and that of foreign Governments has been that we subsidise for value received only, that is for carrying mails, or for obtaining if necessary in time of war the right to seize the best ships of the merchant shipping companies; but foreign Governments subsidise to obtain better ships, better accommodation, and, if necessary, a higher rate of speed, and also to encourage trade and shipbuilding. Therefore I do not wish to confine this subject in any respect solely to East Africa. I have no doubt that many of my hon. friends will be able to adduce evidence of subsidies which have done harm to British trade in various parts of the world; but I have chosen East Africa because I think it is much the gravest case. If you travel to China you can go by the P. and O. Company's steamers, which run in competition with the North German Lloyd and the Messageries Maritimes lines; but if you travel to East Africa there is no line of British steamers by which you can go the whole distance without transhipment. That is a fact which makes a very serious case so far as our trade is concerned. I should like to lay before the House some of the facts and some of the difficulties which our British trade has to encounter. Take our great emporium of Zanzibar. People here, perhaps, do not realise what an important centre of trade that is. To the Indian merchants who come over there it is almost as important as London is to this country, or as New York is to the United States; and if we respect at all the prestige in which the natives of that part of the world are disposed to hold British power, it ought to be one of our primary objects to improve and maintain direct communication with Zanzibar. Statistics show some very remarkable particulars. The tonnage of vessels for 1899 entering Zanzibar—the last figures obtainable—show that there entered into the harbour—German, 168,113 tons, total vessels, 98; British, 103,457 tons, total vessels, 69; French, 26 vessels: Norwegian, 3 vessels; and

  1143
  United States, 2 vessels. There is no question, therefore, if you measure merely by the tonnage of the ships, that that of foreign ships is greatly in excess of that of the British. But that is not all. We have, as I have suggested, to tranship our goods. The only large British line which runs to Zanzibar is. I believe, the British India, but to get to Zanzibar by the British India from this country you have to change steamers at Aden; and if this is an inconvenience to passengers it is not difficult to understand that the transhipment of cargo is much more serious. The additional risks run by delays all add naturally to the cost of carriage, to say nothing of exposure to the weather and thefts by natives.
  Another difficulty arises in respect of passengers. Not unfrequently the plague breaks out at Aden, and supposing a traveller wanted to come home from Zanzibar via, Aden, he might be put in quarantine—the only alternative being for him to go the long round-about journey to Bombay and join the P. and O. steamer. It is perfectly obvious that these disadvantages are very great; but, strange to say, both the passenger fares and the freight for cargo are higher by the British than by the French and German lines. The first class fare of the British India steamers—entailing the change at Aden—is £57 15s.; by the German East African line it is only £42 10s., and by the Messageries Maritimes from Marseilles, £40 14s. But the French and German lines have certain advantages in addition. If the traveller happens to be an official, say a consul of any country, he is allowed a rebate on his fare of 10 per cent. on the German East African line and the same for his wife and family, and by the Messageries Maritimes line a rebate of 15 per cent. Therefore, with all these disadvantages it is not surprising that the tonnage of British ships going out to Zanzibar is much below that of foreign vessels, although Zanzibar is the most important British territory on the east coast of Africa.
  But I turn to the other ports. The Consular Report respecting the trade of our East Africa Protectorate for 1899 states—
  "A direct line of British steamers between London and Mombasa would go far to stimulate
  1144
  trade in British goods, as importers are strongly adverse to the delays and damages which transhipment entails. The gross registered steam tonnage which entered the port in 1899 was 218,089 cons, represented by 142 steamers. Of this tonnage 90,126 tons was English and 127,903 tons German."
  I believe also that American trade, which I am informed is increasing there with considerable rapidity, is carried in German ships almost entirely. Mombasa is not the only place involved. The circumstances also concern Uganda. Mombasa is a port which has a fair chance of almost equalling Zanzibar if the prosperity of Uganda increases. We have over and over again discussed the question of Uganda in this House, but I cannot see the use of all the money and trouble we have expended in connection with the Uganda Railway if we allow foreign ships to carry away all the trade. The Government have on various occasions, I believe, been approached with reference to running British steamers direct to Mombasa. When it was a matter of material being conveyed for the Uganda Railway it was found necessary to charter a steamer at Cardiff, which ran on an average once every six weeks, because it was found impossible to use any of the other British steam ship lines, as transshipment was too serious and rates were too high. Advantageous offers were made to the Government, but the steamer from Cardiff was the arrangement they preferred. When a debate occurred in this House in April, 1899, with reference to the Uganda Railway and the transhipment of railway material, the Secretary of State for War, in his then capacity as Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, said there were already six lines of steamers on the east coast of Africa running from England, and that therefore it was quite unnecessary to have a direct British line. When the hon. Member for Kilmarnock Burghs interrupted with the remark that all these steamships went round South Africa my right hon. friend made this rather remarkable statement—
  "Whether they go round the south of Africa or the north of Africa does not matter; so long as they arrive at their destination the Foreign Office is willing to take advantage of them."
  I do not think I need comment on that remark. I can only conclude that my

  1145
  right hon. friend's better judgment had on this occasion been swallowed up by his official responsibility. Uganda, with all its prospects of development, seems in itself a sufficient ground for establishing a direct line of British steamers, which could run to Zanzibar and Mozambique. The only Consular Report which does not advocate the establishment of this line is the report with reference to Mozambique, but, after all, Mozambique belongs to Portugal, the whole hinterland is Portuguese, and it is not in any sense on the highway to our British possessions. The Consular Report with reference to Mozambique, after mentioning the German East Africa line and the Messageries Maritimes, states that "there is little inducement for other companies to enter into competition as yet"; and this comment, I assume, also applies to another small port, Quilimane, which is still further south, and which also belongs to Portugal. When we come to Chinde, the case is again somewhat different, as it could supply British Central Africa, where there are prospects of coffee, and possibly ivory, india-rubber, and other products, if it were not for the serious obstacle of the bar in the river Zambesi. This does not by any means complete the evidence of the Consular Reports, which urge that the Government should assist direct steamship communication with East Africa. The one dealing with Beira states:—
  "The end of the year 1900 should show a very great increase of trade at this port; the opening of the railway at Salisbury with extensions to Gwelo and Bulawayo, the importation of machinery, the opening up and satisfactory returns from the mining districts of Manica and Rhodesia with the necessary sequence of increase in population, will ail materially tend to this result."
  If this forecast is true with regard to Beira, I would ask what will the trade be with the Transvaal colony through Delagoa Bay as soon as peace is established? I should like to quote from a letter which I received a few months ago from Sir Arthur Hardinge, when he was still Consul-General at Zanzibar. He writes:—
  "I hope the impetus which the restoration of peace will give to trade with the Transvaal may help to get on an English line direct from home to Lourenco Marques and Durban via Zanzibar."
  1146
  After all, Lourenco Marques is only fifty-six miles from the Transvaal frontier. The railway transport is very much less than from Cape Town or Port Elizabeth. The distance from Cape Town to the Transvaal frontier is 964 miles, and from Port Elizabeth 663, which compare very markedly with the mileage from Delagoa Bay. Prom London to Delagoa Bay via Cape Town is only about 600 miles less than from London to Delagoa Bay via Aden. I took the trouble to get figures from the Royal Geographical Society, and they are as follows:—London to Delagoa Bay via Aden,
  7,794 miles; London to Delagoa Bay via Cape Town, 7,170 miles. I think that is an additional argument in favour of my suggestion that the circumnavigation of Africa is the proper course to pursue. If we get to Delagoa Bay by running down the east coast of Africa we might just as well complete the circuit by calling at our various ports around Africa. The circumnavigation of Africa has been started by the German East Africa Company this year, and with regard to German trade I should like once for all to make it most emphatically clear that I am speaking from a sincere feeling of friendship for Germany, and not from any desire for a hostile or offensive rivalry. I have lived too many months of my life in Germany not to value and highly appreciate German friendship. There is ample room in the whole world for the German and British Empires to exist in perfect accord, and if we do imitate the Germans, it is merely in the spirit of that imitation which is the sincerest form of flattery. The German Imperial Government have this year increased the subsidy to the German East African Company in order that they should continue their line right round Africa. They run a fortnightly service alternately by the east coast and by the west coast, and in addition, a monthly service, which runs down the East African coast as far as Beira, returning the same way. If they can do that with regard to their territories, and also with regard to ours, I cannot see why we cannot do something of the same kind, thereby benefiting our possessions, from Somaliland to British East Africa and Uganda, Zanzibar,

  1147
  British Central Africa, Natal, and Cape Colony, and returning by the west coast to the advantage of the Niger Territory, the Gold Coast, Ashantee, Sierra Leone, and Gambia, altogether forming a complete connection between our different colonies in Africa, which ought ultimately to be a very useful and profitable commercial enterprise.
  I also hope that the Committee, if it is appointed, will bear in mind the question of through bills of lading, by means of which the German Government is endeavouring to attract British trade to German lines. Part of the scheme is the largely reduced rate on the German State Railway—I do not say we could reduce railway freights for through goods here, because without a State railway it is obvious the same agreement might not be arrived at; but I think it is a matter for railway directors to consider in this country should through bills of lading be introduced and found profitable. The through bills of lading and the reduced rates of Germany cause the entire traffic of the Continent to be attracted to the German line. Through connection was made between that line and the Pretoria and Delagoa Bay Bail-way at particular rates for goods, and now that the country is in our possession, I cannot see what should prevent us from adopting a similar arrangement for the Transvaal trade if it could possibly be concluded. Let me call the attention of the House in substantiation of what I have stated to some of the figures. The purely German goods traffic on the German East Africa line in the year 1891 amounted to £300,900, and in 1898 it amounted to
  £955,600—an enormous increase in those seven years. If I compare that with the British imports at Zanzibar and Pemba, which may be taken as a means of comparing the relative increase of British and German trade, I find in 1892 (the first year for which figures are obtainable) they amounted to £105,670. In 1898, the year the German line showed such an enormous increase, they only amounted to
  £114,217. In 1899, they amounted to £113,914. and in 1900 the actual figures are not yet available—but the Board of Trade states them approximately as £76,509. Whether the war has anything to do
  1148
  with that reduction I cannot precisely say, but the figures I have quoted are sufficient to show that our trade has remained practically stationary, while German trade has increased very disproportionately.
  Two contrary statements may be argued in respect of these facts. It is alleged that the reason, partly, why German trade seems to have increased so much, is because British goods are shipped to Hamburg for further shipment by German steamers, and though I have tried to obtain figures to show to what extent British goods do go by the German route to East Africa, I have not been able to obtain them except on a very hypothetical basis, but the general belief in well-informed quarters is that these German steamers carry mainly German goods, and that the carriage and imports of German goods have very largely increased. The other contrary statement is made by the shipowners, who say it is a fact that the greater part of the trade between East Africa and this part of the world is not through the United Kingdom but through the continent of Europe. I am disposed to think that this is true. Why? Because the rates of freight are lower and communication more direct, and the subsidies granted to foreign companies enable them to run their steamers at a cheaper rate than we are able to do. How can we expect our trading companies to compete against steamers which are superior in every way and have so much larger a money reserve? I do not think foreign subsidies are the only cause why our trade has remained stationary and that of Germany has so much increased. I think in part our manufacturers are to blame. They do not take the trouble to find out what class of goods is wanted in any particular part. It is the old story of the Atbara bridge in the Soudan—where it was found the bridge could be made in America just as well and just as cheaply as here, and in the time and on the pattern required, which our manufacturers could not undertake. It applies to small things just as much as to large. If the natives of Zanzibar like a particular kind of calico for clothes there is no reason for supplying them with another kind. When I was in

  1149
  Natal I went over the plantations of a large tea-grower. He told me that he wanted a number of a particular kind of pruning hook, that he sent the order to England, but that the British manufacturers sent what he did not want, something somewhat more expensive than that which he had ordered, and told him they were not exactly what he asked for, but were much better than what he ordered; he said that that was not what he wanted, and he gave the order to an American firm and obtained the hook that he required. Mining machinery of a particular pattern is ordered in Johannesburg or Rhodesia from here, and instead of supplying it the manufacturers say they have better patterns than that which the customer has asked for, and that he had better take that. But the customer refuses to accept the machinery, and gives his order to German or American firms, from whom they get the thing they desire. It is no good offering persons goods which they do not want, and it would be much wiser for British manufacturers to establish plant to enable them to make the patterns which are required abroad rather than to continue to manufacture the patterns which are not required. I would suggest also to the Board of Trade whether it would not be possible to establish, not merely a centre of information at the Board of Trade, giving figures, statistics, and illustrations of what particular articles are required for trade in the different parts of the world, but a bureau, such as exists in Germany, to show the actual patterns of the materials wanted, which could be imitated and
  manufactured here.
  Now, this motion concludes by referring to the best means of giving encouragement to the steamship companies. That embraces the whole question, which sooner or later will have to be dealt with, if a remedy for the present state of things is required. There are one or two possibilities, or at any rate suggestions with regard to it. One is that we should grant subsidies on the same system as the foreigners do, and I trust that if the facts justified some intervention of that kind, the jealousy of the companies would not stand in the way of a patriotic purpose if a subsidy were given to
  1150
  one company rather than another. Nor do I think the Treasury objections should stand in the way, as it could not be said that it would be impossible to find the money. What is the object of Germany in granting subsidies?—a policy the more striking because I find from a perusal of the annual report of the German East Africa line that it would not at present pay its way but for the Government subsidy which it receives. In
  1899 the shareholders received 6 per cent. dividend. In 1900 the dividend was 8 per cent. But this 8 per cent. was obtained by the distribution of
  600,000 marks among the shareholders, and as the Government subsidy was 900,000 marks, it is plain that without the subsidy the company would have been 300,000 marks or £15,000 to the bad. And when it is borne in mind that the receipts for 1900 included a sum of 400,000 marks paid by the British Government for arresting the "Bundesrath," "Herzog," and other steamers of the line on suspicion of contraband which they were not proved to contain, the balance-sheet does not show any very enviable result. The Bill before the Reichsrath advocating the increased subsidy to the German East Africa line contained explanatory statements as to what were the reasons which induced Germany to adopt this policy. Among those reasons is the freeing of German commerce from the agency of foreign nations, both as regards foreign business houses and in shipping matters; the avoidance of damage resulting from transhipment; the possibility of transmitting mails independently of foreign countries; the economic importance of Cape Colony for the development of German commerce; the opening up of harbours of communication with the important territory of the Transvaal Republic in addition to Delagoa Bay; the improvement of merchant ships for transport of troops and for service in time of war: and in general the considerable expansion of German export and import trade.
  Whether the German policy is right or wrong is another matter, but by way of showing how anxious the Germans are to push the policy it is interesting to know that quite recently the Germans bought up an English Sine of steamers,

  1151
  which traded from Bangkok to Singapore, for what was approximately three times its value; and I have no doubt that some of my hon. friends around me could give instances of similar attempts that have been made by the German Government to buy up other lines in the Yangtsze and other parts of the world. Therefore, there is no doubt that they have a very firm belief in the excellence of their methods, and that is why I am
  anxious that this Select Committee should be granted. The only possible remedy for counteracting the policy of foreign Governments is sometimes said to be that of countervailing duties on foreign ships and cargoes. I will not say I am very much in agreement with that proposal, because I think there are very serious objections to it, but if we are considering the question of remedies it would be an omission on my part if I did not mention that it has been suggested. In such a case there would not be the subsidising of one shipping company as against another, but on the other hand no doubt the colonists would obtain their goods at somewhat higher prices. I do not, however, see any objection to that, because they would obtain the goods at the natural, and not the fictitious, price. But I do see an objection in other respects as regards East Africa, because, a though it might be practicable to put on countervailing duties in dealing with a place like India, which is a compact whole, you cannot do it in East Africa, where the coast does not belong solely to us, but also to Germany, Portugal, and other nations. Obviously, if countervailing duties were put on foreign ships and cargoes, there would be a great disposition to smuggle into our possessions, and there would be the even greater misfortune that traders would go away from our possessions, and take up their centre of trade in the places in which these countervailing duties were not levied. But perhaps the most serious opposition with which I may be met is what I may call the free-trade objection. I know perfectly well that when some Members first saw this resolution on the Paper, they had the idea that it involved an infringement of the principles of free trade. I venture to dispute that there is any breach of free-trade principles. I am a free-trader myself, and, that being
  1152
  so, I should not be likely to come forward with a motion of this kind unless I thought there was a very great distinction to be drawn between an infringement of free trade and the present proposal. Consumers throughout the world should be able to buy the best goods at their natural cost in the cheapest market. That is a fundamental doctrine of free trade. But free trade does not aim at bolstering up a fictitious price. If a price is made fictitious by disturbing and extraneous circumstances, free trade is prepared, I imagine, to adopt means to set the matter right, and I do not suppose that in a question of this kind subsidies can be said to be an infringement of free trade, seeing that we are asking only to have set right an arrangement which has upset the principles of free trade. A hostile subsidy disturbs the natural price of goods and creates an inequality, and it does this when equality of competition and exchange between different countries in the articles which they are respectively best able to produce are the very essence and kernel of free trade. We are not without precedents in this matter. There are recent precedents for the proposal of a subsidy, even as regards ourselves. Before referring to the more recent precedents, I should like to remind the House of what occurred more than fifty years ago, when free-trade doctrines were at their height. It was in 1849 when the first guaranteed railway was established in India. I should like to ask what difference there is between a proposal to subsidise a steamship company and a proposal for the Government to guarantee a particular railway company. In 1849 the Great Indian Peninsula Railway was first established in India, and it was established under a guarantee, and the Act of Parliament which created that guarantee was passed by this House with full knowledge of what was being done. But I need not go so far back as 1849. We have some very recent precedents. There is the subsidy granted to the Imperial Direct West India Mail Service to Jamaica. That subsidy was recommended in 1897 by the Royal Commission which was appointed to inquire into the West Indian trade, and consists of £40,000, half of which is paid by Jamaica. That action was taken in

  1153
  deference to colonial wishes—a very proper reason. This House was disposed at the time to listen to the argument that colonial wishes in such a matter should be respected, and I do not know why they should not be disposed to do the same now. Is not the evidence from the various consular reports to which I have referred sufficient to show what the unanimous opinion of our colonies is? And if we have any desire to respect colonial wishes in this matter, and to cement more closely the different colonies in various parts of the Empire, we have very good precedents for doing so. We have also the precedent of the countervailing duties, which were granted in 1899 in India against foreign sugar bounties. Both these precedents are of some service in favour of the proposal for a Select Committee to inquire into this matter. No doubt the ideal would be to wait until some steamship company to East Africa would pay. That is the ideal, but it will not do in practice, because the figures show that German trade is increasing by leaps and bounds. The German contention is that the cost to the German taxpayer of pushing trade by subsidies is amply repaid in the long run by the vastly increased volume and prosperity of the trade, and I do not stop now to argue whether that policy is right or wrong, but it is certainly a matter for inquiry by this country. German trade is increasing largely everywhere, presumably in part owing to steamship subsidies which are granted. The accommodation provided and the means of transport by their steamers are all exceedingly good, and I could see myself at Zanzibar that the merchants were very much struck by the excellence of these steamers, and they had every intention of retaining their services, and acknowledging in that way that they appreciated them. Merchants are very conservative, and when they have been well served by steamship companies we cannot suppose that they will easily desert them when we find it pays to introduce a steamship company of our own. I would like to urge that it might be worth while to establish as an experiment direct British communication with East Africa for four or five years. If it failed we should profit by the experiment, while if it succeeded it might in the end
  1154
  pay itself, and it would also bring many subsidiary and incidental advantages to our colonies. At any rate, I repeat that it is a matter for inquiry, and I think a strong case is made out for the Select Committee for which I ask. I am very much afraid that some day we shall awaken from our present attitude to find we have made a serious blunder, and that the trade we might have obtained has been permanently and irremediably lost. I beg to move the resolution which stands in my name.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: The hon. Member who has moved this motion has been very lucid and comprehensive in his statement, and therefore my observations need only be of the briefest possible character. He has the great advantage of a personal knowledge of this matter, for he has been in the localities concerned. The reason we ask for a Select Committee upon this question is because there has been a great decline in British trade and shipping in East Africa, and that the decline is so serious and the retrogression so unmistakeable that some inquiry into the contributory causes is imperatively demanded. The figures furnished by my hon. friend who moved this motion seem abundantly to justify the demand for a thorough investigation. The trouble is not, as one would from a superficial examination suppose, to be found in the decline of British commercial intercourse simply with the littoral of East Africa. Our case is not based merely upon a "setback" in the character of our commercial intercourse. Above and beyond these circumstances, untoward as they certainly are, there is the paramount question of the enhancement or diminution of prestige consequent upon the comparative volume and extent of the trade carried on under the flags of the different nations competing for that trade. Prestige in oriental countries is an asset of incalculable value. This is a truism, and what unfortunately is also a truism is that the Government—not necessarily this Government, for both parties are tarred with the same brush—seem to be singularly incapable or unwilling to go adequate lengths in consolidating their prestige in backward countries. I happen to know something

  1155
  of the apathy and langour which invariably creep over public departments when it is a question of taking a broad and statesmanlike view in matters of great public importance. Take, for instance, the question of cable communication, which is a matter of great economic importance to an empire such as ours, with possessions in the four corners of the globe. The case which has been pointed out by my hon. friend is only an illustration of what I have been advancing. Only this afternoon we had a somewhat heated discussion on both sides of the House in regard to the increase in our public expenditure, upon which my hon. friend the Member for North Monmouthshire made a very spirited and eloquent speech. I wish, however, to point out that that speech was not directed against expenditure of a reproductive character such as that at which the motion of my hon. friend contingently aims. I think my hon. friend aims rather at those ill-considered and improvident outlays in which the Governments of both parties are so often involved. What have we been doing in East Africa ever since we dispossessed the British East Africa Company and took over their responsibilities? We have been spending money very freely on the construction of the Uganda Railway. But what earthly use or what possible commercial benefit can accrue from that expenditure if you do not take steps to provide proper feeders for it in the shape of sea-borne commerce? My hon. friend has laid stress upon the importance of considering British influence in East Africa, including Zanzibar, which, valuable as it is from a political aspect, is still more so from its proximity to the Indian Empire. If we desire to have a system communicating with Seychelles, which, as an hon. friend behind me points out, has been discontinued, if the railway is to be conducted on commercial lines and maintained as a going concern, we must see to it that similar facilities to those which are granted with so much foresight, and in anticipation even of any demand for them, by Germany, France, and even Austria, are forthcoming in the case of our own people.
  My hon. friend the mover of this resolution also referred to the action
  1156
  of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary. I turn with pleasure to the contemplation of the statesmanlike sagacity displayed by the Colonial Secretary in developing the Colonial possessions of this country. Bitter experience has taught me that you can get nothing in this world unless you keep on pegging away and sometimes making yourself disagreeable all round. We must assume that the Colonial Secretary is a past master in this laborious but sometimes fruitful operation, and he must have plied the Treasury with unswerving persistence to have succeeded in obtaining the substantial subvention for the establishment of a direct line of communication to and from the West Indies. I respectfully invite the President of the Board of Trade to closely imitate the tactics of his masterful colleague the Colonial Secretary. At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman might agree to this Committee, and then endeavour to carry into effect as far as practicable its recommendations. I ask the House if it is not an immense advantage and a tower of strength to this country that it possesses the most powerful mercantile fleets in the world, such as that of the P. and O. Company, which is presided over with so much ability by Sir Thomas Sutherland? My hon. friend foreshadowed some misgivings as to the obstacles which he thought might possibly be raised against the granting of subsidies, and he said that the argument of interfering with free trade principles would probably be thrown at our head. But, swearing fealty as I do to free trade principles, I frankly confess to the House that my allegiance in this respect falls short of a pedantic adherence to those doctrines irrespective of any modification or adaptation to present needs and requirements. We want a real and genuine, and not a spurious and meretricious free trade. At any rate, if foreign Powers are enabled by means of lavish bounties and profuse subsidies to jockey us out of markets to which we have every legitimate claim, then I assert that one of two things must happen—either free trade as it exists and is enforced in this country will have to haul down its colours, or else British shipping and British trade in East Africa will have

  1157
  to go to the wall. I think I have said enough to cause some searchings of heart among those hide-bound doctrinaires, some distinguished representatives of whom I see opposite, who cherish with unceasing and undiscerning faith the doctrines of Mr. Cobden. In conclusion, I implore my right hon. friend to inaugurate the tenure of his office by some generous and substantial boon to British shipping. I cannot conceive why he should refuse the very moderate claims put forward by the mover of this resolution, and in that confident hope and belief I have much pleasure in seconding this motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the system of subsidies to steamship companies under foreign Governments, and the effect thereby produced on British trade; and to consider and report upon the political and commercial advantages to be gained by encouraging British steamers to circumnavigate Africa, especially having regard to the East coast, and to report upon the best means of giving them such encouragement."—(Mr. Evelyn Cecil.)
  SIR FRANCIS EVANS: I have listened attentively to the various reasons why we should go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask for some assistance to run a line of steamers along the East coast. It is an unfortunate moment to go to the Treasury, and it is a perfectly safe thing to go there now, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has got a good excuse. I can assure the hon. Member for Aston Manor that I have made as careful a study as is possible of the various ports he has mentioned. The company with which I am connected has run a line first to Zanzibar and then to Beira, but in neither case did the line pay, and, after we had lost a certain number of thousands of pounds, which we thought sufficient to show our good faith as English shipowners, we decided to retire to Delagoa Bay. At that port we have remained and intend to remain, but nothing will stop us from going back to Beira and on to Zanzibar and Mombasa through the Mediterranean the moment it will pay. Frankly, although I like to
  1158
  have Government subsidies when they are freely given, I am against Government subsidies unless very good value to the nation can be shown for them. The moment has not come when any Chancellor of the Exchequer can make a good case for giving a subsidy to a line of steamers passing from Delagoa Bay round by the Red Sea to this country.
  The resolution which has been moved provides for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider and report upon the political and commercial advantages to be gained by encouraging British steamers to circumnavigate South Africa. What is the advantage of circumnavigation of that great country? The hon. Member has spoken of these various ports, but apparently he has not had much experience of shareholders who want dividends. If you want to go on a yachting expedition, the hon. Member's proposal is a beautiful scheme. I wish to tell the hon. Member that his case is not supported by the instance of the German East African line, for that line has only just managed to pay a dividend by writing down its capital one-half. It has done this by the aid of subsidies granted by the German Government and in part by the circumstances attaching to the Transvaal war. Why are the German East African line passing down by West Africa now? Because they cannot make the East African line pay. Am I to go to the British Treasury and say in forma pauperis that I cannot maintain myself against German competition? No, never. The Germans had a right to go there if they liked. I do not object, but we will meet them on their own ground and struggle with them on their own ground, and I hope that, backed up by the merchants of this country, we shall successfully compete with the Germans wherever we find them. There are a good many practical things which can be done by the Board of Trade to assist us in this matter, and it is the duty of the merchants of this country to demand from the Board of Trade such action as will enable us to expand more rapidly our trade in the various articles manufactured in this country. I believe that a Committee established to inquire as to how we can; benefit English trade might do a great deal of good. An Act has been passed

  1159
  called the Merchandise Marks Acts, and I venture to say that it is the most foolish Act which has been passed in my time. It has taken away from this country a large business, which can never be recovered, and this will continue as long as we oblige the German merchants to put upon their goods "Made in Germany." I do not believe the motion of the hon. Member, well conceived as it is in the interest of commerce, would do any good in this case, because you are going to ask a Committee to inquire into that which I may tell the hon. Member I know beforehand to be an impossibility. You cannot make the circumnavigation of Africa a paying trade. If that is the case, why have a Committee to report upon it? I saw the Secretary of State for the Colonies a few years ago, and I said if he wished to develop the trade north of Delagoa Bay a service would be provided if the Government would take part of the risk for a time. I cannot say, much as I should like to receive money for the purpose, I should be in favour of the Government of this country going in that direction. I believe there are as good shipowners in England as elsewhere, but they love money for all that. We would have friends in Liverpool saying "Really, Liverpool ought to have a say in this extension," and showing good reasons why the Treasury should put its hands in its pockets to help Liverpool. I do not believe any of us are going in that direction. I believe Liverpool shipowners are as much against it as I am, and while I may congratulate the hon. Member on the way he has put the case before the House, yet at the same time I cannot believe in its being a useful thing to do. I therefore regret that I cannot support it.
  MR. ARTHUR STANLEY: I must apologise for saving a few words on this question to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and for coming between them and their socialist commonwealth resolution. The only advantage in favour of the resolution now before the Mouse is that the East Coast of Africa does exist, and I have, seen it, while the socialist commonwealth does not exist, and I do not believe it ever will exist. If any speech could tell in favour of the
  1160
  motion of my hon. friend the Member for Aston Manor, I think it would be the last speech to which we have listened. I need only take one sentence out of the speech to prove my ease. The hon. Member in the name of British shipowners refused in a thoroughly British spirit this offer of assistance. He said he would be perfectly willing to meet other countries on the same footing. Well, that is exactly what we are proposing to do by asking this subsidy. If we get this subsidy he will be able to meet foreign countries on the same footing, and British shipowners will be able to hold their own; but he knows they cannot do so at present because it does not pay. If it did pay, we should not have this motion for a Committee put before the House. I think the only advantage I can claim in speaking on this motion is that I have been down the coast. I do not believe that going through a country in a railway train makes one qualified to speak upon it. There is one thing, however, that can be said about going down the East Coast of Africa, and that is that you are qualified to speak about the ports on the coast. One who has gone down that coast in a small yacht has more than lively recollections of intricate calculations as to whether your coal will hold out to the next port you are likely to reach. The Germans are the people who are competing with us down that coast. I have reason to be grateful to the Germans at Suez. The only charts we had were those lent to us by the German mail steamers, although the charts were fifty years old, and if we had in any sense trusted to them we should inevitably have gone down. But the loan of these charts was well meant. Our own Admiralty may not be superior in all respects, but at any rate they hold their own from the point of view of charts. It is very difficult to realise the extreme importance of the ports along the East Coast of Africa. By navigating the coast it is brought home to one, in a way no map could do, that Africa is a vast continent of enormous wealth, with practically no outlet except one or two ports. I need not go into figures; my hon. friend has dealt with that; but anybody who chooses to look at the figures will see that the Germans are undoubtedly taking the

  1161
  trade from us. We have, at a great deal of cost to ourselves, been maintaining British supremacy in the interior of that country. British supremacy in the interior of Africa is absolutely useless to us unless we maintain British supremacy outside. If we are simply to create trade in the interior of Africa in order that German ships and German firms may profit by it, then I should be the first to say, Better let the Transvaal go to the wall.
  As my hon. friends have said, we shall, of course, have the free-trade bogey brought up. We shall be told, "You are advocating protection by advocating this subsidy." First of all I would point out that we are not advocating a subsidy at all. We are simply advocating the appointment of a Committee to consider a subsidy. Secondly, I would point out that this subsidy can in no sense of the word be called protection. It is simply doing what I maintain we have a perfect right to do—putting our own people on ane qual footing with the rest of the world, in order to make them better able to compete on their own merits. I hope that my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade will see his way to grant us this Committee. There is only one alteration I would venture to suggest. It seems to me that my hon. friend who moved the resolution has made it a little too comprehensive. His argument dealt only with East Africa, and I think if we confine the resolution to East Africa we shall be doing well. I cannot quite agree with him in thinking that the circumnavigation of Africa is necessary. If he would limit his motion to the words—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the system of subsidies to steamship companies under Foreign governments, and the effect thereby produced on British trade,"
  I believe we should have a better motion, one the House would be more likely to agree with, and one the President of the Board of Trade would be more likely to accept. I earnestly hope that my right hon. friend will accept, if not the whole motion, at all events this amended version of it.
  SIR CHARLES CAYZER: I think my hon. friend the
  1162
  Member for Aston Manor may congratulate himself on getting a hearing on a question of great importance to the varied interests of this country, and it is not of less importance because it has been brought forward by a private Member. If we were to wait for action on these subjects on the part of any of the Governments we have in this House we should have to wait a very long time. Although any Government may think themselves able to govern this country well, I fail to remember that any Government have dealt with the commercial affairs of this country and taken such an interest in the welfare and preservation of our trade interests in the way the German Government have done with theirs. This resolution calls attention to the British steam communication between Great Britain and East Africa. I cordially agree with what my hon. friend the Member for Maidstone said about this trade. From my knowledge, and I have an intimate knowledge of the trade of Africa, I do not think there is sufficient reason at present to ask for a subsidy for a British line to East African ports. As has been shown this trade is greatly carried by the Germans. I think I can give reasons for that. When the Germans went to Africa it was part of an understanding that they should go through the Suez Canal and to the ports on the East African Coast. They have since extended their service from the south, but to say that British trade in East Africa is neglected is to state, to my mind, what is not the fact. There are six lines of steamers trading to the East African ports. These steamers go as far as Beira regularly, and we should be quite prepared to go further when there are inducements for us to go. I consider that to ask for a subsidy for a line to circumnavigate Africa is entirely out of the question.
  But there are other reasons which I shall submit to the House very briefly why we have a right to ask for this committee of inquiry. This question is of great importance to British shipowners, and to the traders and manufacturers of this country. British shipowners are at present greatly handicapped by the steamship subsidies and preferential railway rates granted by the German

  1163
  Government. Germany first commenced with a subsidised line to Australia. It next subsidised a line to the Far East and afterwards to Africa. This has led to an enormous increase in the German mercantile fleet, which now includes some of the finest ships in the world. By running these subsidised lines they have encouraged trade in Germany, and now German manufacturers are closely competing with us in our own colonies in consequence of the facilities which these subsidised lines afford. Well, what does the German Government get in return? Not only direct postal facilities, but no doubt the markets for their trade have been very largely increased, so that what the German taxpayer pays in subsidies is very well repaid to him in an increase of his trade. There are the additional national advantages which the Germans have gained by granting these subsidies, the establishment of a large mercantile fleet and a naval reserve in case of war. Now, I have no complaint to make about Germany taking this action. To my mind it is a very wise policy for a large and powerful nation like Germany, with increasing colonies, to provide proper facilities for their communications and the promotion of their trade with their colonies, especially when we remember that within the memory of some of the youngest Members of this House Germany had hardly any mercantile fleet at all. They have now one of the finest mercantile fleets afloat. I do not complain of the Germans putting on these ships and pressing their trade wherever they can; but what I complain of is that they are competing at our ports with British trade under unfair conditions. It is on that ground that I ask the President of the Board of Trade to grant this committee of inquiry. It is a well-known fact that no manufacturer, trader, or shipowner can compete on fair terms when steamers running on the same lines, and manufacturers putting on the market similar articles with our manufacturers are subsidised by an Imperial Government. Supposing a German manufacturer is 200 miles inland from a seaport, and a British manufacturer is the same distance from the port of shipment, the German manufacturer has an advantage in preferential
  1164
  railway rates for his goods. And why? Because the German railways are State railways, and the German Government encourage their manufacturers by giving them cheap rates for their goods to the seaport. English and Scotch manufacturers have not the same advantage, for our railways are private railways, and they cannot get cheap rates. I feel sure that I shall have the sympathy and support of the President of the Board of Trade in this matter, and that he will appoint this Committee. He cannot do anything better to inaugurate his term of office than by giving close attention to the preservation and promotion of our trade throughout the world. I do not advocate subsidies. The maritime supremacy of Great Britain has not been built up on subsidies. I think I may fairly state to the House that the subsidised lines do not represent 5, or at any rate more than 10 per cent. of the shipping tonnage of the United Kingdom. How has that great tonnage, which is very largely privately owned, been created? It has been created by the enterprise and energy of the shipowners of the country, and I do not think that we need fear that that enterprise and energy is at all on the wane. But trade is altering. Once these imperial subsidies are granted and extended it becomes a question whether, if some remedies are not found, we will be able to maintain our supremacy in the future as in the past. Do not the Government owe a great deal to the shipowners and traders of the country? Where would they have been without the large mercantile fleet in the late war? Did they wish that by foreign subsidies and bounties our trade should be taken from us? I think it would be a sad day for this country and the colonies if our trade was diverted from British into foreign ships. I complain that we have not got more support from all Governments in the past. I point to the fact that the Government are shipping from ports in the United Kingdom cargoes under their own control for railways in countries under their own Government—and where the capital largely belongs to the Government—not in British ships, but in foreign bottoms—in steamers subsidised by a foreign Government. I refer

  1165
  to the shipment of stores for the Indian State railways. I do hope my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade will see his way to appoint this Committee, not simply for the purpose of inquiring into direct steamship communication between Great Britain and East Africa, but into the whole question, and I ask my hon. friend to agree to substitute for his motion a shorter one for a Select Committee to inquire into the system of subsidising steamships by foreign Governments and the effect produced on British trade, and to suggest remedies. I claim the support of hon. Members opposite, above and below the gangway. The motion commits them to nothing except obtaining true information for the benefit of the country at large.
  MR. O'SHEEsaid that the population and resources of East Africa did not justify the subsidising of a line of steamers to run there. The population of the entire East Africa was only two and a half millions, scattered thinly over a thousand square miles. In a Report by Sir Arthur Hardinge it was stated that the German merchants trading to East Africa were quite content to get their own money back without any loss. Their principal trade, in the steamers subsidised by the German Government, was a low-class brandy which was sold at 3s. 7½d. per dozen imperial quarts, and a low-class whisky which sold at 5s. 6d. per dozen imperial quarts. That vile stuff was thrown at the unfortunate savages in Jubaland and other countries in East Africa. No wonder there were disturbances and fighting. If his voice could reach these savages he should recommend them to purchase a large quantity of dynamite, and use it to blow up the German steamers which carried that vile whisky and brandy. He hoped the House would refuse to assent to the appointment of this Committee.
  MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: I think the motion before the House should be modified in the sense suggested by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness. We are indebted
  1166
  to my hon. friend the Member for Aston Manor for the very practical and suggestive address in which he brought this subject before the House. He has shown conclusively how British shipping may be injured by the bounty system of foreign Governments. All those who support the motion do not support the granting of bounties in this country. There is nothing about bounties in the motion. All we want is inquiry. The hon. Member for Maidstone has reminded us that the British shipowner is a very independent man, and does not want to be bolstered up by the Government. He is quite content to hold his own by his own ability against all competitors, provided he has a fair field and no favour. But when foreign Governments come behind their shipowners and support them with all the influence and wealth of the State, then the case is entirely different. It becomes an unequal and unfair contest between the British and the foreign shipowners. I further wish to say that the foreign bounty system, as regards shipping, is increasing to a most alarming extent, and I think the mind of the country requires to be-aroused upon this question. May I refer, for the sake of illustration, to the West Indian sugar trade? There is a trade which has been killed by the foreign bounty system. What is to prevent that system being turned first to one and then to another of our industries, each being-attacked in turn and ruined? In 1895 the Board of Trade published a Report on the subsidies given by foreign nations. There are three kinds of subsidies. First, there is the mail subsidy; there is no kind of bounty in that at all; it is simply a payment for services rendered. Such subsidies are given by every maritime State. The second kind is a subsidy on construction. A bounty of this character is given by three States—France, Italy, and Hungary, which pay so much for every ton of every vessel built in the ports of the respective countries. The third kind of subsidy is that which is a simple encouragement—a bounty pure and simple—and that is given by six States—namely, France, Austria, Denmark, Italy, Russia, and Sweden and Norway. That was in 1895, and I understand the Board of Trade are now collecting statistics of the

  1167
  subsidies given at the present time. Those particulars have, however, to a large extent been obtained unofficially, and the figures show that vast increases in subsidies have taken place during the last five years. In Great Britain they have increased, in round figures, from £592,000 to
  £704,000 (that is not any increase in remuneration, but simply an increase in the amount of business done); United States, from
  £107,000 to £357,000; Germany, from £249,000 to £389,000; Italy, from £70,000 to £449,000; France, from £420,000 to £1,700,000; and Japan appears for the first time in any figures with subsidies amounting to
  £710,000. A subsidy Bill is before the United States Congress at the present time, which, if carried, will have the effect of enormously increasing the subsidies granted.
  I would also draw the attention of the House to the sums paid to particular lines. The Nord-Deutsche Lloyd, £279,000 per year; the International Navigation Company, £158,000; the Cie Generale Transatlantique, £446,000; Messageries Maritimes,
  £554,000; Navigazione Generale, £380,000. What is paid to our lines which compete with those I have named? The White Star and Cunard together get only £126,000; the P. and O., in one service, £243,000; and in another, with the Orient,
  £167,000. These figures are sufficient to show how extensively handicapped the British shipowner is by the foreign subsidies. What are the effects? One result is a diminution in the number of British fast steamers of high speed. Some years ago we had five lines of "express" steamers, whereas now we have only two. The reason is that shipowners cannot afford to run these very fast vessels for commercial purposes alone, and the result has been that the blue ribbon of the Atlantic has been wrested from this country by Germany. That result may be considered a sentimental one, but there are many proofs of the great loss, not only as regards our shipping trade, but also with regard to our commerce and mercantile trade, which has followed the application of the foreign bounty system, because, as a general rule, it may be taken that the trade follows the flag. As showing the views of British shipowners upon this subject, I should like to read a
  1168
  resolution passed at the last meeting of the Chamber of Shipping, namely—
  "That the urgent attention of His Majesty's Government be directed to the question of foreign bounties on shipping, and especially to the development of the question which has taken place in foreign countries whereby the interests of the British Mercantile Marine are seriously threatened."
  That is the view of shipowners through their association. The question is, how is this position to be met? We are not here to-night to prescribe any particular method of dealing with the matter. It may be met, of course, by countervailing duties, or by counter-subsidy; but that is only one way of dealing with the question. In many respects by our own Government foreign shipping is placed in a preferential position as regards our own shipping. For instance, foreign Governments provide at their own expense very large dock and harbour works for the use of shipping, which in this country are provided mostly by local effort, and have to be paid for by shipping. Foreign Governments to a large extent light their coasts free of charge, whereas the entire cost of lighting our coasts has to be borne by the British shipowner. Even our Navy, which uses those lights, does not pay a penny towards the cost. Then there is the question of the load-line. The British shipper loading in a British port can load only up to a certain line. The foreign shipper is free to load to any extent, the only restriction being that the ship must not be, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, unseaworthy. In point of fact, the test is not applied, and foreign ships are never stopped by the Board of Trade on account of unseaworthiness; so that foreign shipowners have a free hand in the matter, whereas the British shipowner is strictly bound by the load-line imposed by the Board of Trade. Then there are other restrictions by regulations on the British shipowner. He has to carry life-saving apparatus, to have a certain weight of crew's provisions, and is bound by regulations as to passengers, whereas the foreign shipowner is free from all these regulations. I think it is a great hardship that ships of the North German Lloyd's should be allowed to come to Southampton and take passengers with-

  1169
  out complying in any way with our statutory regulations.
  Therefore, I say there is ample scope for this inquiry, and I heartily support the resolution, more particularly as modified by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness. It is a mistake to lay too much stress on East Africa. Of course, we believe that in time to come it will be a very important centre of trade, but at present it has not that character, and there are many other parts of the world which are much more important to shipowners and merchants than East Africa. I say that the subject is a general one, and should be looked at from a general standpoint. Therefore, I hope the House will pass this resolution in some form; I should like to see it amended, but I would rather have it as it is than not at all; and I hope in the interests of commerce and shipping the President of the Board of Trade will see his way to appoint this Committee, which can do no harm, and may do a great deal of good.
  MR. FIELDrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but Mr. Speaker withheld his consent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. BANBURY: The hon. Member who has just spoken stated that there is nothing in the motion before the House with reference to subsidies, but the whole of the debate has been directed to showing that the ship-owning industry is injured by the subsidies granted by foreign governments, and the speech of the hon. Member for the Ormskirk Division of Lancashire was wholly devoted to the fact that the German Government give subsidies to certain steamers running to East Africa. His argument was that because the German Government did this the British Government should do the same. Earlier this afternoon we listened to many speakers who told us that our expenditure was rising tremendously, and that the first thing we ought to do was to see in what way we could economise. Now only a few hours later, the
  1170
  hon. Member comes down and says that the first thing we ought to do is to expend more money in subsidising—what? An industry which is decaying? An industry which is not prosperous? No. On the contrary, we are asked to subsidise an industry which has been more prosperous during the last three years than during the fifteen years previous. If we are to subsidise the shipping industry because the German or any other Government subsidise their shipping industry, there are other trades and interests which are subsidised by foreign countries, and why should we not subsidise those also? Where are you going to draw the line? Why should you select an industry which is extremely flourishing, and say that the taxpayers should contribute towards subsidising that particular industry and no other?
  SIR CHARLES CAYZER: There is no question of subsidies before the House now that my proposal to alter the resolution has been accepted by the hon. Member who moved it.
  MR. BANBURY: No, but the whole of the speeches of the hon. Member who moved for the inquiry and of the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool were devoted to showing the difficulties with which the British shipowner is met because he has to compete with foreign shipowners who are subsidised by their respective governments; and the hon. Member for the Exchange Division read out a long list of the subsidies which were given.
  MR. CHARLES McARTHUR: I think I must correct my hon. friend if he will allow me. I objected to foreign subsidies, and I certainly do not support British subsidies.
  MR. BANBURY: If that is so, though we have had an extremely interesting discussion, we might have been talking about something else. I should like to say a word upon the point of view of the German Government. The German Government and nation have a very small shipping industry, and it is natural that they should wish to encourage that industry. We have a very large shipping

  1171
  industry, and we do not want any particular encouragement. The hon. Member opposite said quite truly that he was prepared to face any opposition provided he could make the trade pay, and that really is the secret of the whole matter. What this motion seeks to do is to make the Government find dividends for shareholders in ships, whereas I hope with my hon. friend opposite that shipowners will in the future, as they have done in the past, compete with their own industry and perseverance. My hon. friend said that the Indian guaranteed railways were a precedent for subsidies being granted to shipowners. I think he hardly understands the conditions under which the Indian railways have been guaranteed by the State. In the first place, they have been guaranteed on the understanding that the whole of the first net profits go to the State until the guarantee is fulfilled. Then in the majority of instances the railways revert to the State after a given period. I do not know that shipowners want their ships to revert to the State in consideration of receiving a subsidy. I am sorry to have occupied the time of the House, but I sincerely hope that, as the hon. Member says he does not want any subsidies, there will not be any inquiry.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): My hon. friend has raised a very interesting question, and we have listened to some excellent speeches. I gladly acknowledge the great care my hon. friend has bestowed on his case and the evident knowledge of his subject, partly derived from personal experience, he has exhibited. He devoted his speech principally to the absence of direct steamship communication with East Africa, and, so far as I was able to check them, I have no complaint to make of the accuracy of his statements. Undoubtedly it is a fact that, whereas both Germany and France have provided by means of subsidies direct services between Europe and East Africa via the Suez Canal, no such British service exists at the present time. I ought further to add that the Foreign Office are now considering the question of a subsidy to a steamship
  1172
  company for the establishment of a direct service between this country and Zanzibar. That, perhaps, is a reason that will satisfy my hon. friend if the Government decline to accept his motion in the form in which it appears on the Paper. It will be, I think, undesirable to appoint a Committee
  "to consider and report upon the political and commercial advantages to be gained by encouraging British steamers to circumnavigate Africa, especially having regard to the East coast," at the very time when the subject is actually under the consideration of a department of Government. But I have no objection to consent to the first part of the motion, namely, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the system of subsidies to steamship companies under foreign Governments, and the effect thereby produced on British trade." That, however, would be a perfectly general inquiry, not an inquiry limited, as my hon. friend proposes, to steamship lines in connection with Africa, and especially East Africa. There is a further reason I would urge on the House why we should not entrust a Committee with the consideration of the political and commercial advantages to be gained by encouraging British steamers to circumnavigate Africa, especially having regard to the East coast, and the duty of reporting upon the best means of giving them such encouragement, and the reason is this. I think my hon. friend will admit that when he speaks of encouragement to British steamship services, what he means is encouragement by means of subsidies. One or two Members who have spoken this evening suggested that there is nothing in the resolution in reference to bounties, but I am afraid I cannot altogether agree to that. It is perfectly true that they are not directly mentioned, but my hon. friend will admit that, when he speaks of "encouragement," we can only interpret it as meaning by subsidies. Now, subsidies given by foreign Governments are of various kinds, and the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool has referred to them. There is a direct navigation bounty given by France. Italy, and other countries, but I cannot imagine that will be suggested for our

  1173
  enormous mercantile marine. Such a bounty would certainly result in emptying our Treasury. Then there are indirect bounties, which are given through the granting of reduced rates on State railways for goods which are being exported by particular lines of vessels. Here, again, as railways in this country are not in our hands, it is not in our power, even if it were desirable, to adopt that form of bounty. I take it that the subsidies
  given to the German Steamship Company and to the Messageries Maritimes are nominally for services rendered, but are in reality in the nature of bounties. Then there are what may be called legitimate subsidies, which are given for services rendered, and represent the value of such services. It is these subsidies, and these alone, which have been given to steamship lines in this country. That being so, I think the House will see that if the obvious suggestion contained in my hon. friend's motion, it would practically mean the acceptance on the part of the House of the idea that steamship companies in this country should be assisted by means of subsidies, which would really be bounties. That has never been done.
  I do not wish to deal with the subject pedantically. I do not suggest that under no circumstances would it be justifiable to give bounties, but it is a matter which the House itself should decide, and which should not be referred to a Select Committee. The case of Jamaica is unique, and cannot be quoted as a precedent. The subsidy given to the Elder, Dempster line for services rendered to Jamaica is not a subsidy to that line, but a subsidy to Jamaica. It is an eleemosynary gift to that colony, and was the result of an inquiry by a Commission appointed to inquire into the
  condition of the West Indies, which seemed to demand some assistance from this country. This recommendation was made by the Commission, and it was carried out by the Government. The question is whether you will look at this matter from the point of view of the British shipping trade or that of a particular colony which it is desired to benefit. The hon. Member for Aston Manor referred to the German service to Africa. I will give the House a proof
  1174
  that the German service is subsidised entirely from the point of view of German commerce and shipping, and not from the point of view of German colonies. The proof is that while the German service calls at all the important English ports, it does not call at the German South-west African
  colony at all. That shows that the German companies have not got the interests of the German colonies at heart. In the case of Jamaica, we look at it not from the point of view of British commerce, but from the point of view of Jamaica. If we had not given a subvention in that form we should have had to have given it in another. I have now explained why I am unable to assent to the second part of the reference to the proposed Committee, but I have no objection to the first part. I am aware that this is a subject on which grave apprehensions are entertained. This inquiry may be of service if it proves—as I am disposed to think it will—that the fears entertained on the subject are exaggerated. If, on the other hand, those fears are well founded, it is important that we should know exactly where we stand.
  MR. EVELYN CECIL: I am quite willing to accept the alteration of the motion suggested by my right hon. friend.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I suppose it would be in accordance with what the Government has agreed to, if I moved to leave out all the words after
  "trade."
  MR. WOLFF: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the system of subsidies to steamship companies under Foreign Governments, and the effect thereby produced on British trade

  SOCIALIST COMMONWEALTH.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I rise to move the motion that stands in my name. After the discussion to which we have just listened, in which one section of the community has claimed support from the State, and shown that German steamship lines have an advantage over British lines because they are subsidised by the State, I trust the House will listen to the logical outcome of these arguments. I make no apology for bringing the question of Socialism before the House of Commons. It has long commanded the attention of the best minds in the country. It is a growing force in the thought of the world, and whether men agree or disagree with it, they have to reckon with it, and may as well begin by understanding it. In the German Empire Socialism is the one section of political thought which is making headway, and to an extent which is, I believe, alarming the powers that be. Over fifty Socialist members occupy seats in the German Reichstag, between forty and fifty in the Chamber of Deputies in France, and between thirty and forty in the Belgian Parliament. Socialism on the Continent therefore is an established and recognised fact so far as its entry into politics is concerned, and if it be argued that while that may be true of the Continent it is not true of this country, I reply that the facts and conditions now existing in this country are such as to make it extremely probable that the progress of Socialism in this country will be at a more rapid pace than in any other country in Europe.
  Needless to say at this hour of the evening it is impossible for me to treat this subject adequately, and I will therefore summarise briefly the principal arguments that it was my intention to submit to the House had time permitted, I begin by pointing out that the growth of our national wealth instead of bringing comfort to the masses of the people is imposing additional burdens on them. We are told on high authority that some three hundred years ago the total wealth of the English nation was a hundred millions sterling. At the beginning of the last century it had increased to two thousand millions, and this year it is estimated to be thirteen thousand
  1176
  millions. While our population during the last century increased three and a half times, the wealth of the community increased over six times. But one factor in our national life remained with us all through the century, and is with us still, and that is that at the bottom of the social scale there is a mass of poverty and misery equal in magnitude to that which obtained 100 years ago. I submit that the true test of progress is not the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, but the elevation of a people as a whole. I admit frankly that a considerable improvement was made in the condition of the working people during the last century. At the beginning of the nineteenth century the nation industrially was sick almost unto death. It was at that time passing from the old system of handicraft, under which every man was his own employer and his own capitalist, and traded direct with his customer, to the factory system which the introduction of machinery brought into existence. During these hundred years the wealth of the nation accumulated, and the condition of the working classes as compared with the early years of the century improved, but I respectfully submit to the House that there was more happiness, more comfort and more independence before machinery began to accumulate wealth. [AN HON. MEMBER: No.] "No" is not an argument. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to listen, and refute my statements if they are incorrect. I will quote an authority on this point whose words deserve respect. I mean the late Professor Thorold Rogers, who supports that view in his "Six Centuries of Work and Wages." The high standard of comfort reached by the labouring classes at the end of the last century has not brought them that happiness which obtained in England three hundred years age, when there was no machinery, no large capitalists, no private property in land, as we know it to-day, and when every person had the right to use the land for the purpose producing food for himself and his family. I said that an improvement was made during the last century, but I would qualify that statement in this respect—that practically the whole of that improvement was made during the first

  1177
  seventy-five years. During the last quarter of the century the condition of the working classes has been practically stationary. There have been slight increases of wages here and reductions of hours there, but the landlord with his increased rent has more than absorbed any advantage that may have been gained. I could quote figures, if that statement is disputed, showing that in all the industrial parts of the country rents during the past twenty years have been going up by leaps and bounds. I will refer to one authority whom even hon. Gentlemen opposite will not dare to call into question. Viscount Goschen, when First Lord of the Admiralty, in defending the Government for refusing to give increased wages to labourers at Woolwich Arsenal, said on 14th April, 1899—
  "If the position of the labourers at Woolwich and Deptford was as described, it was rather due to sweating landlords than to the rate of wages. The wages had been raised 20 per cent. in the last ten years, and the house rents 50 per cent. it was constantly the ease in those districts that the increase of wages only led to a larger sum going into the pockets of the landlords, and he was even told that some of the men who were locally the loudest in the cry for justice to the labourers were owners of cottage property, who would benefit if the wages were raised."
  In view of a statement of that kind, made by such an authority, I submit that my assertions is not without substance.
  I come now to the causes which have forced thinking people of all ranks of society to reconsider their attitude towards socialism. I refer particularly to the great and alarming growth of what are known as trusts and syndicates in connection with industry. We have hitherto been accustomed to regard a trust as a distinctively American product. That cannot be said any longer. Let me name a few of the trusts and combinations which have been formed in this country within recent years. Amongst others there are the Cotton Thread Trust, with a capital of
  £9,750,000; the Fine Cotton Spinners and Doublers, with a capital of over £5,000,000; the Bradford Dyers, £3,750,000; the Bleachers' and Calico Printers' Association, £14,000,000; Cory and Co., London. £2,600,000; Rickett and Co.,
  1178
  London, £900,000; Armstrong, Whit worth, and Co., engineers, over £4,000,000; the Associated Cement Makers, over
  £7,000,000; the well-known Castle Line, £2,000,000; the Wilson, Furness, and Leyland and the Leyland Line, between them,
  £3,450,000. These are figures which might well give the House of Commons pause, and cause it to reconsider its attitude towards the whole question of political economy. So long as industry is conducted by individuals competing one with another there is a chance of the article produced being supplied at an approximation to its market value, but competition has been found to be destructive of the interests of the owners and possessors of capital in this as in every other country. Three or four firms which formerly entered one market and competed with each other find it conducive to their interests to combine, thereby creating a monopoly which enables them to charge whatever price they like, and to treat their workpeople in any way that seems good to them. I approach this question of trusts from two points of view: first, from that of the consumer, who is at the mercy of an uncontrolled and, it may be perfectly unscrupulous combination which cares only for dividends; and, secondly—and this is to me of greater concern from that of the worker. The consumer may protect himself, but the worker is helpless. I could quote instance after instance of the most scandalous and shame less persecution of workmen by these big trusts and combinations, railway monopolies and the like. I will refer only to one case, which occurred last year in connection with the Great Eastern Railway. An employee was elected to serve on the Poplar Borough Council, exercising a right conferred upon him by this House, and being elected to a body created by this House. He was dismissed from his employment because he had permitted himself to be elected to apply a part of his own time to the public welfare without having obtained the leave of his employers. As John Stuart Mill—himself a convert to socialism, despite the fact that as a political economist of the older school he had written against the system before he understood

  1179
  its full meaning and the necessity for it—wrote—
  "The social problem of the future we [referring to himself and his wife] consider to be how to unite the greatest liberty of action with a common ownership in the raw material of the globe and an equal participation in all the benefits of combined labour."
  We are rapidly approaching a point when the nation will be called upon to decide between an uncontrolled monoply, conducted for the benefit and in the interests of its principal shareholders, and a monopoly owned, controlled, and manipulated by the State in the interests of the, nation as a whole. I do not require to go far afield for arguments to support that part of my statement concerning the danger which the aggregation of wealth in a few hands is bringing upon us. This House and the British nation knows to their cost the danger which comes from allowing men to grow rich and permitting them to use their wealth to corrupt the press, to silence the pulpit, to degrade our national life, and to bring reproach and shame upon a great people, in order that a few unscrupulous scoundrels might be able to add to their ill-gotten gains. The war in South Africa is a millionaires' war. Our troubles in China are duo to the desire of the capitalists to exploit the people of that country as they would fain exploit the people of South Africa. Much of the jealousy and bad blood existing between this country and France is traceable to the fact that we went to war in Egypt to suppress a popular uprising, seeking freedom for the people in order that the interest of our bondholders might be secured. Socialism, by placing land and the instruments of production in the hands of the community, eliminates only the idle, useless class at both ends of the scale. Half a million of the people of this country benefit by the present system; the remaining millions of toilers and business men do not. The pursuit of wealth corrupts the manhood of men. We are called upon at the beginning of the twentieth century to decide the question propounded in the Sermon on the Mount as to whether or not we will worship God or Mammon. The present day is a mammon-worshipping age. Socialism proposes to dethrone the brute-god Mammon and to lift humanity into
  1180
  its place. I beg to submit in this very imperfect fashion the resolution on the Paper, merely premising that the last has not been heard of the Socialist movement either in the country or on the floor of this House, but that, just as sure as Radicalism democratised the system of Government politically in the last century so will Socialism democratise the country industrially during the century upon which we have just entered. I beg to move.
  MR. BELL: I formally second the resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That, considering the increasing burden which the private ownership of land and capital is imposing upon the industrious and useful classes of the community, the poverty and destitution and general moral and physical deterioration resulting from a competitive system of wealth production which aims primarily at profit making, the alarming growth of trusts and syndicates able by reason of their great wealth to influence Governments and plunge peaceful Nations into war to serve their interests, this House is of opinion that such a condition of affairs constitute a menace to the well-being of the Realm, and calls for legislation designed to remedy the same by inaugurating a Socialist Commonwealth founded upon the common ownership of land and capital, production for use and not for profit, and equality of opportunity for every citizen."—(Mr. Keir Hardie, Merthyr Tydvil.)
  MR. BANBURY: Assuming this subject is worth speaking upon at all, the twenty-five minutes which have been devoted to the question are hardly sufficient to inaugurate a socialistic commonwealth. The hon. Member who proposed the resolution, speaking of the Associated Cement Makers, and using this as an argument against trusts, said that—
  It being midnight the debate stood adjourned.
  Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve of the clock.

Several Lords took the Oath.
The Lord Inverclyde sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Bideford and Clovelly Railway (Abandonment) [H.L.]
Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Paisley Gas Provisional Order.
And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:
Elland Gas [H.L.] (Petition for additional Provision).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

WATFORD AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
A petition of Messrs. Baker, Lees, and Co., of No. 54, Parliament Street, Westminster, parliamentary agents, praying for leave to present a petition of Watford Urban District Council, praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, although the time limited by Standing Order No. 92 for presenting such petition has expired; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and Standing Order No. 92 to be considered on Thursday next in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said petition.
FINCHLEY AND HENDON TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]
Presented; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
SMETHWICK CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The order made on the 8th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.
CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The order made on the 12th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.
WESTON-SUPER-MARE GAS BILL [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The order made on the 14th of March last discharged, and Bill committed.
WEST AND SOUTH LONDON JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a.
CITY AND NORTH-EAST SUBURBAN ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to order).
OMAGH GAS BILL [H.L.]
  BRISTOL, CLIFTON, AND WEST OF ENGLAND ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY BILL [H.L.]

    AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL [H.L.]
    ASPATRIA, SILLOTH, AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [H.L.].
    ALFRETON GAS BILL [H.L.].
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SHIELDS BRIDGE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a; an amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (CANADA DOCK WORKS, ETC.) BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 18th and 28th of March last discharged; and Bill committed.
PORTMADOC, BEDDGELERT, AND SOUTH SNOWDON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; the orders made on the 11th and 28th of March last discharged; and Bill committed for Monday next.
HARPENDEN DISTRICT GAS BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 19th and 28th of March last discharged; and Bill committed.
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
  HENLEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (GAS) BILL.

    LONDON BRIDGE WIDENING BILL
    LONDON, TILBURY, AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY BILL
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (JUDICIAL RENTS).
  Return for the months of July and August, 1900: Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  PAWNBROKERS' RETURNS (IRELAND)
  Returns from the City Marshal of Dublin, for the year ended 31st December, 1900: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table,
NEW BILL.
  SOLICITORS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend certain provisions of the Solicitors Acts, 1839 to 1894—Was presented by the Lord Alverstone; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (No. 38.)

  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD ALVERSTONE: My Lords, In asking the House to give this Bill a Second Reading, I shall detain your Lordships but a very short time. The subject has already been very fully discussed in your Lordships' House, and the Bill is, to all practical intents, the same which was before your Lordships' House last session. My object in introducing the Bill in its present form is twofold. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate and approve of the first—it is that I might from these benches say a few words of tribute to the great work which was done in connection with this subject by my distinguished predecessor the late Lord Russell of Killowen. By the courtesy of Lord Russell's son, there were handed over to me a mass of papers relating to the subject. Those papers had not been merely collected by Lord Russell, but had been perused and digested, and all the important and salient facts and arguments both for and against the Bill most carefully noted. I shall be only too pleased to place any of those documents at the disposal of noble Lords. I am quite satisfied that the two Bills introduced by the late Lord Russell were the consequence of his having paid the

  1053
  closest attention to the subject, and of having devoted to it hours and days of work. I should be truly sorry if all those labours of so great a man were lost, and if there was no result from the immense industry and great ability he brought to bear on the subject. My second reason for introducing the Bill in its present form is my desire to start, so to speak, from the point to which it was brought last year.
  As the result of a very considerable amount of personal work, assisted as I have been by Lord Russell's labours, I have come to the distinct conclusion that the case for some such legislation as is foreshadowed in this Bill is overwhelming. I am satisfied that the evil of secret commissions does prevail and does undermine honest commercial transactions, and from no leading authority connected with any of the great commercial industries of this country have I received any objections that go to the root and principle of the measure. If any of your Lordships have a doubt as to the necessity for this legislation, I would suggest that you should read again the speech made on the Second Reading in 1899, by the late Lord Chief Justice, for I am satisfied that the facts he then brought before the House—facts which have never been answered or rebutted—are in themselves a conclusive case for the Bill. Since then the necessity for the Bill has been rendered even more apparent. Your Lordships will remember that an inquiry took place last year before a Committee of the House of Commons respecting Government contracts. One of the recommendations of that Committee was that the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1899, should be extended to all Government contracts, and to all Government officials. That is one of the objects contemplated or, rather, covered by this Bill. Since this time last year, too, there have been some most remarkable disclosures respecting the extent to which secret commissions have prevailed among co-operative societies in the north of England—disclosures of a state of things which even those who most strongly advocated this Bill had not previously thought to exist. I should have been extremely glad if His Majesty's Government had seen their way to take the subject up,
  1054
  and if at any stage of the Bill the Government see their way to propose Amendments dealing with what is believed to be a most pressing evil, I should be only too glad to retire in favour of their proposals. But I have a strong conviction that legislation of the kind is necessary and that it is not possible that the subject should be allowed to drop.
  Before sitting down I desire to mention only two matters, to which I think your Lordships may well give further consideration, and which have been pressed upon me by important bodies who, while in no way opposing the principle of the Bill, have called my attention to certain provisions which they think go too far. The one is, that it is proposed to make it an offence to solicit corrupt bribes, even although the solicitation may not have been successful. That is already the law, under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1899, with regard to municipal officers, and when you consider the reasons that led to the passing of that Act, and the results since the Act was passed, I think your Lordships will see that, properly safeguarded, solicitation ought to be an offence. Possibly some of your Lordships noticed a few weeks ago a gross case of attempted bribery by a municipal officer which would not have been touched but for the fact that solicitation was an offence. I think that we ought to consider the safeguards under which solicitation should be made a crime, but I think your Lordships will agree that it ought not to be allowed to escape altogether. The other matter is that it has been suggested, on behalf of the insurance companies, that the Bill as now framed, particularly clauses two, three, and four, interferes with the legitimate agency business carried on by commision. That certainly is not the object of those who promote the Bill. I have carefully considered the suggestions made to me. Some of them I will place as Amendments on the Paper, and I believe that the addition of a very few words altering the onus of proof will remove the greatest part of the objections of the insurance companies. I hope the great work of the late Lord Russell will ultimately result in an effective statute putting an end to an evil which affects hundreds of

  1055
  thousands of honest traders and is undermining honest business. It is from that point of view, and at the same time being anxious to consider any Amendment for perfecting the Bill, that I ask your Lordships to read the measure a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Alverstone.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I suppose that no one will doubt the propriety of arriving at the goal which my noble and learned friend desires to reach, in order to put an end to the corrupt transactions which undoubtedly do form a very considerable part of a great many commercial transactions, very much to the injury of the honest trader, and resulting in a very undue tax upon persons who are made victims of this enforced commission. The difficulty entirely lies in the application of the proposal so that it shall only hit corrupt transactions and not the great variety of human transactions, which certainly are not within the meaning of the Bill, though they may nevertheless be within its wording. I do not deny that since the Bill was first introduced the labours of the Select Committee have resulted in very great improvements and in lessening very considerably the dangers that were applicable to the first draft of the Bill. Whether they have been completely successful in removing all the dangers I do not at present say. What my noble and learned friend has said in reference to Amendments which he proposes to introduce on the representations made to him, may, of course, remove some of the objections which occur to me. At present I can only say that it appears to me that the Bill is most useful, as certainly its design is most valuable, and I entirely support the view of my noble and learned friend that your Lordships should read it a second time.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday, the 7th of May next.

POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL [H.L.]

  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order); Bills reported without amend-
  1056
  ment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Five of the clock to Thursday next, half-past Ten of the clock.