Sitting of 18 June 1901

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  BELFAST AND NORTHERN COUNTIES RAILWAY BILL. (BY ORDER.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. FIELDsaid he thought the House was entitled to some explanation with regard to that

  689
  Bill, which raised issues of importance which were not ordinarily raised by railway Bills. Questions of public policy were involved. The House was now beginning to take an intelligent interest in English railway matters, and he hoped to see that interest directed to Irish Bills. He had not risen for the purpose of opposing or obstructing this Bill, but he had a particular grievance. He was not opposed to railway amalgamation, particularly in Ireland; on the contrary, he thought it a public advantage for a large railway to take over a small one, provided, of course, that the public interest was properly safeguarded. But, so far as he could see, that was not done in this case. The Derry Central Railway was under this Bill being absorbed by the Northern Counties Railway. Now the latter railway, he understood, was one of the few well-managed lines in Ireland; its charges were moderate, its officials were civil and courteous, and it served its district well. However, there were some peculiar features in connection with the Bill. It seemed that the Derry Central Railway Company was indebted to the Commissioners of Public Works in the sum of £113,720 18s. 4d, in respect of a loan and interest, and under the Bill the Commissioners were to receive £85,000, while £28,720 was to be divided among the shareholders of the company and officials who were being deprived of their positions. The preference shareholders were to get 4s. 6d. for every £1 share, and the ordinary guaranteed shareholders 3s. 1d. Surely some explanation ought to be forthcoming of that. Again, he had to complain that in no clause was there any guarantee whatever that the public rights would be protected and safeguarded, or that greater facilities and better accommodation would be provided for travellers. It was simply a transfer of the line from one company to another, under certain financial arrangements, and he did think the promoters should vouchsafe some explanation to the House.
  *MR. O'NEILLexplained that the Government advanced £100,000 for the making of this particular line, but, unfortunately, the company had not been able to pay the agreed instal-
  690
  ments, and the indebtedness had consequently risen to £113,720. The Government were bound to look after the interests of the taxpayers, and so they foreclosed, with the result that after considerable negotiations the Northern Counties Company had agreed to take over the line on the terms mentioned by the hon. Member. It was in the public interest, therefore, that this Bill should be passed; otherwise the Government might get no return at all on their loan. The Bill cited the maximum rates and charges which the company were to be entitled to charge as those which were fixed under the original Act.
  MR. FIELD: That is what I complain of. I say those rates are too high, and ought to be reduced.
  *MR. O'NEILLnext referred the hon. Member to the agreement on page 11 in the schedule of the Bill between the Government and the Northern Counties Railway Company, and expressed a hope that the opposition to the Bill would not be persisted in.
  MR. O'MARAsaid he did not feel at all satisfied that the rates, of this railway under the amalgamation scheme would not be raised, and great care should be taken to protect the interests of the public in this respect. Owing to the many amalgamations which had taken place in Ireland, railway traffic in Ireland had gone into the hands of very few companies, and competition had disappeared. This House should be very careful to guard against matters of this kind, and under no circumstances whatever—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is extremely unusual to discuss, upon the Second Reading, details such as rates, which, if they are considered unsatisfactory, can be amended at a later stage. The point the hon. Member is raising hardly relates to the principle of the Bill.
  MR. O'MARAthen said he would move as an Instruction to the Committee—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot move an Instruction upon the Second Reading.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I think it will perhaps be for the convenience of the House that I should now state the position of the Government in regard to this Bill. My hon. friend opposite has spoken of this Bill as being promoted by the Northern Counties Railway and the Government, but that hardly expresses the position which the Government are in. The Government are interested in the Derry Central Railway in consequence of a loan they made. By the aid of that loan the railway was constructed, and since its construction it has been purchased by the Northern Counties Railway under an agreement between the Northern Counties Railway and the Government. Unfortunately, the Derry Central Railway has been surrounded by another system, and it cannot get through by itself at all to the north or south, and it is not in a position, in my opinion, and in the opinion of my advisers, to work successfully as an independent line. The position is that the loan is outstanding, expenses are being incurred, and arrears of interest are accumulating. Therefore the Government had to consider what they should do under the circumstances. The debt is mounting up, and as it appeared to the Government that the line was not likely to be successfully worked as an independent line, we had to consider what steps should be taken to remedy the position in which we were placed. The Derry Central Company approached the Treasury in 1899 for a revision of the existing conditions, and the Treasury decided that they must cither sell their interest in the line or they must foreclose and sell the line itself. They were inclined to sell their interest, together with their rights, but they did not find it easy or possible to get a suitable purchaser. After having called for tenders to see what other companies would give, and having only one offer, and that a very inadequate one, they decided to foreclose, and now, as the mortgagees in possession, they have decided to sell the line to the Northern Counties Company. This Bill is promoted by the Northern Counties Company to carry out the agreement which, subject to the sanction of Parliament,
  692
  they have made with the Government for the purchase of the line. We have three main interests to deal with. The hon. Gentleman opposite asks what is the position of the taxpayer who advanced the money. The position of the taxpayer is that he gets back £85,000 of the loan of £100,000 which he made, and he saves the loss of any further interest which he would otherwise have to put up with. As a matter of fact, the Government were advised by an independent valuator whom we sent down to value the line that £85,000 was a fair value of their interest in the line. The taxpayer gets back £85,000, he is secured against any further loss of interest, and he gets the full value of his interest.
  MR. FIELD: But he loses £28,000.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That is not all a loss of capital, but it is partly arrears of interest, which under other circumstances he has no chance whatever of recovering. There is also the interest of the shareholders. We felt that the shareholders who had put their money into the Derry Central Company had some equitable right to consideration, and that it was in accordance with the practice in such cases of purchase or amalgamation that their case should be considered. We therefore arranged that £20,000 should be set aside for the shareholders of the Derry Central Company as compensation for losing all further interest in the line. We also provide that the secretary should have a small sum as compensation, and the hon. Member opposite did not dispute the justice of that as regards the distribution of this compensation among the shareholders. I think this is evidently a question for the shareholders themselves, and one in which we ought not to interfere, and, moreover, it is one upon which we have consistently refused to express any opinion. The only position we take up in the matter is that the Northern Counties Company, which is itself a considerable shareholder, shall have no part in the compensation. Then there is the interest of the public which is served by this line, and it is that interest which hon. Gentlemen opposite are parti-

  693
  cularly anxious about. I say that, in my opinion, this line cannot be worked independently with any prospects of success. If hon. Gentlemen from Ireland would look at the railway map of Ireland they would see that it needs no elaboration to prove that it cannot be worked successfully as an independent line. I do not think, therefore, that there would be any prospect of the line being worked to the satisfaction of the districts concerned by the Derry Central Company if we had sold to them, as they are not a rich company, and they would have had some difficulty in equipping the line satisfactorily. We have, therefore, sold it to the Northern Counties Company, which is one of the best of the Irish railways, a line which, in the words of the hon. Gentleman opposite, is well managed, charges moderate rates, and gives a good service. I think that in doing this we have probably done the best we could for the district to be served by the line. We have, however, taken some precautions. In the first place, it may be true, and I know the allegation has been made, that the Northern Counties Railway, under the working of their agreement, have rather starved the line. Under the arrangement made in this Bill it will be no longer to their interest to starve the line, for this line will become part of their general system, and it will be as much their own line as any other part. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the schedule on page 14, which has been referred to by my hon. friend, he will see that we have taken further precautions. I refer to Clause 3 of the schedule, and not to Clause 2, which the hon. Gentleman opposite mentioned. Under Clause 3 the actual rates charged at the date of this agreement on the railway are not to be increased directly or indirectly without the consent of the Railway and Canal Commissioners. It provides, further, that the rates charged in respect of traffic conveyed on the railway shall, where higher, be reduced to the level of the rates charged by the purchasers in respect of corresponding traffic conveyed or carried under similar circumstances, and for similar distances on the Northern Counties Railway; and, lastly, that the purchasers shall afford at least the same facilities to the public as
  694
  at present, and shall in no way or under no circumstances work or use the railway to prejudicially affect the full and free flow of traffic of every description over the same for and from Dublin, Belfast, Londonderry, Larne, and all intermediate points. I think the hon. Gentleman will see that while it is the duty of the Treasury to consider the interest of the taxpayers, who have made this line, we have not been unmindful of the interests of the district, and we have done all that we fairly could do to secure that those interests would be safeguarded by the agreement we have made for the sale of the line. I very much hope the House will read this Bill a second time, and if there be any questions in dispute I think they may safely be left for settlement by the Committee. I do not think the objections raised are such as ought to induce the House to refuse its assent to the Bill.
  MR. MURNAGHANwished to know who would be responsible to this House for the precautions alluded to being carried out. The House ought not to part with the control of an Irish railway without serious consideration. There ought to be somebody in the House of Commons to answer complaints about Irish railways, for at the present time they had no department to which they could apply for information in regard to railway matters. He thought he was entitled to have some information from the Government as to how these precautions were secured.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Any aggrieved person has his remedy, and he will not need the assent of the Government or of any Government department.
  MR. MURNAGHANsaid that they had been told that there would be other opportunities to consider their grievances, and that this was not a question of great public utility. But he maintained that the House of Commons should insist that some person representing the department of the State responsible should be there to see that those arrangements were properly enforced. At the present moment they could get no redress for private grievances in regard

  695
  to railways in Ireland. They were told by the Clerks at the Table that they should go before the Railway Commissioners, but the Railway Commissioners had no standing in this House, and he declined to be shunted about by the Clerks at the Table.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid that the hon. Member would have other opportunities of raising grievances of this kind. Details could not be gone into upon this occasion.
  MR. MURNAGHANsaid that a Member of the House of Commons was entitled to see that any law passed by Parliament was enforced, and he maintained that they should not give a Second Reading to a Bill without getting some assurance that the arrangements made in that Bill would be carried out.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLhoped the hon. Gentleman would not persist in his opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill. He thought the Treasury had made a very fair bargain, under all the circumstances. The Treasury would get £65,000, where, without this agreement, they would have got nothing.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the Treasury would receive £85,000. The £20,000 for the shareholders was in addition to the sum paid to the Treasury.
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that that made the case better than he thought, and therefore that the Treasury had made the best possible settlement by arranging for the purchase of the line by the Belfast and Northern Counties Company. He wished, however, to draw the attention of the House to one matter which would require consideration. If there was one line of railway in Ireland that had been badly managed, and was a nuisance rather than an advantage to the country, it was the Derry Central Railway. Many a long and weary hour he had spent at Magherafelt Junction. What he wanted to direct attention to in the agreement of purchase by the Belfast and Northern Counties Company
  696
  was that the latter were not required to give any better facilities to the public than the Derry Central had done. Of course, it would be to their interest to do so, but if they did not agree to do that he would oppose the Bill when it came down from Committee.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNORagreed that the interests of the taxpayers had been fairly well looked after in the agreement, but he thought the shareholders had some ground of complaint against the Government. When the Government advanced £100,000 to the Derry Central Company, that seemed a guarantee to investors that the railway was going to be a success, whereas it appeared that the Government were aware that the undertaking could not possibly be successful.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

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

  BURY CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL.
  GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
  MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

BLACKBURN CORPORATION BILL.
  WALLASEY IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.

  ARIZONA COPPER COMPANY, LIMITED, ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  [UNDER THE PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.]
  Read the third time, and passed.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolution reported from the Committee:—
  "That, in the case of the Metropolitan District 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."
  Resolution agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.
  Reported, without amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time to-morrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
  Reported, without amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time to-morrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  INCLOSURE (SUTTON) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Reported, without amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time to-morrow.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
  Reported, with an amended Title [Provisional Order relating to Marylebone not confirmed; remaining Order relating to Marylebone confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  BARRY RAILWAY BILL.
  Reported, without amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PAISLEY POLICE AND PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
  STRATFORD-UPON-AVON, TOWCESTER, AND MIDLAND JUNCTION, EAST AND WEST JUNCTION AND EVESHAM, REDDITCH, AND STRATFORD-UPON-AVON JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANIES.
  AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  CHESTER GAS BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

  RODGERS' PATENT BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to the Military Lands Provisional Orders Bill.
  That they have agreed to Amendments to Oakham Water Bill [Lords], without amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Babbacombe and Great Yarmouth." Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords].

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 217.]
PETITIONS.
  BOROUGH FUNDS ACT (1872) AMENDMENT (LONDON) BILL.
  Petition from Wandsworth, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION BILL.
  Petition from Long Eaton, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Horninglow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Burham; Cuxton; Upnor; Eccles; Snodland (two); Peterborough; Hailing (two); Worcester; Bulwell; Liverpool; Arbuthnott; Shoreditch; Hunslet and Stourton; Stoke; Stamford Hill; Hoy-lake; Halesowen; West Ham; Ipswich; Blackpool; Plumstead; Blaina; Sheffield; Brynmawr; Upton Manor; and Walkden; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Birsay; Benholm; Lairg; Kingussie; and Kilninian and Kilmore; to lie upon the Table.
  SOVEREIGN'S OATH ON ACCESSION BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, against; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Draft Order in Council for transferring to the Board of Education the powers of the Charity Commissioners to frame and establish Schemes for Educational Endowments in England and Wales [by Act]; to lie upon the Table
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2631 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—CAMPS OF CONCENTRATION.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to bring any more women and children into the camps of concentration; and, if so, whether in view of the overcrowding in some of the existing camps, the Government will establish in Cape Colony new camps, well supplied with water, near supplies and charitable aid.

  701
  I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War whether women now in camps of concentration in South Africa who are separated from their children will be allowed to rejoin them.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The number of people whom it may be necessary to bring into camps of concentration depends entirely on military considerations. The position of any new camps must be determined by Lord Kitchener, but the proximity to water and supplies will undoubtedly be considered. Cases of women separated from their children will be treated with all possible consideration, but I think in the cases mentioned by the hon. Member it is not known by the mothers where their families are situated.

  FALSE WAR NEWS.
  MR. WEIRI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on the 10th instant, when the War Office announced Lord Kitchener's denial of the report concerning the alleged surprise of General Beyer's commando, Reuter's Telegram Company telegraphed to their agent at Cape Town for the full facts, and on the 14th instant were advised by the Cable Company that their message of inquiry had been stopped by the censor; and will he state under what circumstances this telegram was suppressed, and what action has been taken by Lord Kitchener in regard to the person who communicated from Pretoria on the 5th of June the report, the truth of which has been denied by Lord Kitchener.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not aware of the action imputed to the censor. Lord Kitchener has warned the agent to be more careful, but is of opinion that the case is not one for suspension.
  MR. WEIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman obtain the other information asked for in the question?
  MR. BRODRICK: I do not think the matter is sufficiently important for further inquiry.

  GENERAL PRINSLOO'S FORCE.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War
  702
  whether he can inform the House if the Boer general Prinsloo and the force of more than 4,000 men who surrendered with him in 1900 were all detained as prisoners of war and deported to St. Helena or elsewhere.
  MR. BRODRICK: The majority of the men who surrendered with General Prinsloo were detained as prisoners of war, and are now in Ceylon.

  SOUTH AFRICAN NATIVES—USE OF THE LASH.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now received official information as to the sanctioning by the High Commissioner for South Africa of the use of the lash in punishing natives under magisterial orders in the Transvaal, and has had an opportunity of discussing this and other matters affecting native interests with Lord Milner; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House correspondence or proposals as to the provisions for the supply and control of native labour in the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, or otherwise inform the House as to the contemplated arrangements before these arrangements are allowed to be enforced.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): (1) I have discussed the subject referred to in the first question with Lord Milner, who fully shares my strong objection to the indiscriminate or excessive use of the lash as a punishment. He informs me that the proclamation just issued alters the previous practice by reducing the maximum number of lashes and by limiting the offences for which the punishment can be given, and it also makes necessary in most cases the sanction of a higher authority before the punishment can be inflicted. It is, therefore, a great improvement on the law of the late Government of the South African Republic, and I am informed that the legal adviser of the Government—Mr. Solomon—has already issued a circular to magistrates warning them to be sparing in the use of the lash. (2) The question of native labour is under consideration, and it is probable that nothing will be settled till Lord Milner returns.

  703
  There is no correspondence which can be laid.

  SOUTH AFRICAN CONSTABULARY.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, either from the terms of their enlistment or from their training, Baden Powell's Police are available as a military force outside the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies; if not, what precedents exist for making two-fifths of the cost of maintaining a colonial police force a permanent charge upon the Imperial Exchequer.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: (1) The South African Constabulary, by the terms of enlistment, are available for service in any part of British South Africa. (2) The present arrangement of charge is not permanent, and the Imperial Government will be relieved of its share when the numbers are reduced to 6,000. Meanwhile the additional 4,000 has been raised for Imperial service during the continuance of the war.

  SECOND KING'S ROYAL RIFLES.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the Second King's Royal Rifles on their return from Ladysmith to Rawalpindi were compelled, firstly, to outfit themselves at practically their own expense, and, secondly, to provide themselves with a new kit to replace that left behind and lost at Pietermaritzburg, he will make the amendment of the Army Order of this year in reference to this matter retrospective, and order a refund of the amounts expended.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): The circumstances have not been reported to the War Office, but inquiries will be at once addressed to the Indian Government. If the facts are as stated a refund will be made.

  DUBLIN FUSILIERS.
  MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the fourteen non-commis-
  704
  sioned officers and men of the Dublin Fusiliers mentioned in the list issued by the War Office on the 15th instant as having rejoined have done so only within the past few days, can he state where they have been detained since the release of the body of their prisoners by the Boers in June, 1900; and will the arrears of their pay in respect of the period since they were reported missing, namely, seven on 30th October, 1899, and seven on 15th December, 1899, be now paid to them.
  LORD STANLEY: These men probably rejoined their battalion many months ago, but the fact of their having so rejoined had not been reported from South Africa until last week. Prisoners of war who rejoin are paid all arrears of pay as soon as they have passed through the usual court of inquiry, and there is no reason to suppose that these men have not received their back pay.

  IRELAND'S CLAIM TO GOVERNMENT WORK AND CONTRACTS.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the evidence of the Duke of Connaught before the Committee on War Office Organisation, which shows that articles such as bedsteads, ladders, tables, bags, and brushes are now sent from Woolwich to Ireland, though similar articles could be procured at a cheaper rate in Ireland; and, seeing that the witness recommended that these articles should in future be procured in Ireland, and that the shipbuilding and repairing work done in that country should henceforward be increased, whether he has taken or proposes to take any steps to ensure that these recommendations will be acted upon by the War Office.
  LORD STANLEY: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this question. I shall be glad if the hon. Member will refer to my reply to a similar question put yesterday by the hon. Member for the College Green Division of Dublin.*
  MR. MURPHYcomplained of the absence of the Chief Secretary, to whom the question was addressed.
  * See page 548.
  LORD STANLEY: The question has absolutely nothing to do with the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It deals with matters affecting solely the War Office and the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland.

  BEER RATIONS ON TRANSPORTS.
  MR. LLEWELLYN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of sanctioning the issue of a daily ration of beer to troops at sea when returning from South Africa.
  MR. TAYLOR: May I ask the noble Lord whether, if this allowance is made, the authorities will also consider the desirability of encouraging habits of total abstinence in the Army by issuing non-intoxicating liquors?
  LORD STANLEY: Troops returning from South Africa are able to purchase a daily ration of a pint of good beer for one penny.
  MR. LLEWELLYN: Is the noble Lord aware of the extent to which the illicit sale of abominable liquor goes on on board the transports?
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir.
  MR. LLEWELLYN: I will give him some evidence.

  ARMY RESERVE GARRISON ARTILLERY.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state why men of the First Class Army Reserve Garrison Artillery quartered at Portsmouth are not permitted to proceed on continuous working furlough, although such permission is granted to those serving under like conditions at other stations.
  LORD STANLEY: This is a matter entirely for the general officer commanding the district, who is guided in these matters by the requirements of his garrisons. There is no intention of interfering with his discretion in these matters.

  RECRUITING STATISTICS.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he
  706
  will grant a monthly Return of the number of recruits to the cavalry, artillery, infantry, and Militia, in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, Cd. 525.
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir. I am endeavouring to carry out the recommendations of the Committee which has recently reported on the War Office organisation and to minimise Returns. I cannot, therefore, consent to the hon. Member's request.

  WAR HONOURS FOR NAVAL WARRANT OFFICERS.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now state what decision has been arrived at as to the participation of warrant officers of the Navy in the promotions and honours now being awarded in connection with the South African campaign.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): I beg leave to refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to his previous question by the Secretary of the Admiralty.* The formal steps requisite for establishing this new decoration are being taken, and effect will be given to the decision at the earliest possible date by publication in the London Gazette.

  GIBRALTAR WORKS.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will state the estimated respective cost of completing the works now in progress and those which have been temporarily suspended at Gibraltar.
  MR. PRETYMAN: The particulars asked for are not at present available. The whole of the work at Gibraltar is let in a single contract. Elaborate calculations would be necessary to ascertain the amount already expended and remaining to be expended in respect of the particular works referred to in the hon. Member's question. I may say that, roughly speaking, £2,000,000 is about the sum required to complete all the works, some £300,000 of which would
  * See preceding volume, page 441.

  707
  be spent upon the items proposed to be deferred.

  INDIAN STATE RAILWAYS—FOREIGN ORDERS FOR MATERIAL.
  SIR CHARLES CAYZER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that wheels and axles and other material for the use of the Indian State or Guaranteed Railways have been ordered from Messrs. Krupp and Company, Essen, and shipped at Hamburg for Calcutta by foreign vessels, and that tenders for railway wagons have been ordered in Austria and shipped at Trieste for Calcutta by foreign vessel, whether he can state the quantity in tons and value so ordered; and whether he will grant a Return showing the quantity in tons and value of all the railway material for the Indian State and Guaranteed Railways, and whether purchased at borne or abroad, and shipped in British or foreign vessels, for the last five years 1896 to 1900, inclusive, if moved for.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G.): I understand that one of the Indian railway companies has recently ordered thirty-one locomotive tenders from Messrs. Krupp, and fifty goods brake vans from a Hungarian firm, the total value of the two orders being £26,066. I cannot give the weight in tons. As regards the second question, I can at once furnish my hon. friend with the information he wants so far as State railways are concerned.

  KING'S ACCESSION OATH.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received an intimation that the Federal Cabinet of Australia is unanimously in favour of a revision of the oath taken by the King in reference to Catholics.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not received any communication from the Federal Cabinet of Australia on the subject.

  SLAVERY IN ZANZIBAR,
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign
  708
  Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has sanctioned, or proposes to sanction, the suggestion of Sir Lloyd Mathews, in his memorandum of 19th January, 1901, printed in Parliamentary Paper, Africa, No. 4 (1901), for procuring native labour for Zanzibar and Pemba from the British East Africa and Uganda Protectorates on contracts for three years or longer, to be entrusted to Zanzibar merchants or a company empowered to draft such labour in gangs to wherever it may be required, and solely responsible for the wages and upkeep incident to it; and whether His Majesty's Government has received information as to the deportation of slaves from Pemba to Muscat since the Anti-Slavery Decree of the Sultan of Zanzibar; and, if so, whether any, or what, steps have been taken to prevent such deportation during the past three years by the action of His Majesty's warships in watching the coast.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE,): His Majesty's Government have not sanctioned, and do not, as at present advised, propose to sanction, the suggestion in question. All the information received by His Majesty's Government regarding the deportation of slaves from Pemba has been laid before the House in slave trade papers, which also contain reports from naval officers as to the operations of His Majesty's ships.

  TURKISH RAILWAY CONCESSIONS.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with regard to the concession made in November, 1899, by the Porte to a German syndicate represented by the Deutsche Bank for the construction of a railway from Konia to the Persian Gulf, to expire in 1906, whether he has any official information to the effect that since the concession was made the German syndicate has asked that a kilo-metrical guarantee should be given to them by the Porte, and that the Porte has proposed to raise the present tariff on imports with a view to providing the sum required; and if he has any information that an English syndicate

  709
  offered in 1899 to construct the line to the Persian Gulf without a kilometrical or other guarantee.
  I beg also to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information relating to the convention between the Porte and the Russian Government, of April, 1900, under which the Porte has agreed to grant no concession for the construction of railways in the north-eastern parts of Asia Minor except to Russian companies, and will he state whether any Papers will be presented to Parliament on this subject and the other railways communication in Asia Minor.
  EARL PERCY: May I ask whether the noble Lord can say what line the railway mentioned in the first question proposes to follow; and in regard to the second question whether the Russian Government has any intention of constructing the railways themselves, and whether the Turkish Government are forbidden not only to grant concessions for these railways to foreign companies, but to make them themselves with foreign financial assistance.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I cannot answer these latter questions without notice. It is believed that a preliminary agreement was made between the Porte and a German syndicate for such a concession as is described in December, 1899, but no information has been received that the concession has been definitely granted or its details settled. It is understood that a kilometric guarantee was contemplated as one of the conditions of the concession, but it is not known that any progress has been made towards settling the point. The Porte has proposed to raise the present tariff on imports, but no intimation has been given that this measure was intended for the purpose of providing the sum required for the guarantee. The Public Debt Commission would have a first claim upon any increased revenue so obtained. His Majesty's Government are not aware of an offer having been made by an English syndicate to construct the line in question without a guarantee. Whatever agree-
  710
  ment has been made between the Porte and the Russian Government is of a confidential nature; and His Majesty's Government have no information which could properly be made public.

  CHINA—ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT—BRITISH INTERESTS IN THE YANG-TSZE VALLEY.
  *MR. HEMPHILL: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Barnsley Division of Yorkshire, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under the Anglo-German agreement, Germany is acknowledged by His Majesty's Government to be entitled to the same rights and privileges in the Yang-tsze region as Great Britain, except as regards railway enterprises.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: By the Anglo-German Agreement it is agreed that the ports on the rivers and littoral of China shall remain free and open to trade and to every other legitimate form of economic activity for the nationals of all countries wherever the signatory Governments can exercise influence.

  CHINESE INDEMNITY.
  SIR MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Great Britain has formally informed the Powers that she will not consent to China increasing the duty or duties on opium and rice to pay the indemnity.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: We have stated that the imposition of any tax on rice or cereals now free would be very impolitic, and, as far as we are aware, this view is shared by the other Powers. It is not proposed to make any change as regards the duty on opium.

  CONSULAR APPOINTMENTS HELD BY RETIRED OFFICERS.
  MR. HARRIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state how many retired naval and military officers there are at the present time holding consular appointments worth £200 a year or over, and who have not

  711
  passed any examination in foreign languages.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: There are twelve ex-naval and military officers holding ordinary consular appointments at the present time who have not, within the knowledge of the Foreign Office, passed an examination in foreign languages. But it does not follow that they are unacquainted with foreign languages.

  TURKEY—BRITISH VICE-CONSUL AT KONIA.
  EARL PERCY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's vice-consul has been recently withdrawn from Konia; and, if so, whether, in view of the commercial interests involved, steps will be taken to fill the vacancy as soon as possible.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The British vice-consulate at Konia was abolished in February last, after communication with His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople and Consul at Angora. British interests in that district are not such as to require the supervision of a consular officer, and, so far as our information goes, there are no other reasons for which the presence of a representative of this country in the district would be desirable; but if the information of my noble friend is different we shall be very glad to consider it.

  MURDER OF AN ENGLISHMAN IN MEXICO.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received any information with regard to the murder and robbery of Mr. Robert R. Emett, an English mine manager, at Zacualtipan, Mexico; and if he will instruct His Majesty's representative in Mexico to take such action as will prevent the recurrence of the frequent and unpunished murders of British subjects in the mining districts of Mexico.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Government have no information on the subject, but inquiry will be made of His Majesty's Minister at Mexico.

  COAL DUTY.
  MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the difficulty which has arisen in construing the Customs House rules in relation to the coal duty, he can state if it has been definitely determined upon whom the liability to pay coal duty rests in the case where the seller has sold coal free on board at a British port, and the purchaser has resold the coal for delivery, cost, freight, and insurance at a foreign port; also, in the case in which the first seller has sold the coal free on board at a British port and the purchaser has resold the coal to a second purchaser free on board at the same or another British port, and this purchaser has in turn resold the coal for delivery c.i.f. at a foreign port; whether a uniform practice with regard to charging the liability to pay coal duty in the cases named has been adopted at the Customs Offices at all British ports; and whether, in the event of there existing such a uniform practice, he can state what it is for the information of those engaged in the export coal trade.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHUR: was about to put a question on a cognate subject, but was ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): Under Section 139 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, and by analogy with the provisions of that Act respecting the importation of dutiable goods and the exportation of drawback goods, the exporter of the coal free on board must pass the entry for it and pay, or give bond for, the export duty. The exporter need not do this in person, but may employ for the purpose any agent he likes, be it the middleman to whom he has sold the coal or anyone else. Whom he employs is a matter for arrangement between vendor and vendee, not for the decision of the Customs. It is immaterial, from the point of view of the Customs, how often coal once placed free on board changes ownership before it leaves this country, or before it is landed in another. The person responsible for placing the coal

  713
  free on board is also responsible for passing the entry and paying the duty at the time of its being so placed free on board. The difficulty to which the hon. Member refers has arisen, not between the Customs and exporters of coal, but between vendors and vendees or their agents.
  MR. RENWICK: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now prepared to make any statement of the intention of the Government to reduce the export upon small coal to 6d. per ton.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, having regard to the fact that very strong opposition has been expressed by patent fuel manufacturers, and also that notice of Amendments has been given on the Committee stage of the Bill, he will defer coming to any decision until he has heard all the pros and cons of the question.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: That is exactly my position. I have no statement to make on this subject, except that the report, which I understand appeared in the press, to the effect that I intended to propose the reduction suggested, is quite inaccurate. All I have ever said was that if the trade asked me for such a reduction and proposed a reasonable and workable definition of small coal, I would consider it; but I see great difficulty in arriving at such a definition.

  PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX BY THE CROWN.
  MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in regard to the payment of income tax by the Crown, the same course will be taken as was taken by her late Majesty.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: When Sir Robert Peel introduced the income tax in 1842 he was authorised by the late Queen to announce to Parliament that Her Majesty would pay income tax on the Privy Purse and on Class III. of the Civil List. It was so paid during her late Majesty's reign. We have advised that a similar course should be taken now, and that course will be followed.

  WALSALL WATCH COMMITTEE AND LICENSING PROSECUTIONS.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to a report of the watch committee of the Walsall Town Council of last month forbidding the chief constable, on his own initiative, to take out summonses without first consulting the town clerk; and whether, seeing that such an arrangement is unusual, he will take steps to prevent the chief constable in this case being hampered in his endeavour to enforce the licensing laws in the borough.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): My attention has not been called to this particular borough, but I am aware that similar directions have been issued by watch committees in some other boroughs. I cannot say that such a direction is not within the powers of the watch committee, but evidently it is a matter which requires the exercise of the utmost discretion.

  FOOD AND DRUGS ACT PROSECUTIONS.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the working of the Food and Drugs Act, under which a seller may be prosecuted on the sole ground of the analysis of a local public analyst, who is liable to error, and the public analyst himself may be prosecuted on the grounds that his analysis is wrong; and whether he would consider the expediency of introducing legislation to assimilate the working of the Food and Drugs Act to that of the Fertilisers Act in respect of having the analysis of the local analyst revised by skilled analysts of the Local Government Board before proceeding to a prosecution under the Act.
  MR. PIRIE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers may I ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board if he is aware of the frequent cases of injustice due to the existing law regarding prosecutions under the Food and Drugs Act, whereby sellers can

  715
  suffer material damage from a prosecution at the instance of local inspectors, although the prosecution is subsequently withdrawn; and also that claims against local authorities by those so injured through unfounded charges are dismissed in the law courts as being irrelevant; and whether his attention has been called to a recent case of such a nature—Aberdeen—in which a firm of aerated water manufacturers suffered unmerited and serious loss.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): Perhaps I may answer both questions together. The case giving rise to them appears to have occurred in Scotland, and I have no jurisdiction under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act in that country. My attention has, however, been called to the matter referred to, but I do not think that sufficient ground has been shown for legislation.

  FOOD PRESERVATIVES.
  MR. LOUGH: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will say what is the present position of the inquiry of the Departmental Committee on the use of preservatives and colouring matter in articles of food, and when the Committee is expected to complete the evidence and present their Report.
  *MR. WALTER LONG: The Committee have completed the taking of evidence and are now considering their Report. I hope that it will be presented during the present session.

  CANADIAN TARIFFS ON BRITISH LITERATURE.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been drawn to complaints from Canada that British magazines and periodicals mailed to Canada are taxed at the rate of eight cents a pound, while United States periodicals can enter at one cent per pound; and whether,
  716
  as this rate is driving out British publications by American competition, the Postmaster General can see his way to reduce the rates now charged.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The hon. Member would seem to be under the impression that there is some special rate of postage in this country on magazines and periodicals for Canada; but that is not so. The rate is that, which is uniformly charged on all book-post matter posted in this country, whether for destinations outside it or for the United Kingdom itself—namely, ½d. for every two ounces. The Postmaster General can see no reason why an exception from this universal rate should be made in favour of periodicals for Canada, and a general reduction would involve serious and unwarrantable loss. The rate of one cent per pound on magazines and periodicals sent from the United States to Canada is understood to involve a loss to the United States revenue. The rate is part of an old established arrangement between the Dominion and the States, whereby the domestic postage rates of the one are applied to all classes of correspondence for the other.

  MONEY LENDING PROSECUTIONS.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Board of Inland Revenue has issued a note order to its officers, to the effect that the Board do not propose to take upon themselves the duty of prosecuting money-lenders who fail to register themselves as required by the Money Lenders Act, 1900, and that offences of that nature need not therefore be reported; will he give the reasons for issuing such a note, and say how, in the absence of action by the Board of Inland Revenue, this Act will be enforced.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The officers of Inland Revenue have no special means of discovering infringements of the provisions of the Acts which are not possessed by the police and general public, but I think they should be instructed to report all cases which

  717
  come to their knowledge to the Board of Inland Revenue for submission to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and I am communicating with the Board of Inland Revenue to this effect. The Director of Public Prosecutions will be prepared to undertake the prosecution of any cases under the Act which may properly form the subject of proceedings, whether brought to his notice by the Inland Revenue or otherwise, as in the case of any other criminal offences.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK—TELEGRAPHIC WITHDRAWALS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state the number of withdrawals by telegraph from the Post Office Savings Bank for the year ending the 31st December, 1900, and the average cost to the depositor of each such withdrawal; and will he also state the number of telegraph notices of withdrawal for payment on the following day, and the average cost to the depositor of each such telegraph notice.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The number of withdrawals by telegraph from the Post Office Savings Bank during the year ended 31st December, 1900, was 167,389, and the average cost to the depositor of each such withdrawal was about 1s. 3d. The number of telegraph notices of withdrawal for payment on the following day was 11,609, and the average cost to the depositor of each such telegraph notice was about 9d.

  POST OFFICE TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state how much of the £2,000,000 voted by Parliament in 1899 for the improvement of telephonic communication throughout the country by the Post Office has been expended; whether any portion thereof has been expended elsewhere than in the London area, and, if so, where; what will be the cost of the London exchange, and what is intended to be done with any balance unexpended;
  718
  and when the new postal telephone system for London, which it was stated last session would be opened by the end of 1900, will be available for the public, and what is the cause of the delay, and what the charges to subscribers will be.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The expenditure already authorised by the Treasury under the Provision of the Telegraph Act, 1899, for works in progress, or about to be undertaken, amounts to £813,040. Of this amount £677,945 is for the London exchange system, and £135,095 for the development of the other parts of the Post Office telephone system in various places, but especially in the north-east of England and in South Wales. The actual payments for new works brought to account up to the 31st March last amount to £269,941. It is not possible at this stage to state definitely what the final cost of the London exchange system will be, but the whole sum of £2,000,000 authorised by Parliament will be expended in such extensions of the Post Office telephone system as seem most urgently necessary, whether in London or elsewhere. The delay in opening the more important exchanges of the London system has been due to the scarcity of skilled labour, the difficulty of getting materials for contractors, the necessary restrictions on the opening of streets to avoid excessive interference with traffic, and the difficulty of constructing exchanges in buildings in use for other Post Office work. Full particulars of the rates and conditions of the service will be brought before the public at an early date, and it is hoped that it will be available in some parts of London in the autumn.

  PHTHISIS IN THE POST OFFICE.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Post-master General, whether, in view of the scientific interest attaching to comparative statistics of mortality from phthisis, he will grant a Return showing the mortality and superannuations from hat disease in the Post Office, distinguishing between the various occupations, he outdoor and indoor staffs, London and the provinces, and the various ages of the employees.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It would be difficult to give all the details referred to, but it may perhaps suffice to say that the average annual number of deaths from phthisis in the past three years was forty-seven, and the average number of established officers (men) in the United Kingdom in those years was 52,146, showing a death rate of ·9 per 1,000.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of giving a larger amount of detail in the annual Report of the Postmaster General.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will communicate with the Postmaster General on the point.

  KING'S SCHOLARSHIP EXAMINATION.
  MR. LLEWELLYN: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can give Returns showing approximately the number of pupil teachers from country schools examined at the King's Scholarship Examination in December last, the number placed in the first class, and the proportion this bears to the total number in the first class, and in the second and third classes; also a comparison of these numbers with those of the Queen's Scholarship Examinations held in 1880 and 1890; and, seeing that country schools are at present placed at a disadvantage, whether the local authorities, which the recently-introduced Education Bill proposes to create, will have the power to establish and maintain central classes for country pupil teachers in secondary schools and elsewhere.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The Board of Education can give the Return asked for in respect of the examination in December, 1900, if the hon. Member will move for it. It is impossible to give it for 1880 and 1890, because no distinction between town and country schools was then made in the Department. The answer to the second paragraph is "Yes."

  INQUIRY AS TO CHILD LABOUR.
  MR. LOUGH: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will state what is the present position of the inter-departmental inquiry into the labour of children of school age out of school hours, and when the inquiry is expected to be completed and the Report presented.
  SIR J. GORST: This is a Home Office question, and should be addressed to the right hon. the Home Secretary.
  MR. LOUGH: Then perhaps the Home Secretary can give me the information?
  *MR. RITCHIE: I know the Committee is pursuing its inquiry, but I am unable to say when it will report. If the hon. Member will put down the question, I shall be glad to inquire.

  SCOTTISH JUDICIAL STATISTICS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, whether he is aware that in the last annual issue of the Judicial Statistics for Scotland, deeds recorded in the Sasine Office are not shown for the years subsequent to 1898; and will he explain the cause of this delay in the publication of the Register of Deeds.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): The hon. Member's question is based upon inaccurate information. The last issue of the Judicial Statistics for Scotland was published in October, 1900, and contained (page 175) the Returns from the Sasine Office for the year 1899. The Returns for 1900 were obtained from the Register in February this year, and will be published as usual towards autumn.

  RICHMOND PARK OAKS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, in view of the fact that many of the old oaks in Richmond Park are decaying, will he say whether arrangements can be made for the planting of oak saplings.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): A large amount of

  721
  tree planting is done each year in Richmond Park. For instance, last year 100 young oaks and 250 forest trees were planted. If the hon. Member likes to see the Return of the number of trees planted annually for the last few years I shall be happy to show it to him.

  DRAINAGE OF ROYAL PALACES.
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the Government intend to introduce a Supplemental Estimate for the structural alterations and drainage works which are being undertaken at Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: Yes, Sir; necessary works of considerable importance are being undertaken at Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace, and a Supplemental Estimate will be introduced to meet the cost.

  THE MALL.
  MAJOR BALFOUR: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, in view of the proposals for altering the Mall in the neighbourhood of Buckingham Palace, whether he could arrange that there should be a public exhibition of the designs before they are finally approved.
  MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: Should any decision be come to in regard to the memorial of Queen Victoria which will involve an alteration of the Mall, I think I can undertake to exhibit the proposed design for the information of the House.

  LIMERICK DISTURBANCES—CASE OF DR. LONG.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the trial of the Rev. Edmond O'Leary, C.C., at the Limerick Petty Sessions, on Friday the 7th instant, on a charge of using threatening language to Dr. Long, in consequence of which a crowd gathered; whether he is aware that during the week Dr. Long was attacked when visiting a house in Thomondgate to attend a Protestant patient, and that,
  722
  after the Bench had adjudicated on the case against Rev. E. O'Leary, the Rev. Father Shanahan, P.P., said while Dr. Long continued in Limerick the same scenes would occur; and whether the Government will take adequate steps to protect Dr. Long in his rights as a British citizen.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask whether it is not a fact that the house at which the interview took place was the house of a Catholic?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the question.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I wished, Sir, to ask that, because the question on the Paper is inaccurate.
  *MR. LECKY: May I ask whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman has been called to the fact that the resident magistrate who adjudicated in the case is stated to have advised the people from the Bench to give no employment to Dr. Long—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): I will reply to the question on the Paper. Yes, Sir; the bench, consisting of five magistrates, decided unanimously to dismiss the charge, on the grounds, apparently, that the words complained of did not amount to a threat, and were no more than words of rudeness or incivility, and that the reverend gentleman was not responsible for the acts of the crowd. The reply to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. Dr. Long visited a Protestant who had for two months been a lodger in the house of a Roman Catholic. In consequence of the attack on Dr. Long two persons were summoned for assault on 7th June, and bound over in £5 for a month. (The prosecution of two other persons for riotous behaviour on 2nd June had been deferred for a month.) In reply to the third paragraph, the Government will continue the police protection which has been

  723
  given to Dr. Long since 14th January. (The police reported at that time that Dr. Long's action was often injudicious, and that he seemed disposed to court an exhibition of hostile feeling. I directed on 22nd January that, although Dr. Long's conduct was injudicious, protection must be continued.) I ought to add, in justice to the police, that Dr. Long occasionally evades protection, and that it is, so far as I know, only on such occasions that he has suffered from the hostility of the crowd.
  MR. LUNDON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on cross-examination Dr. Long acknowledged that his life was not in danger?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot be allowed to go into this.
  MR. DELANY: I wish to ask is it not a fact that Dr. Long is a professional proselytiser, and whether he uses his position as a medical doctor for that purpose?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the question which my hon. friend desires to put is in order. This case was tried, as the right hon. Gentleman said, by a bench of magistrates, and I respectfully submit that the question is in order. That question is, whether Dr. Long did not admit on cross-examination that he was engaged in proselytising in the City of Limerick.
  MR. SPEAKER: That was not the question asked. It was whether he was not a professional proselytiser.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Do I understand you to rule it out of order?
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes; I think it is out of order. It does not arise out of the question on the Paper, which has been fully answered. To comment in justification of the case for either the defence or the prosecution is out of order.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman recommend Dr.
  724
  Long to confine his attentions in future to the bodily ailments of his patients, and to leave their souls alone?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the conduct of Dr. Long in distributing in the city of Limerick religious tracts; and whether, with a view to prevent offence to members of the Roman Catholic religion and the provocation to a breach of the peace of the poorer Roman Catholics, steps will be taken to prevent him from continuing to carry on these practices.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It is to be regretted that Dr. Long, or rather that the society which employs him, should—conscientiously—think it right to afford gratuitous medical attendance, with the avowed object of making converts in the midst of a Roman Catholic population. But in this, as in other cases of sectarian or agrarian conflict in Ireland, the duty of the Government consists in preserving the peace and prosecuting those who break the law, and does not extend to the prevention of actions which, however injudicious, are not in themselves illegal.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that Dr. Long in the course of the trial admitted he was a proselytiser?

  ULSTER RAILWAYS AND FRUIT CARRIAGE.
  MR. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution from the Armagh County Council condemning the action of the Great Northern Railway Company in failing to provide the necessary facilities to Ulster fruit growers; and, seeing that consignors frequently wait for hours before their perishable goods are forwarded, too late for market, and that choice fruit is conveyed in trucks previously used by cattle, and having regard to the rates charged, whether he will cause the Department of Agriculture in Ireland to inquire into and report upon these matters with the

  725
  view of remedying by legislation or otherwise the alleged grievances.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The resolution has been received, and inquiry is now being made into the matter by the Department of Agriculture.

  IRISH RESIDENT MAGISTRATES.
  MR. ARCHDALE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he can state who it was appointed Mr. Hickson resident magistrate, and what were his qualifications for the appointment.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Perhaps I may be permitted to reply to this question. Mr. Hickson was appointed, temporarily, as resident magistrate in September, 1888, and a year later he was placed on the permanent staff He is a barrister, and had served for twenty-one years as an officer of the constabulary prior to his appointment to the resident magistracy. The appointment was made by the Lord Lieutenant of the day, Lord Londonderry.
  MR. ARCHDALE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Gentleman recommended boycotting about ten days ago?
  [No answer was returned.]

  INSPECTORS OF IRISH FISHERIES.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, seeing that Mr. Lane, who has recently been appointed temporarily as Inspector of Fisheries in Ireland, has been for years a member of the firm of Messrs. Lane an Co., Brewers, Cork, whether he can state what special training or experience he has had of deep sea fishing; and whether, in making a permanent appointment, the custom in Scotland of appointing a man who has had practical experience of the fishing industry will be followed.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Mr. Lane was associated with Mr. Green in the survey of the West of Ireland Fishery Grounds, undertaken some years ago by the Royal Dublin Society, and he also afforded
  726
  material assistance when the working of the fisheries was started by the Congested Districts Board. The question of making a permanent appointment has not yet arisen, and I must decline to commit the Government to arrangements which it may be necessary to make at a future date.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: When the right hon. Gentleman makes a permanent appointment will he see that the new inspector has a practical acquaintance with the work of the office?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I consider that Mr. Lane has practical knowledge.
  MR. SHEEHANasked whether the Chief Secretary considered that assisting at a survey constituted sufficient practical knowledge.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  COMMITTALS TO IRISH REFORMATORIES.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is prepared to bring in a Bill this session to reform the law relating to committals to reformatories in Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I believe it is the intention of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to re-introduce the Youthful Offenders Bill at an early date. This Bill, as I have already stated, contains clauses affecting committals to reformatories in Ireland.
  MR. O'MARA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bill which he mentions was not included in the statement made by the First Lord of the Treasury as to the Bills which the Government intended only to proceed with this session?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I made no such statement.

  IRISH INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of

  727
  Ireland whether he can state what steps he has decided to take to remove the alleged evil effects to industrial schools of the circular dated October, 1898.
  MR. WYNDHAM: On the 12th instant a circular letter was issued by Government to magistrates in petty sessions informing them that representations had been made that in some instances magistrates so interpreted the circular of October, 1898, as to influence the exercise of their proper discretion in the application of the provisions of the Industrial Schools Act, and pointing out that that circular was issued in consequence of the abuses then existing, but not with the object of in any way discouraging proceedings on behalf of the classes of children for whose benefit the provisions of the Act were intended. I have forwarded a copy of the circular of the 12th instant to the hon. Member.

  BELFAST REVALUATION APPEALS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that several thousands of appeals have been lodged against the Belfast revaluations on the ground that they are generally too high, also that the Black-rock, county Dublin, Urban District Council have successfully appealed against the valuation made by the Commissioner of Valuations of the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway running through their district; and whether, having those facts in view, he will consider the advisability of taking measures to assimilate the Irish system with that prevailing in England, where the local authorities are the rating authorities.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am afraid I cannot add to the replies to similar questions which the hon. Member addressed to me on the 19th and 21st February last.*

  ENNISCORTHY POST OFFICE.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state the reason for the delay in commencing the building
  * See Debates, Fourth Series, Vol. lxxxix., pages 484 and 703.
  728
  of the new post office at Enniscorthy; whether the responsibility rests with the Post Office, or the Treasury, or the Irish Board of Works; and why the promise given by him that the works should be commenced this month is not to be fulfilled; is he aware that the existing post office at Enniscorthy has been condemned by the sanitary authorities; and that the employees there carry on their work, under conditions of danger to health, in one small room without sufficient light or ventilation; will he give the dimensions of this room, the number of employees occupying it, details of the business dealt with there, and the number of sub-post offices served from Enniscorthy post office; and will the Post Office compensate any of their Enniscorthy employees who suffer in health from the conditions mentioned; and have complaints reached the authorities under this head; and whether, in view of the circumstances of the case, the authorities will adhere to their promise, and call for tenders for the construction of the new post office immediately.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The tenders for the erection of the new Crown Post Office at Enniscorthy have been called for and are to be sent in by the 25th instant. In the meantime arrangements have been made for moving, the business to temporary premises, which have lately become available, and where better accommodation will be afforded for all branches of the business. The dimensions of the principal room in the old post office, which was provided by the postmistress, were 18 ft. 9in. by 11 ft. 10 in. by 8 ft. 7 in., and for three periods of fifteen and thirty minutes respectively during the day the number of persons in it was seventeen. During the rest of the day the number varied from one to five. All the usual branches of business were carried on there, and the number of sub-offices under Enniscorthy is nineteen. It is not known that the premises were ever condemned by the sanitary authorities; the ventilation was not good, but no complaint was received as to the light. There is no reason to suppose that the health of any of the employees has suffered from the conditions mentioned, and only one complaint on the subject has been received.

  BALLINFULL POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been directed to a memorial to the Postmaster General from the clergy, representative laity, and magistrates of Killadoon, county Sligo, asking for the establishment of a rural post and money order office in the town-land of Ballinfull in that district; and whether, in view of the present state of the postal arrangements, steps will be taken to have the grievances alleged in the memorial remedied.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General has received a memorial asking for the establishment of a post office at Ballinfull. The matter has been carefully inquired into, but the Postmaster General is sorry to find that, in view of the high cost of the postal service in the district as compared with the amount of correspondence, the circumstances do not justify the establishment of an office at Ballinfull. There is a letter-box at that place, and stamps can be purchased from the postman.

  CAHIRCIVEEN POSTAL SERVICE.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any, and, if so, what arrangements have been come to with a view to improving the postal service between Waterville and Cahirciveen, county Kerry.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: A service to Waterville has been established for the present season by the coach which leaves Cahirciveen on the arrival of the 6 p.m. mail train. Half the expense of the service has been contributed locally, the charges for conveyance by the coach being double the sum which the Postmaster General would have been justified in paying. As the hon. Member has already been informed, the expense of providing additional services at Waterville out of the season would be prohibitive.

  IRISH POSTMEN'S PAY.
  MR. O'MARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing
  730
  the Postmaster General, whether he can state what percentage of the postmen employed in Ireland are on established pay, and what are the similar percentages in England and Scotland respectively.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The present proportion of established to unestablished postmen is not known, and could not be ascertained without incurring more expense than would appear to be justifiable. But in 1897 the established postmen were in Ireland 54 per cent., in England and Wales 68 per cent., and in Scotland 73 per cent. of the whole number, and there is no reason to believe that these percentages differ much from those at the present time. The reason why the percentage is low in Ireland is that, owing to local circumstances, it is not practicable to make up a larger number of full daily duties justifying established situations.

  THE EDUCATION BILL—COCKERTON JUDGMENT.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware of the fact that at this time of the year the great school boards throughout the country usually make their arrangements for the coming evening school session which commences in September; whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the present instance the school boards find themselves unable to proceed with any prospective plans because of the judgment of the Courts of Queen's Bench and of Appeal known as the Cockerton Judgment; and whether, seeing that the Education Bill now before the House of Commons cannot become law in time to permit of these necessary preliminaries being fixed, the Government will give the school boards an assurance that the auditors of the Local Government Board will be instructed to remit any possible surcharge of any items of expenditure rendered immediately necessary for the carrying on by the school boards of the evening school session of 1901–2 on the lines of the session of 1900–1.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR): I think it is true that at this time of the

  731
  year the great school boards throughout the country make arrangements for the autumn and winter sessions. I believe, however, that it will be quite practicable for them to defer their arrangements until a later time or to make special arrangements.
  DR. MACNAMARA: What special arrangements does the right hon. Gentleman refer to?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It would be quite practicable to make some arrangements with the local authorities if they like.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Is not that unduly anticipating the successful passage of the Bill?

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been called to the provisions of a measure for old age pensions now before the French Chamber; and whether he will have the provisions of this measure printed and circulated for the information of Members of this House who are interested in this question.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that it is the fact that a measure on this subject is under discussion in the French Chamber. If it passes into law I shall be very pleased to take the course suggested by the hon. Member.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the same course with regard to the measures which have been passed by certain colonial legislatures?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not made reference, but I believe that some of these Acts have already been made available. I understand that the hon. Gentleman desires these earlier Papers to be brought up to date by the addition of any later Papers of a similar character.

  PROPOSED MINISTRY OF COMMERCE.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will cause formal inquiry to be instituted
  732
  as to the need and demand for the appointment of a Minister of Commerce in connection with a consultative committee to be chosen by chambers of commerce.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have to thank the hon. Gentleman for sending me an interesting article on the subject; but the Government do not think there is sufficient evidence at the present time to justify them in making the inquiries which the hon. Gentleman suggests.

  DISTURBANCES AT BELFAST.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether there was a renewal of the rioting yesterday in one of the shipbuilding yards in Belfast, in the course of which certain Catholic workmen were ill-treated, and an engine-house, where they were employed, attacked with showers of stones and bricks by a large crowd, and whether, finally, the Catholic workmen escaped from the building by the roof; whether there were any police present, and whether, in view of these continued disturbances in this shipbuilding yard, the right hon. Gentleman will order the police to patrol the yard.
  MR. WYNDHAM: On seeing the newspaper paragraph on which I think the hon. Gentleman founds his question—
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: The Times.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, The Times. I telegraphed to the Commissioner of Police, and he wires this morning as follows—
  "On yesterday during meal hours some slight disturbances took place on the premises of Messrs. Workman and Clark and Messrs. Harland and Wolff, but no one was seriously injured. On Sunday evening a Catholic excursion returned to Belfast, when all was quiet, except at the Great Northern Railway Station. A young man named Robert Scott assaulted one of the excursionists, whose name appears to be unknown, by kicking him on the legs. The police promptly arrested Scott, and yesterday he was convicted of riotous behaviour and fined the full penalty of 40s., and was ordered in addition to find bail in two sureties of £25 each, or to be imprisoned

  733
  for six months. On the morning of the same day (Sunday) a few missiles were thrown at a Catholic excursion boat going to Rothesay, but they failed to reach the boat."
  The Commissioner concludes by saying—
  "The city is comparatively quiet. Yesterday's Nationalist papers allege that on Sunday some Gaelic Leaguers were brutally assaulted at the Giants' Ring, four miles from Belfast. A police report, now received, shows this to be an exaggeration. Some twenty Gaelic Leaguers went to the Giants' Ring to play hurley, when a man named Grey, on whose land the Giants' Ring is situate, warned them off. They refused to leave. A crowd of Grey's sympathisers assembled, and an altercation ensued, ending in blows. Stones and sticks were also used. Four of Grey's party were injured, but only one of the Leaguers was injured, and none were seriously hurt. Bernard M'Kenna, the Harbour Commissioners' employee, who was beaten on Tuesday, 11th, as previously reported, has identified his first assailant on the occasion, one Robert Mac Veigh, whom the police arrested. Mac Veigh was brought before the magistrates yesterday, and remanded without bail. On yesterday seven men and a woman were charged with riotous behaviour in different parts of the city on the previous day. The riotous behaviour consisted mostly of the use of party expressions. Six persons were fined 40s., and two of these were ordered to find bail in addition. The two remaining persons were ordered to find bail merely."
  The Commissioner at Belfast wires—
  "All the labourers, including Catholics, have returned to work to-day at Musgrave Channel, with few exceptions."
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the information he has given, one portion of which—namely, the return of the men to work—is satisfactory to everybody. The question I asked, however, was confined entirely to what took place in the shipyards yesterday, and what I want to know is whether any person has been made amenable for the disturbance in the shipyards. He mentions a number of persons made amenable for the disturbances in the streets. I want to know whether anyone was made amenable for what occurred in the shipyards, or does he allow them to pass altogether? Will he order the police to patrol the yard?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not intend to allow these disturbances to go on. I gave the hon. Member the case of one man who was fined 30s. and bound over to keep the peace. I am still con-
  734
  vinced that to order the police into the yards would not be the best process to adopt to put down the disturbances.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: The police were not present yesterday.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no information on that point.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: May I ask the Member for one of the Divisions of Belfast if he has any objection to the police going into his shipbuilding yards?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That question cannot be asked of the hon. Member for East Belfast.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask what Votes will be taken on Friday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I propose to take the Scotch Estimates.
  MR. CAINE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Second Reading of the Education Bill will be taken?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, I cannot answer that.
  MR. CAINE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say before when it will not be taken?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It will not be taken this week.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman make arrange ments to take Irish Votes on Friday week?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will take note of the hon. Member's desire. I do not know of any rival claim, and if there be none I shall be very glad to meet the hon. Gentleman's wishes.

  NATIONAL GALLERY (PURCHASE OF ADJACENT LAND).
  [EXPENSES.]
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all Expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Works

  735
  under any Act of the present session for the acquisition of certain land near the National Gallery, in London, and for other purposes connected therewith (King's recommendation signified), Tomorrow.—(Sir John Gorst.)

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEY Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures:—Mr. Olroyd; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Taylor.
  Mr. HALSEY Mr. HALSEY further reported from the Committee, That they had added to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, the following Fifteen Members in respect of the Factory and Workshop Acts Amendment and the Factory and Workshop Acts Consolidation Bills:—Mr. Asquith, Sir William Coddington, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Emmott, Mr. Harwood, Captain Jessel, Mr. James Kenyon, Mr. Nannetti, Mr. John Redmond, Mr. Secretary Ritchie, Sir John Stirling-Maxwell, Mr. Talbot, Sir Walter Thorburn, Mr. Trevelyan, and Mr. J. W. Wilson.
  Mr. HALSEY Mr. HALSEY further reported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures:—Mr. Jeffreys and Mr. Beckett; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Hargreaves Brown and Mr. White Ridley.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the constitution of a Bishopric of Southwark and for matters incidental thereto." Bishopric of Southwark Bill [Lords].
NEW BILLS.

  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND).
  Bill to abolish Dealers' or Grocers' Licences in Scotland, ordered to be
  736
  brought in by Sir John Leng, Mr. Crombie, Mr. Dalziel, Mr. Colville, Mr. Pirie, and Mr. Hunter Craig.

  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To abolish Dealers' or Grocers' Licences in Scotland," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 16th July, and to be printed. [Bill 218.]
  MEDICAL ACTS AMENDMENT.
  Bill to amend the Medical Acts, 1858 to 1886, ordered to be brought in by Sir Richard Jebb, Sir William Anson, Mr. J. A. Campbell, Sir Michael Foster, Mr. Lecky. Mr. Talbot, and Sir John Tuke.
  MEDICAL ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Medical Acts, 1858 to 1886," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 219.]

  CIVIL LIST BILL
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [11th June], "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that, as far as the amount of the Civil List was concerned, he took no exception whatever; he begrudged no amount that might be necessary to maintain the dignity of the Crown, but the point which he wished to press on the House was the inexpediency of paying the members of the Royal Family by hereditary revenues instead of by payment out of the Consolidated Fund. In a constitutional country the people were the rulers, and the King ruled by the will of the people. The hereditary revenues of this country were really the revenues of the State, and he thought it was far more appropriate that those revenues should be managed by the State, and that the King should receive a fixed sum in cash than that he should be in the position of having to farm what was really the property of the State. Now the revenues he referred to were

  737
  the Woods and Forests, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall. As regarded the first, the Committee had recommended that they should be managed by the State as formerly, and not by the Crown. But why should a distinction be drawn in the case of the Woods and Forests as against the other revenues? It might be said that in this case the revenue was not an increasing quantity, while in the case of the two duchies it was. He believed that in connection with both the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall there was a considerable investment in property in London, and in the course of a very few years numbers of leases would be falling in. He did not begrudge the increased revenue. That was not the principle he was contending for; what he advocated was a money payment to the King, whatever the value or prospective value might be, and the State management of these revenues. He submitted it was most inexpedient that the King or any member of the Royal Family should be in the position of holding property in the City of London, and consequently of standing in the relationship of landlord, with the subject for the tenant. It was no use saying that the Duke of Cornwall, as owner of the Duchy of Cornwall revenues, could afford to be generous in dealing with the property of the Duchy. A limited owner could not be expected to be generous; he must necessarily make the most he could out of the revenues while he was in the position of a limited owner; and surely it would be much better for the State to be the owner, as it could afford to await the future development of the property in a way which a limited owner could not. It would be most unseemly for the Duke of Cornwall, as owner of property in London, to have in his capacity of landlord to order evictions, and to be concerned in any of the other disputes which cropped up in the relationship of landlord and tenant. Things might be done in his name which would be a scandal. Hence it was he favoured a fixed money payment in regard to these revenues. And then when they came to the taxation of land values they brought the King and the Duke of Cornwall into relation as to how their interests would be affected
  738
  by a debatable question of that kind. Of course he recognised that the Bill had to pass in its present shape, but he was availing himself of the opportunity of the Third Reading to impress upon the Government the expediency of reconsidering this whole matter. It could be done in the future, and it would be very much better both in the interests of the State and in the interests of the property of London that it should be dealt with by the State than by a limited owner. He had asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Duchy of Lancaster would pay property tax in London the same as any other subject in the realm, and he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said "Yes."
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): Yes.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid that then another little difficulty came in. How was the King to pay property tax in respect of his landownership? Was he to pay the property tax and the local rates the same as anyone else?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes.
  MR. CALDWELL: said that the right hon. Gentleman replied "Yes"; but was His Majesty to pay the property tax and the local rates direct, because in the case of the Crown he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would admit that it was not likely that he would pay them direct, as being assessed on the value of the property. In the case of Crown property an equivalent sum was given, but the principle of the taxation of Crown property for either the property tax or the amount of the local rates was not admitted; and that question would be sure to arise in the future. He was not objecting to the amount given to the King or to the members of the Royal Family to maintain the dignity of their position. That had been settled by a Committee of this House, and he saw no reason for disturbing the settled policy of the country. Neither would he ask that a fair share of any increased revenue which the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of

  739
  Cornwall might hope to get by the falling in of the leases in London should not be set aside in the next twenty or thirty years for the benefit of these duchies. But he did object that, as they had taken the ground revenues of the Woods and Forests, they ought also to take the ground revenues of the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall and give a certain fixed sum to meet these, and not put the King or any member of the Royal Family in the invidious position of being a ground landlord.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I agree with my hon. friend that if we do maintain the existing system in regard to Crown lands, it should be made applicable to the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, and that these should be directly administered by the State in the same way as the Crown lands. I do not entirely agree with him, however, that because the Committee upstairs reported in a particular direction it necessarily follows that good sound Radicals in the House of Commons should follow the leading of the Committee. For my part, I have addressed the Committee frequently and somewhat exhaustively on the successive stages of this Bill, and I should not have troubled the House with any remark this afternoon had it not been for certain observations which fell from the First Lord of the Treasury when the Bill was last before the House in regard to the right of property possessed by the Sovereign in the Crown lands and the hereditary revenues. The First Lord of the Treasury said that if the Sovereign does not voluntarily surrender the revenues of these Crown lands he has got a perfect right to maintain them himself, and that he may spend them as he best pleases. If I remember rightly, the right hon. Gentleman goes as far as to say that the Sovereign possessed the Crown lands precisely in the same way as anyone else possessed a life interest in any property that may have accrued to him. I say that that doctrine has never been pushed so far by any Minister of the Crown. A Conservative newspaper the other day said, "It is desirable that the Sovereign should retain in his hands the power to bargain with a niggardly and dis-
  740
  affected Parliament." That is to say, if these properties increased in value, the Sovereign for the time being may be encouraged to declare—"I will not take this money, but I will seize hold of these Crown lands, and thus exercise pressure on a niggardly Parliament." There are one or two historical points which support my contention that the Crown lands are part and parcel of the hereditary revenues of the country. Before the Revolution there was not the slightest difference made between the Crown lands and the hereditary revenues which went to the personal expenditure of the monarchy. When James II. was evicted from the throne, if the Crown lands had been his personal property they would have belonged to James III.; but that right was not recognised, and his right of property in the Crown lands lapsed When William and Mary were elected to the throne it was stated in the Parliamentary records, when the Civil List was voted, that—"The Civil List is a just sense and acknowledgment of the great things His Majesty had done for the country." There was no pretence at that time on the part of King William or Queen Mary that the Crown lands were their private property. Then, on the death of King William, when the throne came to Queen Anne, Queen Anne was not regarded as the heir of King William in any sort of way or on any sort of theory; she did not inherit it through King William. It is stated in the Parliamentary records that—"Your Commons have freely and unanimously resolved to give and grant, and do give and grant herewith," a certain Civil List. Here there was no pretension for a moment that in any sort of way, direct or indirect, Queen Anne had any right to any moneys except those voted by Parliament. What was granted to King William and Queen Anne? They were granted sums of money from "the hereditary duties of Excise and Post Office, from the revenues of the Crown lands, and from some small branches of the Revenue." No distinction was made between the Crown lands and the smaller branches of the Revenue or the other great branches of the Revenue, the Post Office and the Excise. If it be contended that there is some special right in the Sovereign to these

  741
  Crown lands derived from old times, and that he has a right to refuse to surrender them, then you must go on logically and maintain that the Sovereign has a right not only to the Crown lands, but to all the great sources of the Revenue such as the Excise, Post Office, etc. That is why I say that the historical position taken up by the First Lord of the Treasury is preposterous and absurd. I happen to be no lawyer, and when the First Lord of the Treasury made that statement I said to my hon. and learned friend the Member for Dundee, "Get up and contest it." He explained to me afterwards why he did not get up; it was because he did not know what he was to contest. And yet he is a lawyer! I see my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouthshire, who is a great authority on constitutional law, and I should like to know what he thinks of the matter.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I will tell you.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Very well. George I. and George II. had the Crown lands revenues voted to them on the same conditions precisely as they were voted to William and Mary and Queen Anne; but when George III. came to the throne he introduced into the preamble of the Civil List a surrender, not of all the revenues of the Crown, but a surrender of the Crown lands. He did not make a surrender of the smaller or the greater revenues. I maintain that it is absurd to say that that constitutes a personal title in the Sovereign to the Crown lands. It does not make a title in any sort of way. I am glad that my right hon. friend will address the House on this subject, because he is a learned pundit on the subject, and I think he will agree with me that a title to property cannot be acquired by surrendering it. I take my statement from the Finance Committee's Report of 1872, which was a Committee of the Treasury. I defy anyone to read that Report fairly and impartially and not agree that I am in the right, and that the First Lord of the Treasury is in the wrong. I have opposed the Civil List, not because I think that the Sovereign ought not to have a sufficiency of money to live in
  742
  decent magnificence, but because I think the amount of money proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government in the Bill is in excess of what is required. We are told that we ought to vote this amount because we should not put any restriction on Royal hospitality. But we are placing a restriction; if we are to be logical we ought not to fix a sum, but to give the Sovereign a right to draw an unlimited credit on the Treasury. We vote, however, what we deem is sufficient and adequate for the hospitality which the Sovereign is expected to exercise, and for the ceremonial duties incumbent upon him from his position. I have seen it stated that certain supporters of the Government regard it as something almost criminal, something traitorous to venture to move the reduction of the amount that is asked for by the Government for the Civil List. I can only say that times have very much changed for the Conservative party, because after the great Revolution it was the Whigs who proposed a Civil List, and it was the Tories who opposed them. What did the Tories say then? They said the Whigs were "hired slaves and corrupt instruments" because they proposed the Civil List. Under these circumstances it seems rather curious that a Radical should be attacked for doing something monstrous when he follows the lines laid down for him by the Tories of a former generation.
  The fact is, we have got into very servile days; there is no question of that, and days of reckless extravagance. When any sum is proposed to be provided for the Navy, for the Army, or for the Court, we tumble over each other in our zealous approval of it. I am opposed to all this lavish expenditure on the Army and Navy, or armaments, and on the Court; and as long as I have the honour to be a Member of this House I shall do in the future what I have done in the past in regard to the Civil List and other demands made on the public purse for the Court and the Royal Family. I am quite ready to give them a reasonable sum. I believe the late Sovereign carried out her official duties in a way that was perfectly satisfactory to the country. I have shown in Committee that we are

  743
  positively increasing the amount of the Civil List and at the same time reducing the charges on it, with the result that the Civil List is swollen to something enormous. It now amounts to £110,000; but, besides that, there are the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster, which bring it up to £170,000. Anyone has only to look through the different arrangements made to see that the reductions which have been made in different classes will not go to the benefit of the country, but to the benefit of the Civil List. I shall certainly vote against the Bill, not that I think for one moment that there ought not to be a Civil List, but because I think the Government ought to take back the prosent Civil List and bring in another more reasonable.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: My hon. friend has invited me to express an opinion on this subject, and to deal with a statement which I have not heard—a statement made, as he alleges, by the First Lord of the Treasury. I was not in the House on that occasion, and, therefore, I must make my observations on a statement reported at secondhand by my hon. and learned friend the Member for Northampton. If it be correct that the First Lord of the Treasury has asserted that the hereditary estates of the Crown are held by the Sovereign personally, in the same character as any private person holds his estates, then I absolutely dissent from that doctrine altogether. The Crown holds the hereditary estates, as it holds all its prerogatives and all its rights, as trustee for the State and the people. That is the situation of the Crown with reference to hereditary estates. If I had thought that this question was to be raised I would have read to the House extracts from an extremely able and trustworthy work, Mr. Spencer Walpole's "History of England," where he deals with the Civil List, and where he states expressly the absurdity of such a doctrine that there is a personal and private right in the hereditary revenues of the Crown. The constitutional practice is accurately stated in that book. If the estates are personal property to be bargained away by Parliament, why should the proprietor receive and the
  744
  public give more than the estates yield, which has been the case on all occasions on which the Civil List has been settled? Parliament grants the Civil List solely out of consideration for what appertains to the dignity of the Sovereign of these realms. If the hereditary estates yield less than that, the House of Commons is not governed by that consideration to give a smaller Civil List. If they yield a great deal more the House of Commons is not bound to give a great deal more in the form of a Civil List. Of course, if it were true that these estates could at any time he resumed by the Crown, they could only be resumed, as my hon. friend has properly said, subject to the obligation under which the Crown lies of maintaining the civil charges of this country, which, I believe, which be a very bad bargain for the Sovereign. But it is quite plain that a right which has never been exerted for a century and a half is not likely to be asserted now. No doubt the technical form is retained, as in the exercise of many other prerogatives of the Constitution. A great many rights are asserted, and properly asserted, in the name of the Crown, but to deal with the hereditary estates of the Crown as if they were the estates of a private individual would be an entire error and, in my opinion, absolutely contrary to the constitutional principles of this country.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: There is one matter which I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to enlighten us on before we proceed to a division. I find in the Report presented to the House in 1899, in connection with grants to the Royal Family, the following paragraph: "The revenues of the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster were not included in the surrender of the hereditary revenues." The question I want to ask is, why was an exception made in the case of these two estates when the Crown lands were being surrendered in exchange for a very generous Civil List? Why should estates which are now yielding something like £130,000 a year be reserved, apparently as private property, by the Crown? I join issue with the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark in his statement

  745
  that the present Civil List is not too large. I need not remind the House that from my point of view any Civil List would be too large; but admitting the necessity for a Civil List, I submit that the amount proposed to be given is exorbitant. When this matter was last under discussion a statement was made as to the enormous income enjoyed by the President of the United States. I have taken the trouble to learn the actual sum paid to the President of the United States, and I find it is 50,000 dollars, or about £10,000 in British money per annum; and yet the President of the United States rules over seventy millions of people, whereas the King of England rules over only fifty millions. The President has to maintain a state consistent with the dignity of his high position, and, although the cost of living in America is not less than in England, he yet finds £10,000 amply sufficient. If that can be done in America, why not in England? Are all the functionaries who attend on the Court necessary to the maintenance of the dignity of our ruler? The many supernumeraries who attach to the Court add neither dignity nor grace to the proceedings connected with royal functions. May I point out also that the sum voted for the Civil List does not exhaust the amount spent by the nation on royalty. The total amount of the Civil List is £548,000, but in addition to that there is spent on the upkeep of royal palaces £18,000, on royal yachts £23,000, and further, there is the income from the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster of £130,000, making a total of £719,000. It would be an abuse of language to say that that is a moderate sum to pay for the duties performed by His Majesty the King at a time when, as I have said before, the nation is entering upon a period of trade depression, and when hundreds and thousands and tens of thousands of His Majesty's subjects—the life of every one of whom is quite as valuable as that of the King—are living not only on the verge of poverty, but actually in poverty itself. It is an outrage upon all our forms of government to propose a sum of this kind for the maintenance of the head of the State. I shall vote against the Third Reading, because
  746
  I think the amount is too large, and because it is the only way open to me of entering my protest against the continuance of a hereditary ruler over a nominally democratic people.
  *MR. STEVENSON: It was not my intention to take any part in this debate, but as several references have been made to the question of the hereditary revenues of the Crown, I should like to say a few words on that subject. It seems to me that the Civil List Committee acted with great wisdom in not taking into account the increase in the revenues of the Crown. If, on the one hand, it left out the increase in the revenue from Crown lands, on the other hand it left out the increase in the revenue from the Ddchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. I concur very much with what fell from my hon. friend the Member for Mid-Lanark, that at some future time it may be desirable to apply to the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster a similar principle of commutation to that which has been applied to other Crown lands. But that question does not arise on the present occasion. It is not a question of urgency, and does not form any part of the present Civil List arrangement. Moreover it is a question which requires very great consideration. With reference to the question raised by the hon. Member for Northampton as to whether the King is or is not bound to surrender the Crown lands on his accession to the throne, that has been very clearly dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth. Surely that is a question of no great practical importance, although no doubt it is one of historic interest, because it is perfectly obvious, apart entirely from the question whether the King could or could not refrain from surrendering these revenues, that if he did not he would incur liabilities infinitely greater and more onerous than the benefits that would be derived from retaining them in his own possession. Therefore the question is not of great practical importance. The hon. Member who has just sat down asked why the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster had not been surrendered in the same way as other Crown lands. There is, no doubt, some

  747
  difference of opinion as to the precise status of these estates, and it seems to me that these properties have been differentiated to some extent from Crown lands, but on the other hand they certainly cannot be regarded as private property. If they had been private property in 1688 it is perfectly clear that they would have been put in a very different position. Moreover, the Duchy of Lancaster is represented by a Minister, and it is quite evident that that property is not on the same footing as any ordinary private property. If the Duchy of Lancaster cannot be properly classed with other Crown lands, it is perfectly certain that it is not the private property of the Sovereign, not being the subject of bequest. As to the precise terms of the will of John of Gaunt there is a great difference of opinion between historians. It seems to me, therefore, that there is a strong reason why this question should be fully considered, and some attempt made in future years to assimilate the conditions under which the Duchy of Lancaster is held to those of the Crown lands. It is clear that there are a number of difficulties which surround the subject, which would have to be met, and that is a good reason why it should not have been considered by the Committee upstairs, and that the Civil List should be passed without importing into it a question very much wider in its bearing and its scope. No doubt there is one current of opinion which holds that the amount of the Civil List is too large, and another which considers that it is by no means excessive; but I think, having regard to the increase of population, and the calls upon the Sovereign and his responsibilities in one way and another under the conditions which now prevail it is only right and proper that the matter should be considered with the utmost regard to the convenience and dignity of the Sovereign. I think the amount at which the Committee arrived was a fair amount, and it certainly was arrived at after sufficient consideration had been given to all these matters. At the same time, I do wish to press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there are other matters with regard to the revenues of the Crown which deserve careful consideration at a future date, and I hope that
  748
  during the period the right hon. Gentleman occupies his present position he will be able to devote some time to this complicated question.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: There are only two points upon which I think it is necessary for me to occupy the time of the House. In the first place, the hon. Member for Northampton has attributed to my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury a statement which I am sure he did not make, with regard to the position of the hereditary revenues of the Crown. I understood the hon. Member to say that my right hon. friend stated that the hereditary revenues of the Crown could be dealt with by the Sovereign precisely as if they belonged to a private person.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: What the right hon. Gentleman said was that it belonged to the Sovereign in the sense that if he did not surrender his life interest he had a perfect right to retain it, and in that case he could spend it as he liked.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I said he held it as the Sovereign, and that is so.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Gentleman has only repeated to-day, as he has on previous occasions, his view as to the historical position of these revenues. I do not think it at all necessary to follow the hon. Member into that question. I am content with the Parliamentary title to those hereditary revenues which was certainly conferred on the present King by the Civil List Act of the late Queen. By the second section of that Act it was enacted that those hereditary revenues "from and after the decease of her present Majesty shall be payable and paid to Her Majesty's heirs and successors." Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire said, the King takes those hereditary revenues subject to the performance of the duties which belong to the Crown. How far that implies or involves the maintenance of the civil administration of the State is a matter on which I do not think I should be quite prepared to

  749
  accept what fell from the right hon. Gentleman; but it is really nothing more than an academical discussion, because, as a matter of fact, His Majesty, on the advice of the Government, has followed the action of his predecessors, and surrendered those revenues on the condition that a suitable Civil List is provided for him. In my judgment, it seems absolutely clear, by the second section of the Civil List Act of the late Queen, that it was perfectly open to His Majesty, if he had so desired, to retain those revenues in place of having a Civil List provided for him by Parliament. Now a question has been raised as to the position of the revenues of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. I do not think it can be alleged that those revenues are on the same footing as the hereditary revenues of the Crown. There is a clear distinction, because nobody could contend that the performance of any public duties attached to the possession of the revenues of the two Duchies. On the other hand, there is a distinction between them and the private property of the Crown, such as Osborne and Balmoral. The question has been raised whether the revenues of those two Duchies ought or ought not to be surrendered by the Sovereign and the Heir-Apparent. That matter has been very carefully considered from time to time, and I believe was discussed at the time of the accession of her late Majesty, and it was decided then that it was better for every reason that those estates should remain the appanage of the Sovereign and of the Heir-Apparent, as they had been for many generations, and many hundreds of years. I differ entirely from the view that it is contrary to public policy that the Sovereign or Heir-Apparent should own the estates of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall.
  MR. CALDWELL: I think it would be contrary to the public interest that they should be in the position of landlords having tenants under them.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I differ entirely from the hon. Gentleman. On the contrary, I think it greatly for the public advantage that in both cases the Sovereign and Heir-Apparent
  750
  should themselves have some personal experience of the duties and rights and position of an owner of property, whether in the country or in London, and we all see what an admirable example our present King has set in that capacity to his subjects.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had rendered it unnecessary for the debate to be prolonged, for he had explained away the false impression which existed in the country. The words of the First Lord of the Treasury had been universally misunderstood by the press—namely, that the Crown lands were in some peculiar sense the private property of the Sovereign. It was the invincible ignorance of the press which led to this. He agreed that the second section of the Civil List Act of the late Queen did convey a reversionary interest in those lands to the present King. On this subject he quoted a statement written twenty years ago by one whose authority would be acknowledged by the whole House. This writer stated that—
  "It is a fallacy that the Crown lands are in some peculiar sense the private property of the Sovereign…. The title of the Crown to the Crown lands is indisputable, but it is only entitled to them subject to the somewhat onerous obligation of defraying the whole of the ordinary expenditure of the State…. The reversionary interest of the heir to the Crown is saddled with an annual burden of 70 millions. It is therefore practically valueless, and may be disregarded."
  That burden was now 140 millions. The writer he referred to was the accomplished and learned lawyer who drafted this Civil List Bill.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Who is that?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The chief draftsman to the Treasury, Sir Courtenay Ilbert.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: He did not.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: He was responsible for it if he did not. He was the head of the Department respon-

  751
  sible for the drafting of this Bill, and he was an historical lawyer of great knowledge and high personal authority.
  Question put.
  The House divided.—Ayes, 370; Noes, 60. (Division List No. 258.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Gore, Hn G R. C. Ormsby- (Salop

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Aird, Sir John

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Colville, John

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS Edm'nds

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn Herbert Henry

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Groves, James Grimble

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

  Crombie, John William

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Austin, Sir John

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hain, Edward

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Bain, Col. James Robert

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hamilton, Rt Hn L d. G. (Midd'x

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'derry

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

  Balfour, Maj. K R (Christchurch

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Harwood, George

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Denny, Colonel

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

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

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Dimsdale, Sir James Cockfield

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir A. D.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Helder, Augustus

  Bigwood, James

  Doughty, George

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Bill, Charles

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Black, Alexander William

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)

  Bond, Edward

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Dunn, Sir William

  Holland, William Henry

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Brigg, John

  Edwards, Frank

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hoult, Joseph

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Brookfield, Col. Montagu

  Emmott, Alfred

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Hughes, Col. Edwin

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Burt, Thomas

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Butcher, John George

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

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

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Caine, William Sproston

  Finch, George H.

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Caldwell, James

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Johnston, Wm. (Belfast)

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J A (Glasgow

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Johnstone, Heywood- (Sussex

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Fison, Frederick William

  Joicey, Sir James

  Carlile, William Walter

  Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Kay-Shuttleworth, Rt Hn Sir U.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Kearley, Hudson E.

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

  Flower, Ernest

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

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

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co,)

  Kenyon, James (Lancs, Bury)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Kenyon-Slaney. Col. W (Salop)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Keswick, William

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Garfit, William

  Kimber, Henry

  Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r

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

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Kinloch, Sir John George S.

  Chapman, Edward

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  Kitson, Sir James

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

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Coddington, Sir William

  Godson. Sir Augustus Frederick

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

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

  Lawson, John Grant

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H

  Myers, William Henry

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead

  Newnes, Sir George

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Strachey, Edward

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Stroyan, John

  Leng, Sir John

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Levy, Maurice

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxf'd U.)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Pease, Sir J. W. (Durham)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Percy, Earl

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

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

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lowther, Rt Hn J W (Cum. Penr.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Pryce Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

  Purvis, Robert

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Pym, C. Guy

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

  Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Wallace, Robert

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Randles, John S.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Ratcliffe, R. F.

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Wason, John C. (Orkney)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornw'll)

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Weir, James Galloway

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

  Rentoul, James Alexander

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

  M'Crae, George

  Renwick, (George

  Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)

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

  Rickett, J. Compton

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Rigg, Richard

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Ropner, Col. Robert

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell- (Birm

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigton

  Round, James

  Wilson, Chas. Hy. (Hull, W.)

  Mellor, Rt. Hon John William

  Russell, T. W.

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fred. G.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Mitchell, William

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.

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

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Simeon, Sir Harrington

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

  Morley, Rt. Hn. J. (Montrose

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Morris, Hon. Martin H. F.

  Smith, H C (North'mb., T'neside

  Wylie, Alexander

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Smith, James P. (Lanarks.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

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

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Younger, William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Spear, John Ward

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Spencer, Rt Hn C R (Northants.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Spencer, E. (W. Bromwich)

  Sir William Walrond and

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

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Stanley, Edward J. (Somerset)

  NOES.

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

  Cullinan, J.

  Labouchere, Henry

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Delany, William

  Leamy, Edmund

  Ambrose, Robert

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lundon, W.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Duffy, William J.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Blake, Edward

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Boland, John

  Field, William

  M'Govern, T.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Murnaghan, George

  Cameron, Robert

  Gilhooly, James

  Murphy, J.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hammond, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O' Brien, Kendal (T'pp'r'ry Mid.

  Crean, Eugene

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  754

  755

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

  O'Malley, William

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  O' Mara, James

  Sullivan, Donal

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  White, Patrick (Meath, N.)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  O'Shee, James John

  Wilson, John (Durham Mid.)

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  O'Dowd, John

  Reddy, M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Sir Thomas Esmonde and

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Redmond, Wm. (Clare)

  Captain Donelan.

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Order read for the House to be put into Committee.
  *MR. SPEAKER: There are several Instructions on the Paper in respect to this Bill. The first stands in the name of the senior Member for Merthyr Tydvil, and that Instruction, I think, is not in order. The Finance Bill, as is well known, is the Bill containing all the taxes to meet the expenditure of the year, as far as taxation is necessary: The Instruction proposes that the coal tax should be placed in a separate Bill from the six or seven other taxes embodied in the Finance Bill, and if this Instruction were in order it would be equally in order to move an Instruction as regards each tax in the Bill and propose that it should be put in a separate Bill. The ordinary practice of the House is to treat the Finance Bill as one Bill with one object, and this Instruction is out of order. The next Instruction stands in the name of the hon. Member for North Monmouthshire, and is also out of order. † Its object can be attained by an Amendment moved in Committee on the Bill, and it is therefore unnecessary. The next two Instructions are in the names of the hon. Member for the Eifion Division and the junior Member for Merthyr Tydvil. These are not in order; they propose to substitute for the coal duty other taxes, and to empower the Committee to put taxes in the Bill for which no preliminary resolutions have been passed. Therefore they are not in order.
  †This Instruction was as follows:—"That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to provide that the duty to be charged, levied, and paid on coal shall be payable as to one-fourth of the amount of such duty by the coalowner or first vendor of the coal, being the person for the time being in receipt of any royalty or rent in respect of the coal on which the duty is charged." The remaining Instructions are not given, as their purport is explained by Mr. Speaker.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith, in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment on the Paper, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Sheffield, is not in the right place.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: My Amendment applies both to tea and sugar.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that would make it more out of order still.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid the object of the Amendment which he had to move was to distribute more evenly a tax which now fell with undue weight upon the poor people who consumed the cheapest tea. He had no doubt that many hon. Members who had not studied this question would consider that a 50 per cent. ad valorem duty was too high. Probably they would be more surprised to hear that the percentage of duty upon the cheapest tea consumed by the poorest people ran as high as from 100 to 150 per cent. The duty on other articles which appeared on the breakfast table, such as coffee and cocoa, the average cost price of which in bond was about the same as that of tea, was much lower. The average price of tea in bond was about 8d. per pound, and the average price of coffee and cocoa in bond was about the same; and yet the disparity in the duty levied upon these commodities was altogether out of proportion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that it was in the true interests of economy that the labouring classes should bear their share of the cost of the war, but he submitted they were already taxed above their deserts, and

  757
  they were bearing their share with a vengeance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that the money had to be raised, and it was useless to object unless they were prepared to find something else which could be conveniently taxed. He thought it was not the duty of the Opposition to recommend alternative taxes, but he might suggest that if the Government forewent the pleasure of renewing the Agricultural Rating Act they would have the £2,000,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated from the increased tea duty. In the days of the great French War the tax on tea never exceeded 100 per cent., and only then after it had been raised several times. Prior to the Crimean War the duty on tea was 1s. 6d. per pound, and in the first Budget after the war in 1855 it was raised to 1s. 9d. per pound. The effect, however, upon the consumption of tea was so marked that in 1857 the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to the House and reduced the tea duty to 1s. 5d. per pound, which was 1d. lower than before the outbreak of the war. He did this because his own purposes were defeated by the higher duty. Although the duty was reduced to 1s. 5d., three years after the war the total product of the tea duty was much larger at the lower figure. Therefore it would be seen that when the duty was raised it had not the effect which the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated, but quite the contrary effect. The hon. Member for Flintshire suggested a graduated income tax, and he should have no hesitation in supporting that proposal. He might be asked how he proposed to levy the tax and collect it upon an ad valorem basis. Formerly the tea duties were collected on an ad valorem basis, and he suggested that we should revert to that basis. Probably 95 per cent. of the tea sold in this country was sold by public auction in Mincing Lane. It would be easy to ascertain the cost price of the tea, and on that cost price an ad valorem duty of 50 per cent. might be levied. Taking the average for the last three years, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have realised from ad valorem duties the same amount as he had been receiving up to the point when the increase in the tea duty took place. When
  758
  the tea duty was reduced to 4d. about £1,000,000 was lost to the revenue, but he thought that if it had been continued at that figure the yield would have been as much with the 4d. duty as with the 6d. duty in a few years time. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer increased the duty on tea to 6d., the consumption of tea, which had previously grown under the stimulus of reduced duties, decreased, as was the case after the Crimean War. The consumption of tea last year amounted to 225,000,000 lb., as against 243,000,000 lb. the year before. The tendency must be in that direction, in view of the point which the duty had reached, coupled with other taxation which had been put on the working classes.
  Then there was another matter which he wished to mention—the effect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals on a great British industry. A large amount of the tea imported into this country now came from India and Ceylon. Forty years ago nearly the whole of our tea came from China. The capital now invested in tea growing in Ceylon and India amounted to £30,000,000. The total trade amounted to 304,000,000 lb., of which India contributed 157,000,000 lb., Ceylon 115,000,000 lb., and China only 32,000,000 lb. The sudden falling off in the consumption of tea had brought about a most serious financial crisis in the tea industry in those countries. Fifty per cent. of the gardens there at the present time were estimated to be running at a loss. Year by year the tea-growers, anticipating the increased consumption, had put into cultivation larger areas. Suddenly the demand declined, and the extra tea grown had to be disposed of somehow, and, instead of being taken legitimately, it was sent over here and had to be sold at lower rates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer called this over-production, but he did not think it was fair to put the matter in that way, because for thirty, forty, or fifty years the growers had reasonably anticipated the demand on their production, and it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer's duty which had brought about the present serious state of affairs in India and Ceylon. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had received representa-

  759
  tions from different growers in India and Ceylon, and he was not unacquainted with this aspect of the question. Their property had been depreciated and a great financial crisis had overtaken them, and he submitted that, whatever might be the future value of the new colonies which they were annexing, it seemed to him to be bad statesmanship to get out of tune with their old and loyal colonies which had done them such good service. From that point of view it was bad policy to impose a tax which had brought about such disastrous results to those colonies. He thought he was quite justified in moving this Amendment inasmuch as tea could not be described as a luxury, for it was a necessity of the people, and therefore its consumption should be encouraged, and not discouraged by a high duty. He submitted that whatever the requirements of the war might be, there was nothing to justify the Chancellor of the Exchequer in levying a duty which imposed upon the food of the people a tax of from 100 to 150 per cent.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 20, after the word 'pound,' to insert the words 'fifty per cent. ad valorem, but not to exceed.'"—(Mr. Kearley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Member who has just sat down has an intimate knowledge, no doubt, of the trade to which he has alluded; but, in spite of that, I must say that I differ entirely from him in regard to his conclusions. He has made a proposal which, on the face of it, cannot be accepted, because it would reduce this year's revenue from tea by more than the amount of the extra 2d. which was proposed last year. The hon. Gentleman has made the proposal on grounds which appear to me to be entirely mistaken. His assumption is—and it is often the assumption of hon. Members who deal with this matter—that the poor man has a special inclination to consume the worst class of tea. I do not agree with that assumption, and I do not believe it, I believe that the poor man knows very well what is good tea and what is bad
  760
  tea. I know that he is able to purchase good tea, and he does purchase it. But let us assume that it is right that the tax upon tea should be lowered in order to induce people to consume the worst class of tea. I demur to the argument of the hon. Member that this is a question of percentage at all. A great deal has been made of the high percentage of the tax on tea of low quality. But what is the price of that tea, including the tax? That is the real question. The hon. Member has forgotten in his comparison of the percentage of duty now with that of many years ago that in those days the price of tea, apart from the duty, was very high indeed. Now it has fallen to a point so low that it is unfortunate for the interests on behalf of which the hon. Member spoke in India and Ceylon that by over-production they should have brought it down to that point. The hon. Member says that in the time of the Crimean War the duty was raised to 1s. 9d., and that the result of that was so disappointing that it was lowered very soon after the war by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But it was lowered, I suppose, for quite another reason, and I think the hon. Member for Devonport is quite wrong in his comparison of the circumstances of 1856 with those of the present year. He says that the consumption of tea has fallen off on account of the high rate of duty, but that is not a fact. The hon. Member himself told the Committee that whereas the imports of tea for home consumption in the year before last, when the duty was 4d. per pound, were 242,500,000 pounds, last year they were nearly 250,000,000 pounds. I know he attributed that to a great extent to forestalments. But there were forestalments in the year before.
  MR. KEARLEY: I said so. The right hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate, because the forestalling took place last year. I know that it has taken place this year, but there are no figures for this year at all.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It is not a fact that the consumption has fallen off on account of the increase in the tea duty from 4d. to 6d. The imports of tea with a sixpenny duty have been

  761
  higher during the past year than they ever were before. The total imports in 1899 were 289 millions of pounds, and in 1900 they rose to 299 millions of pounds, which is higher than has ever been known before, and that in spite of the increase in the duty. The hon. Gentleman has said that the consumption of tea during the past year has decreased to 225 millions of pounds, but he has no proof whatever of that. You will see how the consumption goes on, and you can judge after a time of the effect of the duty; but there is no ground whatever for saying at the present time that the consumption of tea has been diminished in this country by the increase of duty from 4d. to 6d., because, as a matter of fact, owing to the lower price of tea only a small part of the increased duty has really reached the consumer. The average price of tea last year was nearly 2d. per pound less than it was two years before, and 1d. per lb. less than in the year before. The hon. Member desires to substitute an ad valorem duty in place of the present uniform duty, which has existed since the year 1835, but I cannot think that he will receive any support for that proposal from anyone who has really examined the question. Between 1721 and 1833 there was an ad valorem duty on tea. During that time the tea trade was a monopoly in the hands of the East India Company. The East India Company collected the duty for the Government, and carried out all the sales of tea in this country. All these sales were conducted by public auction, so that the price was easily ascertained. In 1833 that monopoly was repealed, and the tea trade was thrown open, as it is now, to the public at large. Directly that was done the impossibility of an ad valorem duty made itself felt, for there was no certain record of prices, and there arose all those disputes as to values between the Custom House officers and the importers of tea which are certain to occur in the case of an ad valorem duty, and which are as inconvenient for, and as injurious to, the trade itself as they are to the revenue of the country. The hon. Member will suggest, perhaps, that an ad valorem duty should be levied now on the price of tea at the date of import, but he knows
  762
  very well that tea is retained in bond for months, and during that time it changes hands over and over again at different prices. How are you ever, in these circumstances, to find out, without the greatest risk of fraud, what is the real, bona fìde value of the tea? You can only do it by a system which involved such temptation to dishonesty on the part of the Custom House officers, with whom it rested to say what the value of the tea was, that another plan had to be adopted. Under that plan tea was divided into three classes, and the duty was fixed at the rate of 1s. 6d. per pound on the first, 2s. 2d. per. pound on the second, and 3s. per pound on the third class; but that, too, was very soon found to be unworkable, because teas of very different values were included in the same class, and so in 1835 the whole system of an ad valorem duty on tea was abolished and a uniform duty instituted. During the interval, though the duty has been raised and lowered over and over again by different Chancellors of the Exchequer, no one has ever proposed to Parliament that an ad valorem duty should be substituted for the uniform duty. I oppose this Amendment on account of the loss of duty which it would cause, and also the impossibility of fairly levying an ad valorem duty. I trust that, whatever view the Committee may take as to whether the duty should be 6d. or a lower figure, it will not, at any rate, support the proposal of the hon. Member that it should be an ad valorem duty.
  *MR. LOUGHsaid his hon. friend the Member for Devonport deserved the thanks of the Committee for moving the Amendment, because it served to bring into prominence the different principles which the Government had introduced into the first clause of the Bill as compared with the second clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated his objections to an ad valorem duty, but in the next clause of the Bill it was proposed to put an ad valorem duty on sugar.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid the duty on sugar was not an ad valorem duty at all. The duty on sugar was precisely

  763
  the same amount for the same quantity of pure sugar.
  *MR. LOUGHsaid that answer, which they had had before, was the most superficial that could be given. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the graduated duty which he proposed in Clause 2 was a duty based upon the sweetening properties of sugar. The price of tea was based on the tea essence—the essential good quality of the tea itself. His hon. friend in making the proposal had submitted a perfectly clear way of arriving at the tea value, which represented the quantity of good tea which each parcel contained, but his plan was resisted by the Government in favour of the system of charging an equal duty regardless of the quality. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal with regard to the tea duty was perfectly inconsistent with the proposal he was going to take with regard to sugar. He was opposed to a graduated duty on sugar, and he was also opposed to an ad valorem duty on tea. It seemed to him that such a duty would expose both the tea trade and sugar trade to very serious risks, which Parliament ought not lightly to put upon them. The great difficulty about an ad valorem duty in this country on tea, or any other article, was that it would put a premium on low quality. The object of the Committee ought to be to pass such laws as would make all producers give to the people the best quality at the lowest possible price. If the Committee adopted the principle of giving a lower tax on a lower quality it would put a premium on the production of a low quality of goods. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said we must not assume that the poor consumed the cheapest quality. His experience confirmed that opinion. The cheapest quality was bought by mean rich people, who gave it to their servants. The poorest people often distinguished themselves by the excellent taste they displayed, so far as tea and, he believed, other articles of consumption were concerned. If they got little, they demanded that it should be good. This was a sound principle to go upon. There was no real economy in bad quality. A smaller quantity of that which was better gave more support to life and
  764
  went farther, It was this opinion that led him to take a very grave view of the proposal to put a graduated duty on sugar. He thought the Committee should recognise in dealing with these matters that its object ought to be to facilitate business, and particularly the staple businesses of the country. If anyone would think for a moment how the tea trade could be carried on with a graduated tax, it would be enough to make him support the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Such a duty would interfere with the immense trade done in tea in bond, because the seller, the second seller, or the third seller would have to produce the original invoice, so that the duty might be paid upon that. Thus he perceived the price that had been paid by all previous purchasers, It would give a most disastrous blow to the distributors of tea in England, and it would, he thought, accomplish the ruin of the grower of tea in India and Ceylon. He believed it would be impossible to carry on the trade under the scheme proposed by the Amendment.
  MR. CAINEsaid he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way to make a reduction in the amount of the duty on the lower kinds of tea. He had given a good deal of attention to the tea trade, and he found that the tax weighed heavily on the poor people of the country, who consumed the low-priced teas. It was quite true that the well-to-do working classes liked good tea, and that they very seldom bought it under 1s. 8d. per pound, but there was a large class who used tea—that was almost the only luxury they possessed—who bought it at 1d. per ounce. They bought the cheapest quality in small quantities. He had been connected with some of the poorest unions in London, and he found from inquiry that paupers sometimes spent 4d. or 6d. a week on tea out of the small pittance they received. That tea would not cost the seller much more than 4d. or 5d. per pound in bond, and the poor people bought it at the rate of 1d. per ounce. It thus appeared that the sellers themselves had a tremendous profit on the article. He thought the Chancellor of

  765
  the Exchequer might have a small graduation of the tea duties, in order to give relief on the qualities which found their way into the homes of the poor.
  Question put, and negatived.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTmoved to insert words providing that, "in respect of goods from British possessions, one-fourth part or 25 per cent. shall be remitted." The ground on which he made this proposal was that there was enormous difficulty in getting finished British goods into foreign markets. Lord Salisbury made a declaration on this subject on November 10th, 1890. He said:—
  "We know that every bit of the world's surface which is not under the British flag is a country which maybe, and probably will be, closed to us by a hostile tariff. It is to the trade that is carried on within the Empire that we look for the vital force of the commerce of this country."
  There could be very little doubt that there was a great deal of truth in the statement made by Lord Salisbury ten years ago, and recent events had given force to it. In recent years a great movement had taken place in favour of a closer union of the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies made a speech on 25th March, 1896, in which he said—
  "If the people of this country and of the colonies mean what they say, and intend to approach this question of Imperial unity in a practical spirit, they must approach it from the commercial side."
  The commercial side was in favour of giving a preference to colonial trade over foreign trade. Until recently this was impossible, at least with regard to trade from this country to the colonies. There were two treaties, one concluded with Belgium in 1862, and one with Germany in 1865, which contained a clause prohibiting—
  "articles, the produce or manufacture of Belgium (alternatively Germany), being subject in British colonies to other or higher duties than those which are, or may be, levied upon similar articles of British origin."
  Our colonies, so long as this clause existed, were prevented from putting a lighter duty on British than on foreign
  766
  goods, and in order to facilitate trade between all parts of the empire the Government, in 1897, after a considerable movement had taken place on this matter, not alone in this country, but also in the colonies, gave notice of the termination of these treaties. On July 28th, 1897, we wrote to our Ambassador to the German Emperor and to our Envoy Extraordinary to the King of the Belgians as follows—
  "I have to request that you will at once give notice of the intention of Her Majesty's Government to terminate the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between Great Britain and the Zollverein (alternatively Belgium). In virtue of the stipulations contained, the Treaty will accordingly terminate upon the expiration of a year, dating from the day upon which you give the notice."
  A very short time after these treaties terminated Canada admitted British goods at a reduction of 25 per cent., or one fourth the duty charged upon foreign goods, and it was exactly similar action he was anxious should be established in this country. Since 1898 they had enjoyed this advantage in the Canadian market. There must be a beginning somewhere, and he urged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a beginning in the tea duties. Owing to events in China, the production of tea in India and other parts of the British Empire had very considerably increased, and, although the loss to the Exchequer would be considerable—he thought about £1,687,000—he urged that the opportunity should not be missed. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer put a tax on foreign manufactured goods imported into this country which we could produce ourselves, and which entered into competition with trade and labour here, and remit as far as possible the duties upon goods which were essential to the life of the people, but which our climate absolutely prevented us from producing. And, therefore, they ought to raise our public revenue, or that portion of it derived from Customs' duties, upon goods which entered this country in competition with the product of labour in this country, but which were goods that our climate absolutely prevented us from producing. That being so, we could not have a better article to commence with than tea. It could not be contested that tea was an essential

  767
  food with the people of this country, and that it could not be produced in the United Kingdom; and any remission that we could give to tea produced in any portion of the British Empire would be for the benefit of the people in this country, while, although the proportion of tea consumed here from our possessions abroad was very large, such remission could hardy fail to lead to a still further production of tea in India and Ceylon and other parts of the Empire almost equally suitable for the production of tea. There were parts of Australia, the West Indies, and Mauritius which were capable of producing large quantities of tea.
  Now the point would arise, "Could we give preferential treatment to our colonies under our present treaties?" The answer to that given by the hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick, who was then Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, on 30th July, 1894, was conclusive. That hon. Member said that "Commercial Treaties"—referring particularly to the Treaty with Germany—
  "Did not prevent differential treatment by the United Kingdom in favour of the British Colonies, but that it did prevent preferential treatment by the British Colonies in favour of the United Kingdom."
  That answer of the hon. Baronet clearly showed that the course which he suggested to the Committee was not contrary to any existing treaties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown very little sympathy with preferential trade within the Empire. But there was a growing feeling in its favour, not only on both sides of the House but in the country generally. The denunciation of treaties with Belgium and Holland by Lord Salisbury was viewed with absolute favour by all the Chambers of Commerce of this country, and not a single resolution, so far as he knew, antagonistic to it had been passed in any part of the country. If that were so, it was perfectly clear that preferential trade within the Empire was growing in popular favour. Canada had increased her preference to British trade from 25 per cent. to 33½ per cent. He should have preferred to have made his motion 33⅓ per cent., but he had limited it to 25 per cent. because he recognised that the Chancellor
  768
  of the Exchequer was in urgent need of funds. His constituents were living by their labour and industry, and they echoed to the full the words of Lord Salisbury that foreign nations compelled them to look for trade to the countries over which the British flag flies. If we went on continuing, as for the past three years we had done, to accept favours from Canada and other British colonies without making any effort to reciprocate with them in their markets there would be a great revulsion of colonial feeling. The main subject of discussion on every platform last year in Canada was that the preferential tariff on British goods would not continue long if the old country would not reciprocate. The Prime Mimister of Canada was most anxious to give a reasonable preference to British goods, but His Majesty's Government showed an unreasonable obstinacy in the matter and would give no advantage. There could not fail to come a time when the colonies would not give any return if Great Britain and Ireland were so wedded to one-sided free trade. This was a matter of vital importance to the working classes. There were very few working men who had not kith and kin beyond the seas. He firmly believed that the sentiment of the mass of the working men in this country, in view of the attitude of foreign countries, and the increasing difficulties of trade with those countries on account of their increasing Customs restrictions, was to develope trade with our colonies and do what we could by that means to still further weld the Empire together. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a sympathetic reply, because his words would be read and reread at every breakfast table on the morrow in every colony and throughout the Empire. If the tone of the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed him to be out of sympathy with colonial trade and wedded to the old-fashioned notions of trade which were repudiated by so many classes in this country and the colonies, then the feeling of the unity of the Empire, to which we owed so much in the last two years and which was absolutely essential to us, would be abated, and the effect would be disastrous. He appealed to the

  769
  Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he was unable to propose a duty on manufactured goods from foreign countries which came so much into competition with those of our fellow subjects, to at least express sympathy with the development of colonial trade.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked, on a point of order, whether the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would exclude the Amendment which stood in his name.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Clare had been passed over, because when called upon he was not present.
  Amendment proposed—
  At end of clause, to insert the words, Always provided that in respect of goods from British possessions one-fourth part, or 25 per cent., shall be remitted.'"—(Sir Howard Vincent.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I can assure the hon. Member who has just spoken that I am by no means behind him in my desire to promote closer relations with our colonies, but I do not find in the policy which my hon. friend has more than once put before the House anything that would be really advantageous to either our colonies or the mother country, On the contrary, I believe if his policy were adopted of placing Customs duties on a large number of foreign-manufactured goods and turning our revenue tariff into a protectionist tariff, to be dealt with as some of our colonies which have adopted a protectionist policy were able to deal with protectionist tariffs, by giving preferential rates, under certain circumstances, to the mother country, any such policy would be deeply injurious to this country. I hope my hon. friend will pardon me if I do not follow him into those large questions which he has raised. Even if I could agree with the hon. Gentleman in the principles he advocates I could not agree with him on the present occasion. Let the Committee consider what the proposal of my hon. and gallant friend means. He desires by the policy he
  770
  advocates to promote larger trade with our colonies. He desires, therefore, that instead of importing certain articles from foreign countries we should import them, to a large extent, from our colonies, and so promote mutual trade between our colonies and ourselves. I sympathise with my hon. friend's object; but what are the facts with regard to tea? The hon. Gentleman's proposal is to reduce the duty on tea by one quarter in favour of tea coming from our colonial possessions. As a matter of fact, at the present time India and Ceylon, under equal duties, have driven foreign producers out of the market. My hon. friend's proposal with the tea trade in that position would deprive the Exchequer, this year of all years, of one-quarter of the revenue from tea in order to do no good. I hope the hon. Member and the Committee will see that it is absolutely impossible for me to accept such a proposal.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question proposed. "That Clause I stand part of the Bill."
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that, having missed the opportunity of moving the Amendment which stood in his name, he would now state what he proposed to say on that matter. It was perfectly obvious that the meaning of the Amendment was to exclude Ireland from the operation of the Act. All along, the Nationalist Members had protested against the treatment accorded to Ireland in the matter of taxation. They contended that, whatever fresh burdens might be put upon the people of England and Scotland, the Irish people ought to be exempted from these burdens for several reasons. What was at the bottom of the Budget proposals was of course the war in South Africa. But for that war these proposals would not be submitted to the House now. It was monstrously unjust and unfair to ask the taxpayers of Ireland to pay in any shape of new taxation a single farthing towards the cost of the war. The Irish people had protested against the war from the commencement as uncalled for and absolutely unnecessary, and that consequently it was a most

  771
  unjust and iniquitous war, but if the people of England and Scotland considered otherwise, if they had come to the conclusion that it was just and necessary, it was natural that they should take steps to provide for the cost of it, but what was most unnatural was that the people of England and Scotland who approved of the war should call upon the unfortunate people of Ireland to pay for that which they regarded as wholly unjust and unnecessary. He knew that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say at once that it was impossible to make an exception of Ireland in schemes of this kind of general taxation for Imperial purposes, but that would not he an answer which could excuse the Irish Members from taking this and every opportunity of protesting against the fresh imposition of taxation in Ireland. He was reading the other day a very interesting return containing figures compiled by the hon. Member for Islington. In the course of his examination of what had taken place in Ireland he pointed out that while the population of that country had been decreasing to an alarming extent the taxation of the Irish people had been increasing to an equally alarming extent at the same time. He knew that it was hard sometimes for hon. Gentlemen in this House to follow the course of events in Ireland.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member was going beyond the question raised in the clause now under discussion.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid if the Chairman had allowed him to do so he was going to point out in support of his argument that Ireland should not be included in the scope of this Bill. He was about to say that tea which was dealt with in the clause was one of those articles the taxation of which fell most heavily upon the Irish people. In the last five or six years the taxation of Ireland had been increased to the extent of a couple of millions a year. When they took into consideration the poverty of the Irish people as compared with the prosperous condition of the British people there was no man in the House with any sense of fairness who could deny that they had at least some case to put forward when they asked the Chancellor of the
  772
  Exchequer to make some exception in favour of Ireland. He was not going to discuss the broad question of the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, which had been brought about by the Act of Union, but he would say that it was laid down in that Act that the Irish people should get separate treatment and that consideration should be given to the taxable capacity of the Irish people. He objected to the tea tax last year, and he now repeated his objection. No article of consumption could be selected for taxation which would be more absolutely certain to bring about hardship to the Irish people. The consumption of tea was greater per head of the population in Ireland than in England and Scotland, and the consumption of alcoholic beverages was far greater per head of the population in England and Scotland than in Ireland. He urged that if additional taxation must be put on the Irish people to pay for a war which they hated and loathed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should consider whether it could not be raised in some other way than upon tea, which was the common article of consumption by the poor people. As far as he was personally concerned, he would infinitely prefer to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer putting additional taxation on alcoholic beverages in Ireland than upon the tea of the poor people. Ireland was sometimes most unjustly taunted with being intemperate, but they were really more temperate than the English or the Scotch, judging by the amount they consumed per head of the population. He would conclude by saying that in his opinion it was a poor, contemptible and pitiable policy on the part of the people of England and Scotland to ask Ireland to pay for the war. Whatever little return might have come to Great Britain out of the war expenditure, Ireland had got absolutely nothing. The millions which had been spent might react in some small way for the benefit of the working people of Great Britain, but. Ireland got nothing at all. Apart altogether from the justice or injustice of the war, he maintained, from a purely material point of view, that the Irish people ought to be exempted, and it was downright mean and dishonourable to ask them to pay anything for the war.

  773
  There were very few jingoes in Ireland, thank goodness. The Irish people strongly adhered to the noble policy of conciliation preached by the late Mr. Gladstone. They were told that the English people were jingoes and that they were in favour of the war.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to enter on a discussion on the war.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he was sorry the Chairman had not mentioned that before, as he was afraid he had already said a good deal about the war. He would only say that the Bill was introduced to meet the costs of the war. The Irish people had nothing to do with the war, and it was dishonourable to ask them to pay for it. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to dismiss from his mind, if he could, the trouble which he might consider he was put to from time to time by the Irish members. He would ask him to put himself in, for instance, his position, as representing 12,000 electors in a country district in Ireland, who were hard pressed to make both ends meet. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to sympathise with the Irish Members to the extent of at least allowing that they were justified in appealing to him that, if Ireland were to be taxed, it should be taxed in some other way than by a duty on tea. He moved the omission of the clause.
  MR. POWERsaid his hon. friend who had just spoken stated that he would prefer that a tax should be imposed on alcohol rather than on tea, and he added that he did not know whether he was speaking on behalf of many of his colleagues. He would tell his hon. friend that, although he would object very much to an extra tax on whiskey, which he thought was already overtaxed, yet if it came to a choice between an extra tax on whiskey and an extra tax on tea he would prefer the extra tax on whiskey, because tea was a beverage largely used in Ireland, and by the poor more than by any other class. They had been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that indirect taxation was the worst system of taxation, and that it pressed more heavily
  774
  on the poor than did direct taxation, and therefore indirect taxation pressed more heavily on the people of Ireland, because they were poorer than the people of England. It had been stated on very high authority that the people of England did not pay more than 2s. in the £ on the taxable capacity of each individual, whereas Ireland paid 10s. in the £, taxable capacity being of course the surplus which remained over after the necessary deductions had been made for the support of the individual. The appeal of his hon. friend was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should differentiate. He had to a certain extent differentiated, because he imposed a certain tax on a certain article which did not happen to be produced in Ireland. The war was the Alpha and Omega of the taxation they were considering. Ireland had already paid more than her share in the blood of her own people, which he was ashamed of and regretted extremely, and he thought it was rather hard that she should be now asked to pay in £ s. d. His hon. friend would be perfectly justified in going to a division. He was opposed to the tax because he believed indirect taxation was the worst system that could be adopted. It was decreasing in Great Britain, but increasing in Ireland, which was the poorest part of the United Kingdom.
  MR. JORDANsaid he thought it his duty also to protest against the increased duty on tea. At the same time he sympathised with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had to get the money somewhere. But he would prefer that the money which was required had been made up in some other way than in taxing tea, sugar, or any other article of the breakfast table. He thought that the income tax was bad enough, but he would rather pay an increased income tax than have an increased duty on tea. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget he ought to have made a clean breast of it and to have simply increased the income tax to 1s. 6d. in the £. and put 1s. a ton on coal, whether it was consumed in England or elsewhere. That would be very much better than taxing the food of the people. He understood the necessity

  775
  of the case, and was not arguing against the money being raised, but putting taxation on the poorer people was bad. It would have been much better to have put it on men who had comes. They would not want a breakfast or a dinner if they had to pay an income tax of 1s. 6d. They might not be able to go so often to the theatre, or to build a yacht, or to buy a carriage and pair, but those were luxuries which they could do without. A tax on tea and sugar, however, pressed heavily on the very poorest.
  MR. FIELDsaid he objected to the increased taxation on much broader grounds than his hon. friends. He objected on constitutional grounds to the taxation of Ireland being increased, and he also objected from the Unionist point of view. According to the treaty which was entered into at the time of the Union, Ireland was to be subject to certain exemptions according to the taxable capacity of her people, and it appeared to him that in recent years Unionists had lost sight of that very important provision. Apparently the basis of taxation in Ireland was that as population decreased taxation should increase. The late Mr. Gladstone, who was in his opinion the greatest financial enemy Ireland ever had, introduced the income tax into Ireland, although Sir Robert Peel had refused to impose it. It was then said that that tax would only last for a short time, but it remained ever since. The tax which was now being imposed would follow exactly the same procedure. When an extra tax was put on whisky the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it was merely a temporary expedient to raise the revenue which was necessary for the time being, but it had remained ever since. It was very remarkable that since the accession of her late Majesty the population of Ireland had decreased by one half, whereas the taxation had increased threefold. That was an extraordinary state of things. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would not adopt the ethics of taxation that were adopted by statesmen in constitutionally governed countries. His argument was that taxation should be imposed in
  776
  accordance with the ability of the people to bear it, and the income tax returns supplied the measure of the financial taxable capacity of the Irish people as compared with residents of Great Britain. He was prepared to argue the question on commercial lines, because he had a good case. He wished to direct the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact that in Ireland 78 per cent. of the taxation was indirect, whereas in England the indirect taxation was only about 50 per cent. The amalgamation of the Exchequers shortly after the Act of Union was one of the reasons why the Irish people came to be so heavily taxed. They in Ireland had no intense interest in the defence of the Empire, but yet they were charged for it, although they derived no benefit from it. He thought that even Unionist Members would admit that Ireland was bound to get some value for the taxation she paid. What value did she get? The Constitution was suspended, and they got no share of the expenditure on the Navy and Army. He thought a stronger case could not possibly be made out why this tax should not be imposed on Ireland. So far as he was concerned, he was, as a temperance man, entirely opposed to the tax on tea, which was almost one of the necessaries of life, particularly among the poor. He ventured seriously to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the tax should be put on something else. Hon. Members opposite did not quite realise that taxation which was grinding down the people of Ireland could easily be paid by people in this country. He would not go into the merits of free trade further than to say that the policy of the Government was not really a policy of free trade but a policy of free imports.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I fail to see how free trade comes within the scope of the discussion.
  MR. FIELDsubmitted it arose on the question of the duty on tea. He desired to know as a free trader why a tax was put upon tea, as he understood the principle of free trade was that no food should be taxed. In conclusion, he would say he declined to believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to press

  777
  hardly upon the people of Ireland, but he warned the right hon. Gentleman that, if taxation was unduly increased against the spirit and the letter of the Act of Union, a time would come when the people of Ireland would be obliged to fly from a country where they could no longer live. He was surprised at the attitude taken up by the Irish Conservative Members, because, after all, this taxation fell as heavily upon them as on any other section of the community. They paid an enormous sum of over taxation in this way. He trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the points which he had raised.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am very far from feeling any desire to blame the hon. Member for East Clare for bringing the matter forward, but I would remind the Committee that it has already been discussed on the resolution on which the Bill was founded, and therefore I hope I am not unreasonable in asking that the discussion may not be prolonged. The hon. Member who has just sat down touched upon topics which I think he will agree could be more conveniently discussed on another occasion. There could only be but a fragmentary discussion of the financial relations between Ireland and Great Britain on a clause of this Bill, and therefore it would be more convenient to reserve the subject for a later occasion, when we can have a fair discussion upon it. The hon. Member for East Clare takes a primary objection to the duty on tea, because he says he objects entirely to taxation for the purposes of the war. No doubt the hon. Member and his colleagues are right from their point of view in taking that objection; but, as the hon. Member appealed to me to put myself in his place and to express some sympathy for the position in which he finds himself, I will appeal to the hon. Member to put himself in my place.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I only wish you would allow me to.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: For a moment, I would say, and ask him to consider this question from that standpoint. I must get the money from some source, and whatever the source I pro-
  778
  pose, somebody or other would raise an objection. I do on the other hand feel that the tax on tea is to some extent a greater burden on Ireland than on other parts of the kingdom I do not think implicit reliance can be placed on the statistics in this matter, but they seem to show a greater consumption of tea per head in Ireland than in Great Britain. That may be so or not. But in any case I am asked on account of the great consumption of tea in Ireland to refrain from imposing this extra taxation. I would remind hon. Members that the fall in price of the article has materially reduced the burden of the extra taxation. I think the hon. Member for Devonport will confirm me when I say that the average price of tea apart from the extra duty is now nearly 2d. a lb. less than it was two years ago, and 1d. a lb. less than it was one year ago, and therefore, although I do not deny that the extra taxation is an additional burden, it is not so great a burden as it was expected to be this time last year. I am glad to have elicited one opinion which seems to be very generally held by hon. Members below the gangway opposite, that they would prefer that taxation on beer and spirits should be raised rather than that on tea. I do not wish to hold out any hopes for the future which I might not be able to realise, but if it might be my happy lot to propose a reduction in taxation I shall certainly be disposed to reduce the duty on tea rather than on beer or spirits. I trust that hon. Members will see that, although I am unable to agree with them, I am not without sympathy for their views.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I only rise to point out that the right hon. Gentleman is not to understand me to express the view that the increased taxation of spirits in Ireland is justifiable, I am against that also, and shall move against it at a later stage.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEsaid that in view of the circumstance that a special day was to be set aside for raising the general question of the financial relations he did not propose to enter into it now, but he would like to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman,

  779
  if he could not do so now, might at some future date allow a rebate of 1d. or 2d. on the lb. to Irish tea merchants in view of the special circumstances of Ireland in regard to taxation. Such a policy was, he believed, carried out in the Isle of Man, and whatever method the authorities had of arriving at the amount to be allowed in rebate of taxation in the Isle of Man could very well be adopted with regard to Ireland. The question of the tea tax was a most important one for Ireland. This tax affected the poor people of Ireland to an enormous degree; to a greater degree, he believed, than any class of people in England or Scotland. Tea was the staple drink of the working classes of Ireland, who in many cases drunk it three times a day. Beer was not consumed in Ireland in the same way as in England. In England beer was the staple drink of the labouring classes, but that was not so in Ireland, and in view of the fact that Ireland was a much poorer country than either England or Scotland, taxation of any kind must fall upon Ireland much more heavily than on Great Britain. It was for that reason he suggested that a rebate should be allowed.
  *MR. LOUGHsaid in the general discussion which had taken place they had only heard one side of the tea tax—the Irish side. The tea tax in Ireland last year produced £877,000—an increase of £227,000, which was dragged out of Ireland by indirect taxation. He drew attention to that point because the Chancellor of the Exchequer often said he had a certain kindness for Ireland, but still the right hon. Gentleman at times did much to undermine the great case that had been built up for Ireland. To-night he had said that exact figures of the produce of the tea and other taxes could not be given because there were no means of ascertaining it, but it was unjust that Ireland should be taunted with the fact that she could not give accurate figures; the Government had figures under lock and key which they would not give to the House. There was a charge of £220,000 a year for collection of taxes in Ireland. That fact alone would show how easy it was for the Government, if it desired, to state the amount of tea brought into
  780
  Ireland. He believed this additional taxation would check the consumption of that commodity, and thus press very heavily upon the people. The right hon. Gentleman had said that this was not the time to discuss the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, which was perfectly true; but this was certainly the time to point out the effect of this particular tax. The large amount which was derived from taxes in Ireland was taken as a proof of the wealth of the country, but here it could be seen that that was not the case, and this increase of £227,000 obtained from the additional tax upon tea was ground out of the blood of the Irish people. The system of taxation was breaking the back of Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the indirect taxation of the country was only 50 per cent. of the entire taxation, but in Ireland the indirect taxation amounted to 77 per cent.; therefore an equal tax between Great Britain and Ireland upon such articles as tea and tobacco did not produce an equal result, but an entirely opposite result. Even in Great Britain the result of this tax upon tea had been most unsatisfactory; the consumption of tea had diminished, and the growers had suffered heavily. A burden had been put upon the poorest classes of the population, the consumption of tea had been checked, and the people would now probably drink something worse. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that on tobacco he had reached the limit of taxation; on spirits he had passed the limit; and that there was nothing more to be obtaned upon wine. He believed that this policy was a most unsatisfactory policy, and that the result of the first year of a high tea tax would not encourage further experiments in a similar direction. He had not had an opportunity of moving the Amendment he had intended to move, but he certainly thought that the cost of the war and the amount required to meet the increased expenditure of the country could have been found in some better way than the increase of indirect taxation. An illustration of the mistake the Government was making might be found by comparing the present methods by which money was raised for municipal

  781
  purposes in our own great cities as compared with the methods of former times which still existed in many Continental cities. The present system was by a direct rate on property. The fact of a large additional sum of money being required did not lead us to abandon that system, say in favour of an octroi, or duty on food coining into the city, which would be more injurious than beneficial. Money required was obtained by increasing the rates upon property, the burden of which fell upon the backs of the rich, but by this system of indirect taxation the burden fell upon the backs of the poor. It would be safer for us to stick to the methods which had produced such a splendid revenue during recent years rather than return to the worn-out expedient of taxes on the necessaries of life which had worked so badly in the past.
  *MR. CHANNINGsaid that it was his intention to move an Amendment to reduce the amount of the tax upon tea, but he was detained in another part of the House by his duties upon a Committee, and had been unable to do so. He was, therefore, under the necessity of voting against the tea tax as a whole. There would be a disposition among those who strongly dissented from the proposals to meet the gigantic expenditure of this year to recognise that in dealing with this tax the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown a wise moderation. There was a certain measure of equity and fairness to the poorer classes of this country, in so far as the increase in indirect taxation did not include any further increase in the duty on tea. He should vote against the clause upon two distinct and definite grounds—that all taxation of food was unjust and unfair to the poorest classes of the community, and, further, because all taxes upon food were open to the economic objection that such taxes, increasing as they inevitably did the cost of living, and increasing in the highest proportion the cost of living to the workers, were so much dead weight upon the productive, manufacturing, and the commercial power of the country in competition with other nations. It might be arguable that almost any kind of tax could rightly be had recourse to in special cases of grave emergency. But for an
  782
  industrial and a commercial nation any form of tax on food should only be resorted to when other resources were already exhausted. He did not wonder at the protest from Irish Members, but a high rate of indirect taxation was hurtful, not only to Ireland, but to the poorer classes everywhere in the United Kingdom, and upon that ground and the grave injury to trade he should resist the clause.
  MR. CREANsaid he could not understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should take credit for the reduction in the price of tea, a fact with which he had had nothing whatever to do; the duty remained the same whether the price of tea was high or low, and the people were surely entitled to the benefit of the fluctuations of the market. If anyone was entitled to protest against so iniquitous a tax it was the Irish representatives. There might be some excuse for applying to the colonies, who had supported the policy of the war, but he protested against Ireland being taxed on account of a war for which she was in no way responsible, and against which she had always protested. If it were in the power of the people to defeat the collection of the tax, not one penny of it would be obtained within the four seas of Ireland.
  MR. NANNETTIsaid he only intervened in the discussion because he represented a number of poor people. The tax was instituted in order to pay for the war in which we were now engaged, but his constituency had one and all protested against that war. And, inasmuch as the people of Dublin and of Ireland generally had protested against the war, they ought not to be called upon to contribute anything towards the cost of it. He protested against the imposition of this tax because it would press more heavily upon the poor people whom he represented than upon the people of this country. Owing to their poverty the Irish people were compelled to adopt tea as their principal beverage, and it formed their staple article of food, whether for break-fast, dinner, tea, or supper. Why was not a tax put upon something in which mainly the rich were interested, such as

  783
  carriages, foreign wines, or foreign cigars? There might be something in the argument that those articles were already sufficiently taxed, but, at any rate, it would be fairer to place the burden upon those who could afford to pay rather than upon the unfortunate people who were not in that position. There might be some justice in placing the tax upon the people of England and Scotland, who had approved of the war, but the
  Irish nation had, by every means in its power, protested against and opposed the policy of the Government in South Africa, and, therefore, as representing a portion of that nation, he should support the Amendment in the division lobby.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 192;. Noes, 108. [Division List No. 259.]

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Mitchell, William

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John

  Fison, Frederick William

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Austin, Sir John

  Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Bain, Col. James Robert

  Flower, Ernest

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Baird, John G. Alexander

  Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Galloway, Wm. Johnson

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

  Garfit, William

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

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

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

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Myers, William Henry

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Nicholson, William Graham.

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Bigwood, James

  Grenfell, Wm. Henry

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Groves, James Grimble

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Brigg, John

  Hain, Edward

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Mid'x)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.

  Bull, William James

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'donderry

  Randles, John S.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. Wm.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Batcher, John George

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Carlile, William Walter

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Renwick, George

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Rickett, J. Compton

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

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Ritchie, Hon Sir Chas. Thomson

  Cavendish. V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Ropner, Col. Robert

  Chamberlain, J Austenc (Worc'r

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Round, James

  Chapman, Edward

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W (Salop.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Smith, H. C (North'mb. T'nes'de.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lawson, John Grant

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

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants Fareham

  Spear, John Ward

  Cross, Her b. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset),

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.)

  Stock, James Henry

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Dickson, Chas. Scott

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Stroyan, John

  Digby, John, K. D. Wingfield-

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Strutt, Hon. Chas. Hedley

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Doughty, George

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Thomas, David Alfred (M'rthyr

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

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

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Tritton, Chas. Ernest

  Tufnell, Lt-Col. Edward

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

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)

  Wylie. Alexander

  Vincent, Col Sir C E H (Sheffield)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

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

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Warde Col. C. E.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Sir William Walrond and

  Webb, Col. Wm. George

  Wolff, Gastav Wilhelm

  Mr. Anstruther

  NOES.

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

  Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

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

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Harwood, George

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

  Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

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

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Black, Alexander William

  Holland, William Henry

  O'Dowd, John

  Blake, Edward

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Boland, John

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

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

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh'e

  O'Malley, William

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Mara, James

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Burt, Thomas

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Price, Robert John

  Caldwell, James

  Leamy, Edmund

  Reddy, M.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leng, Sir John

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Levy, Maurice

  Rigg, Richard

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Crean, Eugene

  Lough, Thomas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cullinan, J.

  Lundon, W.

  Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Delany, William

  M'Crae, George

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Dermott, Patrick

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

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  M'Govern, T.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Duffy, William J.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Mooney John J.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Fen wick, Charles

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Murnaghan, George

  White, Patrick (Meath, N.)

  Field, William

  Murphy, John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Newnes, Sir George

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  Sir Thomas Esmonde and

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)

  Captain Donelan.

  Clause 2:—
  MR. D. A. THOMASsaid the Amendment standing in his name was not an important one, but he desired to move it formally in order to obtain some explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he had no intention of going to a division if the answer given was satisfactory. What he really wished to know was whether the duty upon sugar was to be paid as from the beginning of the 19th of April or the close, that was to say on the 20th. That was a point he desired to have made quite clear, because it made a difference of £20,000 in the amount to be obtained from the sugar duties. He begged to move—
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 1, to leave out 'from' and insert 'on and after'; and to leave out 'nine-
  786
  teenth' and insert 'eighteenth."—(Mr. D. A. Thomas.)
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: As I understand it, the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman would be to make the duty leviable a day before it was legally leviable, and that you could not do without a resolution.
  MR. D. A. THOMASsaid that was the form in which it appeared in the resolution, and it was for that reason he moved it in that way. The Budget resolution provided that the duty should be leviable on the 19th, but this clause did not carry out the resolution.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The resolution applied to a future date, and, therefore, the words "on and after" were put in. This Bill authorises the collection of the duty from a past date,

  787
  and therefore it is properly set forth as from the 19th.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: It makes a difference of a day.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, it does not.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: Then do I understand that "as from" means from the beginning of the 19th of April?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Quite so.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. CHANNINGsaid that the Amendment which he proposed to move was one which directly challenged the form in which this new tax and the coal tax also were put before Parliament. The sugar duty was proposed not in the form of the tea duty and other indireet taxes, but as a permanent tax. The usual and constitutional form was of a tax to be levied and paid for one year only, and subject to revision and reconsideration in this House in subsequent years. His Amendment should properly be moved after the word "paid," and not after the word "one," and he desired to move it in that form. He dissented entirely from the sugar duty. He did not raise the question of the excessive expenditure to be met by taxation this year, or where the money required should come from; it was sufficient for his purpose to argue that it was open to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose other taxation which would give him the amount which he proposed to obtain from the sugar duty. He wished to take the gravest objections to this tax, It was the reversal of the wise policy of a great Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer. It imposed a burden heaviest in proportion on the poorest classes, and it was open to all the economic objections to taxes upon food. It seemed to him that the form form in which it was laid before Parliament which made it a permanent tax added very materially to the objections he had to it. If brought in in the usual way for one year it would be perfectly easy to re-impose it, if necessary, in any subsequent year. But if imposed for ever and ever as a hereditary burden it was harder to get rid of it in future. This tax was a serious burden placed on what
  788
  was practically the raw material of many growing industries in this country. It was highly objectionable, having regard the way in which it would press upon the working classes of the country; it was still more objectionable from the manner in which it would interfere with many growing industries; but its most objectionable feature was the fact that it was to be a permanent tax. The most serious objection could be taken to its being made permanent on the specific ground that this or any similar source of taxation should only be drawn upon in case of the gravest emergency. He ventured to say that the objections to this tax were so serious that to deal with it in such a manner as to imply that the tax would be for ever imposed upon the community, was a very dangerous proposal to lay before the House, when regard was had to the fact that this tax came largely out of the pockets of the poor. To permanently ear-mark an obviously unjust proportion of the smallest incomes in the country in such a manner as this, was, in his opinion, a very dangerous course to adopt. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of widening the basis of taxation. He had agreed with many of his contentions on financial matters, but in regard to these words he had the greatest suspicion, doubt and dread. There was a section on the opposite side of the House who looked upon the sugar and coal taxes with satisfaction just because they had this element of permanence, and as driving in the wedge of protection into the fiscal system in this country. The form in which the proposals were laid before Parliament amounted to a sort of pledge to that party that the enormous expenditure in the future would be largely charged on indirect taxation. A direct tax was a thing which everyone could understand and measure, but indirect taxation largely escaped criticism. He ventured to say that the form in which these new taxes were proposed was a threat to the financial principles of this country.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 2, after the word 'paid,' to insert the words 'until the first day of August nineteen hundred and two.'"—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I recognise that the view of the hon. Member with regard to this tax is not my own. He objects to additional taxation here, he objects to the war in South Africa, and, if it were necessary for him to give his mind to the levying of additional taxation, he would no doubt raise it by an addition to the income tax rather than by this duty. No doubt we view this matter from entirely different standpoints. My own view as to the sugar duty is that it is a fair tax, having regard to the great expenditure of the country and to the necessity that that expenditure should be evenly divided between direct and indirect taxation. I have not scrupled to add largely to direct taxation in the last two years, and I felt myself bound, in fairness to all the taxpayers, to add also to indirect taxation. The hon. Member says that, whatever the merits of this tax, it ought to be only an annual tax. I never could have excused myself if I had proposed to Parliament a sugar duty as a tax simply for one year. It is impossible to propose any tax of that kind without very considerable trouble, inconvenience, and even disorganisation to the trade and industry of the country, and to undertake any proceeding of the kind merely for the purpose of one year's taxation would be, to my mind, entirely indefensible. I have already explained fully to the House that I have felt it is necessary to increase the articles on which our indirect taxation is at present laid not only in view of the war expenditure of the present year, but also in view of the largely-increasing ordinary expenditure of the country. I have proposed this tax as by no means a tax for one year. I have frankly told the Committee that to my mind this tax ought to continue, so far as I can see, as part of the general fiscal system of the country so long as our expenditure is on anything like the present basis. Whether the day will ever come when that expenditure will be reduced to what it was twenty years ago is a matter, of course, on which hon. Members can form their own opinion, but, having regard to the additional and increasing responsibilities of the country, and to the increasing demands for national expenditure of every kind, any such expectation as that is, to my mind, absolutely impossible to entertain. Under those circumstances
  790
  I have proposed this tax, and, as I have said, so far as I can see for the present, as a permanent part of our fiscal system. It may be possible for some future Chancellor of the Exchequer to repeal the tax, but it is not for me to forecast the future in that way. But there is no necessity, so far as I can see, for placing it on the same basis as the tea duty, so that by inclusion in the Finance Bill of every year it should be annually a matter for the consideration of the House of Commons. The tea duty has long occupied that place alone among indirect taxes. I hardly know why it was selected for that position, but it is right, of course, that one among our indirect taxes should occupy the place taken by the tea duty in order to maintain the control of Parliament on indirect taxation, but I do not see that it would be for the convenience of Parliament or any advantage to anyone concerned to place the sugar duty in the same position as the tea duty. If I had made any such proposal my action would have been taken as a suggestion that I had intended this merely as a tax for one year, and I should have been denounced, and rightly denounced, by the hon. Member for Devonport and other Members interested in this matter. It is impossible for me in these circumstances to agree to the proposal of the hon. Member opposite.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked whether this ought to be a permanent tax, placed entirely out of the purview of the House of Commons year by year? What they wanted to secure was that this tax should come every year within the purview of the House of Commons, so that they might reduce it if they thought fit, or abolish it altogether. It was obvious that, so long as this Government existed, this tax would exist. The intention of the tea duty was that the House of Commons should have full control over the taxation of the country. He thought it was a serious matter to ask the House to part with such a control over the sugar duty as it had in regard to the tea duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that he wanted to keep the same proportions between direct and indirect taxation. He agreed with him in that, but what were they

  791
  doing now? They were voting direct taxation for one year, and they were voting additional indirect taxation in the shape of the sugar duty as a permanent tax. Surely it was only right, if they were to keep these proportions between direct and indirect taxation, that the House of Commons should have the opportunity of voting whether they desired a reduction of indirect taxation. This sugar tax was not merely a revival of an old tax; it was a new tax, and he thought the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to it was rather hard.
  MR. MCCRAEhoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would carefully consider this Amendment. He thought that a year hence the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he occupied his present position, would have to consider very carefully the whole question of taxation. What was the reason for the imposition of this sugar duty? It was not a war tax; it was a tax due to the ordinary expenditure of the country. Apart from those taxes imposed for the war, there would have been a deficit this year on ordinary expenditure and revenue of something like £9,250,000. There was no question that this increased taxation which had been imposed this year had not been imposed for war expenditure, but for the ordinary expenditure of the country. If that was the case, he thought there was all the more reason to consider the application of the principles of taxation. He held that the House should be given an opportunity twelve months hence to consider whether or not the tax should be continued. He held that the proposal to make the sugar duty a permanent one would not commend itself to the House.
  MR. KEARLEY: said it was a new experience for him to find the Chancellor of the Exchequer solicitous to avoid the disorganisation of business. Two years ago, in spite of the good advice which he and others tendered to him, the right hon. Gentleman took off the tobacco duty. He arranged it so that the tobacco duty would go into the pockets of his Bristol friends and others. He found that he was wrong, and next year he put the duty back
  792
  again. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not infallible, and he was a dangerous man to be entrusted with the levying of the taxation of the country. He was disorganising the sugar trade by the irregular way the duty was to be levied. It was quite fair on that ground alone that this tax should come up year by year, as other taxes did, for review. This was the first time in the history of the country that any Chancellor of the Exchequer levying a war tax announced simultaneously that it was to be permanent. He thought the Amendment of his hon. friend should be strongly supported.
  MR. ARTHUR ELLIOTsaid the appeal that the tax should be confined to one year was one that would not be responded to. Surely it was fair to the House and the country that it should know that it would be necessary, in all probability, to maintain this tax for several years to come. That was the honourable course to pursue. He knew that there were some hon. Members who would take very strong measures for the reduction of taxation if the country or the House were to allow them, but they must deal with affairs as they found them. They saw that the expenditure must be very high indeed; and he confessed that he found some difficulty in quite understanding the position of those who were constantly arguing that the expenditure of the Government was right and were yet coming forward prepared to refuse permission to the Government to revise the taxation by which alone the policy could be carried out. They should not support the policy and cut down the means of carrying it out. Having listened to the remarks of speakers on the front Opposition bench, he could see that the expenditure was likely to last even if a change of Government took place.
  COLONEL NOLANsupported the Amendment because he fancied if they accepted the duty in the form in which it was now proposed they would require a special Bill to repeal it.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid that the House of Commons had always reserved to itself sufficient power to secure its

  793
  privileges against any possible action by the House of Lords.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid he could not follow the argument of the hon. Member for Durham. If this were merely a war tax it must be obvious that it would be only necessary for one or two years; but it was brought forward in order to meet the increased ordinary expenditure of the Government. The normal expenditure of the country had increased under the present Government by twenty-eight millions a year, and there was no reasonable prospect of that expenditure decreasing so long as this Government remained in power. They, on that side of the House, were convinced that if the Liberals got into office there would be such economies as to permit of the sugar duty being done away with. Under those circumstances they did not look forward to the sugar duty as being necessarily permanent. There was another reason why he begged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to impose the duty for one year only. It was not wise in the House of Commons to make it possible for the Government to raise money readily. He would give the Chancellor of the Exchequer full credit for his desire to reduce expenditure, but if they made this tax permanent they would be putting an extra weapon into the hands of those Members of the Cabinet who were, to say the least, not exponents of economy. The House ought to retain its power over taxation, and if the present Government wanted the sugar duty continued next year let them come and ask for it.
  MR. JOHN WILSONsaid that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been perfectly frank and straightforward in his statement. He thought this was the proper time to refer to the coal duty.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine himself to the question of sugar.
  MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he was afraid he must vote against the clause, because otherwise it would carry approval to other parts of the Bill.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No.
  *MR. TAYLORsaid there was another reason why the
  794
  tax should only be made for one year. The changes which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already made in the tax showed that the information that he had received had not been sufficiently considered, and that was a very potent reason why they should not put the tax upon a permanent form. As a believer in the control of the House of Commons over the national purse, he did not approve of making any duty permanent, but if any were to be made permanent it should be that on tea rather than that on sugar. They could not forecast the effect of the duty on the fruit and jam industries, and he was afraid that before a year was over even the Chancellor of the Exchequer would regret putting it on an article which would affect the very poorest in the land. Some hon. Members maintained that there should be a proportion preserved between direct and indirect taxation. For himself he did not hold any such proposition; he was in favour of direct taxation which would compel people to realise what the nation was really spending. In thinking over this question he wondered what the effect would be if a procession were to pass the Speaker's chair of the agricultural labourers and their families whose wages were only 12 s. to 14s. per week, and of those similar classes in our large towns whose high rents practically reduced the family income to a similar figure. He believed no Member of the House would he so hard-hearted as to vote for a tax which was to diminish an important article of food of these poor people. The fruit industry in this country had been steadily growing, and often large quantities of fruit had to be destroyed because the price of sugar was more than the jam makers could afford. If they taxed the sugar the jam makers would be compelled to give a less price for the fruit, and they knew that that was no means of encouraging an important industry.
  MR. FIELDsaid he would not have intervened in the discussion but for the fact that he had received communications from constituents in regard to the duty on imported molasses. He had forwarded these communications to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had received them very courteously, and said he would give their contents his con-

  795
  sideration. The imposition of this tax ought to be subject to certain changes and modifications proved necessary by experience by working. He believed in the doctrine of direct taxation, and thought that they should substitute for the sugar duties a tax on land values, which would be felt, not by the poor, but by the rich. He protested against a system of putting into the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the dangerous power of perpetuating taxation. At present the House of Commons was not a legislative machine, but merely an instrument to provide taxation for abnormal expenditure, of which the Irish people had to pay more than their fair share. The effect of granting a perpetual tax would be to encourage expenditure and discourage economy. He entirely agreed that the House of Commons should retain the control of taxation, more particularly indirect taxation, which was the most dangerous form of taxation of all.
  *MR. HEMPHILLsaid he had from the beginning most strongly opposed the imposition of the duty on sugar, and, a fortiori, he objected to its being made a permanent tax. He was very sorry to hear from the hon. Member for Durham that the country was threatened with an accumulation of taxation, increasing from year to year. He could not agree with the hon. Member that if the reins of Government were transferred from that to this side of the House there would not be a considerable improvement in that respect. He could not believe that the great Liberal party of this country would give up the cry of "peace, retrenchment, and reform." If he was not much mistaken, the time was not far distant when the constituencies would see the evils into which they had been led, and the expense which had been and was being accumulated on the country. The object of making this tax permanent was, he believed, to prevent the discussion of it from year to year, because if this Amendment was defeated it could not be got rid of without repealing an Act of Parliament. This tax would press most heavily on the poorest classes of the community, and upon the most helpless of those classes,
  796
  women and children, to whom sugar afforded nourishment and comfort. At one time there was great hope of the free breakfast table, but the present Government were destroying all hope of that being realised.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The question is not the imposition of the tax, but whether it is to be imposed for a year or permanently.
  *MR. HEMPHILLsaid that if the tax were perfectly innocuous, of course no one would object to its being made permanent. He meant by his argument that a tax of this kind, which was so harmful and so very obnoxious, ought not to be made perpetual.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid he wished to put forward another consideration why the tax should not be made permanent. If they increased the taxes on wine, spirits, beer, and tobacco, they would reduce the consumption of these articles, and decrease the working power of the people. But in this case they were imposing a tax upon an article which was in large consumption, and which increased the earning power of the people. That was a reason to his mind of the last importance to consider. He desired with all the earnestness he could put into words to induce Members of the House to study this matter for themselves, and if they did so he believed that at the end of twelve months they would repeal the tax.
  MR. CREANobjected to the tax being made permanent, because it would press more heavily on the Irish taxpayers than on the English. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself had no knowledge to what extent the ramifications of the sugar tax would go, and the fact that he had to change it so often proved that he was not sure of the ground on which he stood. That was one reason why the tax should only be imposed for twelve months, when they would be able to review the work of the year, and see whether the tax had not gone a great deal beyond what the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself intended. At any rate this was a tax which, of all taxes, ought not to be made perpetual. He

  797
  thought that the arguments were very strong in favour of not making the tax permanent, especially in a poor country. If it were a direct tax, the arguments of his hon. friends might not be as sound as they were, but people scarcely knew what they were paying on an indirect tax. If a direct tax were imposed people would know what they were paying, and that would be a curb on extravagant expenditure. He thought the Committee should be very slow to make an indirect tax permanent, whatever might be the case as regarded a direct tax.
  MR. FLYNNsaid it was obvious that the tax was experimental, because it was impossible to estimate what its result would be. It might be disappointing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in that event the clause would be repealed. How much more difficult that would be if another Government were in power. They would be very much handicapped and it would be very difficult for them to put back the tax in accordance with the wishes the people. If the tax affected the confectionery and other trades, and if there were great outcry against it another Government might desire to reduce it. But they could not do it in the ordinary way if the tax were made permanent. That would be making it very difficult for any future Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the tax, and he could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the Amendment. If the tax were required again next year it could be reimposed in a small clause in the Finance Bill. He could not understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired to make the tax permanent unless it were to burke discussion. It was obvious to the intelligence of the Committee that if the tax were found to be intolerable there would be a general desire to repeal it, and if it were found to be tolerable there would be no objection to putting in a clause in the next Finance Bill reimposing it. He thought the Amendment a very reasonable one.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: If the tax is found to be intolerable or if it is found not to be satisfactory the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day can propose an alteration, and I therefore cannot see why this tax cannot now be made
  798
  permanent. I see great reason for not accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member, but after all the point is a narrow one, and I hope the Committee will now take a division on it, and then proceed with the discussion.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid that if the tax were imposed for one year only it could then be seen whether or not the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right. His hon. friend stated that the tax was a tax in favour of protection but the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was not. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now said that if at the end of a year certain experiences were obtained the tax might be altered, but it could not be altered without legislation if it were a permanent tax. If the Amendment were accepted it could be altered without legislation.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Legislation would be necessary in either case.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid he failed to understand how legislation would be necessary for a tax which was not permanent. All the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to do would be to drop it out of the Finance Bill. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept the Amendment. It was laid down as a sound doctrine that the taxation of the food of the people was unconstitutional, and he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very ill-advised in resisting the Amendment, as there was a great principle at stake. The explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was no by means clear to the Committee, however clear it might have been to himself. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to tear himself away from the meshes of the Protectionist party behind him. If the right hon. Gentleman listened to the speeches and cheers and interruptions of his friends behind him he would surely be led into a course of legislation which he himself had again and again denounced and repudiated, and which would work great injury to the workers of the country. He hoped that even yet the right hon. Gentleman might accept the principle of the Amendment.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am obliged once more to appeal to the Com-

  799
  mittee to take a division. The hon. Member has charged me with Protectionist principles, but I can assure him they have nothing whatever to do with the Amendment before the Committee. I am absolutely following precedent. I find that in 1864 when, to the best of my recollection, a gentleman who was certainly not a Protectionist, was Chancellor of the Exchequer, the sugar duties were revised, and an Amendment was moved that words should be
  inserted limiting the duties to one year only. That Amendment was rejected and the duties were made permanent. In 1870 the duties were again revised, but were not made annual. I am absolutely following precedent in this matter, and I would ask the Committee to take a division.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 155; Noes, 222. (Division List No. 260.)

  AYES.

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

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Dowd, John

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  Ambrose, Robert

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  O'Malley, William

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. H.

  Hammond, John

  O'Mara, James

  Austin, Sir John

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Harwood, George

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Bell, Richard

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Black, Alexander William

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Blake, Edward

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Price, Robert John

  Boland, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

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

  Reddy, M.

  Brigg, John

  Holland, Wm. Henry

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Joicey, Sir James

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Rigg, Richard

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Burns, John

  Kennedy; Patrick James

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Burt, Thomas

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Caine, William Sproston

  Leamy, Edmund

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Caldwell, James

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cameron, Robert

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Leng, Sir John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Levy, Maurice

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Spence, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lough, Thomas

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lundon, W.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Thomas, David Alfr'd (Merthyr

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Crae, George

  Thomas, F. Freeman- (Hastings

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Thomas, J A (Glamorg'n, Gower

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Govern, T.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Delany, William

  Mooney, John J.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Donelan, Capt. A.

  Moulton, John Pletcher

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Murnaghan, George

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Murphy, John

  White, Patrick (Meath, N.)

  Dully, William J.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Newnes, Sir George

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

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

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Norman, Henry

  Wilson, F. W. Norfolk, Mid.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Field, William

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf, d

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Mr. Channing and Mr.

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Kearley.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Baird, John Geo. Alexander

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

  Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col Richard

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Groves, James Grimble

  Platt-Higgms, Frederick

  Balfour, Maj. K. R. (Christchch

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Banbury, Frederick George

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'ry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Harris, Fredk. Leverton

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Randles, John S.

  Bigwood, James

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Rasch, Maj. Frederic Carne

  Bill, Charles

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Helder, Augustus

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Henderson, Alexander

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Brassey, Albert

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Renwick, George

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Ridley, Hn. M. W (Stalybridge

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Brown, Alex. H. (Shropshire)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Houldsworth, Sir William H.

  Ropner, Col. Robert

  Bull, William James

  Hoult, Joseph

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel W.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Round, James

  Butcher, John George

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw J.

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

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Sharpe, William Edw. T.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Chapman, Edward

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

  Smith, H C (Northmb, Tyneside

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W (Salop)

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

  Collings, Rt. Hn. Jesse

  Keswick, William

  Spear, John Ward

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Knowles, Lees

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Stock, James Henry

  Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lawson, John Grant

  Stroyan, John

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareh'm

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Denny, Colonel

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

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Doughty, George

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G Ellison

  Warde, Col. C. E.

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

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

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton

  Malcolm, Ian

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Finch, George H.

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R

  Fison, Frederick William

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

  Flower, Ernest

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

  Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford)

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

  Gibbs, Hn A. C. H. (Cityo'Lond.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

  Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Gore, Hn G R. C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.

  Myers, William Henry

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Sir William Walrond and

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Mr. Anstruther.

  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name to exempt Ireland from the sugar duties. He did not know how the bulk of the English Members regarded the sugar tax, but as far as Ireland was concerned there was absolutely no doubt whatever as to the injustice of the tax and as to the heavy way in which it would fall on the very poorest of the population, and he would say that he was greatly surprised that a more vigorous protest had not been made against the tax by the great majority of the Liberal party. In these matters they seemed to be going from bad to worse. It was a disgrace to raise money to be squandered upon war by imposing taxation upon the ordinary articles of food, and this was a proposal which ought to be resisted by the Liberal party. They had taxed tea, and now they were taxing sugar. With regard to the tax on sugar—
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member as mistaken in thinking that the whole question of the sugar duty is open for discussion. The only question before the Committee is whether there should be a differentiation between Great Britain and Ireland in regard to this duty.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND, who was frequently interrupted from the Ministerial side, said that if hon. Members opposite would allow him to take his own course in this matter it would be found in the long run to be the shortest. If the people of this country would tolerate the breakfast table articles of food being taxed, then they deserved to be taxed. Irish Members, however, would always protest against this tax being extended to their country. It was a tax which would fall upon the very poorest of the people, and one which would be felt at once by every woman who went at the end of the week to buy supplies for her family. The vast mass of the Irish people were strongly opposed to the causes which had necessitated the Chancellor of the Exchequer's present proposals, and they had a right to ask that they should be exempted from this tax. There was a strong feeling amongst the masses of the people in Ireland that articles should be selected for taxation which
  804
  would not place a burden upon the very poorest of the population. He should have preferred some form of direct taxation which would have made people enjoying large incomes pay in proportion for the expenses of the war. [Ministerial interruptions.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite by their demeanour seemed to think that the object of Irish Members was simply to obstruct the passage of the Finance Bill—[Ministerial cries of "Hear hear."]—and they gave them credit for doing nothing but obstruct the business of the House. [Renewed cries of "Hear, hear!" from the Ministerial side.] That confirmed his statement that they were simply credited by hon. Members opposite with a desire to obstruct. That was not a reasonable or a chivalrous view to take of the position of men who were voicing the opinions of their constituents just as much as hon. Members who supported the Government. It was one of the cruellest things in connection with the position of Ireland that, when Irish Members simply rose to voice the views of those they represented, they got no better reception than an intimation from hon. Gentlemen opposite that they were wantonly obstructing the business of the House and that their objections were not valid or real. If hon. Gentlemen opposite would visit Irish constituencies they would find that the objections to which Irishmen gave utterance in the House of Commons were felt throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. In protesting against this fresh taxation they were truly representing the views of their constituents. They had nothing to do with bringing about the war, and Ireland ought not to be charged with it. This tax would fall upon the poorest of the people; and whether the English Members protested or not, the Irish party would oppose it strenuously. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not accept his Amendment he would, if he had the power, organise a strike in Ireland against this tax, but he had not that power. The taxation of Ireland had increased by £2,000,000, while at the same time the population had gone down by a quarter of a million, and that was an intolerable state of affairs. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not give some attention to the voice of

  805
  Ireland upon this matter that voice would be raised a great deal more strongly by other Irish Members. He hoped his Amendment would receive at least some support from a considerable section of the Liberal party. If this kind of taxation could not be avoided in England he appealed to those hon. Members who held by the old doctrines of Liberalism to support the Irish Members and himself when they endeavoured to protect this country from fresh taxation imposed by the Tory party.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 3, to leave out the words 'or Ireland.'"—(Mr. William, Redmond.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'or Ireland' stand part of the clause."
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I can assure the hon. Member that I am far from attributing to hon. Members from Ireland who are opposed to the taxation of Ireland a mere desire to obstruct. I am quite aware that they voice not only their own opinions, but those of their constituents, although I sometimes wish that they would do so with a less flow of eloquence—an eloquence to which I myself, unfortunately, am entirely unable to aspire.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: We were born that way; we cannot help it.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: As to the terrible threat of the hon. Member that he would organise a strike in Ireland against the consumption of sugar, I believe that is beyond even his powers. The hon. Member could not succeed in persuading the Irish woman or child to deprive themselves of the luxury of sugar in their tea any more than he could persuade the Irishman to deprive himself of the luxury of sugar in his whisky. The hon. Member has suggested to hon. Members from England and Scotland who are opposed to this tax that they should support his Amendment in the lobby. I can quite understand that there are hon. Members representing constituencies in Great Britain who are opposed to the sugar duty, and who would vote against it in connection with the whole clause; but I
  806
  cannot quite understand anyone who opposes the sugar duty in Great Britain voting that it should not be applicable to Ireland, but that it should be applicable to Great Britain. The hon. Member in this and other proposals which he has from time to time made in this House always seemed to forget that it was practically impossible to make any distinctions between Ireland and Great Britain in the application of the Customs duty without establishing a Customs tariff as between the two countries. I venture to say that if we were to attempt, for the sake of this sugar duty, to make such a change in the fiscal relations of Ireland and Great Britain we should be doing something which would cause infinitely greater suffering to the Irish people than anything that could be caused by the sugar duty. The hon. Member complained that the sugar duty of 4s. 2d. in the cwt. would impose a great burden on the people of Ireland. In the year 1893 the price of sugar was as high without duty as it would be now with duty. Was the position of the Irish labourer, his wife, or child, with regard to the consumption of sugar, so very dreadful in 1893 as the hon. Member seemed to anticipate it would be in the present circumstances?
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid it was only fair to bear in mind that since 1893 taxation had gone up in Ireland by over two millions a year.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I might meet that by saying that the taxation of Great Britain has gone up considerably more, but I do not want to enter upon that question, which, as I have already said, can hardly be debated on an Amendment of this kind. It is quite natural that hon. Members representing Irish constituencies should be opposed to the imposition of this duty in Ireland, and that they should believe that they ought not to bear increased taxation for any purpose, and perhaps more particularly for a war, or preparation for war, of which they may not approve. I venture to say, however, that they ought not to exaggerate the effects of the burden of this tax upon their constituents. I am afraid it is quite impossible for me to

  807
  accept the suggestion of the hon. Member, and I hope he will pardon me if I do not enter at any greater length upon this subject, for I feel that I should only be wasting the time of the Committee and repeating arguments which I have already put before the House.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid that the rate of wages was lower in Ireland than in England, and that the duty would therefore press more heavily on the population in the former country. The war had brought a good deal of increased employment in England, but Ireland merely contributed to its cost. A very large proportion of the war expenditure was spent in England, and trade in this country benefited by it, whereas Ireland scarcely got any benefit at all from this expenditure. That was one reason why the working classes in this country did not object to increased taxation. Taxes on food were always a great burden, and they were not only a form of taxation which was most objectionable, but they weighed very heavily upon the poor people of Ireland. He hoped if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not see his way to remitting the tax on sugar he would make it up to the poor people of Ireland in some other way.
  MR. O'MARAsaid that, so far as he was able to gather, the only argument the Chancellor of the Exchequer put forward against exempting Ireland from this tax was that the people did not suffer anything by its imposition, because four or five years ago the prices of tea and sugar were higher than at present. That was a very ingenious argument, but it was unsound. A logical case had been made out against the imposition of this tax in Ireland. The Irish people had had neither part nor lot in the war, and therefore should not be called upon to pay for it. Moreover, they were not in a position to bear additional taxation, as would be seen from the fact that in Ireland there were now, in proportion to the population, more aged people over sixty years of age and more young people under fifteen years of age than in any country in Europe. The fact that the tax was to be permanent made it even more objectionable. Of late years the manufacture of condensed
  808
  milk had been increasing in Ireland, but the tax on sugar would deal the industry a very heavy blow.
  MR. POWERdid not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a separate system of Customs for Ireland could not be devised without great difficulty. He instanced the case of the Isle of Man, where he contended such a system was in force, and he had never heard that it caused any difficulty or upset the arrangements of the United Kingdom. As to the statement that the people would be no worse off as regarded this tax than they were in 1893, he asserted, having some knowledge of the question, that the Irish people, whether landlords, labourers, or artisans, were less able to bear taxation now than even as recently as 1893. That statement could be proved by statistics, and it was well known that while the taxation had increased the population had decreased. The Nationalist members spoke for the poorest of the people; they were proud of their position, and they would be false to their trust if they did not by every means in their power endeavour to safeguard the interests of the people whose cause had been confided to their hands.
  *MR. COGANsupported the Amendment for three reasons—first, that Ireland was on the verge of ruin and unable to bear this additional taxation; secondly, that the cause of the imposition of this tax was one which Ireland had opposed with no uncertain voice; and thirdly, that it was a tax on the food of the working man. The manner in which the tax had beer introduced was of a piece with the whole system of Tory finance, especially in relation to Ireland. Under the Local Government Act taxation was imposed upon the working man which he had never had to bear before, and now taxation was imposed indirectly which if imposed directly would be seen by him to be much heavier than in its present form it appeared to be. The Chancellor of the Exchequer used the absurd argument that because, with the addition of the duty, the price of sugar would not be greater than it was in 1893. The advance in the price of sugar in 1893 was due to the fact that the Bounties

  809
  Commission was about to sit, and the dealers and merchants were afraid that the bounty system on the Continent would be abolished; but before 1893 sugar was cheaper than at the present time. The argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that point, therefore, fell to the ground. It was true that there had been no outcry against the tax from the sugar importers and merchants; the reason of that was that these gentlemen had forestalled the announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The imports of refined sugar alone from the 1st January to the 17th April this year were 5,209,220 cwts. in excess, or nearly
  double what they were for the corresponding period of last year. This quantity at 4s. 2d. per cwt. would produce £1,085,000. Hence the patriotic silence of one interest affected. The public had not participated at all in this huge gain, because immediately the new duty was announced the price to the consumer had been advanced a halfpenny a pound. It was the bounden duty of Irish Members to resist to the utmost this unjust and intolerable tax.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 217; Noes, 88. (Division List No. 261.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hobhouse, Hy. (Somerset, E.)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Hy.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Hoult, Joseph

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Dewar, John A (Inverness-shire

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Jessel, Capt. Herb. Merton

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Digby, John K. D, Wingfield-

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Doughty, George

  Joicey, Sir James

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Kenyon, J, (Lancs., Bury)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Baird, John George Alex.

  Darning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Keswick, William

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

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

  Knowles, Lees

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Balfour, Maj. K R (Christchurch

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lawson, John Grant

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

  Finch, George H.

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

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Black, Alexander William

  Fison, Frederick William

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Bond, Edward

  Flower, Ernest

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Fuller, J. M. P.

  Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

  Brassey, Albert

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Brigg, John

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Gore, Hn G R C. Ormsby- (Salop)

  Lucas Col. F. (Lowestoft)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Bull, William James

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G Ellison

  Butcher, John George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Caldwell, James

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Carson, Rt Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Greene, Sir E W (B'y S Edm'nds)

  M'C'almont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Gretton, John

  M'Crae, George

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

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  M'Kenna, Reginald

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Malcolm, Ian

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Midd.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. WF.

  Chapman, Edward

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.

  Maxwell, Rn. Hn Sir H. E Wigt'n

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

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Corbett. A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Moon, Edw. Robert Pacy

  Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Morgan, Hn. Fred (Monmths.

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Helder, Augustus

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Morton, Arthur H A. (Deptford)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Round, James

  Valentia, Viscount

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Nichol, Donald Ninian

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col, Edw J.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Norman, Henry

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  Palmer, Geo. Wm. (Reading)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

  Whiteley, George (Yorks, W. R)

  Partington, Oswald

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Penn, John

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

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

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks)

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

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

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

  Price, Robert John

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Stewart. Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Purvis, Robert

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Randles, John S.

  Stock, James Henry

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Rasch, Major Frederick Carne

  Strachey, Edward

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stroyan, John

  Younger, William

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Tennant, Harold John

  Sir William Walrond and

  Ridley, Hon M. W. (Stalybr'dge

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merth'r

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

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

  Ambrose, Robert

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Malley, William

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'Mara, James

  Boland, John

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Leamy, Edmund

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Campbell, John (Armagh S.)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Priestley, Arthur

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leng, Sir John

  Reddy, M.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Levy, Maurice

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lough, Thomas

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lundon, W.

  Rigg, Richard

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Govern, T.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Delany, William

  Mooney, John J.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Doogan, P. C.

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants

  Duffy, William J.

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Murnaghan, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Elibank, Master of

  Murphy, John

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Emmott, Alfred

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Tomkinson, James

  Ffrench, Peter

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Field, William

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  White, Patrick (Meath, N.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

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

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Hammond, John

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Sir Thomas Esmonde and

  Holland, William Henry

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Captain Donelan.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Dowd, John

  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.) Put, and agreed to.

  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.
  Adjourned at a quarter after Twelve of the clock.

EARL OF GOSFORD.
Report made from the LORD CHANCELLOR, that the right of Archibald Brabazon Sparrow Acheson, Earl of Gosford, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
The Lord Zouche of Haryngworth took the Oath.
The Lord Shute (Viscount Barrington) 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 Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—

South Metropolitan Gas;

London and India Docks (New Works).

And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—
Cromer Water.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Dorking Gas Bill ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed.
Read, and agreed to.

STRATTON AND BUDE IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.]
The King's consent, and the consent of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cornwall, in right of his Duchy of Corn-
682
wall, signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.

SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
STOCKPORT CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the Committee having found that the petitioners had no locus standi before them; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The Orders made on the 9th and 20th of May last discharged; and Bill committed.
SHANNON WATER AND ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed: The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  TORRINGTON AND OKEHAMPTON RAILWAY BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed.
NEATH HARBOUR BILL.
  THAMES DEEP WATER DOCK BILL
  Read 3a, and passed.
CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL.

  LLANDRINDOD WELLS URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (DEARNE VALLEY JUNCTION RAILWAYS) BILL.
  ALDERSHOT GAS AND WATER BILL
  LONDON RIVERSIDE FISH MARKET BILL.
  CLEVELAND AND DURHAM COUNTY ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  DERBYSHIRE AND NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be pro-

  683
  posed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, viz.:—

  E. Shaftesbury,

  L. Manners,

  L. Abinger,

  L. Brougham and Vaux (chairman),

  L. Monck (V. Monck);

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

ECCLES CORPORATION BILL.
  METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

  LONDON (CITY) SCHOOL FOR ORPHANS OF FREEMEN BILL [H.L.]
  OTLEY GAS BILL [H.L.].
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL [H.L.]

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL [H.L.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL [H.L.].
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL [H.L.].
  Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]

  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL [H.L.]
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL [H.L.].
  Committed; the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (GAS) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (HAM) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL. (No. 117.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL, ORDERS (No. 6) BILL. (No. 118.)
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL. (No. 119.)
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 2631. Trade of Persian Gulf; Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Draft Order in Council for transferring to the Board of Education the powers of the Charity Commissioners to frame and establish schemes for educational endowments in England and Wales.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITIONS.
  CORONATION OATH AND DECLARATION OF THE SOVEREIGN AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
  Petition against alteration of; of inhabitants of Bath; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  LONDON BOROUGH COUNCILS (WOMEN'S DISABILITIES REMOVAL) BILL. [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of; of Corporation of St. Pancras; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY BOARD.
  Message from the Commons that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with the Committee of this House to consider the constitution of Queen Anne's Bounty Board do meet the Lords' Committee in Committee Room A on Thursday next, at half-past Two o'clock, as proposed by their Lordships.

  PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, this Bill, which was treated as entirely non-controversial in another place, is a very short one, and has been introduced for the purpose of preventing what would practically be the cessation of
  686
  land purchase under the existing system. The purpose of the Bill is to amend Sub-section 1 of Section 9 of the Land Purchase Act, 1891, which provides that advances for the purchase of holdings in any county shall not exceed a sum equal to twenty-five times the guarantee fund of the county. It was pointed out in the other House that in the county of Wexford loans had been issued up to £737,000, whereas the credit of Wexford was calculated to be £742,000, leaving a margin of only £5,000. Therefore in the county of Wexford land purchase would be practically at a standstill unless there was some extension of the Land Act of 1891. This Bill gives discretionary power to increase the advances in any one county when the Lord Lieutenant recommends such an extension, or when the Treasury is of opinion that a further advance can be made without loss. Discretion is also given to the Lord Lieutenant and the Treasury in respect of advances to the Congested Districts Board under Section 43 of the Land Act, 1896. This section is indispensable to the voluntary purchase of land by the Congested Districts Board.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Denbigh.)
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order); an Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  DEMISE OF THE CROWN BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  ISOLATION HOSPITALS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed. [No. 115.]

  BOARD OF TRADE NAUTICAL STAFF.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I beg to move the motion standing in my name.
  Moved, For a Return of the nautical advisers, consultative staff, and marine surveying staff to the Board of Trade, with particulars as to age, the length of service at sea (if any), date of leaving the sea, in what capacities served, and any other of the practical qualifications held by such of those holding appointments under the headings herein-before referred to.—(The Lord Mus-kerry.)
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: The Government has no objection to the granting of the Return asked for, and I will lay it on the Table as soon as we can get the information.
  On Question, agreed to.
  Return ordered to be laid before the House.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING—SEAMEN'S FOOD AND ACCOMMODATION.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the statement which appeared in The Times of the 13th of November last, stating that it was understood that the late President of the Board of Trade had under consideration and contemplated the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the food and accommodation provided for seamen on merchant ships; whether this statement was correct; and whether, in view of the necessity for such an inquiry, both as regards officers and seamen, the President of the Board of Trade will consider the appointment of a Committee at the earliest possible time. I was very pleased to hear that part of the speech of the noble Earl (the Earl of Dudley) yesterday, in which he suggested offering inducements to seamen to enter the service by improving their condition. I believe that on board the great liners—the Cunard, the P. and O., and other liners like them—the food is all that could be desired, and the accommodation is very good; but, unfortunately, in some other vessels the food is very bad, and the accommodation, both for officers and men, is not fit for dogs. The following is an extract from a letter written by a master—
  "I think our owners want waking up in this matter. They think only about carrying
  688
  capacity when building a ship, and when nearly finished the question arises where to put the officers. I think your eyes would be opened if you saw some of our ships officers' accommodation."
  I have seen some of the accommodation, and it is certainly a disgrace to the country that people should be allowed to be put in such places. There is another matter that requires consideration. Even good food can be spoilt by bad cooking, and I would suggest to the Board of Trade that they should adopt some means to ensure that the men who ship as cooks are really capable of carrying out their duties.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I believe this matter was under consideration at the time Mr. Ritchie left the Board of Trade, but I am not aware that any conclusion had been arrived at. My right hon. friend the present President is of opinion that there is not sufficient ground for a limited inquiry such as is suggested in the question, inasmuch as the facts are already fairly well known. He is, however, considering the advisability of an inquiry of a more general character into questions affecting the interests of the mercantile marine as a whole; but I am not at present in a position to make a more definite statement on the subject.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Five of the clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten of the clock.