Sitting of 24 June 1901

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S HOSPITAL BILL [Lords]. (BY ORDER.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  *THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN, Kent, Tunbridge)said he did not propose to move the rejection of the Bill, but the Charity Commissioners objected entirely to the principle of the proposal, which was to grant the compulsory powers of the Lands Clauses to one charity as against another. St. Bartholomew's Hospital wished to acquire, by compulsory powers, certain lands from Christ's Hospital. The Commissioners believed it to be absolutely without precedent for one charity to be granted compulsory powers against another charity, and they strongly objected to the very heavy cost which would undoubtedly be inflicted on the charity by the use of these powers. The Commissioners would have thought it their duty to oppose the
  1188
  Second Reading, only it was understood that the governors of Christ's Hospital, after the debate of last Friday, had agreed not to oppose the Second Reading or the preamble of the Bill. The view of the Charity Commissioners was that the Bill was quite unnecessary, because they had made it a condition of any sale of the site of Christ's Hospital that a certain part of it—namely, that part desired by St. Bartholomew's—should be assured to St. Bartholomew's by means of pre-emption at a price pro rata to the whole amount given for the site. He hoped that before long some arrangement might be come to between the two charities whereby the expense of the use of compulsory powers might be avoided.
  MR. COHEN, on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, thanked his hon. friend for not opposing the Second Reading of the Bill, the object of which was to enable a great institution to carry on its work more effectively. The governors of Christ's Hospital were very much gratified by the attitude of the Charity Commissioners. He did not think that any legitimate rebuke attached to St. Bartholomew's in the matter.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRADE, ETC.
  Ordered, That the Standing Committee on Trade, etc., have leave to sit till half-past Three of the clock on every day on which the Factory and Workshop Acts Amendment Bill and the Factory and Workshop Acts Consolidation Bill are under consideration.—(Mr. Laurence Hardy.)

  PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following 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.:—
  Harpenden District Gas Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—

  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill [Lords].

  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill [Lords].

  Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords].

  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords].

  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time to-morrow.

  ASPATRIA, SILLOTH, AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  King's consent signified; Bill read the third time, and passed.
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [Lords].
  King's consent signified; Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  MILFORD DOCKS BILL [Lords].
  Road the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE AND GATESHEAD GAS BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  NITRATE RAILWAYS COMPANY BILL [Lords].
  RODGER'S PATENT BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, without amendment.

  SHREWSBURY GAS BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  SUTTON-IN-ASHFIELD URBAN DISTRICT (WATER) BILL [Lords].
  Read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

  SWANSEA HARBOUR BILL.
  WINSFORD URBAN DISTRICT (GAS TRANSFER, ETC.) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.

  BIDEFORD AND CLOVELLY RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL [Lords]. (NOT AMENDED.)
  Considered; to be read the third time.
  CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  NEW SWINDON GAS BILL [Lords].

  PAISLEY POLICE AND PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
  RHYL IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

  STRATFORD-UPON-AVON, TOWCESTER, AND MIDLAND JUNCTION, EAST AND WEST JUNCTION AND EVESHAM, REDDITCH, AND STRATFORD-UPON-AVON JUNCTION RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  BARROW-IN-FURNESS CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.

  BOLTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert the following Clause:—
  Any scheme for the establishment of a superannuation or provident fund under this part of this Act shall not come into operation until the Corporation shall in respect of that fund have been registered under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, and the provisions of that Act (except the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 8 and Section 41) so far as they are applicable and are not inconsistent with the provisions of this part of this Act shall apply as if (a) the Corporation were a society to which that Act applies and were the Trustees of such society; (b) as if the scheme were the rules of such society; (c) as if the superannuation or provident funds were the funds of such society; and (d) as if the contributors to the fund were the members of such society.—(Mr. Strachey.)

  BRISTOL CORPORATION CEMETERY BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.

  HEYWOOD AND MIDDLETON WATER BOARD BILL [Lords].
  MANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL ELECTRIC EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  WISBECH WATER BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  INVERGARRY AND FORT AUGUSTUS RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION.
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway, ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.
  INVERGARRY AND FORT AUGUSTUS RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  "To confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway," presented accordingly; and, under 62 and 63 Vic, c. 47, s. 7 (2), ordered to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 225.]

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP N).
  Sir JOHN BRUNNER reported from the Committee on Group N of Private Bills, That the parties promoting the Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill [South Shields Order] had stated that the evidence of Frederick William Gibbon, of South Shields, physician and surgeon, was essential to their case; and it having been proved that his attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Frederick William Gibbon do attend the said Committee to-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Ordered, That Frederick William Gibbon do attend the Committee on Group N of Private Bills to-morrow, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

  LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to Dublin St. James' Gate Brewery Tramways Bill, with an Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the urban district council of Stratton and Bude to purchase the undertaking of the Bude Harbour and Canal Company, and to construct waterworks and supply water within their district and adjoining parishes, and to make further and better provision for the local government of the district; and for other purposes." Stratton and Bude Improvement Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Easton and Church Hope Railway Company." Easton and Church Hope Railway Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Corporation of Harrogate to construct additional waterworks; and for other purposes." Harrogate Water Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Corporation of Harrogate to construct certain street improvements; and to make further provision in regard to the health and local government of the town." Harrogate Corporation Bill [Lords].
  Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the construction of certain new works for improving the harbour of Dover; the abandonment of certain authorised works; the raising of further moneys by the Dover Harbour Board; and for other purposes." Dover Harbour Bill.
  And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Corporation of the city of Ripon to construct additional waterworks, and to make other provision for the health and good government of the city." Ripon Corporation Bill [Lords].

  STRATTON AND BUDE IMPROVEMENT BILL [Lords].
  EASTON AND CHURCH HOPE RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
  HARROGATE WATER BILL [Lords].

  HARROGATE CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  DOVER HARBOUR BILL [Lords].
  RIPON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  BEER BILL.
  Petition from Alton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION BILL.
  Petition from West Ham, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions for alteration, from Halifax; West Sussex; Colchester; and Bideford; to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (CONTINUATION SCHOOLS) BILL.
  Petition from West Ham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES (REPAYMENT OF LOANS) BILL.
  Petition from West Ham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  JURORS' EXPENSES BILL.
  Petition from West Ham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
  Petition from West Ham, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Beeston; Newbridge-on-Wye; Aston; Walsall; Ullenhall; Rugby; Willoughby; Forest Gate; Woodhouse; Biggleswade; Walthamstow; Tempsford; and Totland Bay; to lie upon the Table.
  SOVEREIGN'S OATH ON ACCESSION BILL.
  Petition from Abergavenny, against; to lie upon the Table.
  NATIONAL GALLERY (ACQUISITION OF ADJACENT LAND) BILL.
  Petition from Westminster, against; referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  INEBRIATES ACTS, 1879 TO 1899 (REGULATIONS FOR STATE INEBRIATE REFORMATORIES).
  Copy presented, of General Regulations for the Management and Discipline of State Inebriate Reformatories, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in pursuance of the Inebriates Act, 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACTS, 1882 TO 1890 (PROCEEDINGS).
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Applications to and Proceedings of the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1890, during the past year [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 224.]
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 15th June, 1901, declaring that George Smith, engine driver, Royal Gun Factory, War Office Department, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION ACT, 1889.
  Copy presented, of Minute sanctioning the subjects to be taught under Clause 8 of the Act, for the county of Cornwall (Seventh Minute), dated 9th June, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2633 to 2635 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Copy presented, of Correspondence respecting Admiralty Works at Gibraltar [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  1. Inquiry into Charities (Administrative County of Durham). Further Return relative thereto [ordered 14th February, 1900; Mr. Grant Lawson]; to be printed. [No. 225.]
  2. Public Records (Admiralty). Copy of Eighth Schedule containing a List and Particulars of classes of Documents which have been removed from the Office of the Commissioners for executing the office of the Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and deposited in the Public Record Office, but not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation therein [by Act].

  APPEALS (HOUSE OF LORDS AND JUDICIAL COMMITTEE).
  Return ordered, "showing for each of the years from 1890 to 1900, inclusive, (1) the number of days on which the House of Lords sat for the disposal of Judicial Business; (2) the number of days on which the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sat for the disposal of Judicial Business; (3) the number of occasions (included in Items 1 and 2) on which the Lords and the Committee both sat at the same time."—(Mr. Blake.)
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICAN WAR—TAXATION ON TRANSVAAL MINES.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of Sir David Barbour's statement in his Report that some of the gold mining companies of the Transvaal paid in 1898 dividends equal to their nominal capital, and that their profits will largely increase in the next few years, he will impose a special war tax on their profits in addition to the 10 per cent. tax for revenue purposes. At the same time I beg to welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to the House.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): I am much obliged to the hon. Member. In reply to his question, I have to say I must ask the hon. Member to refer to the answer given by me to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy on Monday, the 17th June, in which I indicated, as far as I am able, the general views of His Majesty's
  1196
  Government.† I can only add now that of course the larger the profits that may be made by individual miners the more they will pay in accordance with Sir David Barbour's suggestions.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these mines will pay anything further than the 10 per cent. to which I have alluded? Does he refer to any other matter?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: In the answer to which I have referred the hon. Member I did not say anything about 10 per cent. What I did say was that, speaking generally, as regards the main principles laid down by Sir David Barbour in his Report, His Majesty's Government found themselves in agreement with them, but that the whole question would have to be gradually evolved and the details left to Lord Milner to be worked out on the spot.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will bear in mind that if we put a reasonable tax on these mines—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is not at liberty to argue the point.

  CAMPS OF CONCENTRATION—SPIRITUAL MINISTRATIONS.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that for a long period ministers of religion have not been allowed access to many of the camps of concentration in South Africa, and that, in many cases, the prisoners and refugees have been obliged to bury their own dead without the help of such ministers, and whether, under proper regulations, ministers of religion will in future be allowed access to the camps.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE OR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): Dutch Reformed ministers are granted access to the camps in the Orange River Colony and Natal. I have no definite information as to the Transvaal
  † See page 539.

  1197
  and Cape Colony camps, but I have no reason to suppose that they are treated differently. Those in the Orange River Colony are receiving monthly salaries.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: Since when has this permission been granted?
  MR. BRODRICK: I cannot give the hon. Member the exact date.

  VOLUNTEERS FOR ACTIVE SERVICE.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is now in a position to state how many officers and how many non-commissioned officers and members of the Volunteer force joined the first levy, and how many the second levy of the Imperial Yeomanry, and how many in each levy were formerly members of the Yeomanry Cavalry.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): The figures are as follow:—First levy, 1900, Volunteers, 1,145; Yeomanry, 1,898. Second levy, 1901, Volunteers, 3,997; Yeomanry, 618.

  ARMY CONTRACTS—FAIR WAGE RESOLUTION.
  MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any, and if so what, express provision is contained in contracts for supplies for the Army requiring the contractor to pay a rate of wages in accordance with the terms of the Fair Wages Resolution; whether any supervision is exercised by the War Office over contractors as to the rates of wages paid to their workpeople; whether the sub-letting of contracts is permitted, with or without notice to the War Office; and whether he can give any assurance that efforts will be made to procure compliance with the Fair Wages Resolution in all War Office contracts.
  LORD STANLEY: All contracts for supplies of food in the United Kingdom contain the usual clause, viz.—
  "This contract shall not be sub-let or transferred without the written permission of the
  1198
  Director of Army Contracts. The wages paid in the execution of this contract shall be those generally accepted as current in the trade for competent workmen where the work is carried out."
  Sub-letting, other than that customary in the trade, is not permitted except as above. Efforts are always made to secure compliance with the Fair Wages Resolution as soon as any case of non-compliance is brought to the attention of the War Office, otherwise the Department does not intervene, on the assumption that the contractor carries out the conditions of the contract.

  STAFF PAYMASTERS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that the pay of the Chief Paymaster's Army Pay Department has been increased, he will consider the advisability of granting some increase to staff paymasters who have completed ten years service in that rank in view of the responsible additional duties assigned to them in connection with the monthly payments of separation allowance and allotments to the families of soldiers serving with their regiments in South Africa as well as to those of Militia battalions embodied for home service.
  LORD STANLEY: The matter has been carefully considered, and it is not deemed expedient to make any increase of pay in the direction suggested. There is nothing to show that staff paymasters of ten years service are specially affected by the duties referred to. These officers are eligible for charge pay, varying in accordance with the magnitude of their responsibilities, from 2s. 6d. to 5s. per diem.

  RELIGIOUS MINISTRATIONS ON WARSHIPS—THE "DIADEM" FATALITY.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that at the inquest held at Castletown Berehaven relative to the death of a seaman, who met with an accident aboard the "Diadem," a lieutenant of the Navy stated that a Roman Catholic priest was not sent for to minister to the wants of the dying man because a Church of England

  1199
  chaplain was on board the "Diadem," and his services could be availed of if the dying seaman required them, and whether he will make inquiry in this case.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): There appears to be no foundation for the allegation that a lieutenant of the Navy stated that a priest was not sent for because a Church of England chaplain was on board. The evidence of the officer was to the effect that a Roman Catholic chaplain was not sent for because the injured man was not considered to be in immediate danger. Full inquiry has been made into this case, and the circumstances were explained in my answer to the hon. Member on Thursday.

  NAVY CONTRACTS—FRESH MEAT.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the terms of contracts for the supply of fresh meat to the Navy in Ireland permit the substitution of foreign for home-fed meat; and, if so, in what proportion.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The terms of contract for the supply of fresh meat to the Navy are uniform throughout the United Kingdom. The conditions of the contract as to quality are as follows:—
  "The whole of the beef to be delivered under this contract is to be good, fat, well-fed, freshly killed ox or maiden heifer beef, sweet, wholesome, and free from bruises, such as shall be approved by the commanding officer of the vessel supplied as in all respects fit for His Majesty's service, to the entire exclusion of the flesh of any bull, bull stag, cow, or any beast whatever that may have dropped on the road No refrigerated or frozen beef to be supplied."
  There is no further stipulation as to the origin of the meat.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether steps will be taken with a view of preventing the supply of foreign meat to the Navy?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question on the Paper asks for the terms of the contracts, and these have been read out at length.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Yes, but what is done to prevent an evasion of them?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Precautions are taken to see that the terms of existing contracts are carried out, and as a matter of fact they are rigorously carried out.

  MEDITERRANEAN FLEET—LORD CHARLES BERESFORD'S LETTER.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to a letter from Rear-Admiral Lord Charles Beresford, in which the latter states that he has communicated his views upon the want of strength and the want of proper war organisation of the British Fleet in the Mediterranean to the properly constituted authorities in as strong and clear Anglo-Saxon language as he can command; whether such a communication has been received; whether its contents, or any part of it, can be published; and, if not, whether any steps are being taken to remedy the shortcomings which Lord Charles Beresford says cause him extreme anxiety.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: My attention has been drawn to the letter from the Rear-Admiral Second in Command in the Mediterranean, which has appeared in the public press. There is nothing to show that the letter was intended for publication, and it seems highly improbable that the Rear-Admiral would have taken a step so contrary to the discipline of the Navy as to make a public communication with regard to confidential reports transmitted by him in respect of the Fleet in which he is serving. All official communications from the Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, as well as any communications from the Rear-Admiral and Captains of the Mediterranean Fleet, which the Commander-in-Chief of that Fleet has thought fit to transmit, have been carefully considered by the Admiralty. They are of a confidential nature, and there is no intention of making them public.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I wish to ask my hon. friend a supplementary question—whether, with regard to the regular communications to which the hon. Member has adverted, the I Government will take into consideration

  1201
  the condition of the defences and the number of the garrisons at Gibraltar, Malta, and Egypt.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the question.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The answer is—Yes.

  IMPERIAL COURT OF APPEAL.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the conference of colonial delegates in reference to the Imperial Court of Appeal, there will be any representatives from Ceylon, the Straits Settlements, and other Crown colonies.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir William Smith, the present Chief Justice of British Guiana, who has also served as a judge at the Gold Coast and in Cyprus, has been selected to represent all the colonies other than those under responsible government.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any representations on this subject from Ceylon or other Crown colonies asking for direct representation?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; but I have had suggestions from various colonies that it might be desirable in the interests of Crown colonies that they should be represented.

  COURTS OF FINAL APPEAL.
  MR. BLAKE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether, in view of the contemplated legislation with regard to the courts of final appeal for the Empire, he will consent to treat as unopposed the motion for a Return entitled Appeals (House of Lords and Judicial Committee) on this day's Paper.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): Yes, Sir; there is no objection to it.

  INDIAN FINANCE.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India
  1202
  whether he can say when the usual explanatory Memorandum on Indian Finance will probably be issued.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): The explanatory Memorandum on Indian Finance is in the hands of the printers, but some of the information has only just been received from India. I hope that it will be ready for delivery to Members in two or three weeks.

  CHINA AND THE OPIUM DUTY.
  *SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been directed to the declaration made in the opium debate in 1891 by the right hon. Member for North-east Manchester, who was then Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that if the Chinese Government thought proper to raise the duty on opium to a prohibitive extent, or shut out the article altogether, this country would not expend £1 in powder and shot, or lose the life of a soldier, to force opium upon the Chinese, and whether Great Britain has formally informed the Powers that she will not consent to China's increasing the duty on imports of opium and rice.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount CRANBORNE, Rochester): My attention has been directed to the declaration of my right hon. friend, to which reference is made in the question. As I have already stated in answer to the hon. Member for the Holmfirth Division of Yorkshire, the question of an increase in the Chinese duty on opium has not arisen.

  FRENCH RAILWAY FROM TONKING FRONTIER TO YUNNAN-FU.
  MR. NORMAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to afford the House any information concerning the proposed French railway from Haiphong to Yunnan-fu, particularly with regard to its possible prolongation to the Yangtsze, and the conditions governing its protection by French troops.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The French Government obtained from China in 1898

  1203
  a concession for a railway from the Tonking frontier to Yunnan-fu. Its construction has not yet commenced, though surveys were carried out previous to the recent troubles. We have no further information, and we are not aware of any agreement authorising the employment of French troops for the protection of the line.

  ANATOLIAN RAILWAY.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that it is not proposed to present Papers with reference to railways in Asia Minor generally, he will be able to lay upon the Table Papers relating to the Anatolian Railway only.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: A consular report will shortly be issued which contains information relating to Turkish railways and some particulars in regard to the Anatolian Railway.

  TURKISH TARIFFS AND RAILWAY CONCESSIONS.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any proposal has been made by the Turkish Government to increase the tariff charges on goods imported into Asia Minor; whether he has any official information showing that such increased taxation would fall chiefly on British merchandise, and that the Turkish Government intends to apply the proceeds of the increased taxation to promoting the construction of a railway from Konia to the Persian Gulf; and whether, in view of the commercial and political interests of Great Britain, His Majesty's Government will refuse to consent to any increase in the tariff on British goods imported into Asia Minor.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: With regard to the two first paragraphs, there is no further information to add to the answer given to the noble Lord the Member for the Cricklade Division of Wiltshire, on the 18th instant, in reply to a similar question.† The proposal of the Turkish Government was that there should be an increase in the tariff for the
  † See page 708.
  1204
  whole Turkish Empire, and was not confined to Asia Minor, and it made no reference to the railway from Konia to the Persian Gulf.

  SLAVERY IN ZANZIBAR AND PEMBA.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are proposing to reconstruct or abolish the system of paying compensation to the owners for slaves freed in the Islands of Zanzibar and Pemba, as recommended by Mr. Commissioner Last in his Despatch of 10th January, 1901.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Government are not proposing to take steps in the direction indicated. Such action lies, in the first instance, within the competence of the Zanzibar Government, and it appears from the Memorandum, printed at page 33 of Africa, No. 4, 1901, that Sir Lloyd Matthews contemplates advising the reduction of the average compensation by about one-half.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: Then, is not the recommendation to be adopted?
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The hon. Member could not have heard the first part of my answer, in which I say "the Government are not proposing to take steps in the direction indicated."

  NATIVE LABOUR IN EAST AFRICA.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is intended to draw supplementary labour to the Islands of Pemba and Zanzibar from the British Protectorate of Uganda and British East Africa, under contracts for periods of three years, as recommended by Sir Lloyd Matthews last January; and, if so, what steps will be taken to secure for the natives full freedom in regard to entering into a contract, and full knowledge of the effect of any contract which may be entered into, and what arrangements will be made to secure for them satisfactory terms and conditions.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: As was stated in the reply to the hon. Member

  1205
  for the Chesterfield Division on June 18th, His Majesty's Government do not, as at present advised, propose to act on the recommendation of Sir Lloyd Matthews.

  RED SEA LIGHTS.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether His Majesty's Government are aware of the cause of the delay in the commencement by the Turkish Government of the construction of four new lights at the southern end of the Red Sea; whether the light dues surrendered by the Egyptian Government for this purpose and accumulated for the last ten years can be made available if a want of funds in the Ottoman Treasury is the reason for the continued danger to navigation caused by the absence of these lights; whether His Majesty's Government are using their best influence to procure the fulfilment of an undertaking entered into more than two years ago; what has occurred to delay the erection of a light on the Island of Socotra for which the Under Secretary of State for War in 1899 stated that the Government of India had been requested to prepare plans, taking into consideration the fact that the erection of this light has been regarded as important for many years, and that a shipwreck occurred in 1897 for want of it.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Government are informed that the construction of the four lights in the Red Sea will be commenced early in November. The lighting apparatus is being constructed, and will be ready in September. In regard to the light on Socotra, the Government of Bombay was unable to submit plans and estimates in a complete form until the end of last year. These are now under the consideration of the Trinity House and the Board of Trade.

  GIBRALTAR AND THE COAL TAX.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether representations have been made on the part of the local community of Gibraltar to the effect that their undertaking to pay a portion of the cost of the commercial mole was largely
  1206
  based on the existence of a considerable trade in coal, which they now consider to be injuriously affected by the proposed coal tax; and what answer, if any, has been given to these representations.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): I have received through the Colonial Office communications from the Gibraltar Chamber of Commerce urging that the duty on coal should not apply to coal exported to Gibraltar. I cannot trace any such representation as that stated in the question, and I do not think that the duty could by any possibility affect the power of Gibraltar to fulfil the arrangement made in this matter.

  COAL DUTY INQUIRY.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now received any reply from the Parliamentary Committee of the Mining Association of Great Britain to his inquiry as to whether they would support an extended investigation into the coal question; and, if so, whether he can state the tenour of it; and whether he has addressed similar inquiries to the representatives of colliery workmen, to chambers of commerce, coal-exporting ports, and to coal owners not connected with the Mining Association of Great Britain; whether, with the view of preventing an unsatisfactory conclusion from an inquiry confined to the probable effect of the coal duty, he can give an assurance that the investigation will be by Royal Commission and of a comprehensive scope; and whether he can before Clause 3 of the Finance Bill is reached give the terms of reference to, and the composition of, the Commission or Committee.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have received a reply, which I have no doubt the hon. Member is acquainted with, as it appears to have been printed and circulated to the various local associations. I can only say that it does not seem to me satisfactory. I have addressed no inquiries on the subject to the other bodies named, who have not communicated with me. The answer to the second and third paragraphs of the question is in the negative.

  THE "PRIMROSE HILL" INQUIRY.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any complaints as to the way in which the president of the court conducted the inquiry into the loss of the "Primrose Hill," and as to his behaviour towards the solicitor who appeared On behalf of the parents of some of the drowned apprentices, and who at the conclusion of the case made a protest; and whether he can take any steps towards ensuring that those who have a right to be represented shall have the means of eliciting the essential facts of the circumstances attending a loss such as that of the vessel referred to.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): Yes, Sir; and the hon. Member himself asked me a question on the subject on the 14th of this month. I have nothing to add to my answer then† except that I have no power to take any such steps as those suggested.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the serious nature of this case, in which the representatives of the relatives of the deceased men were refused permission to address the court, the Board of Trade will seriously consider the advisability of securing the fullest representation in all cases of this kind?
  *MR. RITCHIE: I am not the President of the Board of Trade, and if I were I should not have the power to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Any person may have a right to be present, but there is a technical point—namely, that a solicitor representing parties has no right to address the court unless with the leave of the judge.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considers that a desirable state of affairs?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I will call attention to the matter on the Vote for the right hon. Gentleman's salary.
  † See page 419.

  BIRKENHEAD LICENSING CASE.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a case (Superintendent of Police v. Hughes), decided on the 13th instant by the Birkenhead county justices, in which an executrix of a deceased publican, who was carrying on the latter's business prior to obtaining a transfer of the licence, was summoned for two offences on licensed premises—namely, permitting drunkenness and permitting gaming; whether he is aware that the case was dismissed upon the ground that the defendant was not a licensed person within the meaning of the Licensing Act, 1872, Section 17, and that, although entitled to sell, she could not be convicted of any offence under any of the penal sections of, that Act; and, seeing that this point is a casus omissus in the statute referred to, whether he will introduce legislation to remedy this defect in the existing law.
  *MR. RITCHIE: I understand that the facts of the case are as indicated in the question, and it seems to be a case which would claim consideration on any opportunity of amending the licensing law generally. But I can make no promise on the point.

  IMMIGRATION OF ALIENS.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the foreign population of the United Kingdom received last year a permanent addition of upwards of 14,000 aliens, in addition to 15,000 foreign sailors coming as passengers, and of whom no record is kept when they leave as members of the crews of outgoing British ships, and that there was an increase of over 800 per cent. in the number of Roumanians, of 39 per cent. in the number of Italians, and of 25 per cent. in the number of Russians and Poles arriving in this country, mainly for settlement in the East End of London; and seeing that 19,535 of these alien immigrants were in such a condition hat they had to be relieved by the Jewish Board of Guardians and the Russo-Jewish

  1209
  Conjoint Committee, and 2,015, including 1,100 Russians and Poles, had to be supported by the poor rates of London, whether His Majesty's Government will deal with this matter, having regard to the difficulty of housing our own population in east and south London.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): The figures in the first paragraph of the question are approximately correct, but it cannot be stated that the Roumanians, Italians, Russians, and Poles arriving in this country came mainly for settlement in east London, a large number of them being known to have proceeded abroad. The figure (19,535) stated in the question as the number relieved by certain voluntary Jewish organisations appears to represent the total number of persons, native and alien, assisted by those organisations during the last year. The number of aliens who arrived in this country in 1900 and were assisted in that year by the agencies referred to may be estimated at about 4,000. During the year 1900 relief was given to 2,015 aliens (including 1,100 Russians and Poles) by London boards of guardians, but these figures included many persons who had arrived in this country in former years, and more than half of them received medical relief only. I am unable to make any promise as to legislation.

  TREATMENT OF ALIENS BY THE UNITED STATES.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is in a position to state how many of the aliens entering Great Britain last year, nominally en route for the United States, were refused passages by Transatlantic consular agents and steamship authorities at the ports of embarkation as undesirable settlers on American soil, and how many were refused admission at American ports under the Immigration Laws of Congress; and whether he is aware that these persons condemned as unfit by America were left in or thrown back upon Great Britain, their own countries also refusing them passports of re-entry.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am unable to give figures as to passages to the United States refused by steamship companies. No Transatlantic consular agents have any power to refuse such passages. During 1900, 139 aliens arriving from the United Kingdom were refused admission to the United States under the Immigration Laws, but I cannot say how many of these entered Great Britain last year. This figure includes the persons rejected under the Contract Labour Law. I have no information confirming the statement in the last paragraph of the question as to the inability of these aliens to return to their native countries, and the information in my possession points in the other direction.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Have not Transatlantic consular agents at Liverpool power to refuse such passages?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I believe not. That, at any rate, is the information I have received.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the Labour Gazette, published by his department, in which it is stated that the number of emigrants sent back to this country shows a very considerable increase? What has become of them?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot say.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Does the right hon. Gentleman know how many went to Leeds?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir.

  FOOD SUPPLY OF MERCHANT SEAMEN—THE "MANCHESTER CORPORATION."
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the President of he Board of Trade whether he is aware hat fifteen of the crew of the British steamship "Manchester Corporation" were sentenced by the magistrates at Montreal for refusing duty in conseqence of not being supplied with sufficient food; that they were supplied with eight pounds of beef, three pounds of

  1211
  which was bone, for their dinner, and asked the captain for more, which he refused; whether he is aware that these men requested permission to go on shore to lodge a complaint to the proper authority, which the captain would not allow, and that the men then refused to work; that the magistrates ordered the men on board and to pay all costs or go to prison for four weeks with hard labour; and whether it is his intention to recommend to His Majesty's Government the advisability of appointing a Committee to inquire into the question of the supply of food to seamen on British vessels.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My attention has been called to the case referred to by the hon. Member, and I have been in communication with the owners of the "Manchester Corporation" and with the Shipping Federation. The master of the vessel has also attended at the Board of Trade to explain the circumstances of the case. I understand that the accuracy of the facts with regard to the men's food as stated in the question is denied on behalf of the owners. It appears that the fifteen men demanded to be taken on shore in a body to see the consul, and that, having regard to the exigencies of the ship's work, permission was refused. As the men refused duty they were proceeded against. I have seen the official certificate of proceedings at Quebec, from which it appears that they were convicted for refusing to obey a lawful command, and were each sentenced to four weeks imprisonment. This occurred on the 13th May. Ultimately the men agreed to resume duty, and were released from gaol on the 15th May, rejoining the ship. In reply to the last paragraph of the question, I am considering the advisability of appointing a Committee to consider questions affecting the interests of the mercantile marine as a whole, but I am not yet prepared to make any definite statement on the subject.
  MR. NANNETTI: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether when the inquiry is held he will take steps to get the opinion of seamen who are interested in this matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not prepared to make any statement at present.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say what form this Committee will take?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As I have said, I am not in a position to make any definite statement on the subject.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will it be a Parliamentary Committee?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman has already said twice that he is not prepared to make any further statement on the subject.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: But may I ask the right hon. Gentleman—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must accept the answer. If he wishes to ask any further question he must put it down.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: OS course, Sir, I bow to your ruling, but I submit that my question arises out of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! When a right hon. Gentleman has stated that he is not prepared to make any further statement, it is out of order to persist in asking other questions.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Very well, Mr. Speaker, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the question when the Vote for the right hon. Gentleman's salary comes on.

  LASCARS ON P. AND O. BOATS.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg, to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the judgment of Mr. Justice Mathews, in the King's Bench, to the effect that under the Merchant Shipping Act lascars and Europeans must be treated alike with regard to the crew space; and whether the Board of Trade intend to take any action in this matter.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to the judgment to which the hon. Member refers, but leave has been given to appeal, and, in these circumstances, I am not

  1213
  prepared to make any statement in the matter at the present moment.
  MR. FLYNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what court it will be taken?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am unable to answer that question.

  AGRICULTURAL INSTRUCTION.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he intends to transfer the powers of his Board in respect of agricultural instruction to the Board of Education, or if he intends that the Board of Agriculture shall undertake the organisation and coordination of such instruction throughout England and Wales.
  The following Question also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. WALTER PALMER: To ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can inform the House whether it is proposed, in accordance with Clause 2 of the Board of Education Act, 1899, to transfer to the Board of Education the powers of the Board of Agriculture in matters appearing to relate to education; and, if such transfer is intended, whether he can state when it will take place.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY, Preston): I am not prepared to transfer elsewhere any part of the existing duties of the Board of Agriculture, the functions of which, especially with regard to agricultural instruction, might, on the contrary, with advantage be enlarged. I am unable to state as yet in detail how this can be brought about, but I attach great importance to the necessity for extending the work already done by the Board in collating and publishing the results of experiments and the most recent discoveries bearing on agriculture both in this country and abroad, and also to the adva tage to be gained by friendly co-operation between the Board and county councils in devising the best methods of instruction and experiment.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION—SCHOOL BOARDS AND MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, in view of the fact that the rate fund raised under the Technical Instruction Acts is not applicable for the maintenance of instruction in the obligatory and standard subjects of the Whitehall Codes, whether he can explain how school boards are to be assisted in the instruction of adult pupils in elementary subjects out of the moneys at present at the disposal of the municipal authorities.
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST, Cambridge University): I am unable to answer this question, because, as I explained last week, I cannot accept the legal opinion upon which it is based.
  DR. MACNAMARA: May I ask whether the question will be referred to the law officers of the Crown?
  SIR J. GORST: I must have notice of that question.

  INSPECTION OF SCHOOLS.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will state the number of schools in respect of which applications for inspection have been received under Section 3 of the Board of Education Act, 1899, and how many of such have been inspected.
  MR. HANBURY (for Sir JOHN GORST): There have been applications from ninety-nine specific schools; of these twenty-four have been inspected, twenty are now arranged for, fifty-five are still under consideration. Besides this, applications have been received from county councils for the inspection of all their schools, which are under consideration.

  WELSH COUNTY SCHOOLS.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether Subsection 2 of Clause 6 in the Education Bill, introduced by the Government this

  1215
  session, would enable an urban district council in Wales or Monmouthshire under any conditions to claim from the education authority any share in the management or control of a county school (situated within such urban district) established under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act of 1889.
  SIR J. GORST: I do not think that such a claim could be made under Subsection 2 of Clause 6 against the will of the education authority. The point, however, will be considered when the Bill is in Committee.

  FLINT TELEPHONE EXCHANGE.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will ascertain what is the cause of the delay in establishing telephonic communication with Flint, and whether it is possible to expedite the completion of the work.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): The Postmaster General understands that the National Telephone Company have for a considerable time been making arrangements to open an exchange in the town of Flint; but he has no information as to the date of opening, nor is the matter one in which he has any control over the action of the company.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: Does the Postmaster General ever make friendly representations to the National Telephone Company when delays occur in establishing telephonic communication?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

  BUENOS AYRES PARCELS POST.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that all parcels from the United Kingdom arriving in Buenos Ayres by parcels post are not delivered, or even allowed to be inspected to see what they contain, until a tax of one dollar is paid on each; whether the exaction of the one dollar
  1216
  tax, not as import duty, is in accordance with the Postal Union regulations, and, if not, whether the British Government will make a representation to the Argentine Government with a view to its discontinuance; and whether in any case he will warn the British public that the receivers of parcels sent by parcels post to Buenos Ayres will have to pay the sum of one dollar on each, in addition to the import duty, before they can find out what the parcel contains.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is aware that in the Argentine Republic a stamp duty of one peso (about 1s. 9d.) is payable by the addressees of parcels received from abroad. This duty is said by the Argentine Post Office to be a fiscal and not a postal charge. The British Post Office is not a party to the Parcel Post Convention of the Postal Union. Nothing, however, either in the regulations of that Convention, or in those governing the parcels post between this country and the Argentine Republic, restricts the right to impose fiscal charges. In the forthcoming edition of the quarterly Post Office Guide the public will be warned of the imposition of this duty.

  THE MANDAT CARTE.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has yet come to a decision as to the introduction in this country of the mandat carte system, which works well on the Continent.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The introduction of the mandat carte into this country would be attended by practical difficulties; and the Postmaster General does not at present see sufficient reason for setting up a new system of transmitting money through the agency of the Post Office side by side with the existing money order and postal order systems.

  COMPARATIVE COST OF FRENCH AND ENGLISH MONEY ORDERS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that 5s. can be sent

  1217
  by money order from France to England for 1d., but that the cost of sending 5s. by money order from England to France is 6d.; and can he explain why 500 per cent. more is charged here than in France.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. The French Post Office makes a uniform charge of 1 per cent. The British charges are framed with more regard to the cost of the service, which is not proportioned to the amount of the order. For sums under £4 the advantage is with the French remitter. Above that amount it is with the English.

  TELEGRAPHIC MONEY ORDERS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the money notified in each telegraph money order is brought to the residence of the person for whom it is intended in India and other countries, and that time and inconvenience are saved by this arrangement; and whether he will take steps for the introduction of this practice in the United Kingdom, or whether he will give it a trial.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is aware that in India and other countries, where ordinary money orders are paid at the houses of the persons in whose favour they are issued, telegraph money orders also are so paid. But he is not prepared to introduce into this country an arrangement which would be confined to telegraph money orders, and to which there are practical objections.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the system works well in India?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I think there are great recommendations in favour of it.

  TELEGRAPHISTS' EFFICIENCY BARRIER.
  MR. WALLACE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that, although the
  1218
  Norfolk-Hanbury conference definitely stated that technical knowledge was not to be required of telegraphists before passing the efficiency barrier, operators in the Edinburgh telegraph office have been called upon to produce evidence of technical skill before being allowed to proceed beyond the barrier; and whether the Postmaster General can state the reasons for this departure from the pledge given to the men in August, 1897, by the Duke of Norfolk and the right hon. Member who was then Secretary to the Treasury.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The regulations do not prescribe that any technical examination must be passed before a telegraphist can pass the efficiency bar, and if it is found on inquiry that there has been any misapprehension on this subject in Edinburgh, steps will at once be taken to put the matter right.

  NEW POSTAGE STAMPS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the designs and colours of the new postage stamps have been approved; and whether, if the present contractors refuse to print penny red stamps, as in every other country and colony of the Postal Union, he will give other printers the opportunity of printing these stamps of equally good quality and at less cost.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The designs of the new postage stamps generally have been approved, but the colour of the new penny stamp has not been finally settled. There is no question of any refusal on the part of the contractors to print a red stamp.

  QUEEN VICTORIA'S FUNERAL DAY—EXTRA PAYMENT FOR POSTMEN EMPLOYED.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, having regard to the fact that 2nd February, 1901, was ordered by the Postmaster General to be regarded as a bank holiday among Post Office employees, and to the rule that those clerks who do not get a bank holiday as a day of leave

  1219
  of absence receive another day in lieu, whether he can state why this practice has not been carried into effect at Southampton, Birmingham, and other offices with reference to 2nd February.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General decided that, while those of his staff who were required to perform their ordinary duties on the 2nd February, the day of Her late Majesty's funeral, should receive extra payment, the alternative of holiday at another time could not be allowed, because, in his judgment, that was not a suitable way of observing an occasion of public mourning.

  SCOTTISH CENSUS.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he has observed that the Return of the Population and Valuation of Counties, Burghs, and Parishes in Scotland just issued is based upon the Census of 1891; and whether, while the types are standing, he will agree to a corresponding Return based on the Census of 1901.
  *THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. C. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton): The Return in question is issued triennially in advance of parish and county council elections, and it was thought inexpedient to wait till the new Census Returns are available; a revised Return incorporating the population figures for 1901 will be issued as soon as possible.

  ACHILL POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
  DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that there is no Sunday delivery of letters at Achill, county Mayo, and that inconvenience to the inhabitants is caused thereby; and would he see that in future letters and papers are delivered on Sundays.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The question of establishing a Sunday post to Achill, county Mayo, has been considered, but in view of the heavy deficit on the present service, the Postmaster General regrets that he would
  1220
  not be justified in sanctioning additional expense for the purpose of providing a Sunday service.

  BALTIMORE MAILS.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Post master General, whether he is aware that the mails carried from Cork to Baltimore by the train leaving Cork at 11.50 a.m., arriving at Skibbereen at 2 p.m., do not reach Baltimore (a distance of nine miles) until the next day, that this mail mainly consists of letters from England which are of importance to fish buyers, and that the letters from Balti more are conveyed by mail car at 4 p.m. each day, though a train leaves at 5.35 p.m.; and whether, in view of the fact that the line of railway from Skib bereen to Baltimore was constructed by the Government at a cost of £56,000 to promote the fishing industry, he will make arrangements with the Cork, Bandon, and South Coast Railway Company for the conveyance of the mails to and from Baltimore.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The total amount of correspondence for Baltimore is not large, and as the cost of the present service is high in proportion to it, additional expense for affording a second service in the day would not, as the hon. Member has already been informed, be warranted. Further inquiry is being made as regards the hour at which the night mail is despatched from Baltimore. Proposals have been made by the railway company with regard to the night mail service, but their demands have hitherto been such as the Postmaster General could not entertain.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has any objection to grant the Return relating to the Royal Irish Constabulary which stands on the Notice Paper for this day.*
  *The following is the Return referred to in the question:—
  "Royal Irish Constabulary.—Return showing the names, ages, religion, rank, and length
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): There are no official records at headquarters in Dublin which would give the information desired by the hon. Member, and the preparation of the Return, extending over so long a period, would entail a very considerable amount of labour on the part of the constabulary throughout Ireland, as well as on the Clerks of the Crown and Peace. I hesitate to impose this labour unless satisfied that the Return will serve some useful public purpose. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to communicate with me in the matter.

  KILLAGLIN (CO. KERRY) LINE.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction has been directed to the increase in the amount of the baronial guarantee in connection with the Killaglin, county Kerry, line; whether he is aware that this baronial guarantee has gone on increasing year after year, notwithstanding the fact that the traffic and receipts have also increased; and whether, having regard to the effect of the working of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company on the trade and prosperity of Killarney, he will cause the Department to compel an independent audit of the accounts of the line, at which the Kerry County Council can be represented, with the view of ascertaining the reasons for this increase in the baronial guarantee, and also so as to bring about the exclusion of the Killarney district from the payment of any portion of it.
  of service of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who were injured while on duty during the past twenty years; the name of the county to which each member was regularly attached, and the name of the county in which the injury was inflicted; the amount of compensation claimed and awarded in each ease, and the name of the public authority, court of law, or otherwise, which made the award; the source from which the payment was made; the nature and extent of the injuries, and how caused; the duties, whether ordinary or special, and their nature, upon which such members were engaged when injured; the names of members retired as result of injuries, and the amount of pension, if any, in each case; the names and similar particulars of unsuccessful claimants, and the amounts claimed."
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Department of Agriculture has no interest in or control over the line of railway referred to, and has no power to take action in the direction suggested in the third paragraph of the question. I am informed by the Commissioner of Valuation that the valuation of the railway was increased by a sum of about £1,000 in 1899, the former valuation having been merely placed on the land during construction and the buildings. This increase in valuation might affect the liability of the baronial guarantors to the extent of £350, but it would at the same time reduce the rates in the rating area through which the line passes by the same amount. Moreover, against this increased liability the guarantors last year received a bonus of £862 under the provisions of Section 58 of the Local Government Act.

  WESTPORT POLICE ARRANGEMENTS.
  DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there is a police hut at Slinann and also at Moyna, in the Westport, county Mayo, police district; and that the distance between the two is only three miles; and, seeing that there is a police barrack between and equidistant from these huts, and as the district is crimeless, would he see that the huts are removed and the police withdrawn.
  MR. WYNDHAM: These huts were established for the purpose of preventing crime, and, in the opinion of the local authorities responsible, cannot at present be removed with safety.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the police at these huts have for a long time had nothing to do?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no such information.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: But it is the fact.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Could not some of them be sent to Queen's Island, Belfast?

  WESTPORT LAND SALES.
  DR. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant

  1223
  of Ireland whether any lands in the Kilmeena and Kilmaclatter districts of the Westport Union have been offered for sale by the landlord to the Congested Districts Board; and, if so, on what terms, and could he state when the purchase of such lands will be completed.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This transaction has not yet been completed. It would, therefore, be inexpedient to disclose the terms proposed on either side.

  BELFAST CONSTABULARY EQUIPMENT.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Royal Irish Constabulary in Belfast carry arms of any kind, and, if not, whether he will direct a change in this rule in view of the fact that the Royal Ir sh Constabulary carry arms in all other parts of Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Since the year 1886 the baton has been the only weapon carried by the Royal Irish Constabulary in Belfast, except that during some disturbances in 1898 selected policemen were, by order of the Inspector General, armed for a short time with revolvers for their protection. Rifles are not carried in the streets except for ceremonial purposes, such as guards of honour. The Constabulary in Belfast have rifles and revolvers in their barracks, and are kept up in their knowledge of the use of firearms. The system as regards the arming of police in Belfast does not differ essentially from that in other towns in Ireland, as batons are the only weapons carried by men on ordinary town duty.

  IRISH EDUCATION REGULATIONS.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will consider whether some alteration can be made in the new regulations of the Board of National Education under which all children, including infants under ten years of age, are obliged to be at the school at ten a.m., and are not allowed to leave the school premises, unless they obtain a doctor's certificate, till 3 p.m.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that there is no such rule of the Commissioners
  1224
  as is referred to. On the contrary, managers of schools have been given a discretion under new regulations to permit infant children to leave before the termination of the regular school hours. The hour of attendance at school in the mornings is fixed by the local managers, and not by any rule or regulation of the Board.

  REEVES ESTATE, SKIBBEREEN.
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a farmer, named Cornelius Sullivan, of Kilnaclasha, on the Reeves Estate, near Skibbereen, has made several ineffectual attempts to dispose of the interest in his farm within the past few years; is he aware of the circumstances which prevent the sale being carried into effect, and will he endeavour to remove any impediment placed by the landlord to prevent the tenant from exercising the right of free sale in the open market.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Government have no power whatever to interfere in the manner suggested.
  MR. SHEEHAN: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the number of cases in the West Riding of county Cork in which tenants are similarly placed?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I cannot.
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information as to the difference between the terms arranged by the Land Commission, on which the landlord can exercise his right of pre-emption, and the amount offered to the tenant in the open market?
  MR. WYNDHAM: No useful purpose can be served by discussing that subject.
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: Is not the amount at which the landlord is allowed to exercise his right of pre-emption less than one-third of the sum offered to the tenant in the open market?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am not prepared to discuss that aspect of the question.

  1225
  As I have said, the Government have no right to interfere.
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: It is so, nevertheless.

  INCENDIARY FIRES IN SLIGO.
  MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in the cases of alleged malicious burning of heather in Sligo county which were heard at the recent quarter sessions in Sligo the solicitor to the county council, who is also the Crown solicitor for the same county, has publicly announced his attention of appealing from the judge's decision to the Court of Assize; and whether he proposes to take steps against the Irish newspapers who have commented on these cases while still pending.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): At the request of my right hon. friend I will reply to this question. The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. My attention has not been called to any comments on these cases calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice. No proceedings will, therefore, be instituted by the Crown, but if the parties interested are of a different opinion they can proceed by the same methods as are open to the Crown.

  LOUGHREA HEATHER BURNING CASE.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if his attention has been called to an application for compensation made by William Murphy, of Cupenagh, at the recent quarter sessions held in Loughrea before his Honour Judge Anderson, for malicious burning of heather and grass on the 3rd May last; whether he is aware that the police swore that, during the course of their investigation into the cause of the alleged outrage, several parties, including two farmers named Clarke and Slattery, specifically stated that they saw William Murphy and his family set fire to the said lands, at the time and date sworn to in an information by Murphy that the malicious injury had been done
  1226
  to his property; whether his Honour Judge Anderson dismissed the application; and, considering the fact that Murphy was the principal witness in other malicious injury applications put forward by the landlord for the burning of mountain heather, over which Murphy acts as gamekeeper, and which were also dismissed by the Judge, whether he will direct criminal proceedings to be instituted against Murphy for swearing a false affidavit, upon which was grounded his application for malicious injury.
  MR. ATKINSON: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative; the claim was rejected by the county court judge. No evidence was given by the police to the effect stated in the second paragraph, nor were the police examined at the hearing of the claim, but statements have been made to them by three persons (including Clarke and Slattery), who allege they saw Murphy set fire to the lands. It is also the fact that Murphy was the principal witness in another similar claim for compensation, which was dismissed on the same occasion. The question of Murphy's prosecution is under consideration.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT—IRISH TRADES CONGRESS RESOLUTION.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has received a resolution passed at the Irish Trades Congress last month calling on the Government to so amend the Workmen's Compensation Act as to include all wage earners within its provisions, and urging that more efficient inspection should be exercised by the Home Office in order to secure as far as possible security from accident to the workers; also that all plant used in the execution of painters' work should be deemed scaffolding, and that the thirty feet limit should be removed from the Act; and whether the Government purpose this session to endeavour to give effect to this resolution.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir, I have seen the resolution. We have never supposed that the present position of this Act was to be its final position. I have no further statement to make on the subject.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: May I ask the Chief Secretary when the Report of the Land Commission will be laid on the Table.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I must ask notice of that question.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can arrange to take Irish Estimates on Friday next, and to put down first for discussion on that day the Votes for Supreme Court of Judicature and the Chief Secretary's Department.
  MR. MACARTNEY: At the same time may I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can arrange to take Irish Estimates on Friday next, and to put down first for discussion on that day the Vote for the Chief Secretary's Department.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary informs me that it is necessary, as I understand it, to take money under the Education Estimate in order to carry on the necessary work of education in Ireland, at a very early date. This matter calls for examination, and if it appears to be absolutely necessary I will put down the Education Vote first on Friday next. As regards the second Vote to be taken, I have an application from the hon. Gentleman that the Judicature Vote should be taken, and also an application from my right hon. friend the Member for South Antrim in favour of the Chief Secretary's Vote. There appears to be an agreement that one of these Votes should be second and the other third, and I will endeavour to make the most satisfactory arrangement I can between them, but I see no reason why both these Votes should not be got through as well as the Education Vote.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I say that the order in which I ask the Votes to be taken—namely, the Judicature Vote first—is the order desired by the overwhelming majority of the Irish Members? With regard to taking the
  1228
  Education Vote first, may I ask whether it is not the practice to settle the order of the Votes in accordance with the wishes of the Members from the country concerned, and whether, if the Education Vote is taken first, it will not mean the absolute breakdown of that arrangement, because it will necessitate the discussion of various matters which will postpone the consideration of the other Votes, which the Irish Members on both sides desire to be taken?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman did not state on Tuesday last that he would endeavour to arrange that the Votes be taken in the order of precedence desired by the Irish Members? And did I not then publicly ask him to put the Judicature Vote first?
  MR. MACARTNEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the demand of his supporters on this side of the House?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is quite true, of course, that if hon. Gentlemen on this side are in a minority, their views should not be ignored because they are in a minority, but as regards the questions put by the hon. Gentleman opposite and by my right hon. friend, as the House knows, I have always desired to put the Votes in the order which would meet the convenience of the House, having regard to the financial necessities of the administration. I will make careful inquiries into the matter, and if it is necessary to take the Education Vote I am afraid it must be done.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Has the right hon. Gentleman been informed, notwithstanding the Vote on Account, which was taken to cover several months, that it is necessary to get this Vote on Friday next? Of course it stands to reason it is not.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There can be no controversy about it. I will inquire, and the Treasury will inform me whether it is necessary or not. It may be convenient, but if it is not absolutely necessary I will not press it. If it is absolutely necessary there is no choice in the matter.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: That is an indication of the absurdity of the system.

  1229
  The right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly stated that he is prepared to leave the order of the Votes, not to his own side, but to the Opposition—to a Committee in which the Opposition would be in a majority. Now, if for the convenience of a Department that can be broken through, it shows the absurdity of the whole arrangement. It would be better to leave the Government to take the Votes on their own responsibility.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have suggested more than once the desirability of leaving the decision of how the Votes should be taken to a Committee on which the Government would be in a minority, but we know well enough that such a Committee, if Treasury reasons or reasons of administration affecting a great Department rendered it necessary that some particular Vote should be taken, would agree to give that Vote precedence.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether the statement in The Times of Saturday, relating to an interview between the right hon. Gentleman and a deputation representing the London and County Brewers is substantially correct; whether the deputation urged the unfairness of sending the Beer Bill to a Standing Committee for a variety of controversial reasons, and strongly recommended its reference to a Select Committee, thereby rendering any chance of the Bill's passing into law this session practically hopeless; whether Mr. Cosmo Bonsor, who is stated to have introduced the deputation, is now serving in a judicial capacity on a Royal Commission which has before it a number of controversial questions of a similar character; and whether, if that is the case, Mr. Bonsor's services on that Commission are to be continued.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is quite true that on Friday last Mr. Cosmo Bonsor and some other gentlemen connected with the brewing interest called upon me in connection with the procedure to be adopted on Wednesday next, when the motion before the House will be that the Beer Bill be referred to the Grand Committee. I informed them, as I should have informed any
  1230
  other deputation on any side of this question, that it was for the House to determine whether the Bill should go to the Grand Committee or to a Select Committee. I do not think that Mr. Cosmo Bonsor's action in this matter has, or ought to have, any effect upon his services as a member of the Royal Commission.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can give the House any assurance that the Education Bill will be proceeded, with this session.
  MR. GRAY: At the same time, may I ask the First Lord, of the Treasury whether he can state when the Revenue Department (Customs) Vote will be taken.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no statement to make at present upon Government business beyond what I have already made, except to tell t e House what I am informed, that it will be necessary to have a Ways and Means Bill at once, and I propose to introduce it to-night.
  DR. MACNAMARA: May I point out that the answer, as I caught it, did not appear to be a reply to my question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What I said was that I really had no statement to make on the subject of Government business to the House at the present time, except the statement I then proceeded to make in regard to Ways and Means.
  MR. LOUGH: And what does that mean?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: A Consolidated Fund Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We need not go into that.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 2:—
  Question again proposed, "That Clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid he did not rise for the purpose of offering any opposition to the clause, because he ventured to think that it was a distinctly good one. He had always regarded the abolition of the sugar duties by Sir Stafford Northcote as a most deplorable blunder. It was a foolish act, for which, he, although himself an Under Secretary of State at the time, had declined to assume any personal responsibility, for he looked on it as one of the greatest financial blunders of the generation, with perhaps the exception of the abolition of the registration duty on grain by Mr. Lowe. Now the present Chancellor of the Exchequer tardily came forward to repeal the great mistake made by his colleague. The other day he accused his right hon. friend of being at least fifty years behind the times as regards the purview he took of financial questions, and the right hon. Gentleman had confirmed his opinion within the last few days by refusing an appeal made to him in the House of Commons to enlarge the advantages which we might confer on our fellow colonial subjects in this connection. A suggestion was made that the clause now under discussion afforded a favourable opportunity of making some return for the advances made by our colonies in connection with British trade. What was the reply of the right hon. Gentleman? His reply was that remedies of the kind had been tried and discarded forty years ago. The right hon. Gentleman, in fact, still hugged the delusions of past generations. He utterly failed to recognise the Imperial aspects of the question as it presented itself in the twentieth century. The right hon. Gentleman said they could not stand merely on sugar, but if they once accepted the principle embodied in a preferential tariff it must be extended to other colonial commodities. Certainly, and he for one could see no danger in frankly admitting that fact. He would not advocate exceptional treatment for sugar as distinguished from other taxable articles. He could quote the opinions of some of the right hon. Gentleman's most distinguished colleagues, Lord Salisbury and the Secretary of State for the Colonies strongly endorsing the principle of preferential trade within
  1232
  the limits of the Empire, which the clause now under debate offered a favourable opportunity of giving effect to. The Secretary of State for the Colonies had pronounced an opinion as to the desirability of offering special facilities to trade within the Empire. He said—
  "There is a universal desire amongst all the members of the Empire for a closer union between the several branches, and in their opinion it is desirable, nay, it is essential, for the existence of the Empire as such. Experience has taught us that this closer union can be most hopefully approached in the first instance upon its commercial side.
  What did the Chancellor of the Exchequer say with regard to that? The speech of his right hon. friend referred rather depreciatingly to the practical effect of Canadian legislation and administration in carrying out the suggestion of the Colonial Secretary. That was not the way to support the Imperial principle which his right hon. friend's distinguished colleague had laid down with such emphasis. But his right hon. friend went further than that. In the discussion on Thursday last, he pointed out what he considered a great danger. He referred to the great difficulty of enforcing a provision such as was proposed, even if it were inserted in the Bill, and he talked about its being necessary to have in that event recourse to certificates of origin and other precautions of that kind. His right hon. friend went still further, and said that that provision could be easily evaded, and he gave hon. Members a geographical lesson by informing them that Cuba was not far from Jamaica; but the contrary statement held equally good, namely, that Jamaica was not very far from Cuba. During the last forty years the difficulties referred to by his right hon. friend had been successfully surmounted by every Government in the world. What did his right hon. friend fear? It was, he took it, that foreign goods would be received in the colonies and dependencies of the Crown, and transmitted to England under the seal of colonial produce. Was it in accordance with common sense to suppose that any colonial Government would for an instant allow its fiscal policy and revenue arrangements to be deranged by such a palpable device? The idea was absurd, as all other Governments

  1233
  had devised means of checking evasions of that kind. The American Government, under the provisions of the McKinley Act, levied unequal duties on the produce of various countries according as the countries did or did not afford, in the judgment of the American Government, facilities for American trade. Sugar was at the moment a subject of acute controversy, largely a press controversy, he admitted, between the Governments of Russia and the United States, and did anyone suppose that the United States Government would allow Russian sugar to enter that country by Germany or France? It was unquestionable that what his right hon. friend was alarmed at was dealt with every day throughout the rest of the world. His right hon. friend spoke disparagingly of the attempt to enforce the right of this country and of Parliament to afford facilities for trade to the most distant portions of the Empire. The British Empire, so far as foreign nations were concerned, was one vast Imperial unit. Of course, financial arrangements differed in various parts of the Empire, but the object of the denunciation of what Lord Salisbury called "those unlucky treaties"—and he thought he even used a stronger term—was to allow such a policy. His right hon. friend admitted that Lord Salisbury had spoken strongly against the treaties which were now abrogated, but his right hon. friend apparently wished to reintroduce the system which the abrogation of these treaties had abolished for ever. His right hon. friend talked of the danger of reprisals from foreign countries, but was not that understood when the treaties were abrogated. His right hon. friend also talked about the strong feeling in Germany, and he would add that he thought that that strong feeling had intimidated His Majesty's Government into what was a hostile act towards the great Dominion of Canada. He understood his right hon. friend warned the House of Commons against forcing the hand of the Government, or compelling them to assume an attitude which might give rise to offence in foreign countries, but foreign countries did not consider British feeling; they laid on every shilling of duty they could, and consistently framed their tariff arrangements according
  1234
  to their own necessities and requirements.
  MR. LOUGH: So do we.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: The hon. Gentleman opposite says "So do we," but the Chancellor of the Exchequer warned the House of Commons not to exercise its discretion, but to beware of offending foreign countries. He himself did not wish to say anything disrespectful of foreign Governments, but when the Chancellor of the Exchequer warned the House of Commons against exercising the liberty accorded to it by the action of Lord Salisbury, he might be permitted to quote what Lord Salisbury said. In June, 1891, in reply to a deputation, Lord Salisbury said—
  "With respect to those two unlucky treaties (with Belgium in 1852 and Germany in 1863) that was made by Lord Palmerston's Government some thirty years ago, I am sure the matter of the relation of our colonies could not have been fully considered. We have tried to find out from official records what species of reasoning it was that induced the statesmen of that day to sign such very unfortunate pledges."
  His right hon. friend would now wish to put the country back into the position from which Lord Salisbury rescued it—of not being able to legislate in concurrence with the colonies without obtaining the leave of foreign Governments. Lord Salisbury continued—
  "But I do not think that they had any notion that they were signing any pledges at all. I have not been able to discover that they realised the importances of the engagements upon which they were entering. I think I can give you with the greatest confidence an assurance that not only this Government, but no future Government, will be disposed to enter into such engagements again."
  In face of that statement of the Prime Minister, his right hon. friend had now conjured up the foreign bogey, and attempted to prevail on the House of Commons not to avail of that freedom of action accorded to it, but to allow its hands to be tied. Lord Salisbury concluded—
  "We shall be glad indeed to take every opportunity that arises for delivering ourselves from those unfortunate engagements."
  Lord Salisbury had obtained liberty of action for the Government, but now his right hon. friend showed a disposition

  1235
  to fetter that liberty. He should have scarcely thought that such a policy would be announced in the House of Commons by a colleague of Lord Salisbury. The action of the Government with reference to Canada was most un fortunate, especially in days when it was desired that the colonies should more cordially approach the mother country He need not recall to the recollection of the Committee the resolution adopted at the Ottawa Conference, which consisted of representatives of the whole Empire. That Conference passed a resolution, he thought with absolute unanimity, urging that liberty should be accorded to the colonies to make fiscal arrangements without reference to any foreign Power. The colonial Premiers, during their visit to England in the Jubilee in 1897, unanimously passed a resolution urging the adoption of the principle of deferential treatment.
  He asked the House not to be frightened by the bogey raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but to realise that the right to establish a reasonable preference for British goods within the British Empire was conferred upon them by the action of the right hon. Gentleman's own colleague. He warned the Committee that it was not a fact that public opinion was not favourable to such a policy. He thought that public opinion was favourable to it. Politics apart, the great mass of Members who had any opportunity of mixing with colonial statesmen were strongly impressed with the view that some solid substantial step in that direction was an essential element of Imperial rule. The colonies, of course, were able to look after their own interests. One saw, day after day, negotiations between the different colonial Governments and foreign countries. He asked a question himself not long ago of the Colonial Secretary as to whether it was not the case that a subsidised steamship line was actually in operation between Canadian and French ports, and the answer was that last year a steamship line involving a payment by the Canadian Government of £10,000 a year had been established between French and Canadian ports. His right hon. friend's speech the other night was a distinct repudiation, on the part of himself as at present responsible for the financial arrangements
  1236
  of this country, of the advance already made by Canada without any return, and his right hon. friend went so far as to hint that Canada did not know its own business. [Sir M. HICKS BEACH dissented.] He had certainly gathered that from the remarks of his right hon. friend, which, however, he unfortunately had to take second hand. He understood his right hon. friend, by an interpolation during another speech, to intimate that although it was true that trade between Canada and the British Empire had increased since the introduction of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's preferential tariff, nevertheless, Canadian trade with the United States had also increased, although the tariff arrangements did not apply. What did that mean? It meant that Canada would conclude that, after all, it would have done just as well if it had not adopted Sir Wilfrid Laurier's 33⅓ per cent. tariff. That was certainly calculated to discourage the Canadian Government, and he thought it was a most deplorable utterance. He would have been sorry to permit the clause to pass without uttering his emphatic protest against what he might call the levity with which a great Imperial movement had been treated by the Government. The Government had adopted the attitude they had without taking into account the unanimous opinion of the colonies. The great Commonwealth of Australia was guided by statesmen who had strongly pronounced themselves in favour of a moderate and reasonable application of the principle of preferential tariffs. There was a general demand throughout the Empire that such facilities should be granted, and he ventured to state there was a very strong and decided opinion in the United Kingdom itself with regard to it. In the position in which they were now in, all he could do was to utter strong and emphatic protest against he short-sighted selfish policy which had been adopted, a policy which was calculated to drive the colonies into making bargains with foreign countries, perhaps to the disadvantage of Great Britain. He thought his right hon. friend was lot fully alive to the great change of pinion on the subject which had taken place, not only in Great Britain, but throughout the Empire.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.): My right hon. friend says he is in favour of the general policy of the Finance Bill, but he has taken a most remarkable way of showing it. For a full half-hour my right hon. friend has entertained the Committee with a dissertation on matters on which we all know his opinion, and which have already been, on this clause, the subject of debate for three or four hours on Thursday last. Why did not my right hon. friend take part in that debate? Presumably my right hon. friend was in another and more agreeable place. Why was he not here on Thursday last?
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: It was a fiasco.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: But if my right hon. friend had been present the fiasco might have been avoided, and his opinions might have been given effect to in some better way. As it was, the policy he now suggests was negatived almost unanimously by the House of Commons on Thursday last.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: But my right hon. friend will not say that that was a genuine expression of the opinion of the House.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: My right hon. friend has described it as a fiasco, but I am quite prepared to admit that the division on Thursday may not accurately represent the amount of support which the principle might obtain.
  *SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I am quite satisfied.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I would ask hon. Members who have had an opportunity of expressing their views and of obtaining the opinion of the House, and who, like my right hon. friend, desire to support the clause generally, to be good enough to refrain from giving the House a repetition of the debate on Thursday last.
  *MR. LOUGHthought the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman was a reasonable
  1238
  one. He quite agreed that if the Committee were to discuss the details throughout the clause there would not be any opportunity of coming to a decision on the general clause. The right hon. Gentleman's reply was not quite convincing, but it satisfied him that the proposal the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to adopt was a reasonable one, and one which the Committee could accept. He desired to refer to two remarks which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in his speech. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman said that for the proposals of taxation the House must accept the authority of the Government. That was quite true, and the Committee was not entitled to reject a proposal of this kind unless it was prepared with an alternative proposal. The second remark was that the right hon. Gentleman would look into this matter in a year or two, and if he found in the practical working the Bill did not turn out well it should be modified.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I went further than that. I should not wait as long as two years.
  *MR. LOUGHthought that nothing could be fairer than the way in which the Committee had been met, and that the result was to enable them to leave the details and approach the main question and discuss whether the tax was a wise one or not, and whether it was the best way to obtain the £5,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to raise by this clause. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet had said he was a Member of the Government which abolished the sugar duties, and had said what a foolish thing they had done by so doing, but he would quote what Sir Stafford Northcote, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that Government, had said in 1874—
  "The sugar duties are a source of revenue which does more harm than it produces good; their removal would be permanent…. England would become the great entrepot of the sugar trade….and the result would stimulate and support the commercial interest of the country."
  Those were the opinions of Sir Stafford Northcote, and it was highly interesting to consider them twenty-seven years

  1239
  after. One prophecy Sir S. Northcote made was not fulfilled—the removal of the duties was not to be permanent; but a great many of his prophecies had been fulfilled. Sir Stafford Northcote said he hoped the island of England would become the entrepôt of the sugar industries of the world, and what progress had been made in that district since the duties had been abolished? The consumption of sugar per head of the population in this country was 90 lbs., which worked out at a figure of at least 1,500,000 tons coming into our ports and distributed throughout the kingdom every year, or, in other words, 5,000 tons per week. This country had truly become the entrepôt of the sugar industries; the consumption of sugar in this country was double that of any other country in the world. The next great consumers were Denmark and Switzerland, with a consumption of 45 lbs. her head; then came Germany with 30 lbs., France with 26 lbs., and Austria with 17lbs. her head. All those countries were sugar-producing countries, yet owing to the wise act of Parliament nearly thirty years ago they produced not for themselves, but for the purpose of putting their products on our tables. As a result of that legislation there had been a steady improvement in the quality of Austrian sugar sent to this country, and the sugar sold in Prague at 4d. a pound was sold in this country at 2d. These were some of the advantages which were engendered by the wise act of twenty-seven years ago. The Committee must, however, consider that sugar was not only prepared food, but also the raw material forming the basis of hundreds of manufactures in this country. Great industries had been set up; the production of jam and marmalade had stimulated the growth of fruit in country districts; the manufacture of biscuits, confectionery, chocolate, and aerated waters had developed. No less than 150,000 tons of sugar were used in brewing in one year. When the Committee remembered these things they would see that it would be an evil day for this country when Parliament set itself to reverse the policy of 1874.
  Having thus surveyed the practical effects of that policy he would ask the Committee to consider the principle which
  1240
  led, after great consideration, to these duties being removed. Adam Smith in his great work on economics, in that chapter in which he dealt with "the most just taxes for the people," laid down principles for every good tax. The first principle was that the subjects of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the Government of the State as nearly as possible equally according to their respective abilities, with respect to the earnings which they enjoyed under the protection of the State. This tax set that principle at defiance in the most bold and open way. In 1776 Adam Smith treated sugar as a luxury, but no man to-day would deny that it was one of the most vital necessities of the people. Every good tax should be imposed in such a manner that all contributed in proportion to their wealth; in this case there was the exactly opposite effect. The rich man, if anything, used less sugar than the poor man, and £2,000,000 out of the £5,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman hoped to obtain would be wrung out of the scanty pittance of those who could not afford to pay any tax whatever. Mr. Charles Booth showed that in London 40 per cent. of the population had to live on something that was below the proper margin of subsistence; all those people eat sugar, and the vice of the sugar tax was that, although the people could be made to pay, it was only to be done in the same manner as would be done by taking away a proportion of the food from an animal. The result of such a tax was that these people would become less efficient in their work, so that in a round-about way it would fall back upon he rich in the shape of higher wages or a smaller development of work. The second principle laid down by the same authority was that the tax an individual vas bound to pay should be certain and not arbitrary. The amount in this case was not certain. No less than twenty-four different rates of duty were embodied in the Bill, and no purchaser abroad could tell exactly what was the rate at which his sugar would be admitted into this country. Adam Smith aid down the principle that it was better to lay on a heavy tax that was certain than a lighter one that was not, but hat principle had also been set at defiance. The third principle was that

  1241
  every tax ought to be levied at the time And in the manner which was most convenient to the contributor to pay, and it certainly did seem convenient that when one bought an article he paid a small contribution; but Adam Smith also laid it down that it was the luxuries and not the necessities that should be taxed, and that if a barrier was placed between a man and what was necessary to him as great injury was inflicted upon him, and the State was not assisted. The best example of the luxury was beer. Nothing could be more proper than that on every glass of beer a contribution should be made to the State, because beer was not a necessity, and those whom necessity compelled to avoid the tax could very well abstain from using it. Sugar, however, stood in a different category, and the additional price would fall heavily on the people. The fourth principle was that every tax ought to be so laid as to take as little as possible from the people in excess of what was paid into the Exchequer. That was the most vital principle, and one reason why he opposed this tax was that he believed it to be a most extravagant tax; millions would be wrung from the pockets of the people which would not find their way into the Exchequer at all.
  The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that he had borrowed that scale from the United States. He had pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that within four years of the United States Government adopting that scale a great industrial combination had grown up in America called the Sugar Trust, which probably wrung from the pockets of the people as much as was got by the Revenue. He held that a tax imposed in such a way gave great opportunities—he would not say for fraud, but for practices which were very hurtful to the Revenue, and which no one who wished to see the tax voluntarily paid would approve. This sugar tax violated every one of the four vital principles which had been laid down by that great economist, and we were now to reimpose a tax which twenty-seven years ago had been abolished "for ever." He submitted that the Committee ought to be very slow to go back into the dark era out of which the country had come. He could not enter
  1242
  into a discussion upon the Finance Bill without remembering that in this case there were two islands to be dealt with—Great Britain and Ireland. The duty would press with peculiar weight upon the people of Ireland. In that country 75 per cent. of the whole taxation was indirect and paid by the poor, and 25 per cent. was direct and paid by the rich, and this new duty, which imposed an additional burden of £500,000 a year on Ireland, would raise the proportion of indirect taxation to nearly 80 per cent. It would have been far better in the interest of trade and of the whole kingdom if, instead of the sugar and coal duties, 4d. had been added to the income tax. The sugar duty was certainly a bad and retrograde proposal, and he hoped it would be rejected by the Committee.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he did not oppose the sugar tax because he desired that less taxation should be raised this year. Indeed, he thought the Government had not imposed sufficient taxation to meet the expenses of the war and the ordinary expenditure of the country. But there were three other branches of taxation to which it would be better for the country, for trade, and for the consumer if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had gone for the additional revenue he required rather than to sugar and coal. He believed it would have been better to have increased the income tax to a larger amount. The yield of that tax had increased in ten years by some £120,000,000, which showed that there was very good ground for further increasing that tax. Apart from the question of income tax he differed from the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that further taxation could not be imposed upon wines, spirits, and beer. He doubted very much whether those particular liquor interests could not stand a considerable increase of taxation. At all events, an appreciable sum might have been raised by a large licence duty on public-houses. But assuming that that branch of taxation was exhausted, he would have much preferred an increase of the duty on tea or tobacco to the creation of a new duty, for the reason that the duty on tea and tobacco was practically a duty on the consumer,

  1243
  and only to a very slight extent did injury to trade. It would have been better to increase the duty than to disturb two great trades such as the sugar and coal trades for the comparatively small sum to be raised. The principle upon which our fiscal policy had for many years been based was that of freeing from taxation as far as possible articles of food and the raw materials of industry, and he opposed the sugar duty because it violated that principle. Its effect upon the consumer was the least important side of the question, the serious aspect of the new taxation was its effect upon trade. With regard to the consumer, it was perfectly obvious that the imposition of a heavy tax upon sugar must hit very hardly the consumer, especially the consumer in Ireland, and, as was always the case with this sort of indirect taxation, the poorest classes were hit the hardest. The incidence of such a tax as the sugar tax, in the first place, whatever it might be in the ultimate result, must necessarily fall on the poorest classes, while in this particular case it would, he was afraid, fall more on the women and children than on the working men themselves. But putting aside the consumer, the gravity of the imposition of this tax was greatly increased from the fact that it was a new tax, which, for the first time for many years, would interfere in a most harassing and destructive manner with many industries throughout the country. The annual consumption of sugar per person worked out at 90 pounds, but in his Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken exception to that figure, stating that the personal consumption was only 56 pounds. That meant that the other 34 pounds per head were used in the different industries, so that a large proportion of the whole would not affect the consumer, but would do more harm by interfering with trade. In 1860, when Mr. Glad stone made a considerable number of alterations in the financial system of the country, he decided not to reduce the tea and sugar duties on the ground that those duties were simply revenue duties, and did not in any way interfere with trade, as they affected only the consumer, and he preferred to remit taxation which interfered with or disadvantaged trade. The same argument was used when the
  1244
  sugar duty was finally repealed. The people of the country were in a very different position now from that of twenty-five years ago, when that duty was repealed. At that time the duty was practically a mere revenue duty on consumption, and the total consumption, per head of the population was about 20 pounds per annum. It had now risen to 90 pounds, of which only 56 pounds were consumed by the individual, the remainder being used by the various trades. The total imports of sugar then were about £7,000,000, while now they were no less than £12,000,000. Therefore this duty on its reimposition would be a totally different thing from the duty repealed twenty-five years ago. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had argued that no real disadvantage would arise from the duty, because in 1893 the price of sugar was considerably higher than at present, and that it was since that time these different industries had to a large extent sprung up. But those industries had arisen chiefly because sugar was free, and could be dealt with in a free way, and because the trades believed it was cheapening, as it had cheapened. It seemed to him that it was no argument at all in favour of the imposition of the tax to say that at a time when the conditions were totally different the price was lower, and that therefore the tax could be imposed without interfering with or harassing trade.
  In connection with this question of trade he might point out that, thanks to the policy of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, our import duties had been reduced in every possible way. Last year the number of heads and subheads of our tariff upon which taxation was levied, and which had therefore to be examined by the Customs officials, was forty-six. At one sweep the Chancellor of the Exchequer was adding eight heads and no less than twenty-three subheads to the tariff, making a total of seventy-seven, instead of forty-six duties. This was in a free trade country, whose policy had been to free the tariff as far as possible. That meant the examination of all these imports and the handling of every parcel, with the result that much damage was done and great delay caused, while the freedom of trade, which was of the greatest possible benefit

  1245
  to the wage-earning classes, was very largely restricted. He did not desire to criticise tie way in which the Customs authorities discharged their duty; he believed they did it as far as they could to the best possible advantage, but it was perfectly obvious that in any Customs system there must be a large amount of red tape, delay, and expense, and, still worse, a considerable uncertainty on the part of importers and others as to what new regulations might be sprung upon them at any particular moment. Recent debates in Committee had shown the impossibility of any goods of this sort being examined without leading to all sorts of harassing regulations and vexatious proceedings on the part of the Customs authorities against the importer.
  Another point worthy of consideration was that, while at present sugar could be sent into the country, at any port the importer desired, and could be despatched direct to any place he wished, the imposition of this tax would of necessity lead to bonded warehouses for sugar, which would involve the sending of sugar to certain ports only. A large proportion of the sugar was imported by a few big firms, who would have their own bonded warehouses, with every facility, and so the small importer would suffer in competition by the difficulty he would have in clearing his goods and so on. He was afraid that one of the results of this policy would be the creation of great trusts, from which America had suffered so severely. The tendency of the legislation now under consideration would be to place these matters more and more in the hands of the great importers, to the detriment of the smaller men, and might ultimately result in a trust in sugar. The fact was the Chancellor of the Exchequer had talked too glibly about broadening the basis of taxation. Broadening the basis of taxation of necessity meant equivalent restrictions on trade; and though it might be necessary to increase taxation, he regretted that the Government had not taken more trouble to avoid the disastrous results to a large number of industries in the country, and the destruction of many of the smaller ones in which sugar was largely used, which would arise from the harassing and vexatious nature of the duties. Instead of thinking, as the right
  1246
  hon. Gentleman the Member, for Thanet had suggested, that Mr. Lowe and Sir Stafford Northcote were unwise in repealing the sugar duty, he thought the country had been fortunate in that for twenty-five years there had been, complete freedom from the duty. It might be said that there was want of foresight on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that date in relinquishing that particular branch of revenue, but it would have required a great deal of foresight to have anticipated the advent of such an extravagant Government as the one at present in power. It had to be remembered that in those days the revenue was very buoyant, the expenditure was kept down, and the system of throwing away money by means of doles had not been invented. If it was a question of foresight, they might rather attack the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of the large sums of money given away in doles and the greatly increased public expenditure of the last few years. He should certainly vote against the proposal of the Government, not on the ground that so much taxation ought not to be raised, but because it might have been raised with much less distress to the consumer, much less injury to trade, and much greater advantage to the country as a whole.
  MR. J. A. PEASEsaid that if there was one subject more than another which interested the electors at the recent election in the Saffron Walden Division it was the imposition of the tax on sugar, and on behalf of those electors he desired to protest against the unfairness of the tax especially in its effect upon the poorer classes. He wished the Committee to realise how hardly the tax would press upon the poor and how little it would affect the rich. Recently he applied to a large co-operative store, which supplied 1,300 customers, 1,200 of whom ware wage-earners, and asked how many articles they were about to raise in price in consequence of the imposition of this tax, and the fist he received in reply contained the following twenty-seven articles—biscuits, home-made beer, blacking, bottled fruits, British wines, cake flour, cakes, candied peel, candy, chocolate, cocoa, condensed milk, preserved fruits,

  1247
  health salts, jams, marmalade jellies, lemon cheese, lemon curd, sugar sweets, pickled bacon, lemonade, lime juice, pomfret cakes, sherbet, syrup, and treacle. If these articles were not directly increased in price there was an inferior article supplied as a direct consequence of the imposition of this tax, or the amount in bulk was reduced. The tax seemed to have not only disorganised the trade, but an increasing quantity of inferior sugar was being sold to consumers. He wrote to one of the largest grocers he knew in his constituency, and asked him how the tax affected his business, and he replied as follows—
  "In reply to your inquiry respecting the operation of the sugar tax, our own experience is—and we supply a large number of small shops—that the sale of all kinds of sugar has decreased quite 20 per cent. Consumers amongst the working classes are purchasing an inferior quality. Retailers have only advanced their price ½d. per lb. The probable consumption of sugar per week in an average labourer's household is 6 lbs. per week. Of course, the increased cost of many other articles owing to the sugar tax bears very heavily on the working classes."
  This grocer lived in a district where there was a great deal of grass land. Where there was a great deal of grass land the humbler classes could purchase milk, and for that reason they had a less quantity of sugar. On the contrary, where there was little grass, and where it was nearly all ploughed country, as was the case with the bulk of the county of Essex, a larger proportion of sugar was purchased by the working classes, and instead of 6 lbs. per week the quantity varied from 8 to 14 lbs. per week per household. It came to this, therefore, that owing to the imposition of this tax the average family had to pay something like sixpence per week every week in the year. If they assumed that it was only fivepence per week, and that the agricultural wage earner received 17s. a week—the majority in the county which he represented got wages varying from 11s. to 13s. a week—the imposition of this tax meant 2½ per cent. of his income. He asked the Committee to compare this with the case of the richer individual who had an income of £1,000 a year. That individual, because of his greater wealth, consumed double the quantity of sugar, and 2d. had been added to his income tax. They were, therefore, only
  1248
  calling upon the rich man to pay 1 percent. on his total income, whereas they were calling upon the poor man to pay 2½ per cent. of his total income. In that, way this tax was unfair to the mass of the people. If he took the ordinary case of the agricultural labourer who had. 12s. per week, and assumed that 12 lbs. of sugar was the amount his family consumed if living in an arable district, where they were unable to get any milk, the tax meant that this poor man would actually pay 5 per cent. of his total income; while the man receiving £10,000 a year would only pay 1 per cent. of his income. What were the principles on which taxation was imposed in this country? Were they rejecting the principles of Adam Smith, which the Member for West Islington had dwelt upon that afternoon? The hon. Member for West Islington alluded to the principle that payment should be made to represent equality of sacrifice between man and man. Instead of that principle being adopted, it appeared to him that equal payment or something similar was being adopted by the Government. If the principle of taxation in this country was, that every man, whether rich or poor, should pay an equal amount, the Government should say clearly that they desired a poll tax of say £3 per head, so that the electors might realise the principle which was involved. He objected to the tax not only on the ground that it was unfair to the poor, but because it, was not proposed to make it even a temporary tax. In a period of declining; prosperity this tax was placed on one of the staple foods of the people. In his judgment the last article any Government ought to place a tax upon was one which was an actual necessity in the daily life of the working classes of this country. He had always favoured direct rather than indirect taxation, and he should like every individual in the State to be called upon to pay his fair share for the government of the country; but it ought to be done in accordance with the principle of equality of sacrifice. In the past our prosperity had been largely attributable to the fact that we had free trade. When there were such men in the House as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet and the hon. Member for Central Sheffield, who

  1249
  welcomed this tax because it was a protective tariff, and because it would lead to the imposition of a duty upon corn—men who regarded this tax as the thin end of the wedge—the Government ought to be on their guard and pause before instituting a tax which he believed would be retrogressive and detrimental to the great trade interests of the country.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid he also represented a division of Essex, and he could assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the sugar tax was popular. The working classes were quite ready to provide their quota of the expense of the war and to meet their obligation in connection with the increased expenditure of the country. The hon. Member for Saffron Walden had said that the poor man would be unduly taxed. Did the poor man consume chocolate?
  MR. J. A. PEASEsaid his statement was that 1,200 wage-earners were consuming all these articles. He got the figures from a co-operative store.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid that that was not his point at all. The hon. Member said that the man who had an income of £1,000 a year contributed less in proportion than the working man. But the hon. Member did not take into calculation the number of employees which the man with £1,000 a year engaged; and that if the man himself did not consume the sugar he consumed other dutiable articles. Therefore the rich man was more taxed in proportion than the poor man, and it was perfectly right that it should be so. His object in rising was not to deal with these small matters, and he had no doubt that hon. Members opposite would take very good care that the burdens lay on those who could pay for them. So far as he was concerned, he could assure the hon. Member for Saffron Walden that he also stood there as a champion of the working classes, and that if there was anything to be done in their favour he would work with ardour equal to that of the hon. Member. He did not vote in favour of the resolution to allow a rebate on colonial sugar, as he thought that the colonies were quite able to fight for themselves. But he wished the colonies
  1250
  to fight fairly, which up to the present they had not got a chance to do. If bounties were given by foreign countries on cotton, wool, grain, locomotives, and machinery, we should soon be up in arms, and put a countervailing duty upon these articles; and why not on sugar? The question was how the sugar bounties had affected the sugar producing colonies.
  *The CHAIRMANsaid he did not see how the hon. Member could connect the discussion of the clause before the Committee with bounties given by foreign countries on the export of sugar.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid that the raising of the tax on sugar depended in great measure on the amount of sugar imported into this country, and if a trade were killed by imposing a tax on sugar the income which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would derive from the tax would be to that extent limited. He, however, did not wish to press the point of countervailing duties.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not think that the question of countervailing duties as applied to bounties was relevant to the discussion of this clause.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: asked if he could pursue the question of bounties.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid that the question of certain bounties which were given by foreign countries on the export of sugar could not be affected by anything in this clause.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRbowed to the Chairman's ruling. The hon. Member for West Islington had raised a question with regard to the polariscope, and had said that the density of sugar could not be accurately arrived at by the polariscope, because the power of eyesight was not equally the same in any two persons. But another hon. Member had given an interesting and accurate description of the polariscope, and he could assure the Committee that, with the aid of that instrument, there would be no difficulty in arriving at the density of all classes of sugar. In fact, the polariscope was used by foreign nations in giving their bounties. The amount of the bounty varied according to the

  1251
  degree of polarisation. In Germany, between 93 per cent. and 100 per cent., it was £1 3s. 4d.; in Austria, it was £1 15s. 6d.; in Russia, it was even more, while in Holland it varied from £1 18s. to £2 3s. The hon. Member for Devonport had said that the West Indian sugar planters could produce sugar at a cost of £8 16s. 8d. per ton, and that if they discarded their primitive machinery it could be produced at a cost of £8 12s. They had, of course, to deal with the labour question, which had a great effect on the problem. He held that if only they could put the West Indian sugar planters on the same basis as other manufacturers they would not require anymore doles. The cost of producing sugar in Germany was £11 15s. 6d. per ton, but on account of the bounties the manufacturers could put it on the market as £10 per ton. If the West Indian colonies could have factories equal to those in Germany to enable them to meet the German competition, a great benefit would accrue to them, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would enable them to erect such factories by guaranteeing loans to the West Indian planters.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member seems to be discussing the question of the West Indian colonies and the sugar question generally. He cannot go into such a general discussion on this clause.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid he had only wished to follow the arguments submitted to the Committee last week. He would simply urge that he considered this tax was a popular tax, and met with a far greater measure of approval from the working classes than any other tax suggested; and he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would adhere strictly to the programme of the Schedule.
  MR. O'MARAsaid that some relaxation of the tax as far as the colonies were concerned had been suggested in order to join the Empire together. He did not care very much about any attempt to join the Empire together, but if the Committee considered an exemption in favour of the colonies, he maintained that some exemption
  1252
  should also be granted to the overtaxed people of Ireland. If the tax had been put on butter, instead of on sugar, it would afford an exceptional advantage, because butter was imported principally from, foreign countries. Of course, the tax was going to be passed. He had no hope that it would not, but he would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether he would not give some assurance that it was not going to be a permanent tax. The tax would impose an extra duty of from £500,000 to £900,000 a year on the unfortunate Irish people, and it would be really cruel if the tax were to be permanent. He did not, think the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given any consideration to the effect of the tax in Ireland, otherwise he would have met the criticisms from the Irish Benches in a fairer spirit. Ireland, economically, was not capable of bearing an additional tax to the amount he had mentioned. There was in Ireland a larger proportion of non-productive population than in any other country in Europe; a larger number of inefficients in proportion to the wealth-producing people than in any other country. That was the effect of the declining and decaying state of the country which was shown not only in the emigration statistics, but also in the exceedingly low marriage rate, and in the exceedingly low birth rate. Therefore he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer before making the tax permanent should take these facts into consideration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought also to take into consideration the fact that owing to emigration the population per square mile in Ireland was lower than any other European country. With reference to the new tax, he wished to know how much of the money which would be raised in Ireland would be spent in that country. What benefit were the Irish people to get from it? He himself did not think that any of the tax would be spent in Ireland; it would be spent in South Africa. The vast bulk of the Irish people had been opposed to the war at the beginning and were opposed to it still, and it seemed to him both unjust and unfair that they should be taxed to the extent of half a million a year to support a policy with which they were entirely out of sympathy. Then,

  1253
  again, whereas indirect taxation in England was only about fifty per cent., it was seventy-five per cent. in Ireland. In other words, seventy-five per cent. of the taxation of Ireland was derived from the earnings of the poor, who a few years ago, owing to bad seasons, were in a condition which could only be described as semi-starvation. In 1879, 1880, 1881, 1885, and 1886, certain districts in Ireland were in a state of starvation, and works had to be established in order to provide relief for the people. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give some assurance that the tax would not be permanent, or that, if it were to be permanent, he would afford some relief to the people of Ireland.
  MR. JORDANsaid he opposed the clause in toto, not in any spirit of obstruction, but because he felt intensely and keenly the injustice of the tax. He did not oppose the clause because he wished to deny money to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Only for the war the tax would not have been imposed, and he would put himself right by saying that no man regarded with greater detestation than he did such an unjust and unholy war.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: This is not a proper opportunity to take to denounce the war.
  MR. JORDANsaid that, as he did not oppose the tax as a war tax, it might be concluded that he approved of the war. He felt strongly against the tax as an unwise tax. He thought that a tax should not be put on the food of the poor; it should have been put upon capitalists, who could have afforded it. It would have been a heroic thing on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have raised the income tax to 1s. 6d. in the £, and that would have saved him from having to tinker with sugar and coal. He did not intend to talk about polariscopes or things of that sort. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be good enough to put a polariscope in the library of the House, but the right hon. Gentleman did not respond, which rather astonished him, because he always admired the conciliatory speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He
  1254
  desired to regard the tax from an Irish point of view. In the first place, he thought it would affect labourers in Ireland very seriously. Scarcely any food was used by the poor in Ireland into which sugar did not enter. Since the creameries had been started milk had become exceedingly scarce, and the people used sugar as a substitute. But the tax would also affect the farmers. In his part of the country wages were pretty high, and medium farmers found it exceedingly difficult to pay them. He did not object to servants getting large wages, but middle-class farmers found it very difficult to pay them, and the addition of a tax upon tea and sugar would affect them very much. The tax would also crib, cabin, and confine the sugar trade. Traders in Ireland were not capitalists, and had no large balances in the banks, and had no large stocks. Suppose a trader bought a hundred bags of sugar, the tax would mean an addition of £50. That additional capital would have to be found, and the trader would probably have to raise it in a bank, at perhaps as much as 6 per cent. In the name of the traders of the country, therefore, he protested against the tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated the other night that if the tax were reduced the reduction would go into the pockets of the middlemen. He denied that. In Ireland sugar was often sold at only 3d. per cwt. profit, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have said what he did if he had known anything of the retail trade. As an Irish representative he opposed the tax strenuously and earnestly because it would be injurious to, farmers and labourers in that country.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he did not propose to discuss the principle of the tax or its defects, but he wished to put a few questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so as to have matters cleared up. The other night he was about to move an Amendment as to the special charges to be levied on particular classes of canned goods, but the right hon. Gentleman anticipated his desire, and promised to bring up an Amendment himself. He should be glad to know the character of the Amendment and when it would be introduced. He also pointed

  1255
  out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he ought to put the same duty on glucose that he put on the best refined sugar, because every pound of glucose used would depose a pound of honest sugar, on which the Treasury was entitled to its revenue. The right hon. Gentleman knew very well that glucose would be used not only by brewers, but also for adulterating confectionery and jams, and therefore its use should not be encouraged. He was not speaking in favour of the beer interest, although he supported the Pure Beer Bill, but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to protect the revenue and discourage the adulteration of food products, he would be well advised to put the identical duty on glucose that he put on the best refined sugar. The brewer paid on the specific gravity of the solution, and every pound of glucose used was exactly the same as sugar solution, and therefore not entitled to any preference. He had also endeavoured to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact that the polariscope test was not reliable. He had pressed the right hon. Gentleman over and over again to appoint a Committee of chemical experts to inquire whether the test was right or not. It was pointed out the other night by his hon. and learned friend that the polariscope gave the exact percentage of sugar present. That was perfectly true and it was probably thought that by giving that exact reading the polariscope showed the Chancellor of the Exchequer straight away the amount of duty to which he was entitled. That was just what the polariscope did not do. What the right hon. Gentleman would want to know was what the refiner was going to get out of the sugar, as it was on that that the duty was levied. The polariscope did not ascertain that, it was the analyst. The analyst first ascertained by the polariscope the amount of sugar in the solution; then he ascertained the amount of invert sugar, and finally the amount of mash sugar. The polairiscope test, as far as the collection OF revenue was concerned, was serious in two respects. It deprived the revenue of taxation to which it was entitled, and it subsidised the refiner by enabling him to obtain more sugar than he paid upon. One per cent. of ash only
  1256
  prevented three times its weight of crystallisation. He only alluded to that to show what the effect would be between the sugar refiner and the sugar exporter He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not leave the very strong position he taken had up with regard to this matter, but would watch it carefully.
  *MR. STEVENSONsaid there was one matter upon which he thought some further explanation was necessary before this Vote was taken, and that was with regard to the duty on glucose. When this tax was proposed to the House he understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in favour of the principle that it should be regarded as a tax upon sweetness, and that any article into which that ingredient of sweetness entered should be taxed in proportion. There had been no opportunity for discussing this particular point, and he thought as it was a very important matter an opportunity should be given for discussing it before the Bill passed into law, or if no such opportunity occurred, would the Chancellor of the Exchequer take into consideration whether the sum charged upon glucose was sufficient to carry into effect the view he was understood to hold upon this subject? The sugar tax, he submitted, should not be enforced in such a way as to give the slightest preferential encouragement toother ingredients into which this sweetness entered, and if it could be shown by further research that any undue advantage was given to glucose as compared with sugar, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take the earliest opportunity of setting that matter right. This was not an occasion when one ought to enter into the discussion of details; the tax was to be a permanent tax, and the only arguments which could be applied were those either in favour or against the tax. The hon. Member for Romford said it was a popular one. It could only be so described in the senses that it fell upon all. It violated all the economic canons; it was a tax on which more had to be paid than passed into the Exchequer, and one that pressed unduly upon those who could least afford to pay instead of those who could best afford it. In addition to

  1257
  that, it was an interference with trade, interfering with raw material used in great industries, and that being so it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman could hardly have alighted upon any article of consumption, to deal with which could have inflicted such great hardships from an economic point of view. If it had been a question as between tea and sugar, far less economic disturbance would be occasioned by increasing the duty on tea than by imposing a new duty upon sugar, which had long since been abandoned. Tea was not used as an article of production in this country, nor as an article of manufacture; whereas, sugar being so largely used in these respects, this tax would cause a very great disturbance in trade. He had noticed in a trade newspaper that at a conference recently held in the north of England it was stated that there were over 150 articles which would be affected by this tax upon sugar, and when the Committee considered how much of these articles were consumed, and the number of people who were engaged in these manufactures they would agree that not only did the tax press hardly upon the consumers of sugar, but also on those engaged either directly or indirectly in these industries. He thought the income tax should have been raised, but that was a matter which could not now be dealt with, but he would just say that if that tax had been dealt with by means of a graduated scale the right hon. Gentleman would have obtained more revenue than he would from both tea and sugar.
  MR. BARTLEYagreed that the tax was felt by large numbers of the poorer classes, but it was one of the most satisfactory signs of the times that there had been hardly any complaint from consumers. The great bulk of the population felt that, inasmuch as the expenditure was perfectly justified, they were quite prepared to make an effort to pay their share of it. This was a consoling thought to be noted when complaints had been loud from the wealthier classes.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The hon. Member,
  1258
  while admitting that this tax will place a heavy burden on the poorest classes, claims that it is a satisfactory view of the situation that the poorest classes accept their burden without murmuring; but let me point out the ordinary poor consumers have no means of expressing their view, and we have yet to learn whether they have realised the effect of the tax. Perhaps the hon. Member is not aware that at the Co-operative Congress held a week or ten days ago, and which represented, I think, about six or seven millions of the population, there was a full debate and a unanimous and strong condemnation I of the tax on the ground of its effect on the comfort and health of the working classes. The hon. Member thinks it is useful and patriotic that the poorer classes should bear a share of the burden of the war, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said it is in the true interests of peace and economy that they should know they are paying their share of the burden. But then he tells us this is to be a permanent tax. It is not therefore only a war tax, and once that fact is admitted the whole of the argument about the educational effect of this impost falls to the ground. My right hon. friend, who usually occupies a seat near me, the Member for the Montrose Burghs, has said something to the effect that "the tax-gatherer is a great schoolmaster," but I doubt if that is so in regard to indirect, taxation, because nothing is more readily forgotten than the fact that high prices are the consequence of taxation. There is a well-known quotation, but I hesitate to ascribe it to anyone: "You may tax the shirt off a man's back without his knowing it"; and some five or ten years hence, when a poor woman is paying a high price for sugar, how will she know it is due to the war in South Africa? The argument upon educational effect is overdone.
  I quite agree with what my hon friend behind me says, that this tax, perhaps more than any other, takes, more from the consumer than he should be required to pay. If you are to seek some subject of indirect taxation, which should be increased without going into elaborate theories of economics, it should be a simple tax; but this is the

  1259
  most complex matter that can be conceived. I have here a list of some articles which has been taken from a trade journal. It includes aerated waters, beer, blacking, biscuits, confectionery coffee extract, crystallised fruits, condensed milk, jams, jellies, fruit juices, china ginger (whatever that may be), chocolate, cocoa, custard powder, lemon squash, patent medicines, citrate of magnesia, sauces, and saline powders, British wines and spirits. Here is everything that can sustain man, spoil his digestion or cure his indigestion, or restore him after indigestion, or black his boots to enable him to take exercise. The list touches almost everything that affects mankind, and it must be remembered that if we look back to 1874 there were none of these things. Take, for example, condensed milk. The vast majority of the children in the large towns drink little less than condensed milk. It is not a luxury or an extravagant caprice which leads parent's to use condensed milk. It is the only way in which they see milk, and it will be raised disproportionately in price because of this duty. The right hon. Gentleman has, in many respects, met the Committee with extreme fairness. Many points which hon. Members have urged have been conceded. He made a concession, in which I have some interest, on Friday night, but which, I think, has not been noticed by the general public. The right hon. Gentleman abandoned the proposal to put the duty on apricots, which was proposed to be 7s., although no sugar was used at all; and in the adjustment of the graduation scale I am sure that he will take counsel of the trade, and not only of a purely scientific authority. We have great confidence in the right hon. Gentleman, he and his polariscope between them, to see full justice done. We believe in him, and in his desire to keep any trace of unfair protection out of the operation of the tax; but he cannot get over the main fact that this tax falls with the greatest severity on the very poorest in the country, the most helpless people, the women and children especially. A man may go to the public-house and seek his little enjoyment; he is not taxed extra for that; but upon the poor woman who has to provide sugar and condensed milk for the food of her children will
  1260
  fall the burden. It is on their little budgets that this tax will fall.
  The right hon. Gentleman used an expression which surprised me. He said the tax would have the effect of diminishing the consumption of cheap and unwholesome confectionery. I am afraid that it will have the effect of increasing the consumption of cheap and unwholesome sugar, because the experience of recent times has been that the less nutritious qualities of sugar have gone out of the market altogether, under the system of freer imports. Those who know most of the subject seem to be under the apprehension that with this tax these qualities will reappear. Sugar has become, as the enormous increase in its consumption has shown, a necessary element of the food of the people; and it is an excellent element of their food. Doctors have warned us against sugar. It is a bad thing if you live an unhealthy and sedentary life, but if you are a working man or woman few things contain more nourishment or do more to build up the health and strength of the people than sugar. Anything which checks the consumption of sugar or impairs the quality is surely a great misfortune to the country. I am opposed, therefore to the duty because it is cruel to the poor, because it causes the maximum of disturbance to trade, because it tends to, lower the quality of an essential article of food, and because it opens the door to the possibility of protection of an insidious kind, against which the only safeguard we have is a polariscope managed and applied by the right hon. Gentleman. On these grounds I join cordially with my hon. friends in voting against the tax.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I will not detain the Committee more than a few moments, but there are two points which it is desirable I should notice. The right hon. Gentleman has attributed almost every possible evil to the duty on sugar. I have had to find many millions of additional taxation, and I am blamed for not having found a great deal more than the sum I have asked Parliament to provide. Hon. Members think that I ought to have had recourse to a greater extent to the income tax. The hon. Member for Islington said that another 4d. should be put on the

  1261
  income tax, but I did not trace that suggestion in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the duty on sugar, but he occupies after all a position of some responsibility.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Not in the imposing of taxation.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have not known a case in which the Leader of the Opposition admitted that a large sum had to be raised by additional taxation and denounced the Government for not having raised more by additional taxation and objected to the taxation proposed without suggesting anything else.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman thinks that this is a void in my argument. I think something might be done to lay hands on a large part of the accidental increase in value of licensed houses. That of itself is a source which would furnish a greater amount I should think than this tax. Another source might be to withdraw those contributions from the Exchequer in aid of various interests.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Poplar to look into the statistics of this matter before they seriously make that suggestion again. Anybody who has done so will find that the scale of licence duties is an anomalous scale and one that requires readjustment. But if you are going to increase the duties for licences on public-houses by such an amount as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, then you will largely increase the vested interest, which is the great difficulty of all reformers of the licensing system. Would you not put a man who had paid a large sum for the grant of a new licence in a much stronger position than that which he at present holds? I do not believe that it is possible to approach this question of licence duties except as a part of a proposal for licensing reform; and I am certain that if it was so approached the right hon. Gentleman would find it absolutely impossible to raise anything like the sum which he contemplates from that source, because the great bulk of licensed houses are of small
  1262
  annual value, and because the increased gain on public-houses of comparatively large value would be as nothing compared with the five millions we are discussing. It has also been suggested that, instead of imposing a duty on sugar, I should have added to the tax on tea, which is a very high percentage on the value of tea at present; or that I should have dealt with tobacco, which is already taxed 250 or 300 per cent. All of these suggestions are absolutely impracticable for the purpose of raising so large an annual sum as is contemplated by this tax, and if we are to retain any proportion between direct and indirect taxation we have no right to put any more on the shoulders of the direct taxpayers. The right hon. Gentleman denounced the sugar duty first of all as harassing and destructive to trade. Well, protests have been made by manufacturers on that ground, but I have taken care in the administration of the duty, and in the arrangements for drawbacks, to, as much as possible, avoid harassing the trade, and I think I may say that if the trade had been really harassed, or really anticipated the great injury that hon. Gentlemen opposite prophesied would be inflicted, the Committee would have heard very much more about it than we have yet heard.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the incidence of the tax on the poor, and quoted a resolution from the Cooperative Congress. But the Co-operative Congress naturally do not like the sugar duty, for one of the principal parts of co-operative business is the sale of groceries, and I admit that the sugar, duty is not popular among the grocery faternity. And when the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the duty extracting more from the pockets of the poor than it would yield to the Exchequer, he made a mistake, for the hon. Member for Saffron Walden, who has come fresh from contesting that constituency, and who is, therefore, primed with all the arguments, admitted that the tax to the consumer would only be ½d. per lb., or 6d. per cwt. more than it yielded to the Exchequer. It would lot be easy to find an indirect tax which extracts less from the pockets of the consumers in comparison with its yield to the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman

  1263
  has alluded to the various articles in which sugar is used, but I doubt if he would say that any of them could be considered necessaries of life. [An HON. MEMBER: Condensed milk.] That, no doubt, has become a necessary, but its price has not been largely increased by the sugar tax. I have yet to hear any allegation of that kind. Of course, this tax is not a popular tax. No tax I ever heard of is popular. But of this I am sure, that the hon. Members for Romford and Islington were perfectly justified in what they said with regard to the willingness of the poorer classes of the people to bear this additional tax. As I said in introducing the Budget, this is by no means only a war tax, but is intended to meet the general expenditure of the country. With regard to the scale adopted in connection with the duty, I frankly admit that it has been a matter of great difficulty to settle it, but I think we have come to a fair conclusion as far as it is possible to judge at present. If we had settled it in such a way as to encourage the importation of a large quantity of very inferior sugar, so as to practically shut out foreign refined sugar and raise its price to the consumer here, I am quite sure we should have had strong remonstrances from foreign countries. We have had practically no such remonstrances at all, either officially or otherwise. That I put as prima facie proof that we have been fair between the two interests. At any rate, the proposals of the Government should have a fair trial before any adverse judgment is formed of them. The operation of the duty will be carefully watched in fairness to the interests concerned, including the Revenue. But it is not in the interest of the Revenue that we should charge duty according to such a scale as would be protective to our refiners here. The tax on glucose I will deal with on Report, as I shall be
  able to go into the subject more fully than is possible now. I trust that after the discussion we have had the Committee may be willing to come to a decision on a tax which I do not say is popular, but which I believe is required and cheerfully assented to by the mass of the population.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTONpointed out that this matter had only been under discussion for two and a half hours, and, as it was a very important matter, he wished to say a few words upon it. It was the only tax imposed by the Government in the nature of an import duty, and he desired to point out one matter which he thought had been allowed to go by, and that was that it was not merely that sugar was now a staple article of food of the people, but that it had only become so during the last twenty-four years, and that it had taken the place of other articles of food which it had displaced, and the result was if they increased the price of sugar, and consequently the price of articles of food which contained sugar, the people would be forced (although it might not be a protective tariff) to return to the articles of food which sugar had taken the place of. An indirect effect of this tax had not yet been pointed out. The one country which had no bounty upon the sugar it exported—namely, India—had nevertheless been able to compete in the markets of Great Britain with the bounty-fed products of foreign countries, but if they destroyed or limited the English market for sugar they would do much to crush one of the few export trades of India out of which the poorest population in the British Empire profited.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 240; Noes, 159. (Division List No. 270.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. E

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Arrol, Sir William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

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

  Aird, Sir John

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon John

  Balfour, Capt C. B. (Hornsey)

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Austin, Sir John

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

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

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

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Bignold, Arthur

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Bigwood, James

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bill, Charles

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry

  Parker, Gilbert

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfo'd

  Percy, Earl

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Helder, Augustus

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Butcher, John George

  Henderson, Alexander

  Purvis, Robert

  Carlile, William Walter

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Pym, C. Guy

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hill, Arthur

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead

  Rankin, Sir James

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

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas Thomson

  Chapman, Edward

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Russell, T. W.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Rutherford, John

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Colston, Charles Edward H. A.

  Keswick, William

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Knowles, Lees

  Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Edw. J.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm,

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lawson, John Grant

  Spear, John Ward

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. Wm. Edw. H.

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareh'm

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Denny, Colonel

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Bristol, S

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lowe, Francis William

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lucas, Col Francis (Lowestoft)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Dyke, Rt Hn. Sir William H.

  Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

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

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Wason, John C. (Orkney)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Finch, George H.

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H. E) Wigt'n

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-un.-Lyne

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Garfit, William

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

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

  Mitchell, William

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

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

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

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

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

  Wylie, Alexander

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Younger, William

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

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Gretton, John

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William Cork, N. E.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Grant, Corrie

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Partington, Oswald

  Ambrose, Robert

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hammond, John

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Perks, Robert William

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Blake, Edward

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Band, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

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

  Rea, Russell

  Boyle, James

  Holland, William Henry

  Reddy, M.

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Rigg, Richard

  Burt, Thomas

  Joyce, Michael

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Caine, William Sproston

  Kitson, Sir James

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Caldwell, James

  Lambert, George

  Roche, John

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Leamy, Edmund

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Crombie, John William

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cullinan, J.

  M'Govern, T.

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William

  Strachey, Edward

  Delany, William

  Mooney, John J.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dillon, John

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Doogan, P. C.

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Murphy, John

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Duffy, William J.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Newnes, Sir George

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r

  Dunn, Sir William

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

  Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N

  Edwards, Frank

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Elibank, Master of

  Norman, Henry

  Ure, Alexander

  Ellis, John Edward

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

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Emmott, Alfred

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

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

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

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

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Dowd, John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Malley, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Lough and Mr. Kearley.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

  O'Mara, James

  Clause 3:—
  MR. D. A. THOMAShoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after hearing the arguments he was about to adduce, would agree to postpone the consideration of Clause 3. His reasons for asking him to accede to that request were based largely on the ground that in a very short time they would have a good deal of information bearing closely on the consideration of the clause
  1268
  which was not at present in the possession of the Committee. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had under consideration, or at any rate had suggested, a full and complete investigation into the whole of the coal question, including, of course, the smaller question of the probable effect of the export duty upon coal. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he honoured him with a reply, would state exactly his position now in relation to the inquiry which he

  1269
  had suggested. In reply to a question that afternoon across the floor of the House, he stated that the answer of the Parliamentary Committee of the Mining Association of Great Britain had not been satisfactory; and he had, in fact, given a negative reply to the inquiry as to whether a Royal Commission would be appointed. But he (the hon. Member) did not understand from his having stated that the reply of the Mining Association was unsatisfactory that he did not intend having any investigation at all. He thought it was quite clear to the Committee that the whole opposition to the clause, as represented by the Amendments on the Paper, would be very considerably modified—he was sure it would be in his own case—if it was understood that a full investigation was to be made into the whole question, and if the right hon. Gentleman could only make a statement informing the Committee of the nature and scope of inquiry he proposed, the terms of reference, and, if possible, the composition of the Committee, he could assure him that for his part it would largely modify his opposition to the coal tax, because he was satisfied that the duty had only to be inquired into in order to show that it could not remain, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed, a permanent tax. The next consideration he would ask him to weigh before he replied was that a very important Return had recently been moved for by the President of the Board of Trade. It was moved for on the 14th of the present month and presented to the House of Commons on the 17th, but it had not yet reached the hands of Members. That Return related to the production and export of coal, and the number of persons employed in coal production in the principal countries in the world for a series of years from 1883 to 1899. He thought the Committee, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, must see that a Return of that character, bearing so closely on the consideration of this question, should be in the hands of every member of the Committee before they were asked to consider the Amendments to the Bill.
  There was another point. Section 3 of Clause 3, relating to the exemption of certain coal contracts which had been entered into, was now receiving the consideration
  1270
  of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the right hon. Gentleman had not, so far as he could understand, come to a definite decision as to the exemptions he proposed to make. When the right hon. Gentleman first embarked on this coal tax he seemed hardly to know that there were any contracts at all; but he had discovered since then that a very large portion of the coal exported from this country was sold under contracts made some time before the coal was delivered. Many thousands of contracts had been sent into the Customs to be considered, but the Chancellor had not yet stated the exemptions he proposed to make. Before they entered upon the consideration of the clause at all they ought to know definitely what contracts he proposed to exempt, and to what extent in the matter of time he proposed to exempt them. They were entering upon the consideration of the clause with very little information as to its probable effect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade had been asked again and again for information on various points, but they had not been given the information which it was essential the Committee should have before they considered the Amendments. He hoped by giving the Chancellor of the Exchequer a little further time he would be able to give them some of the information they wanted. For instance, there was a very important Amendment proposing to reduce the duty on small coal to half the amount of large coal, but he ventured to say that no one in the Committee, not even the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could tell how much coal exported from this country was large coal and how much small. Unless the right hon. Gentleman could tell them that, of course he could not in the least degree know what the effect of the exemption of small coal would be on the revenue he expected to gain. Then, again, there was the Amendment proposing to exempt the coal supplied to British residents abroad. At the present moment the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not know how much duty would fall on British subjects abroad. There were, indeed, a number of Amendments with regard to which the Committee could not arrive at a proper decision until they had further information, and on those

  1271
  grounds he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accede to the motion he desired to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That Clause 3 be postponed."—(Mr D. A. Thomas.)
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: This proposal has been before the country for more than two months. The principle of the coal duty was fully discussed on the Report of the Resolution to the House and was approved by a very large majority, and it was further discussed on the Second Reading of the Bill when there was again a large majority Now, when, two months from its first being proposed, we come to the consideration of the clause dealing with the subject the hon. Member asks for still further postponement in order that we may obtain information upon various points with which, I cannot help thinking, the hon. Member is pretty well acquainted already. Certainly, if he did obtain this information he would press for more, with a view to a further postponement. This is a purely dilatory motion; it is a proposal to which I cannot agree. The hon. Member has asked me to make a statement to the Committee upon certain points. As we come to the Amendments affecting those points I shall be ready to make those statements. We shall soon come to an Amendment with regard to the duration of the tax. Upon that Amendment I shall be happy to make a statement upon the question of the inquiry to which the hon. Member has alluded. We shall come later on to the question of the effect of the duty upon large coal and small coal, or upon the more valuable coal and the less valuable kinds of coal. There, again, I shall be quite prepared to make a statement to the Committee. Then there is the question of existing contracts, not a matter affecting the principle of the duty, but, if I might say so, an important side issue. When we come to the proposal in the clause for granting exemptions I shall be prepared to make a statement as to the principle on which the exemptions will be made. Therefore I think the request of the hon. Member to postpone this clause to some indefinite time merely in order that I may be able to make these statements is not a reasonable one, and I
  1272
  am not able to agree to it. I would, therefore, ask the Committee to reject the motion.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite right in saying that this proposal had been before the country for about two months, but he apparently did not understand the real reason for which his hon. friend moved to postpone the consideration of the clause. The reason was that there were various subsidiary matters connected with the proposed legislation that arose even if they were to concede the main principle of the proposed tax. He would give ah instance of what he meant, an instance that would very materially affect his attitude, once the principle was admitted, towards the actual terms of the clause now under consideration. He referred to manufactured fuel. When, some weeks ago, a deputation waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the very terms of the right hon. Gentleman's answer to that deputation showed that he was not adequately informed as to the character of the patent fuel trade carried on in Western Glamorganshire. Questions had been asked more than once as to the intention of the Government in regard to this manufactured fuel, but no satisfactory answer had been obtained, and he should support the Amendment in order, if possible, to receive information as to the exact effect of the tax not only upon the coal exporting trade, but also upon the manufacturers of fuel in Glamorganshire and other parts of the country. They had failed to extract that information, and before they went into details of the Amendment he should like to know what was the scheme of the Government. It was obvious that one thing depended upon another, and the incidence of the tax upon the particular industry to which he had referred was a matter of very great importance.
  MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he was sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put his foot down so firmly in regard to the postponement of this clause. He thought it would have been better if he had waited to see if sufficient reason could be assigned to influence his mind upon this question. When at first deputations waited upon

  1273
  him for the purpose of asking him to withdraw this tax, they left his presence with the impression that the matter would be left open for future discussion before the final binding decision was given. Now the right hon. Gentleman told them that he could not possibly postpone the clause. Looking at this question from a workmans' point of view, he appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to postpone this matter until there had been a further inquiry. Both the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as other hon. Members opposite, had stated that this tax would not affect workmen at all, because it could not reduce their wages. He thought that was too narrow a view to take of this question. There were other ways in which workmen could be injured besides a reduction in wages.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see how that argument is relevant to the postponement of this clause. The same argument will apply to the clause even if not postponed.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: said he was urging the postponement of this clause in order that the workmen's views might be inquired into before the decision of the House was made binding. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would inquire into the matter more closely he would find that the workmen were far more concerned—
  *THE CHAIRMAN: That matter cannot be inquired into and discussed until the clause is reached. Whether the clause is taken to-night or a week hence in this respect does not matter, and a discussion on the subject-matter which the hon. Member has raised cannot be raised until the clause comes on.
  MR. JOHN WILSONsaid that already arguments had been put forward in regard to manufactured fuel and with reference to small coal and large coal being separated; also as to the advisability of a differentiation of the tax upon these classes of coal being made. Therefore he thought he was entitled to bring in the position of the worker, for he wished to show the right hon. Gentleman that if he would look up the workman's position he would find that this alteration
  1274
  was as bad as a reduction of wages to the worker.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: That argument, as far as I understand it, is possibly a good argument against the whole clause, but it is not relevant to the postponement of the clause. What the hon. Member really desires is the rejection of the clause. The hon. Member is only entitled to give reasons for the postponement of the clause, and not reasons for its rejection, and I must ask him to confine himself to the question before the Committee.
  MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he was trying in the best manner he could to bring forward the reasons which were before his mind. If the questions of contracts and sub-contracts could be put forward as reasons for postponement he was bound to say he did not see why such an argument could not be put forward as a valid reason for the postponement of the clause.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that his strong argument in support of this motion was that they had not up to the presen had the scheme of the Government up on this subject placed before them. This was a clause levying for the first time an export duty upon coal, and it was obvious that the scheme of the Government was entirely incomplete when the Chancellor made his Budget statement. The right hon. Gentleman had already told the Committee that he had statements to make upon various matters, and so far as the Committee were concerned they were quite in the dark as to the whole scheme of the Government. Before they were in a position to discuss this clause properly the Committee ought to know what the mind of the Government was upon this matter. Various matters had been pointed out of considerable importance which ought to conclusively prove to any reasonable-minded man that this clause ought to be postponed. Surely those were sufficient grounds for consenting to the postponement. Since it was stated that this was going to be a permanent tax the right hon. Gentleman had met the Association of Mine Owners, and he had held out to them the hope that they might look upon this as a temporary tax.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Member is quite mistaken upon that point. I simply asked them what their views were on the point, and they argued that it should be for one year only.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSthought that when the right hon. Gentleman invited mine owners to express their views he should be prepared to listen to them. This was one of the matters which he had taken into consideration in deciding to support the motion for the postponement of the clause. There were various other matters which went to the whole root of this question. Surely they were quite reasonable in asking that the clause should be postponed until they knew something about the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the contracts entered into before the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was put before the House in his Budget speech were exempted from the tax, practically the whole of the tax for this year would disappear. The question of putting 1s. per ton upon the inferior kinds of coal—
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is anticipating a number of Amendments which have already been placed Upon the Paper. He will see at once that no statement bearing upon those Amendments can be allowed upon the question of whether this clause ought to be postponed or not. Supposing this motion is successful, that would completely shut the mouth of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to any questions which might be put to him upon this subject, and it would even exclude the very matter which the hon. Member wishes to be brought forward. I should certainly stop the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he attempted, upon a motion to postpone the clause, to make any statement of the kind indicated in regard to the proposals of the Government, because it would not be relevant.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSthought the reasons already given were entitled to a reply from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although this matter had been before the country some two months, they were still in the dark as to the scheme of the Government.
  MR. ROBSONsaid he would confine his observations to one
  1276
  reason in favour of this motion, and that reason had been suggested by what the right hon. Gentleman had told them. When he introduced this tax the right hon. Gentleman made the very significant statement that it was extremely difficulty in taxes of this character to collect information from the trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, had approached the tax with the plea of ignorance, for which he was not, of course, responsible. The very plea that he put forward was a most significant manifestation of the ignorance which he was admitting. There was no reason why, in regard to a tax of this kind, inquiries should not have been made from those concerned in the trade. There was no reason whatever, because this was a tax which did not admit of forestalment. What he desired was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should give them a little more time, be it ever so little—be it only a week. He should prefer that he gave time for adequate and exhaustive inquiry. At any rate, they asked for more time in order that not only the coal trade, but the trades generally interested should be able to lay their views before the House. There was no fear of forestalling in this case, as in the case of tea, sugar, and tobacco. That could not be done in the case of coal. Coal had to be produced day by day, and deposited day by day at the pit's mouth. They could not because a tax was going to be imposed suddenly increase their output, except in small quantities, nor suddenly diminish their output. The trade must go on according to the line which it had taken up for some considerable time before the tax had been imposed.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed entirely to ignore that, and the result was that he had deliberately refrained from making inquiries in the proper quarters, which would certainly have prevented him putting forward this tax in the form they now found it in the Bill. That consideration alone ought to be sufficient to induce him to delay the Bill further. How complete and how lamentable was the ignorance of those who advised the right hon. Gentleman was seen from that discussion. He was not even aware that those carrying on this trade did so under "long-forward" contracts. The other night he showed

  1277
  how little he had profited by the interval for the inquiry by putting forward an argument which must have astonished everybody in the trade. He said that during the month of April there had been a rise in the exports, and he put forward that argument—to a House containing among its Members those who were concerned in coal contracts, he solemnly put forward that argument to show that the tax had not diminished the volume of trade. One could not imagine a more complete misapprehension than that argument, and that misapprehension they desired to remove. He was not going to argue that point now; but he would simply explain that when the right hon. Gentleman suggested the tax, and said he was going to exempt existing contracts from the tax, obviously those concerned in the trade would seek to get out all their arrears under those contracts, and push them forward, and the first effect of the tax would be to increase the exports for that month; and yet the right hon. Gentleman came to the House of Commons and told them solemnly that the tax had been accepted by the trade, and that it had not injuriously affected the trade. He ventured to say that that was not the way in which the coal trade of the country ought to be treated.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Those arguments are not relevant to the subject under discussion, namely, the postponement of the clause. The hon. Member must address himself only to arguments which are relevant.
  MR. ROBSONreplied that he did not desire to evade the Chairman's ruling. He desired to point out the illustrations which had arisen in the course of the controversy as to the complete want of information. It was quite obvious that whoever had advised the right hon. Gentleman remained still in ignorance as to the commercial conditions of the trade, and every day afforded opportunity for him to profit.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid he desired to support the Amendment of his hon. friend. Those engaged in the coal trade did not know at the present time upon whom the liability to pay this duty would fall.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The tax is being aid every day.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid they did not know who would ultimately have to pay the tax.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: That is a matter which can only be dealt with by an Amendment to the clause, and it is not relevant to the question whether this clause should be postponed or not.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid that this Bill incorporated the Customs Consolidation Act, and there was nothing in the Finance Bill itself which imposed this duty upon anybody. There was no mention in this Bill of anybody who had to pay the tax, but by the Customs Consolidation Act this coal tax was to be put upon the exporter.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: There is an Amendment on the Paper which will enable that point to be discussed.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: These arguments are not in the least relevant to the postponement of the clause, although they may be very proper arguments to bring forward when the clause itself is under discussion.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid he only asked that this clause should be postponed until it had been decided who should pay the tax. Already in the north and in south Wales the Customs authorities were taking different lines, and under Section 20 the duty could not be recovered from the persons to whom the coal had been sold.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: These arguments are not relevant to the postponement of the clause, although they may be relevant to the clause when it is reached; and then the hon. Member may ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he proposes to carry out his scheme, and how the payment is to be made. I must direct the hon. Member to discontinue his speech, on the ground of irrelevance.
  SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid this was a very complicated question, and many of the difficulties had arisen because the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in possession of sufficient information when the proposal was first made. The coal tax was a tax which had not been levied before for something like fifty years.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now discussing the subject matter of the clause, and I have already pointed out that he cannot do so upon the question of postponing the clause. I must remind the hon. Member of the Standing Order relating to repetitions.
  SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid the point he was endeavouring to make clear was that the right hon. Gentleman did not possess sufficient information to deal with the point, and the House of Commons did not possess sufficient information. One of the chief reasons his hon. friend below him had given for the postponement of the clause was that a certain Return, which had been asked for, showing the reduction in the consumption of export coal, and the number of persons employed in coal production in the different countries of the world, had not been issued. That Return formed part of the information which, in his judgment, was absolutely necessary to enable the Committee to come to a decision upon the point. It was a most complicated affair, and hon. Members who were not familiar with it did not realise the difficulties there were in connection with it. They had had it under consideration now for two months, and there had been all kinds of negotiations going on to endeavour to inform the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the party he represented on the various matters connected with the subject, and surely there was a valid reason for asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the postponement of the clause till after the Returns, which were considered vital to enable the Committee to come to a decision upon the matter, had been placed before them. That was not an unreasonable request to make. It was not a dilatory matter. He did think that when they were going to make such an important change as this the Committee and the House should be in possession of all the information which was considered necessary. He thought information was being kept back from the Committee which was vital to coming to a proper decision on this matter. There was no question upon which not only the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but his Department, seemed to be less understood than the coal trade question, and the public themselves were perfectly
  1280
  ignorant of what the matter involved. It was a simple thing to say, "Put a tax of 1s. on exported coal," but surely before the Committee came to a decision upon an important question like that they should have sufficient information to see whether the tax would be imposed on a satisfactory basis.
  *MR. FENWICKsaid since the Bill was introduced the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in relation to the duty on sugar, had had information given which justified him in altering the basis of the proposal. With reference to the tax now under consideration, he said that he intended to exempt contracts to a certain extent. Surely they were within their rights in desiring to have certain necessary information supplied to them before they came to the consideration of the tax. They desired the postponement in order that information might be supplied, so that they might be able to judge what effect the change would have so far as the contracts for the present year were concerned.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I would remind the hon. Member that the Chairman has already ruled that he will not permit any such statement on this Amendment. I hope hon. Members will not discuss this matter further.
  SIR EDWARD REEDsaid this was a very important point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was in a position where he could not give the information which some hon. Members thought necessary before the clause was discussed, and the Chairman could not allow them to proceed upon any other line than that of entering upon the discussion of the Amendments. At the same time he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer might make a general statement to the House, because of the unfortunate position in which they were placed. He was not aware whether the forms of the House would admit of any general statement such as was desired on the Opposition side. He did not speak with the slightest desire to cause delay. Many questions had been mooted and discussed for weeks past, and now the Committee entered upon the debate with respect to this clause in a perfect, fog as to what the intentions of the

  1281
  Government were. He certainly expected that, before they proceeded to discuss this clause, they would have had a statement of the decision of the Government in regard to certain matters which it was understood had been under the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I will do so when the Amendments are submitted.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he fully admitted that there was great difficulty in discussing this clause on an Amendment, the effect of which was that the clause should not be discussed at present. The Chairman had ruled that it was impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make any statement of his intentions, or of any modifications he might propose to make, as long as this Amendment was before the Committee. At the same time the Amendment was not so unreasonable as the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to suppose. After all, what was their position in regard to this clause of the Bill? It was that time would show that their forecast of the operation of the duty was more just than that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was, therefore, greatly on time that they depended to prove their case, and from their point of view the more time there was before this matter was finally decided the more chance there was of fresh information being forthcoming which might affect the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had the greatest respect for the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he had some hope that in course of time some impression would be made upon it by the working of this tax, and by the information which would be forthcoming. Some impression had been made already,
  for Amendments had been introduced since the tax was originally proposed. All he could say was that he fell back on the old proverb "Everything comes to the man who waits."
  *SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid he sympathised very much with the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he could not, while this Amendment was before the Committee, make a statement on certain matters with respect to which they wanted information. On the other hand, it was very difficult indeed to pass from the first Amendment without knowing what was to happen afterwards. The Committee had never had the slightest indication from the right hon. Gentleman of what was to be done with respect to coal exported under contracts current at the date when the tax was to begin. On that really a great deal depended, so far as their attitude towards the Bill was concerned. It was difficult to discuss the 1s. duty if they did not know the quantity of coal to which it applied.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be prepared, with the leave of the House, to make a statement on the scheme as remodelled by the Government?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I will deal with the Amendments when we reach them, but I cannot deal with them until we reach the clauses to which they refer.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I will be glad to make a statement of the kind desired as soon as I am in a position to do so.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 126; Noes, 167, (Division List No. 271.)

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

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Holland, William Henry

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

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

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

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Donnell, James (Mayo, S.)

  Shipman' Dr. John G.

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'Dowd, John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  O'Malley, William

  Sullivan, Donal

  Leng, Sir John

  O'Mara, James

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lundon, W.

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Ure, Alexander

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Walton, John Lawson) Leeds'S.)

  MacDermott, Patrick

  Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  M'Govern, T.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Weir, James Galloway

  Mooney, John J.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Price, Robert John

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Morgan, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Rea, Russell

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Murphy, John

  Reddy, M.

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

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

  Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. D. A. Thomas and Mr. M'Kenna.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Rigg, Richard

  Norman, Henry

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Knowles, Lees

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Davies, Sir Horatio D, (Chatham

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Denny, Colonel

  Lawson, John Grant

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

  Arrol, Sir William

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

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

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lowe, Francis William

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Finch, George H.

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

  Flower, Ernest

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.)

  Mitchell, William

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

  Garfit, William

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Beckett, Ernest William

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

  Myrgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Bigwood, James

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Bond, Edward

  Greene, Sir E. W Bury S Edm'nds

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Mount, William Arthur

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Butcher, John George

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Parker, Gilbert

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert W.

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

  Helder, Augustus

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Henderson, Alexander

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Purvis, Robert

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Pym, C. Guy

  Chapman, Edward

  Hoult, Joseph

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

  Rankin, Sir James

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hudson, Geopge Bickersteth

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Renwick, George

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. ((Stalybridge

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  *THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendments on the Paper in the names of the hon. Member for the Cricklade Division and the hon. Member for North Monmouthshire are in the wrong place. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil is not in order. It proposes that a Select Committee should be appointed, and that proposal is beyond the scope of the Bill.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSmoved to insert, instead of "as from the 19th April," "as from the 19th October," so that the coal duty should be levied from the latter date only. He thought it would be obvious that the effect as well as the object of the Amendment was to postpone the operation of the duties on exported coal for six months. He thought it was not unreasonable to ask that some notice should be given, when a tax so unexpected as this was imposed upon a very complicated industry, before it came into operation. He might say that his interest in this matter arose entirely out of his position as a Member of Parliament, and it was because he thought this tax would fall upon the workman, and not upon the millionaire coal-owners of whom the Committee had heard, that he thought it right to move the Amendment, so as to allow the trade to look round and see what the effect of the tax would be. A great deal of coal which had to be delivered was on contracts which were entered into before the Budget proposals of the right hon. Gentleman were laid before the House. There were bunkering contracts, contracts for bunker coal, which were generally made in October for the ensuing year, and it would be very hard upon those who had contracted for bunkering coal if the tax came into operation as from the 19th April. The right hon. Gentleman had
  1286
  said that one of the reasons for bringing forward this proposal was that, in his opinion, it would fall upon the foreigner in a large degree. He did not wish to discuss the advisability of putting a tax on the foreigner, but he pointed out that, under a contract which he held in his hand, entered into by a London firm with the North German Lloyd, if this tax came into operation from 19th April the London firm would lose £2,500 this year, and the German line would gain it. If this tax came into operation as from 19th April it would press very hardly on those who had contracts running through 1901; but if it was postponed for six months they would have time to see what could be done with regard to it. If the tax was postponed they would to some extent get rid of the question of contracts, and to that extent get rid of a very difficult question. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would say what his proposals were with regard to the exemptions of coal which was sold to be delivered in the following six months. It might be said that if the Amendment was carried the exporters would be able to supply their contracts for two years to come; but that would not necessarily be the case, because words might be inserted in the Bill to show that it was only the coal which had to be delivered for these six months that was exempted. He begged to move.
  *THE CHAIRMANpointed out that if the Amendment was disposed of it would cut out the Amendment of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, as well as that of the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs, because he must assume that, if the Committee declined the proposition to postpone the operation of the tax for six months, still less would they incline

  1287
  to extend that principle to eight months or twelve months.
  MR. D. A. THOMASsubmitted that it was the universal practice to put the larger amount and the longer time to the Committee first, and that such a course would not cut out his Amendment.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: That was the system once, but it has not been so for many years.
  MR. D. A. THOMASasked whether he would be in order to put the point and divide the House upon the question whether the words "as from" should be omitted—
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I have already said that if the hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan was not successful the hon. Member's Amendment would not be in order. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil did not give notice in time; the hon. Member for Mid Glamorgan did.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I gave notice this afternoon, and I submit that no notice is necessary.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 28, to leave out the words 'as from the nineteenth day of April,' and insert the words 'from the nineteenth day of October.' "—(Mr Samuel Evans.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: This is an Amendment I could not possibly accept, because the effect of it would be to postpone the operation of the duty altogether for a considerable part of the year, without distinction between contracts existing at the date of the Budget and contracts entered on after the Budget. I can see no reason for postponing the operation of the duty, either to the date suggested or to any other date. I have listened to the hon. Member very carefully, and so far as I could judge he gave no reason for the Amendment he has moved. I may state that I carefully considered this matter, because, as I reminded the Committee, when Sir Robert Peel revised
  1288
  the duties in 1842, he allowed an interim of four months before the commencement of the duty. The result was that an enormous exportation took place within those four months in order to avoid the duty, with the worst results to the Revenue, and with some unfairness to those who were not able to accelerate their exportation. As to the exemption which I propose to allow, I might, by leave of the Committee, make a statement, but it must be on the understanding that that statement shall not be made the subject of a discussion, which will properly come later.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman makes a statement it will be impossible to preclude other Members from discussing it, and from various points of view. It is not regular to make such a statement; but sometimes it has been done by the general assent of the Committee.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: In that case I think it would be best, in reply to a question to-morrow, to state what the proposals of the Government are. The hon. Member has named the 19th October. I will say now that practically, though not in all cases, there will be a large exemption to existing contracts up to the end of September.
  *MR. HERBERT LEWISbelieved that if the imposition of the duty could be postponed for a year there would be such an amount of information from all parts of the world to which the British coal trade extended as would satisfy the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was proposing a course of great danger to our commercial supremacy. When in South Africa, some years ago, he was shown the point at which British coal and Transvaal coal met in equal competition. That point was being steadily pushed towards Cape Town, and what took place in South Africa was taking place in other parts. The consular reports from Italy showed that manufacturers were considering the desirability of doing industrial work by water power, and the extension of that power would have the effect of lessening the consumption of British coal in the Italian market. The pressure of foreign competition was felt upon our coal trade in every part

  1289
  of the world, and the effect of the permanent 1s. duty would be to contract the fringe of that trade everywhere. Within the last few months there had been a marked change in the coal trade of his district, and the effect of a restriction of the export trade would be increase of competition in the home trade, and in this competition the poorer collieries, working on a very small margin of profit, would succumb.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid he desired to say a word or two in the interest of a class of persons who had been somewhat ignored hitherto in the debates on this question. He referred to the class of commission agents and middlemen at ports like Swansea and Cardiff, who had perhaps made their arrangements for carrying on the coal trade from year to year. These men had suddenly found themselves face to face with a completely new situation. He was not speaking without some knowledge of the way in which the coal trade was carried on, at any rate in the port of Swansea, because it so happened that he had been concerned in many cases in which questions regarding the Welsh exportation of West Glamorganshire coal from Cardiff to France and to North Italy had arisen, and he found that a very considerable trade had developed between Swansea and Genoa. The margin of profit, however, was very small indeed. Now, the Western Glamorganshire export coal trade was totally different from that which took place at Cardiff. It was not an export trade carried on with the view of supplying the great navies of the world with steam coal. It was a precarious trade, carried on by comparatively small companies and individuals without any very large capital, competing against French coal-producers, and coal-producers in many other parts of Europe. This tax had been put upon this class of colliery owners and middle men, who by their tact in sending out agents to different ports abroad had been slowly building up a trade which had never been prosperous in the sense in which the great steam colliery trade had been prosperous. Now these men were face to face with a proposition which affected them and their capital invested in the business in a most vital way. Admitting, for
  1290
  the purposes of argument, that the coal tax was under the exceptional circumstances of the case justifiable, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was doing an injustice to these men by imposing the tax without due and adequate notice.
  MR. JOHN WILSONsaid that earlier in the evening he had endeavoured to raise the question of the position of the workmen with regard to this tax, and had endeavoured to show why the operation of the tax should be postponed. There could be no doubt that the fringe of the coal trade would be contracted, and he submitted that the proper test to apply to this question and to the hardship of this proposal on the community was not by its results on the monopoly trade, or the coal that would always be in demand whether there was a 1s. tax or not, but by the way it would affect the inferior coal and the fringe of the coal trade. There was as much demand for inferior as for superior coal, and it was a well-known fact that it took as many men to produce 100 tons in an inferior coal mine as in the superior coal mines. This was an aspect of the question which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not taken into account. As to whether the foreigner would pay or not was not now his point. In his opinion he would not pay, as he was too keen a business man, and he knew the market would be regulated by the law of supply and demand. He would take his own county, and assume that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said with reference to monopoly was right as regarded two-thirds of the coal. But that left two million tons which would not be wanted, and not only the two million tons, but the men who produced it would not be wanted. According to Government returns, the number required to produce two million tons of coal was 6,300 men and boys, and if the right hon. Gentleman could look upon a state of things like that with composure it was more than he could do. He was secretary of one of the largest trade unions in the country, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that from January to April last 1,200 men had been discharged in Durham simply because the markets were dislocated. They had to pay those men 10s. a week out of the hard-earned

  1291
  wages of the miners who were working, and if 6,300 men were to be added to that number the position would be serious indeed. Not only would the miners not be wanted, but the men who trimmed the coal in ships would not be wanted, the men in locomotives and on board ships would not be wanted, and stagnation would fall on the trade of the whole country.; because trade was kept up not by the purchases of the few, but by the purchases of the workers. Then many whole communities depended on the miners. He knew villages in Durham and Northumberland which had not a single industry, and in which the whole of the shops and every tradesman depended upon the miners, and if collieries were stopped, as assuredly they would be stopped if a third of their coal was not required, then whole villages in Northumberland and Durham would be rendered desolate. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to pause before he imposed a tax of that kind. It was unique in its application and in its impingements, and, as he would find out before he was done with it, in its results also. They had been told that it was a matter of wages, and that when contention arose between the employers and the men, the men would be strong enough to look after themselves. The President of the Board of Trade said that the miners were strong enough to withstand the demands of the employers, and the Colonial Secretary urged them to keep their money in order to meet the employers. He wished to say that they had a better way than striking. The men needed no impetus to strike, but their leaders wanted to keep them on lines of conciliation. They wanted to avoid conflict, and not to have an internecine war between employers and workers, and he thought that statesmen who managed great departments of State should hesitate before suggesting that the workers should prepare themselves for a strike. He wished to say that they recognised the rise and fall of the markets, and that they would try and prepare the men to recognise that wages should follow the markets on lines of conciliation and arrangement. He saw in The Times newspaper that the miners had been receiving great wages, and that the

  1292
  capitalists had made large profits. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said the same, and the President of the Board of Trade had issued a return, in which, however, there was a difference of five millions, between a statement in one part of it and in another. It was stated in one portion of the return that the increase of wages between 1897 and 1900 was £16,000,000, whereas in another part the increase was given as £21,000,000. If such a return could bear the mark of ignorance and show such a discrepancy there was need for closer inquiry and more careful scrutiny before the figures were launched forth to inflame the public mind. His two hon. friends the Members for Morpeth and the Wansbeck Division would be able to state their own case, and he ventured to state that their situation would be even worse than the position in Durham. Assuming that one-third of the coal now exported from Northumberland was not required, that would mean that 8,000 men and boys would not be required. He had never clamoured for the war, but he was quite willing to bear his share. He would, however, advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer to turn in some other direction in order to get the money he required. Last year The Times newspaper, by anticipation, dealt with the coal tax in a very trenchant manner.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member has rather forgotten the Amendment now before the Committee. He is dealing with the whole tax, but that question will not arise until the clause is put as a whole. The question now is—when will the tax come into operation?
  MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he apologised for infringing the rules of debate. He had tried to state the case from the workman's point of view, and also from the wages point of view. The tax might mean that instead of a man being able to work six days a week he might be only able to get work on two or three days. The average wages of the coal-getter in the best of times last year was only on an average 7s. 5d. per day, and he would respectfully urge on the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should find some other means of obtaining the money he needed. He would suggest to him, if the coal trade of the country had to pay, to

  1293
  let the people who received profits for which they did not work pay.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: These questions are not relevant to the Amendment now before the Committee. I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself strictly to the question of when the tax is to come into operation.
  MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would turn his attention to some other form of taxation. He would heartily support the Amendment which had been moved by his hon. friend.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLANsaid he should like to direct the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the results that had already accrued from his Budget proposals, and he would give the right hon. Gentleman one reason why he ought to accept the Amendment and postpone the tax until he got more information, and knew exactly what the effect of it would be on one of the greatest industries in the country. When the Bill was introduced he himself came to the conclusion that it was conceived in ignorance and born in stupidity. He would tell the Committee one effect which had already been produced, and many others would follow. In Northumberland they had a large contract for coal to supply the Danish railways, but since the introduction of the Budget two-thirds of that order had been given to Westphalia, and the proposed tax did it. Was that the way to maintain the industries of the country? That was not the way to raise taxation. Taxation should be raised with a minimum of irritation, but that tax had been imposed, for a trifle of two millions, in a way which produced the greatest irritation throughout the country. The appeal of the hon. Member for Mid-Durham ought to go to the heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and cause him to agree to the postponement of the tax until he had more information as to the effect it would have. If the right hon. Gentleman mixed with the shipbrokers and miners of the North of England he would find that every word spoken by the hon. Members for the Mid-Durham and Wansbeck Division was absolutely true. Why, therefore, not accept the Amendment? It was not British business at all to resist it under the circumstances, as the tax
  1294
  was, in his opinion, unnecessary and unjust.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHpointed out that the arguments of the last two hon. Members who had spoken were against the tax altogether, and were not directed at all to the Amendment. The effect of the Amendment if accepted would be that the tax would commence on 19th October instead of 19th April. This would not meet the views of the hon. Member for Gateshead, because he objected to the tax in toto. In regard to the point raised as to the difficulty of the coal trade in Northumberland as compared with other parts of the country, he had been told that the particular contract named by the hon. Member for Gateshead had been lost by a difference of 8d. per ton, which was a clear proof that, although that class of coal might not be able to bear a tax of 1s. per ton, it could, at any rate, carry a tax of 4d. per ton. But it was perfectly absurd to suggest that from the fact that one contract had been made and another lost they could judge the general effect of a tax of this kind. He could quote instances in which contracts had been made on very good terms since the tax was imposed on the understanding that the foreigner would pay the whole of the tax. The strength of the case of the hon. Members who had just spoken was in respect of the cheapest kinds of coal, and when the Committee came to the Amendments relating to that class of coal he would be prepared to consider the subject.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS, referring to the remark of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the strength of the case against the tax was in regard to the cheaper coal, pointed out that the South American and other markets also were affected. The hon. Member for Mid-Glamorganshire, in moving his Amendment, said he was not interested in the coal trade. That was a most improper remark, because hon. Members were supposed to speak in Parliament not in their own interests, but as representing their constituents. He himself was not interested in the coal trade to anything like the extent generally supposed, and he spoke in the House only for his constituents in Merthyr Tydvil, the largest mining constituency in the United Kingdom. He desired to know whether

  1295
  he would be in order in moving the Amendment he had handed in.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid the Amendment the hon. Member had handed in was to omit the words "as from "and to insert the words "on and after." The Amendment under discussion was to omit the words "as from." If those words were struck out the hon. Member would be in order in moving to insert "on and after," but the question did not arise yet.
  MR. D. A. THOMASsaid he only desired to get the Chairman's ruling. He understood that if the present Amendment was carried it would be competent for him to move to insert the words "on and after"?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
  MR. D. A. THOMASwas anxious to ascertain whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was correct in his statement on a previous occasion that the words "as from" were the same in their effect as "on and after." The resolution upon which the clause was based provided that the tax should be imposed "on and after" 19th April, and the right hon. Gentleman had previously stated that it would be from the beginning and not the end of the 19th day of April. Legal gentlemen, however, appeared to differ as to the point, but a case somewhat parallel was decided in the courts in 1891. In the case of the South Staffordshire Tramways Company v. the Sickness and Accident Assurance Association, it was held by Mr. Justice Day, Mr. Justice Lawrence concurring, that the effect of the word "from" a certain date excluded that date, and was not equivalent to "on and after." The case went to the Appeal Court and was decided in favour of the appellants, but not on that particular point. If there was any room for doubt, it was surely much better to make it absolutely certain by embodying the words as given in the resolution on the coal tax. Assuming his contention was correct, it would mean a difference of about £30,000 to the revenue, and it would certainly be much better to insert these words than to have to go to the law courts to get the matter decided. With regard to the argument of the hon.
  1296
  Member for Mid-Glamorganshire, it would be more satisfactory to insert 31st December than October 19th, because contracts were not usually made from October to October, but they were made in October for the following year. Moreover, they were not by any manner of means always made in October. If the market was rising they would be made in August or September, while if the market was depressed they might not be made until November or December.
  *MR. FENWICKsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that he knew of a contract which had recently been made, under very favourable conditions, in connection with which the foreigner had agreed to pay the tax.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I mentioned more than one.
  *MR. FENWICKsaid he had heard of one himself, and he would state to the Committee the conditions under which it was made, as it was more than likely that the contracts to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred were made under similar conditions. In the case of which he had heard it was agreed that if the foreigner paid the tax he should be supplied with the coal at 1s. per ton below the market price, or the exact value of the duty. It was rather to the advantage of the foreigner that, until the tax was disposed of, he should pay the duty, because the probabilities were that the duty would be reduced so far as North Country coal was concerned, and it was not at all likely that it would be increased. On the other hand, it was to the interest of the English coalowner when selling to sell it at the lower price, because the lower price would then be entered in his books as the realised selling price, and when the quarterly ascertainment, upon which wages were based, was made, the benefit would go to the employer, and not to the workman.
  MR. ROBSON, while supporting the Amendment, could not agree with some of the reasons urged in its favour. He believed that for the next few months it was almost certain that a considerable portion of the tax would be paid by the foreigner, but after about six months the foreigner would be in a position to

  1297
  put the tax upon us, because he would then have increased the capacity of his pits, increased his output, and be able to supply coal in substitution for that which would no longer be taken from the English market. At present we exported about 49,000,000 tons per year, and the foreigner would have to pay practically any tax that was put upon it, because for a few months he could not possibly produce coal in substitution for our exported coal. But when once the foreigner had increased the number of places in his pits to which he could put his men he would be able to supply coal in the place of that which this tax would displace. As soon as he had increased his output to that extent—which would be in a very short time—he would be able to throw the whole of this tax upon the English producer.
  SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid that while it might be true, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that when Sir Robert Peel fixed a tax upon coal he gave four months notice, and that during the four months there was an enormous increase in the exportation of coal, he would point out that at that time the exportation of coal was extremely small. It could then be counted by tens of thousands of tons; in any case, it was not more than a few hundred thousand tons; whereas now it was counted by tens of millions of tons. Another important fact was that at that time collieries were worked only for about six months in the year, so that in case of emergency the output could be increased. The present state of affairs was altogether different. For the last two or three years the producers of coal had been doing their very utmost to increase the output, because prices were high and profits large; he had never denied that fact. But circumstances were altogether different now from those of 1842, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer need be under no apprehension that, if this Amendment were accepted, the coal producers of the country would be able to increase their output very extensively. If, say, six months notice of this tax were given, he felt certain the right hon. Gentleman would not find it seriously to his disadvantage.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEdesired to call the attention of the Committee to the
  1298
  position of the exporter on the northeast coast, especially in the Hull and Grimsby trade with the Continent. Coal was only a part of their cargo. While many ships were fully loaded with coal, a large number went out with mixed cargoes, and they came back loaded with raw materials for the manufactures of Lancashire and Yorkshire. The tax had come so suddenly on this trade that nobody at present was able so say exactly where he stood. It was the outward and the homeward freights all put together which made the current rate, which was so important to the manufacturers of Lancashire, Yorkshire, and the north of England. He hoped that the six months provided for in this Amendment would be granted, in order that the regular trade of the country should not be damaged. The 40,000,000 tons of coal and the 10,000,000 tons of bunker coal was no small item in the large trade of this country, and if they by any means lowered that quantity they would damage the steam fleet, which was so vital to their manufacturing interests. This was a point to which he wished specially to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If they damaged in any way the steam fleet they would also damage the shipbuilding yards, and throw more people out of employment.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid the Committee had been put in a very difficult position by the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had approached this question. His object in moving that Amendment was simply to postpone the operation of the tax for six months. He did so for two reasons: (1) to give the trade, and particularly the owners of the poor collieries, time to look about; (2) to endeavour to mitigate the severity of the tax as far as possible. If the right hon. Gentleman was going to deal with the contracts, they ought to know what he was going to do, and if he gave that information then he might probably withdraw his Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman proposed dealing with the small collieries in a certain way, but he did not disclose it. He presumed that the right hon. Gentleman was willing to place an ad valorem duty upon some classes of coal. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer should at once

  1299
  place his whole scheme before the House with regard to existing contracts, and state how they proposed to deal with inferior coal and coal of the smaller size. He would therefore move the adjournment of the debate in order to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell the Committee what the Government proposals were.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I will put the motion, but I cannot allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make any such statement upon it. I cannot under the rules of the House permit a discussion of the Bill upon a motion for progress.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that in that case he would not think of persisting in the motion.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid they were now discussing the postponement of a clause, and they were suddenly told that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to make some extremely important changes, which he had not yet disclosed to them, and which it was supposed would have some influence upon the discussion. What was going to be done with regard to contracts he did not know. They did not know what was going to be done with regard to small collieries or small coal, and these were very serious matters. He had very serious objections to this coal tax, as well as the sugar tax, on account of the interests of the borough he represented, where they imported nothing but sugar and exported nothing but coal, he did ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stand to his guns and continue to do what he had announced to the House that he intended to do. The right hon. Gentleman should not make concession after concession, departing from his scheme of taxation, whether in deference to the representations of hon. Gentlemen opposite or deputations that met him in his private room. That was not a wise thing for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do. He thought it would be a most unwise thing to postpone the collection of the tax for six months. It would only result in a great run on exportation and the loss of a great portion of the tax. The exporters would have the bitter pill to swallow six months later, and it would not be made a bit less bitter by postponing it. Many of the different proposals
  1300
  with regard to contracts, and rates had been discussed, and now they were going to have some more suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which had not yet been given to the Committee. He could not understand the hon. Member wishing to move the adjournment, but he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make up his mind what he was going to do before the debate was resumed on another day.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Of the many accusations which the hon. Member for King's Lynn has made against me, he has never made one which is more unfounded than that which he has just made. I have throughout the discussions on the Bill expressed my intention to give as far as possible liberal treatment to existing contracts, and I have made no secret of my willingness to consider the position of the cheapest kinds of coal. All I desire is to postpone a definite statement on the subject until I can make it fully, in answer to a question to-morrow. I have made no other concession at all. I have always found the House ready when a Minister is anxious to discuss any proposal in a conciliatory tone to meet him and to discuss the matter fairly. Surely that is not a concession. All I desire is that we shall discuss the matter, in order to see what can be done. I can only say that if any attempt I make to meet the views of hon. Members is received with more lengthened debate, and with objections such as the hon. Member for King's Lynn has raised, I can make no concessions at all. I hope that after what has passed the Committee will be allowed to divide on the Amendment.
  MR. D. A. THOMASasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he had considered the legal point of which he had given him notice.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have consulted the Attorney General on the statement which the hon. Member has sent to me, and the opinion of the Attorney General is that the words in the Bill—words which have been in many finance Acts—amply cover the levying of the duty from the earliest period.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: Then there will be no necessity to go to a court of law?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 223; Noes, 164. (Division List No. 272.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Farrell, James Patrick

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

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Ambrose, Robert

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Atherley, Jones, L.

  Crean, Eugene

  Ffrench, Peter

  Austin, Sir John

  Cullinan, J.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Gilhooly, James

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Delany, William

  Grant, Corrie

  Blake, Edward

  Dillon, John

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Boland, John

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Boyle, James

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hammond, John

  Brigg, John

  Duffy, William J.

  Harwood, George

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Burt, Thomas

  Edwards, Frank

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Caldwell, James

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Holland, William Henry

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

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

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

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Donnell, James (Mayo, S.)

  Shipman' Dr. John G.

  Joyce, Michael

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

  Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'Dowd, John

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  O'Malley, William

  Sullivan, Donal

  Leng, Sir John

  O'Mara, James

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Lewis, John Herbert

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

  Lundon, W.

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Ure, Alexander

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Walton, John Lawson) Leeds'S.)

  MacDermott, Patrick

  Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  M'Govern, T.

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Weir, James Galloway

  Mooney, John J.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Price, Robert John

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Morgan, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Rea, Russell

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Murphy, John

  Reddy, M.

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

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

  Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. D. A. Thomas and Mr. M'Kenna.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Rigg, Richard

  Norman, Henry

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Knowles, Lees

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Davies, Sir Horatio D, (Chatham

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Denny, Colonel

  Lawson, John Grant

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

  Arrol, Sir William

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

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

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lowe, Francis William

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Finch, George H.

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

  Flower, Ernest

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.)

  Mitchell, William

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

  Garfit, William

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Beckett, Ernest William

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

  Myrgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Bigwood, James

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Bond, Edward

  Greene, Sir E. W Bury S Edm'nds

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Mount, William Arthur

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Butcher, John George

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Parker, Gilbert

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert W.

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

  Helder, Augustus

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Henderson, Alexander

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Purvis, Robert

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Pym, C. Guy

  Chapman, Edward

  Hoult, Joseph

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

  Rankin, Sir James

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hudson, Geopge Bickersteth

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Renwick, George

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. ((Stalybridge

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Rutherford, John

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wylie, Alexander

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E H (Sheffield

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Spear, John Ward

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Finch, George H.

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Malcolm, Ian

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Arrol, Sir William

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Flower, Ernest

  Milton, Viscount

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Forster, Henry William

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

  Balcarres, Lord

  Garfit, William

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Monm'thsh.

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

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

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

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

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Banbury, Frederick George

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

  Morton Arthur H. A. (Deptford

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

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Mount, William Arthur

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Bignold, Arthur

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

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Bigwood, James

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Bill, Charles

  Gretton, John

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Bond, Edward

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Percy, Earl

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Halsey, Thomas Frederick

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Hambro, Charles Erie

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bowles, T. Gibson-(King's Lynn)

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Brassey, Albert

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Purvis, Robert

  Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfo'd

  Pym, C. Guy

  Bull, William James

  Harwood, George

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Butcher, John George

  Helder, Augustus

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Henderson, Alexander

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Rentoul, James Alexander

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

  Hoare, Edw. Brodie (Hampstead

  Renwick, George

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hope, J F (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversh'm

  Rutherford, John

  Chapman, Edward

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Keswick, William

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

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Spear, John Ward

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Knowles, Lees

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lawson, John Grant

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. William Edw. H.

  Stroyan, John

  Crossley, Sir Savile

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

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Denny, Colonel

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

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Dickson, Charlet Scott

  Lowe, Francis William

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

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

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E H (Sheffield

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Wason, John C. (Orkney)

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

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

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

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

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

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Hammond, John

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  O'Malley, William

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Mara, James

  Ambrose, Robert

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Partington, Oswald

  Austin, Sir John

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

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Holland, William Henry

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Pease, Sir Jos. W. (Durham)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Blake, Edward

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Price, Robert John

  Boland, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Priestley, Arthur

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

  Rea, Russell

  Boyle, James

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Reddy, M.

  Brigg, John

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)

  Burt, Thomas

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Rigg, Richard

  Caine, William Sproston

  Kitson, Sir James

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Caldwell, James

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Langley, Batty

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Leamy, Edmund

  Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Leng, Sir John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

  Crean, Eugene

  Lough, Thomas

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Crombie, John William

  Lundon, W.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Cullinan, J.

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Strachey, Edward

  Delany, William

  M'Govern, T.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Dillon, John

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Mooney, John J.

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Edwards, Frank

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Elibank, Frank

  Murphy, John

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Ellis, John Edward

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Emmott, Alfred

  Newnes, Sir George

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

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

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, Pa trick (Meath, North)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Norman, Henry

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Samuel Evans and Mr. D. A. Thomas.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Dowd, John

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  *MR. CHANNINGmoved to insert the words "until the first day of August, 1902," so as to limit the duty to one year. He thought
  1304
  it was not only constitutional, but reasonable on general grounds, that the House should reserve to itself the right of reviewing, year by year, the situation created

  1305
  by a duty like this. If this duty could be regarded as merely impounding a reasonable proportion of the gigantic profits of the coalowners during the last year or two, in order to meet a great national emergency, not so much could be advanced against it. They had, however, to regard the question in its broader aspect in relation to trade. The foundation upon which the right hon. Gentleman had based his proposal was unsound, for this tax not only did not fall upon the foreigner, but it fell unequally upon a very small portion of the coal industry. If such a tax as this was justifiable it ought to fall upon the coal interest in every part of the country. The policy upon which this tax was based was a sufficient justification for Parliament refusing to relax its constitutional hold upon this tax, and its right to review it year by year. This tax would ultimately fall upon the wage earners of the country, and that was a sufficient reason why they should have an opportunity of considering it every year. This return to export duties was a reversal of the sound doctrine of free trade. The fallacy of imposing export duty was exploded long ago. He understood that, on this Amendment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to make a statement of the course which he intended to take, and as to the nature and scope of the inquiry he proposed to institute on all the questions relating to the coal supply and coal interests, and the probable effects of this duty on the trade of the country. By having recourse to this duty, which would act in restriction of trade, we were going back to the days of the Edwards and Henrys. To revive the system of blackmail on industry and commerce was a retrograde step. The Committee had a right not only to demand that they should have some assurance with regard to the future from the right hon. Gentleman, but that they should retain in the hands of the House the right to review and challenge this tax year by year.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 29, 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: It must be perfectly obvious to the Committee that for the coal trade itself nothing could be worse than the uncertainty which the hon. Member proposes. In the days of Sir Robert Peel, when this tax existed, it was never imposed, as the hon. Member suggests, as a yearly tax. It was always amongst the taxes which permanently remained on the Statute-book. Therefore it is obvious that with a trade in which so large a portion of the business is done by con acts for forward delivery, it would be impossible to conduct business in the ordinary manner if every year there was uncertainty as to the tax. It is actually suggested by an hon. Member, who has placed an Amendment on the Paper in the interests of the mining association, that any duty on coal authorised by this Bill shall not be reimposed or continued beyond the year ending 5th April, 1902, nor shall any other duty be authorised on coal by Parliament, unless and until notice of imposition or continuance should have been published in the London Gazette not later than 31st November, 1901. Obviously, the intention of this was that the trade might have notice of what was proposed, in order to arrange for contracts for delivery in the coming year, although for that purpose notice would be necessary at a date at which it would be absolutely impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to decide whether he would require the tax to be continued, or what should be done for the finances of the coming year. I cannot imagine a proposal less suited to this tax than the proposal of the hon. Member. I am carefully considering the question of a full inquiry into the whole subject of our coal supply; but I am bound to say that my decision on that must be regulated by the proceedings in this Committee. I am not prepared to leave the continuance of this tax next year in the uncertainty which is desired by the hon. Member and by many hon. Members who represent the coal trade. I am sure that no conceivable inquiry could properly investigate the subject before it would be necessary to deal with the Budget of next year. Therefore the idea that this was merely a temporary tax imposed for one year, and that it would cease at the end

  1307
  of that year, which would certainly be believed throughout the country if the hon. Member's Amendment were accepted, is one which I could not possibly sanction.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid the argument which had been used against provisional Budgets was apparent to the mind of a predecessor of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sir Stafford Northcote, speaking of the Customs duties proposed in the Budget so far back as 1861, used the following words—
  "Strong as were his objections to provisional Budgets, he thought that the condition of trade afforded some reasons why the House ought to be content to vote some of the taxes for a period of only one year."
  In that speech he proceeded to quote figures to show that there had been a considerable decline in trade in particular articles. The latest Return which had been issued showing the exports of coal from South Wales for May, 1901, as compared with the corresponding month last year, contained the following details: Newport, 257,169 tons this year, against 285,677 last year—decrease, 28,508; Cardiff, Penarth, and Barry, 1,366,987, against 1,535,327—decrease, 168,340; Swansea, 198,688, against 198,040—increase, 648; Port Talbot, 37,168, against 52,164—decrease, 15,996; Llanelly, 24,060, against 23,578—increase, 482.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: There has been an increase of 200,000 tons in May at Cardiff.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid the figures he had quoted were issued by the Newport Chamber of Commerce, a body which was in favour of the coal tax, and in which the right hon. Gentleman's political supporters were strongly represented. He had not the least reason to doubt the accuracy of the figures. He believed that what was true of south Wales was also true of Northumberland and Durham.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No.
  MR. M'KENNAsaid the right hon. Gentleman would have an opportunity of answering him. If these figures were correct, they afforded a substantial reason, on the basis of the argument put forward by Sir Stafford Northcote, why
  1308
  this tax should be imposed for one year only. There was another strong financial reason why the tax should be for one year only. In the present Budget there was a contribution to the war expenditure amounting to £16,000,000. That was to say, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would raise in taxation during the current year £16,000,000 more than was necessary for the ordinary expenditure. If they might reasonably anticipate that the war would be over in a year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the same basis of taxation, would have a surplus in the ensuing year of £16,000,000. How was the Chancellor of the Exchequer to maintain the balance between direct and indirect taxation when he came to remit £16,000,000 of taxation? He would only have the duty on tea and that on coal so far as indirect taxation was concerned, for it was admitted that in part the coal duty was indirect taxation. If he reduced the whole of the tea duty it would only amount to £6,000,000. Was he going to remit £10,000,000 of the income tax and only £6,000,000 of indirect taxation? He ought to leave the coal duty open for remission next year.
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid it was perfectly possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, if he desired it, to repeal the law by which the coal duty was imposed.
  MR. M'KENNAadmitted that the right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right, but there was a difference in the practice of this House between a tax which had not to be re-enacted and a tax which fell if not re-enacted. On the score of expediency, he still held that it was better to leave the tax open for immediate remission. The coal tax had been described as a popular tax. Why was it popular? Because it was believed that its effect would be to reduce the price of coal to the home consumer. He was not going to deal with the morality of such a tax, but there was the economic aspect of the question. He readily admitted that in its first effect the tax must reduce the price of coal, but the ultimate effect would be to reduce the output, because colliery owners would not go on indefinitely producing coal at a loss. Then this tax would be a new element in the cost of production, and would increase the price to the consumer.
  MR. MCLARENsaid that the Mining Association had loyally accepted the tax for this year, and all that was sought in the Amendment was to make its working as smooth as possible, and to avoid anything that would cause unnecessary friction. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer had more intimate knowledge of the working of the trade he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would feel that he was dealing with men who knew their business, and would not mislead him on a point of this kind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to think it unreasonable that they should ask that the tax should be limited to one year, and there should be notice in the Gazette, three months before the usual time for the Budget announcements, whether the tax was to be reimposed or not. He thought if the right hon. Gentleman would reflect on the difference between an article like coal, which was exported from the country, and such articles as wine, sugar, and currants, which were brought from abroad, he would see that it was impossible in the case of coal to do anything which would affect the produce of the trade by piling up large quantities of the article. The Amendment was brought forward in order to enable the coal trade to anticipate the course of events in the making of contracts, without feeling that in two or three months their calculations might be upset by the continuance or the repeal of the duty. The right hon. Gentleman said that the time for making contracts was in the ordinary course three months, so that it was of no use that the coal trade should be told that the coal duty was to be continued or taken off. The coal trade had been so disorganised by this duty that contracts forward had, he would not say become impossible, but had largely fallen off. He went down to Yorkshire that morning to meet a number of representative coalowners and discuss this question with them. There was no doubt that it was almost impossible to sell coal in large quantities to buyers abroad on account of the condition of the trade, which required that contracts should be made long beforehand. Everybody was anticipating that this tax would knock down prices, and railway companies and other large consumers at home would not enter into contracts long in advance of their requirements. Some provision
  1310
  should be inserted in the Bill to enable the coal trade to restore confidence in the minds of their customers, and enable them to calculate what prices they would have to ask for in large contracts six or twelve months in advance. That was the reason why they asked on this occasion that the tax might be limited to one year. Notice could be inserted in the Gazette next January that the duty would be reduced, or otherwise, and they would know that the tax would run to the end of that period, although they would prefer that the period should be limited to 5th April. He therefore cordially supported the Amendment.
  EARL PERCYsaid that some of the supporters of the Government were placed in a difficult position in regard to the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that there was more justification for the Amendment in the case of the sugar tax. Whatever they might think of the principle of the sugar tax, they were all agreed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had arranged that its incidence was perfectly fair. That was not the case in regard to the coal tax. Personally he had voted for all the Budget resolutions, and for the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, because he did not think this was a favourable opportunity for placing obstacles to the Government getting the money required, and partly—disagreeing therein from the hon. Member for Berwick—because he thought the coal tax was not, in itself, necessarily unfair. But the principle of the coal tax and the mode of its incidence were very different matters. They were responsible to the House for seeing that the tax should be spread as fairly as possible over the whole export industry in proportion to the capacity of the different sections of that industry to bear it. The Welsh coal, which fetched the highest price, and was of so peculiar a quality that the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired to retain it in the United Kingdom, and was of such superior quality as to be able to bear the tax and still defy competition, was to bear the same burden, and no more, than the Northumberland coal which fetched 6s. a ton. He thought that was unfair, although he would not enter at length into the question of graduation of the coal taxation.

  1311
  He did not agree with the purpose of the Amendment, which was to limit the tax for one year. It was not worth while to raise all this tumult over a temporary tax, but on the other hand he did not think that the tax ought to be levied in a permanent form upon its now proposed basis. If an ad valorem principle was accepted, it might result in a deficiency of revenue, but that would be better than an unfair incidence in the tax, and therefore he hoped that, before going to a division, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to give the Committee some information as to the course he proposed to take in regard to graduation upon the cheaper coal.
  COLONEL BLUNDELLsaid that from very long experience his belief was that the common coal exported from Northumberland and Scotland could not possibly bear the burden of the tax over a long series of years, although it might very well bear it this year.
  MR. D. A. THOMASsaid he was much disappointed at the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They had understood that the right hon. Gentleman was going to make an important statement as to the scope and nature of the investigation into the whole coal question; but he gathered from what the right hon. Gentleman had said that the scope and nature of the investigation would depend on the discussions and deliberations in Committee. He ventured to say that the right hon. Gentleman had placed the cart before the horse, and thought that the discussions in Committee would depend very much on the announcement as to the nature of the scope of the inquiry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the Miners' Association of Great Britain that there would be a full investigation either by a Royal Commission or a Select Committee. He himself believed a Royal Commission would be the proper body to make the inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman had stated in regard to this Amendment that there would be far more reason for limiting the sugar tax to one year than the export duty on coal. He could not understand how the right hon. Gentleman could possibly make such a statement. The sugar duty
  1312
  did not violate the principles of free trade, whereas, when the proper time came they would be able to prove up to the hilt that this export duty on coal was a violation of the principles of free trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer loudly professed that he clung to the rock of free trade, on which the prosperity of the country had been built up during the last forty or fifty years. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be riding two horses. At one moment he told them that this was to be a permanent duty, and at another moment he said that it could be revised or repealed by an Act of Parliament. The inclusion of the twentieth section of the Customs' Laws Consolidation Act into the Schedule would introduce, in his opinion, a very great deal of doubt into the minds of foreign buyers. They had a right to impose Acts of Parliament on British subjects, but the right hon. Gentleman had, by introducing that clause in connection with the export of coal, endeavoured to impose the law of this country upon foreign buyers in regard to the arrangements which they might make with British subjects. He wished to recur to one point raised by the hon. Member for North Monmouthshire, who referred to what he conceived to be the decrease in the exports of coal from Newport, Cardiff, Penarth, and Barry. Whether the exports had increased or decreased in May, or for a few months, did not signify one halfpenny. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made the point that the exports had shown a great increase, but he had seen figures which seemed to show that the exports had decreased. These were published in Brown's Export List, the proprietors of which got the Returns from the Customs officers, and the Chamber of Commerce of Cardiff relied upon these figures. Now, there was a difference of something like twenty-five per cent. between the Returns as published in Brown's Export List and the figures given by the Board of Trade. That required elucidation.
  *MR. J. A. PEASEsaid that he knew in the north of England great efforts had been made on the part of coalowners, under contract, to export as much coal as possible in view of the imposition of an export duty. Therefore the figures for the

  1313
  last few months were very fallacious, and could not be an accurate guide as to the way the tax would operate and affect the coal trade.
  *SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid that any figures that might be given forth to show how this tax would affect the coal export trade one way or another would not be altogether reliable during the next few months. At present the trade was almost altogether under contract, and the quantity exported in the month of May compared with that imported in May, 1900, could not be attributed in any way to the coal tax. It would be two years at least before the full effect of the tax could be seen in our exports. At present the prices were very high, owing to the cost of production being very high. He knew that in the north of England the bulk of the coal from all the mines was sold up to the end of the year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knew that pretty well, and therefore he must not be guided in any way by the exports during the next few months. The right hon. Gentleman said that one great objection to making this an annual tax was the uncertainty it would create in regard to contracts. That argument would have been much better if the right hon. Gentleman had said that he would not increase the tax next year. Was he to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to remove that uncertainty?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Baronet is rather hard on me in asking me to anticipate next year's Budget. The idea of increasing the tax had not occurred to me, but if the hon. Baronet thinks it would do good, I will consider it.
  *SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid what he meant was that it was very difficult indeed to deal with contracts where there was uncertainty; and if the right hon. Gentleman could tell them that he would not either increase or decrease the tax three, four, or five months before 5th April, it would be a very great convenience. Much of the coal sold in this country was sold under three years contract. Many of the largest buyers on the Continent, as well as the gas companies, steamship companies, etc., insisted on three years contracts, because they believed they were more likely to
  1314
  get a normal price over a series of years than if they submitted to the fluctuations, of prices year by year. He confessed that he did not like this tax being made permanent. He knew that the tax had been put on under extraordinary ignorance on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It had taken many who had been long in the trade a considerable time to understand the question, and it could not be expected that the right hon. Gentleman would be familiar with all its complications. That was a reason why there should be an inquiry, and why the matter should be brought up next year when they knew all the circumstances. He believed that if the whole facts in regard to this tax had been placed before the Government, the House, and the country, the country would not have allowed it to be imposed. There seemed to be almost a conspiracy of silence in the newspapers, which would not report the speeches on this subject. The result was that the public were ignorant on the question. The public were under the impression that they were punishing those who penalised them in the matter of high prices last year, but as a matter of fact this tax was not put on those who penalised the local consumer, but on those who exported coal, and who were now made the whipping boys of the whole coal trade There was an impression that this was a prosperous trade and could bear any tax. He was not going to enter into the question of profits; but taking the figures of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, he had shown in a letter to The Times that during fifteen years, including the period of high prices, and calculating the cost of labour at 1s. 6d. per ton—although in some cases it had been 1s. 9d., 2s., 2s. 6d., and in some places as much as 3s. 2d.—the profits in the coal industry over these fifteen years only represented 6 per cent. per annum. He believed that the capital employed in agriculture in this country produced a larger profit than the capital employed in the coal industry. [Laughter from the Ministerial Benches.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but he could prove that that was the case. [An HON. MEMBER: Shame!] An hon. Member said "Shame"; but would anybody

  1315
  say that 6 per cent., not allowing anything for depreciation or exhaustion of the coal, was a large profit? The hon. Gentleman knew nothing of the risk of coal-mining, but if he believed what he seemed to say he should get rid of his land at once, and go into coal mining. He saw it had been mentioned that Norway and Sweden, from which we got the bulk of our timber, were threatening to put an export duty on timber. If they did so he failed to see what objection there could be from their point of view. We put a tax on their coal, and he could not see that they would be far wrong if they put a tax on the wood they exported to us, The Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown to the deputation that waited upon him that he had not yet mastered the difficulties in connection with the question. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to quite grasp the situation, and that was one strong argument in favour of putting on the tax for one year only. He was sure when the right hon. Gentleman came to understand the full difficulties of the export trade of this country—[Cries of "Divide!"] They were not going to divide until they had discussed
  the question properly. [Cries of "Divide!"] He was sure he was not in the habit of spending the time of the House, but on a question of this kind he represented his constituents. [An HON. MEMBER: Report progress.] He thought he had better move to report progress. A very good case had been made out for the further consideration of this matter twelve months hence. The right hon. Gentleman said he was going to have a Committee of inquiry into the question of the coal tax, and the resources of the coal supply of this country. Doubtless that would take some time, but he could not see why any Commission that might be appointed could not first consider the coal tax and give an Interim Report. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, even at the last moment, would reconsider the proposal that the tax should be for twelve months, so that the country could judge whether it was a just tax or not.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 142; Noes, 211. (Division List No. 273.)

  AYES.

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

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Allen, C. P. (Glouc, Stroud)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lundon, W.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

  MacDonnell. Dr. Mark A.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Arthur, Wm. (Cornwall)

  Austin, Sir John

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Dermott, Patrick

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  M'Govern, T.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Laren, Chas. Benjamin

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Mooney, John J.

  Blundell, Col. Henry

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'orley, Chas. (Breconshire)

  Boland, John

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

  Boyle, James

  Gilhooly, James

  Murphy, John

  Brigg, John

  Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbt. J.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Newnes, Sir George

  Burt, Thomas

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Caldwell, James

  Hammond, John

  Norman, Henry

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Norton, Capt Cecil William

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'r'y Mid)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Holland, William Henry

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

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Horniman, Frederick John

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

  Crean, Eugene

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a

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

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  O'Dowd, John

  Delany, William

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Dillon, John

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Malley, William

  Donelan, Capt. A.

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  O'Mara, James

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lambert, George

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

  Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

  Duffy, William J.

  Langley, Batty

  Partington, Oswald

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Elibank, Master of

  Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington)

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Ellis, John Edward

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)

  Percy, Earl

  Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)

  Wallace, Robert

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Warner, Thomas C. T.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R. (N'th'nts)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Rea, Russell

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Reddy, M.

  Sullivan, Donal

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Rigg, Richard

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Thomas, J. A. (Grm'rgan, G'wer

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Channing and Mr. M'Kenna.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Thompson, Dr E C (M'nagh'n, N.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Allhusen, Augustus Henry E.

  Doughty, George

  Long, Col. Charles W (Eveshan

  Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Archdale, Edw. Mervyn

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lncas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

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

  Arrol, Sir William

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Finch, George H.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Finlay, Sir Robt. Bannatyne

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

  Bain, Colonel Jas. Robt.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Forster, Henry William

  Martin, Richard Bindulph

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

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Garfit, William

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

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

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

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Beckett, Ernest Wm.

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

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

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

  Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Goschen, Hon. George J.

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Bigwood, James

  Gray, Ernest (Wet Ham)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Bond, Edward

  Green, Walford D (Wednesb'ry

  Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Greene, Sir E W (Bry S. Edm'nds

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Bousfield, Wm. Robt.

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf'rd

  Brassey, Albert

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Mount, William Arthur

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gretton, John

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Bull, William James

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hambro, Charles Eric

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

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hamilton, Rt Hn. Lord G (Mid'x

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Butcher, John George

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

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. Wm.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert W.

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

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cavendish, V C W. (Derbyshire)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Helder, Augustus

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Henderson, Alexander

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Hobhouse, Hry. (Somerset E.

  Purvis, Robert

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (W'rc'r

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pym, C. Guy

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

  Rankin, Sir James

  Chapman, Edward

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hoult, Joseph

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Renwick, George

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Keswick, William

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Charles T.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Knowles, Lees

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Law, Andrew Bonar

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Round, James

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Davenport, Wm. Bromley-

  Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

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

  Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Ed W. J.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Valentia, Viscount

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

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

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

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Warde, Col. C. E.

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

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

  Wason, John C. (Orkney)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Spear, John Ward

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

  Stroyan, John

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Resolution agreed to.

  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

SUPPLY [21ST JUNE] REPORT.
Resolutions reported:—
SUPPLY [21ST JUNE] REPORT.
  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1901–2.

    CLASS IV.
    1. "That a sum, not exceeding £713,881, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for Public Education in Scotland, and for Science and Art in Scotland, including a Grant-in-Aid."
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for a Grant to the Board of Trustees for Manufactures in Scotland in aid of the maintenance of the National Gallery, School of Art, and Museum of Antiquities, Scotland, etc."

    CLASS III.
    3. "That a sum, not exceeding £58,193, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, and of the Prisons under their control, including the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics and the Preparation of Judicial Statistics."
SUPPLY [14TH JUNE] REPORT.
Resolution reported:—
SUPPLY [14TH JUNE] REPORT.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1901–2.
  Sec. 1. "That a sum, not exceeding
  1320
  £2,684,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902."

SUPPLY [7TH JUNE] REPORT.
Order read, for further consideration of Third Resolution, "That a sum, not exceeding £571,085, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1902, for the Expenses of the Post Office Packet Service."
MR. WEIRmoved the reduction of the Vote by £100. He said he had brought this matter forward in Committee, but the reply of the representative of the Postmaster General was extremely unsatisfactory. A subsidy of £3,000 a year was paid to the owners of the steamer "Clydesdale," which carries the Stornoway mails, and which is upwards of forty years old and too slow, and not very safe in these stormy seas. When in Committee, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had talked of the "Victory" being over one hundred years old, and yet quite safe, but the hon. Gentleman ought to have known better than to have talked such nonsense. If the late Postmaster General, the Duke of Norfolk, had remained in office, he was sure there would have been a satisfactory steamer for this service by this time. A Conservative Government had voted £260,000 for the extension of the railway to Mallaig, on the ground that it would open up better communication

1321
with Stornoway and the Western Highlands. He asked a question on the 7th of this month on the subject of an improved packet service, and the Postmaster General's representative replied that it was not the duty of the Post Office to incur additional expense for the conveyance of passengers and goods, and that all they had to do was to see that the steamers were suitable for the conveyance of mails. The hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had not been long in office; his predecessor would not have talked such nonsense. On the 9th June, 1899, the Surveyor General and Assistant Secretary to the Post Office stated that it must not be overlooked that the West Highland packet service was established for the conveyance of passengers and goods as well as for the conveyance of mails. There ought to be a better boat between the Island of Lewis and the mainland than the forty-year-old one which was at present employed. He hoped the hon. Gentleman representing the Post Office would give an assurance that a better boat would be provided. He had for months been led to believe that tenders would be invited for the Stornoway mail steamer service, but he was now told that there was no such intention. Seeing that so many Highlanders had gone to fight the battles of the country, he thought the people of the Highlands should receive more consideration. This was a matter which should not be treated in an airy and indifferent manner in this House. He was quite sure if the predecessor of the hon. Gentleman and the Duke of Norfolk had still been at the head of the Post Office it would not have been necessary to bring this matter forward again.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out '£571,085,' and insert '£570,985,' instead thereof."—(Mr. Weir.)
Question proposed, "That '£571,085' stand part of the resolution."
MR. O'MARAsaid the hon. Member for Ross-shire was perfectly right in bringing forward this question in regard to the forty-year-old tub. But the point he wished to bring before the House had no relation to the forty-year-old tub, but to the latest ships
1322
that had come from the dockyards. He meant the P. and O. liners. Subsidies were paid to the P. and O. Company to the tune of thousands of pounds a year. Their vessels employed a large number of men, and among the hands were numbered a large proportion of lascars. These lascars did the hardest and most difficult work on board the vessels, and he believed no white men were able, when the vessels were passing through the Red Sea, to stand the atmosphere and the temperature so well. These lascars had to work for their living, and for that reason it was all the more necessary that, looking to the circumstances under which they worked, they should have sufficient, wholesome, and proper accommodation. This was a matter that had come before the House on former occasions. It was a disgrace to the company that they should insist on these men living in over-crowded apartments, working fearfully hard, and receiving insufficient food. Everybody who knew anything about seafaring life knew that these lascars were treated in a way that no Christian employers would treat men, and no seaman of any European nation would put up with the treatment they received. The reason he brought it up on this Vote was not in connection with the case that was decided the other day. In that case he believed the Government did make an attempt to make the P. and O. liners amenable to British law. The P. and O. Company, in order to save the few pounds which would make these lascars fairly comfortable, had appealed against being made amenable to British law, and had appealed to Indian law. His intention in speaking of these matters was to call attention to the fact that this House provided a subsidy every year of £250,000 for these P. and O. boats. [An HON. MEMBER: £330,000.] This was an enormous sum for carrying mails, and he would suggest that the Post Office, in paying this money, ought to insist that these men were carried under conditions that were wholesome and more Christian like than they were now. It was a short-sighted policy, from the company's own point of view, for the men could not be fit to work properly when they were treated in this way. It was a great shame that in this Christian land we should pay £330,000 a year to a company

1323
that would treat human beings in the way these unfortunate black men were treated. He had much pleasure, therefore, in supporting his hon. friend the Member for Ross-shire in his Amendment to reduce the amount of this Vote. He thought they ought to have some promise from the Secretary to the Treasury that the matter would be looked into, and that another contract would not be given to the P. and O. liners until the conditions of the men had been ameliorated. He suggested that it should be put in the contract that the men in their employment would be treated in a right way.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): I think the hon. Member must have forgotten that it was stated when this matter was discussed in Committee that the P. and O. Company are carrying these mails for the Post Office under a contract in which the Postmaster has no power to interfere. [An HON. MEMBER: When does the contract expire?] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. The Postmaster General has no power to interfere during the currency of the contract. The hon. Member has expressed the hope that this matter will be considered before a new contract is made. I am perfectly certain this matter will be considered at that time, but as the present contract runs till 1905, the hon. Gentleman will see that it is not in my power to interfere in the matter at present. The hon. Member for Ross-shire raised a question, which he has several times raised in this House, as to the Stornoway mail service. He complained that the boat was a slow one—much slower than those engaged in other services—and that it was a very old boat. He suggested that it was not seaworthy. He accused the present Postmaster of extreme meanness in not providing a better service. I cannot help feeling interested in the compliments which the hon. Member paid to our predecessors in office. I hope that when we retire from our present positions he will have a kindly word to say of the services we have rendered. This boat is undoubtedly an old boat, and it does not provide so good a service as either the Postmaster General or myself would desire, but I
1324
am advised that it is a perfectly safe boat, and that there is no occasion for the fears hon. Gentlemen may feel in regard to it. The Post Office makes a profit, but it is not to be expected that out of the profit which is made every year we should be able to meet all the claims put forward for improved services. If the Postmaster General were to assent to every demand for better or increased services made upon him, that profit, amounting to between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000, would very soon fade away, and instead of there being that sum to go in the reduction of taxation there would be a fresh demand made for taxation. The Post Office does recognise that it has a monopoly, and that there is laid upon it the necessity of giving services to the poorer and more scattered districts. I have already informed the House that the service referred to by the hon. Member is carried on at a cost of more than double the revenue received from it. I think that that is not an ungenerous arrangement. I cannot hold out any prospect that the Government will very largely increase the cost of the service until they can see some chance of a return for the services rendered. The hon. Gentleman inquires when fresh tenders will be called. At the present time there is no reason to believe that the result of calling for fresh tenders would be the obtaining of an improved service without an undue extra cost to the public. The hon. Gentleman complained of some inconsistency he had discovered between an answer given to him from the Department the other day, and an answer given to him a couple of years ago. I have not seen the latter communication, but so far as I understand it, there does not seem to be any inconsistency between the two. It is a fact that the primary duty of the Postmaster General is to deal with the mail service, and not to provide for the conveyance of passengers.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid he did not follow the hon. Member for Ross-shire in regard to this particular mail service in the highlands of Scotland, but he was bound to hold the opinion that, when a ship was forty years old, and the conditions were as described by the hon. Member, it was a reasonable request to make to the Post

1325
Office authorities to put a new ship on the service. The hon. Gentleman said that the Post Office could not afford to increase the expenditure on this service but he must see that it was necessary there should be no accident, and that the mails should not be conveyed in a ship not thoroughly fit to perform the service. If he were a Scotch and not an Irish Member, he would press forward, in the strongest possible way, the reasonable demands of the hon. Member for Rossshire, but he supposed, from the attitude of the Secretary to the Treasury, that he would wait until this ship went to the bottom before any improvement was made in the service. He wished to draw the attention of the House to the subject, very properly brought up by the hon. Member for South Kilkenny, with reference to the subsidy paid to the P. and O. Company. In view of the fact that he had that very day a question on the Paper to the President of the Board of Trade with reference to the employment of lascar seamen, he was glad of this opportunity of asking what the Government intended to do in regard to the subsidy to the P. and O. Company. The hon. Gentleman had said that in 1905, when the present contract terminated, the Post Office authorities would consider what fresh conditions they would make with the P. and O. Company. He begged to say that that would not meet the case. Only two or three days ago a judgment had been given by Mr. Justice Mathews in the King's Bench Division that under British law seamen were entitled to the same treatment in regard to cubic space as European sailors. It was quite true that in answer to his question the President of the Board of Trade told him that the P. and O. Company had lodged a notice of appeal.
MR. DILLON:They have asked permission to appeal.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that whether the P. and O. Company appealed or not the decision on this matter would be either set aside or upheld within the course of a very short time. In the meantime, the judgment given by Mr. Justice Mathews stood good; but they had this circumstance, that whereas it had been laid down by the King's Bench
1326
Division that lascar seamen were entitled to the same space on board ship as European sailors, the representative of the Post Office said that the matter would not be considered until the conclusion of the contract in 1905. That was not reasonable. Did the Secretary to the Treasury tell him that the Post Office authorities would continue to pay a subsidy of hundreds of thousands of pounds to a company which was not giving these lascars the treatment to which by law they were entitled? That would be intolerable. The Government should insist now, instead of waiting until 1905, on these coloured seamen being given the same treatment as white seamen. He asked the hon. Gentleman whether he could not give some undertaking that if the decision of the King's Bench Division was upheld, some attempt would be made to get the P. and O. Company to give the same treatment to lascars as to European sailors. He understood that the subsidy to the P. and O. Company amounted to £330,000 a year, and he said it would be a monstrous thing that that subsidy should be given to a company which acted contrary to the law.
MR. DILLONsaid that this was a matter of very great importance. He went on the lines of the hon. Members for East Clare and South Kilkenny. The judgment given in the King's Bench division was only the last act in a whole series of events in a grave public scandal. Here they had a great, wealthy company, which for years had enjoyed the largest and most profitable contracts under the Government, which contracts had been renewed again and again in spite of the fact that the service had been scandalously bad in point of speed. His hon. friend said that the subsidy amounted to £330,000; he thought it was over £400,000; at all events, it was by far the largest given to any steamship company. Four or five years ago this matter was brought up before the House by his friend Mr. Wilson, then Member for Middlesbrough. The charge was made that the P. and O. Company had been violating the law for many years, and that the Board of Trade was overlooking that violation. That was a very serious charge to make, and had been indignantly denied by

1327
the then President of the Board of Trade. There was a very angry con troversy between Mr. Wilson and the President of the Board of Trade, but afterwards Mr. Wilson did succeed in establishing the proposition to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade and the law officers of the Crown that the P. and O. Company were breaking the law. As he understood, the ordinary practice, and the practice prescribed by a section in the Merchant Shipping Act, was that for every seamen denied his proper accommodation on these steamboats the Board of Trade should proceed under summary jurisdiction to recover a penalty of £20. That would be the ordinary course of procedure with any other company, and why was it not taken with the P. and O. Company at once?
MR. BANBURY: I rise to a point of order. Is it in order to discuss the action of the Board of Trade on this Vote?
*MR. SPEAKER: It is not the action of the Board of Trade that is being discussed. It is the question whether under the circumstances subsidies should be given to this company. To discuss the action of the Board of Trade would not be in order.
MR. DILLON: I was avoiding discussion of the action of the Board of Trade. What I am discussing is that this subsidised company has been allowed persistently to break the law.
MR. HOULT: I think the hon. Member will only be in order if these ships are not properly equipped.
MR. DILLON: Can the hon. Member not have common sense to listen to what I am saying, for that is the whole point I have been endeavouring to make. The ships are admittedly—and they have now been decided in the Court of King's Bench to be—illegally equipped, and sailing in every voyage in direct violation of the laws of the land. When we bring forward that statement we are met by the Secretary to the Treasury in a light and airy manner, who says that in 1905 the matter will be considered by the Post Office. Are we to be told that this enormous subsidy is to be paid to a company for a single steamer which is illegally equipped?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I did not say that this thing was to be allowed to continue. What I said was that the Post Office had no power to terminate the subsidy before the year 1905. What action is taken must be taken by the Board of Trade.
MR. DILLON: I shall not go further into the question now, because I believe I shall have an opportunity of raising it fully on the Board of Trade Vote. I had forgotten that. I stated at the beginning that the reason I proposed to debate the subject at this late hour was that I thought it would be the last opportunity. I shall simply give notice now that the matter will be raised on the Vote for the Board of Trade.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 142; Noes, 71. (Division List No. 274.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt Sir A. F.

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wor'c

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bignold, Arthur

Chapman, Edward

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bigwood, James

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Collings, Rt. Hn. Jesse

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Bond, Edward

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Arrol, Sir William

Bousfield, William Robert

Cranborne, Viscount

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

Crossley, Sir Savile

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Butcher, John George

Dalkeith, Earl of

Bain, Col. James Robert

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Balcarres, Lord

Cautley, Henry Strother

Dickson, Charles Scott

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

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

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire)

Doughty, George

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

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Banbury, Frederick George

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Finch, George H.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Round, James

Fisher, William Hayes

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Fletcher, Sir Henry

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

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Forster, Henry William

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Sandys, Lt.-Col, Thomas Myles

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

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

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

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

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

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

Macdona, John Cumming

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

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

Stroyan, John

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Malcolm, Ian

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

Manners, Lord Cecil

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire)

Thornton, Percy M.

Grenfell, William Henry

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Gretton, John

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Tufnell, Lt.-Col. Edward

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

Valentia, Viscount

Hambro, Charles Eric

Morgan, David J. (Walthamst'w

Warde, Colonel C. E-

Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Morrell, George Herbert

Webb, Colonel Wm. George

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Morris, Hn. Martin Henry F.

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Morrison, James Archibald

Whiteley, H. (Aston-und-Lyne

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

Hogg, Lindsay

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

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Hops, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

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

Hoult, Joseph

Nicholson, William Graham

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Howard, John (Kent Faversh'm

Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Percy, Earl

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Keswick, William

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Knowles, Lees

Purvis, Robert

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Reid, James (Grcenock)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Law, Andrew Bonar

Rentoul, James Alexander

Lawson, John Grant

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

NOES.

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

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

O'Dowd, John

Allen, Chas P. (Glouc., Stroud

Helme, Norval Watson

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

O'Malley, William

Boland, John

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Mara, James

Boyle, James

Joyce, Michael

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Caldwell, James

Kennedy, Patrick James

Partington, Oswald

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Power, Patrick Joseph

Channing, Francis Allston

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Priestley, Arthur

Cogan, Denis J.

Lundon, W.

Reddy, M.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Crean, Eugene

M'Dermott, Patrick

Rigg, Richard

Cullinan, J.

M'Govern, T.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

Delaney, William

Mooney, John J.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Dillon, John

Morley, Chas. (Breconshire)

Soares, Ernest J.

Donelan, Captain A.

Murphy, J.

Sullivan, Donal

Doogan, P. C.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Duffy, William J.

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

Thompson, Dr. E C Monaghan N

Elibank, Master of

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Norman, Henry

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Farrell, James Patrick

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

White, Patrick (Meath, North

Ffrench, Peter

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Flynn, James Christopher

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

Gilhooly, James

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Weir and Mr. William Redmond.

Hammond, John

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Hayden, John Patrick

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

Resolution agreed to.

SUPPLY [6TH JUNE] REPORT.
Order read, for further Consideration of Postponed Resolution, "That a sum, not exceedingly £345,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Ordnance Factories (the cost of the Productions of which will be charged to
1330
the Army, Navy, and Indian and Colonial Governments) which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 21st day of March, 1902."
MR. WEIRsaid that in consequence of the closure being moved when this Vote was before Committee, he was unable to get the information he desired. He hoped to get it now. To put himself

1331
in order he would move that the Vote be reduced £100. He called attention to the proposed expenditure of £12,000 to provide further accommodation for the manufacture of the new rifle. He could not understand why such accommodation could possibly be required. Surely there was ample space for the manufacture of the new rifle in the buildings in which the Lee-Metford and the Lee-Enfield rifles had been made. He thought it would be a great advantage if the representative of the War Office could arrange for one of the new rifles to be put in the Tea Room in order that Members might have an opportunity of inspecting it, Then there was the question of chaplains at Enfield. What were they required for in a rifle factory? This salary should be abolished.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out '£343,000,' and insert '£344,900' instead thereof."—(Mr. Weir.)
Question proposed, "That £345,000 stand part of the resolution."
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton)said he knew the hon. Member for Ross took an interest in a great many things, but he thought that the hon. Member did not understand that the Vote included not only the cost of the buildings, but of all the appliances necessary in making the alterations in the rifle. They were still at the experimental stage. One thing that came out during the last campaign was that they should try if possible to make a firearm to be used indifferently by both infantry and cavalry. Then an improvement was necessary in the sights, and it was most essential to get a good clip loading for the rifle. For all that additional machinery had to be provided. He had dealt with the question as closely as he could, but he could not pitch his own opinion against that of the experts, who believed that these additions and improvement on the rifle were absolutely necessary, and should be made as soon as possible. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that it would be done with all due economy.
COLONEL NOLANthought it was very reasonable that hon. Members should see this new rifle, and one should
1332
be placed in the Tea Room, as had been done in the case of the Lee-Metford rifle. He hoped if they agreed to this Vote that the House of Commons would not be taken as committed to the shortening of the rifle. That was a very big question. They might level up the cavalry rifle, but they should not shorten the infantry rifle.
MR. O'MARAsaid that there was no doubt that the old rifle wanted improvement in regard to its sighting.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will not be in order in discussing the merits of the rifles.
MR. O'MARAsaid that the necessity for this new machinery was a curious comment on the Government boast that they had got the best rifle in the world.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked what reply the noble Lord had to make in regard to putting one of the new rifles in the tea-room. He believed it was not necessary that it should be loaded.
LORD STANLEYsaid he had not the slightest objection to place one of the new rifles, unloaded, in the tea-room. As to the chaplains, a duty was imposed upon them, when they employed an enormous number of men, to provide them with chaplains, and he, for one, would not consent to withdraw the Vote for their salaries.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SUPPLY [6TH JUNE] REPORT.
  YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL [Lords].
  Read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

  NATIONAL GALLERY (PURCHASE OF ADJACENT LANDS) BILL.
  Mr. Akers Douglas, Lord Balcarres, and Mr. Paulton nominated Members of the Select Committee on the National Gallery (Purchase of Adjacent Lands) Bill, with two Members to be added by the Committee of Selection.—(Sir William Walrond.)
  Adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Two of the clock.

Preamble
An Asterisk (*) at the commencement of a Speech indicates revision by the Member.
The Earl Annesley took the Oath.

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:—

Golborne Gas.

Eccles Corporation.

Metropolitan Electric Supply.

Blackburn Corporation.

Brighton Corporation.

Wallasey Improvement.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the

  Cromer Water Bill

  ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed.
  That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the

  Clyde Valley Electrical Power Bill

  ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed, provided that the names of Sir William George Pearce, Bart., Francis Elgar, Robert Harvey, and Hugh Strain be struck out of the Bill unless their signatures to a printed copy of the Bill, as brought up to this House, be proved before the Committee on the Bill.
  Read, and agreed to.

  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BARNES, ETC.) BILL [H.L.]
  Reported with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  PETERSFIELD AND SELSEY GAS BILL.
  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  LOWESTOFT CORPORATION BILL [H.L.].
  Reported with Amendments.

  KETTERING URBAN DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  Reported with Amendments.

  CAMBRIAN RAILWAYS BILL.
  GLASGOW AND RENFREW DISTRICT RAILWAY TRANSFER BILL.
  MANSFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
  Committee to meet on Thursday next.

  DERBYSHIRE AND NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn; the Orders made on the 14th instant and on Tuesday last discharged; and Bill committed.
  LLANDRINDOD WELLS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL.
  The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn; the Orders made on the 11th instant and on Tuesday last discharged, and Bill committed for Thursday next.
  GLASGOW AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  ALDEBURGH CORPORATION (WATER) BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed.
  HUMBER COMMERCIAL RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  STOCKPORT CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.].
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  LEEDS CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Morley.)
  *THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, before this Bill is read a third time I ask leave to say a few words, on behalf of the county authority of the West Riding of Yorkshire, as to what occurred while the Bill was upstairs before the Select Committee. This is an important Bill for improving the water supply of the City of Leeds, and as such is, of course, favourably looked upon by the county authority; but it appeared to us that there were various minor points as to which objection might reasonably be taken and upon which safeguards were needed. Accordingly, the West Riding Rivers Board, as representing those interested in the rivers of the county, was instructed to prepare a petition against the Bill; but when the Bill came before the Committee, over which my noble friend Lord Hawkesbury presided, they refused the Rivers Board a locus standi to appear before them. We have been rather unfortunate in coming into collision with my noble friend, because some years ago, in a somewhat similar case—that of the Rochdale Water Bill—we were obliged to call in question in the full House the action of the Committee over which he presided. As a result of the discussion which then took place Standing Order No. 105D was added, which expressly gives county councils locus standi in cases in which the water interests of the county are likely to be affected. The West Riding Rivers Board is a large body, composed of eighteen members of the County Council, and twelve representatives of the great cities and county boroughs in the West Riding. When the matter came before the Committee the only argument that was used, so far as I can gather from reading the evidence, against the locus standi was that strictly the Board was only concerned with the actual pollution of the rivers; that is to say, unless there was a risk of foreign matters of an objectionable kind finding their way into a river through the provisions of the Bill, the Rivers Board had nothing whatever to
  1176
  do with it. On the other hand, it was argued that, as a matter of fact, there was actual risk of pollution occurring through the cleaning out of the filter beds, etc., and it was also contended that abstraction of water from the river, interfering with its flow, would increase pollution. But what was argued with, I think, still greater force was that, a locus standi having been expressly given to county councils in this matter, a fortiori the Rivers Board, which is the county council plus the representatives of the great Yorkshire cities and towns, morally demanded a locus standi unless very strong reasons could be adduced against it. That argument does not appear to have appealed to my noble friend's Committee, and, so far as this House is concerned, there is nothing more to be said, for I do not propose to ask your Lordships to throw out the Bill, or even to recommit it. But I would point out that the locus standi of the Rivers Board was admitted on the Halifax Bill, where it was a case, not of pollution, but of interference with continuous supply; and also, if I remember rightly, in the case of the Rochdale Bill. My noble friend said, on the latter occasion, that the Committee had made an offer to hear the Rivers Board, although they showed themselves unwilling to hear the County Council. My object in bringing the matter before your Lordships is to make an appeal to my noble friend the Chairman of Committees to consider whether it would not be reasonable to amend Standing Order 105D, so as to put the admission of these great Rivers Boards beyond doubt. Our procedure upstairs has many merits, but certainly not that of extreme inexpensiveness, and anything which tends to concentrate opposition instead of encouraging a great number of petitions must be to the advantage of this House. I therefore ask my noble friend if he will consider, when he comes to make amendments in the Standing Orders, whether it would not be possible for him to include these great Rivers Boards, which are, for all purposes connected with water, the county councils of the counties in which they exist, in the Standing Order.
  *LORD HAWKESBURY: My Lords, I regret that I did not arrive at the

  1177
  House till too late on Friday to hear this question discussed; but I was not aware that the noble Earl (Lord Northbrook) was going to raise it on the Third Reading of the Harrogate Corporation Water Bill. The noble Earl, however, has since told me the points he raised on that occasion, and, perhaps, I may be allowed to answer them at the same time as I reply to the remarks of my noble friend who has just spoken. I understand, from Lord Northbrook, that the first point he raised was that, in his opinion, the West Riding Rivers Board was included in the words of Standing Order 105 D, and, therefore, had a right to be heard. I cannot agree with the noble Lord on that point, and I do not think anyone who reads the Standing Order will take that view. I recollect the circumstances alluded to in which the Standing Order was amended—it was for the purpose of admitting County Councils. Nothing was said of the claim of Rivers Boards to be heard against such a Bill, and I think it was obvious that it was never intended to include them. As to the question of locus standi, which we disallowed, I may say, with regard to the first Bill—the Harrogate Corporation Water Bill—that the ground which was proposed to be taken by the promoters for their reservoir was entirely in the North Riding. Although, of course, the Committee would not refuse to give due weight to any arguments in support of the claim of the West Riding Rivers Board to a voice in the matter, in view of the fact that the water of the Pott Beck eventually reaches the river Ure, and flows thence to the Ouse, we could not help taking into consideration the fact that the North Riding Rivers Board had not intervened in the case, and that it was outside the jurisdiction of the West Riding Board. With regard to the Bill now before the House—the Leeds Corporation Water Bill—a portion of the proposed works was within the West Riding, and therefore (though this portion of the works has since been struck out of the Bill) the case was then different. The case of the Halifax Bill, which was before Lord Poltimore's Committee in 1898, was brought forward as a plea for
  1178
  giving them a locus standi. That case was handed up to us, and I believe the reason a locus standi was then given was that the mill owners had the right of impounding the water on Saturday and Sunday nights, leaving the bed of the river dry in that interval, and it was proposed to continue that right in the Halifax Bill. That was a different case entirely from the present one, and, as Lord Crewe has said, it necessitated the appearance of the West Riding Rivers Board as the sanitary authority. At the same time it was brought before us in evidence that in the Barnsley case and also in the Sheffield case, where the conditions were different, a locus standi was not granted. I now come to our main reason for declining to hear the Board. The Rivers Board is a sanitary authority, and takes its powers under the Rivers Pollution Acts, 1876 and 1893, which were passed with the object of preventing persons putting solids, refuse, and other deleterious matter into rivers. There was nothing of that in this case, and, therefore, the Committee could not see, and I fail to see at the present time, any relevance in the appearance of the West Riding Rivers Board. It was urged that in cleaning the filter beds there might in the future be some pollution, but it appeared to us that if that should hereafter happen, then would be the time for the Rivers Board to intervene. As to the suggested alteration of the Standing Order, I cannot help thinking that it would be unnecessary, for I feel sure that no Committee would refuse to hear any evidence that might help them in coming to a decision. Besides this, the Standing Order, as it reads at present, may be useful in making these bodies consider carefully before rushing into opposition, and in preventing what in many cases may be a waste of the ratepayers' money. I therefore hope that the Standing Order will not be amended.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, I think there is no doubt whatever that my noble friend who presided over this Committee acted absolutely within his right in refusing to grant a locus standi to the West Riding Rivers Board. I do not think there can be any question

  1179
  that the Rivers Board is not included in Standing Order 105 D, which gives to county councils an imperative locus standi. I have looked carefully through the proceedings of the Committee, and I think, from what my noble friend has just stated, and from what I have gleaned from reading the proceedings, that in this particular case no injustice or harm has been done by refusing the locus standi. At the same time, no doubt, there has been, as there always is in these cases, a certain amount of inconsistency in the way in which locus standi has been given to local boards in the past. There were peculiar circumstances in the Halifax case, which rendered it necessary, in the opinion of the chairman of that Committee, that the Rivers Board should have a locus standi. There are, I think, only three of these Rivers Boards in England—the Mersey Board, in Lancashire, and the boards of the North and West Ridings of Yorkshire. They exercise considerable influence, and, as administrators of the Rivers Pollution Acts, have even more powers than the County Councils. Except in these three cases the County Councils administer these Acts, especially the Act of 1876, and it was in respect of that qualification that the House thought fit to lay down, by the Standing Order which I have already quoted, that where waters in their districts were concerned they should be heard. It leaves no option to the Committee to refuse to hear them. I confess it seems to me that, in dealing with these very important bodies, which not merely represent the County Councils but the county boroughs within their area, it would be desirable for Committees to strain a point in listening to their evidence. I would venture, with all submission to the Committees, to suggest that where this occurs it would be desirable, as I have said, to strain a point to hear them. But as the application from such bodies for a locus standi are few in number, I do not think it is worth while to go so far as to alter the Standing Orders. If that were done in this case, I might be called upon to alter them to meet the cases of other similarly constituted bodies. I will, however, consider the matter carefully before the Standing Orders are altered in the present
  1180
  year, but I trust that the expression of opinion which I have ventured to give to the House may have the effect my noble friend desires.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I am glad to hear, from the statement of my noble friend, that he considers that these Rivers Boards have some claim, at all events, to be heard before Committees on occasions of this kind. There are but three such boards, no doubt, but they are important bodies. The Rivers Board of the West Biding of Yorkshire is entrusted with very large and very difficult powers, for there are few things more difficult than the management which is necessary to prevent the pollution of rivers in manufacturing districts, and I should regret anything which would place it in a position which even appeared to be one of inferiority to the County Councils. In that event I think it would be inevitable that the County Councils would themselves petition, in which case, as the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees has pointed out, they would have an imperative locus standi. Inasmuch as this particular business has been handed over from the County Councils to the Rivers Boards, I venture to think that they should be placed upon the same footing as the County Councils in the matter of locus standi. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Hawkesbury in deprecating the habit of some County Councils of petitioning unnecessarily against Bills, but it is not a good method of stopping that practice to deny a locus standi to a public body which has a claim, at all events on some occasions, to be heard.
  On Question, agreed to; read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  SWANSEA HARBOUR BILL.
  WINSFORD URBAN DISTRICT (GAS TRANSFER, ETC.) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (ACTON) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.

  CALEDONIAN RAILWAY BILL.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY) VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (DEARNE VALLEY JUNCTION RAILWAYS) BILL.
  ALDERSHOT GAS AND WATER BILL.
  CLEVELAND AND DURHAM COUNTY ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Wolverton be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl of Shaftesbury; read, and agreed to.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3.) BILL [H.L.]
  Committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 72 and 82 be suspended for the remainder of the session.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bills reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a to-morrow.

  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order); Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order); the Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made; further Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow.
  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL [H.L.]
  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.].
  House in Committee (according to Order); Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL [H.L.]
  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.].
  House in Committee (according to Order); Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  COMMONS REGULATION AND INCLOSURE (SKIPWITH) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (ORPINGTON) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bills reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a to-morrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL. (No. 135.)
  MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. (No. 136.)
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners.

  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
  [PONTYPRIDD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER OPPOSED.]
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL [H.L.]
  [CHERITON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER OPPOSED.]

  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 4) BILL [H.L.]
  [FOLKESTONE CORPORATION, GLOSSOP ELECTRIC, AND WEST RIDING ORDERS OPPOSED.]
  BEXLEY TRAMWAYS BILL.

  TOTTENHAM AND HAMPSTEAD JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
  BINGLEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL.
  BURTON-UPON-TRENT CORPORATION BILL.

  KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION BILL.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, viz.:—

  E. Abingdon,

  E. Radnor,

  L. Clonbrock (chairman),

  L. Hylton,

  L. Monckton (V. Galway);

  agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly; the Committee to meet on Monday next, at Twelve o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee,
  1184
  with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 2633. Venezuela (Cuidad Bolivar).
  No. 2634. Turkey (Tripoli).
  No. 2635. Portugal (Southern Portugal).

  GIBRALTAR (ADMIRALTY WORKS).
  1. Letter (with Inclosure) from Vice-Admiral Sir Harry Rawson, K.C.B., dated 30th March, 1901.
  2. Letter (with Inclosures) from Vice-Admiral Sir Harry Rawson, K.C.B., dated 16th May, 1901.

  INEBRIATES ACTS, 1879 TO 1899 (REGULATIONS FOR STATE INEBRIATE REFORMATORIES).
  General regulations for the management and discipline of State Inebriate Reformatories made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in pursuance of the Inebriates Act, 1898.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 15th June, 1901, declaring that George Smith, engine driver, Royal Gun Factory, War Office, was appointed without a civil service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his department.

  PUBLIC RECORDS (ADMIRALTY DEPARTMENT).
  Eighth Schedule, containing a list and particulars of classes of documents which have been removed from the office of the Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and deposited in the Public Record Office, but which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation therein.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

PETITION.
  DECLARATION OF THE SOVEREIGN AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
  Petition for alteration of, of Roman Catholic British subjects resident in Rhodesia; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY BOARD.
  The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered except to members of the Committee, and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order. (No. 134.)
  PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
  CIVIL LIST BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE APPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee, according to Order.
  LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I wish to call attention to Sub-section 3 of Clause 1, which provides that in the case of appeals under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 and 1900, the decision of the High Court shall be final, and leave shall not be given to appeal in any other Court. The Lord Chief Justice, speaking in this House the other night, said that in his opinion there ought to be an appeal. I should like to know whether the noble and learned Lord has considered the matter since the Lord Chief Justice spoke, and whether there are any strong reasons why this Act should alone be excluded from appeal to the House of Lords. It is a very complicated Act, and no one knows better than the Lord Chancellor that there have been a great number of appeals, in which the decisions of the lower Courts have been reversed.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, the noble Lord is in error in stating that this is the only Act which is excluded from appeal to the House of Lords. Appeals from the county courts are finally decided by the divisional court, and registration appeals cannot come to the House of Lords. In one sense I am rather pleased to find that the House of Lords has become a popular court of appeal, and that it is supposed to be a deprivation of the subject if there is no appeal to this House. When the Workmen's Compensation Act was introduced, the suggestion was that it would be impossible to allow cases to go to the House of Lords, because it would involve such expensive litigation. The idea of an appeal to the House of Lords was negatived as to Ireland and Scotland, but there was a blunder in the drafting of the Bill, and an ingenious person found out that by particular words in the schedule, and not in the body of the Act, there was an appeal to the House of Lords. The courts of appeal are being swamped by the number of appeals, and it was justly considered that the original design of this Act should be pursued, and that an appeal to the House of Lords should not be granted. For myself, I am reluctant to refuse the jurisdiction which this House is considered to have exercised so well. But the other side must be considered, where it is a question of expensive litigation, and where the number of appeals has been the subject of animadversion. Why this particular class of litigation should be made the subject of appeal to the final court of appeal, although it is, generally speaking, for small amounts, is a question with which I am not prepared to deal. I can only say that I will make no proposition myself which would allow an appeal to the House of Lords. I would remind the noble Lord that only last year, when the Workmen's Compensation Act was extended to agricultural labourers, it was expressly provided that there should be no appeal to the House of Lords. It seems to me that this sudden and extraordinary demonstration in favour of the jurisdiction of the House of Lords arises from the fact that in many cases this House has decided in favour of the workman; but I do not know whether the same opinion would

  1187
  continue to exist if it should become our duty, as it may on many occasions, to decide against the workman. The general view is that it is undesirable in small matters to have litigation continued from court to court, thereby increasing enormously the expense of such litigation. This view becomes all the more important in the case of poor litigants. That is the view which has been taken, and I cannot say I entirely demur from it. Much must depend on the general feeling whether or not I accept an Amendment restoring the appeal to the House of Lords. It would, however, seem to me inconsistent with the course we have hitherto taken on the subject.
  Bill reported, without Amendment, and recommitted to the Standing Committee.
  House adjourned a five minutes past Five of the clock, till to morrow, half-past Ten of the clock.