Sitting of 15 April 1902

Preamble
The House met at Three of the clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  GRAND JUNCTION WATER BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
  MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  TICEHURST WATER BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  "To regulate the expenditure of money by the London County Council on capital account during the current financial period; and the raising of money to meet such expenditure," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

  LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY (SOUTHPORT AND CHESHIRE LINES EXTENSION RAILWAY TRANSFER) BILL.
  Order [17th March] that the Bill be committed, read and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn (Mr. Caldwell).

  RICHMOND HILL (PRESERVATION OF VIEW) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Committee.
  1. "That, in the case of the Liverpool Corporation Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with; that the parties be permitted to introduce their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."
  2. "That, in the case of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 129 in the case of the Petition of the 'Metropolitan Dairymen's Society' against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."
  3. "That, in the case of the London and India Docks (Lighterage Rates, etc.) Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 129 in the case of the Petition of 'Richard Fairbairn and others 'against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought not to be dispensed with."
  First two Resolutions agreed to.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  BIRKENHEAD, PRESTON, SALFORD, AND EASTBOURNE CORPORATION BILLS.
  The Deputy Chairman, in pursuance of Standing Order No. 83 relating to Private Bills, informed the House that, in his opinion, the Birkenhead, Preston, Salford, and Eastbourne Corporation Bills, though unopposed, ought to be treated as opposed Private Bills.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the London and South Western Railway Company to execute further works, to acquire additional lands, and to raise further money; to empower the Company and the Great Western Railway Company, or one of them, to acquire additional lands for enlarging Portland Station: to confirm a lease to the Company of the Padstow separate undertaking of the North Cornwall Railway Company, and an agreement made by the Company with the Vicar and Churchwardens of the parish of St. John, Waterloo Road; to extend the periods limited for the completion of works and the purchase of lands under certain Acts relating to the Company; and to confer further powers upon the Company; and for other purposes." London and South Western Railway Bill—[Lords].
  LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petition from Stourbridge, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petition from Worksop, in favour; to lie upon the Table.

  HONORARY FREEDOM OF BOROUGHS EXTENSION BILL.
  Petition from Kensington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (REPAYMENT OF LOANS) BILL.
  Petition from Kensington, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Kingston-on-Thames; Shipley; Burslem; Worksop; Wiltshire; and Sydenham; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against: From Woodhall Spa; and Calne; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HOUSES (HOURS OF CLOSING) (SCOTLAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Bo'ness, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petitions against: From Doncaster; Drayton; and Horncastle (two); to lie upon the Table.
  ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  Petitions against establishment: From Carnoustie and Inverkeithing; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Wells and Wigan; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SOUTH AFRICA (DESPATCHES).
  Copy presented, of the Spion Kop Despatches [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AGRARIAN OFFENCES (PROVINCES) (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Return by Provinces of Agrarian Offences in Ireland for the year ended 31st December, 1901 [by Command] to lie upon the Table.
  INEBRIATES ACTS, 1879 to 1899 (RULES FOR RETREATS) (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Hides for Retreats licensed under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1899, in Scotland, dated 14th April, 1902, approved by the Secretary for Scotland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 142.]
  GREEK LOAN OF 1898.
  Account presented, up to 31st March, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EGYPTIAN GUARANTEED LOAN OF 1885.
  Account presented, up to 31st March, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Minute of the Board of Education, dated 26th October, 1901, sanctioning the subjects to be taught under Clause 8 of the Technical Instruction Act, 1889, for the City of Bath [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report No. 353 (Southern Nigeria, Annual Report for 1900) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CYPRUS.
  Copy presented, of Annual Report for 1900–01 [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
(3.30.) QUESTIONS.

  South African War—Peace Negotiations.
  Mr. BRYCE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is any news to communicate from South Africa.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. Balfour,): No, Sir, there is no information, nor do I think there can be at the present stage. I may say that the Government will immediately inform the House as soon as there is anything which can be communicated.

  Concentration Camps—Maintenance Charges.
  Mr. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the calculations that have been made for the purpose of charging the Boers who have fought against us in the field since the 15th of September, 1901, with the maintenance of their families imprisoned in the concentration camps, credit has been given to such Boers for the value of the food supplies of their families which have been taken posses-

  271
  sion of or burnt by the British troops; I and, if not, whether, in view of such destruction of the food supplies of the Boer women and children, such credit will be given.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I am not aware of any such cases as are suggested in the Question, but, if they exist, I should not feel inclined to interfere with the discretion of Lord Milner in the matter.

  Transvaal and Orange River Colony Law.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the alterations recently made in the law of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony have been made by His Majesty in Council or by Lord Milner; and, if by the latter, under what constitutional precedent or authority does he act.
  Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The alteraions have been made by Lord Milner under the authority of the Royal Commission printed at page 7 of Cd. 547.

  Tweebosch Engagement—Conduct of Yeomanry.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the statement in Lord Methuen's Report on the action at Tweebosch on 7th March last, namely, that he found the men forming the rear screen, which consisted of the 86th Company Imperial Yeomanry, much out of hand, and lacking both fire, discipline, and knowledge of how to act; and if he can say when and under what conditions the men forming the 86th Company Imperial Yeomanry were recruited, what length of training they received prior to embarkation for South Africa, and what previous training the officers of this unit underwent.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,: This Company formed part of the second contingent of Imperial Yeomanry which was sent to South Africa in accordance with Lord Kitchener's wishes, and has done twelve months service there.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: The noble Lord has not answered the Question as to the length of training they received before embarking for South Africa.
  LORD STANLEY: I am afraid I cannot say exactly, because a good many of the companies have been broken up. We have endeavoured as far as possible, whenever sending Imperial Yeomanry out, to conform with Lord Kitchener's request as to the training of them.

  Pay of Colonial Troops.
  MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the men recently recruited and now being recruited in Canada and the Colonies are to be paid 5s. per day; and, if so, whether similar recruits in the British Isles will be paid at the same rate.
  LORD STANLEY: These men are paid at the same rate as the Imperial Yeomanry.

  30th Battalion Imperial Yeomanry.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the position of the 30th Battalion, Imperial Yeomanry, who were enlisted in January on the understanding that they would proceed to South Africa after two months training, but who are still at Bulford camp, without any immediate prospect of being moved; and whether, in view of the fact that the men of this battalion were enlisted at 5s. a day for special war purposes, and that the period of engagement was for only twelve months (three and a quarter of which are already consumed), he will endeavour to make use of a force raised at such cost to the public.
  LORD STANLEY: This battalion is being retained at home until it is thoroughly trained, in accordance with Lord Kitchener's request that the Imperial Yeomanry should be well trained at home prior to despatch. The period of service is for twelve months or the war.
  MR. FLYNN: And are these men receiving 5s. a day, although they are not in the sphere of operations?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Don't embarrass the Government!

  Imperial Yeomanry Serving at Home.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state how many Imperial Yeomen, at 5s. a day, are now being employed at home.
  LORD STANLEY: These men are required to have two months service and to be efficient in order to qualify for pay at 5s. a day. I am not aware how many are in receipt of this pay.

  Imperial Yeomanry Training at Aldershot.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it has been brought to his notice that there are only some 1,500 horses for the purpose of training the 5,000 Imperial Yeomanry at Aldershot, and that of these horses nearly 400 are not available owing to sickness, some having been actually sent to Aldershot while suffering from strangles; also that a large proportion of the officers with these battalions are promoted troopers, who have not at present had experience in training men; whether he is aware that several of these Imperial Yeomanry battalions are short of medical officers, veterinary officers, farriers, and shoeing smiths: and what steps he proposes taking to remedy these defects with a view to the efficiency of this force.
  LORD STANLEY: Of the 1,500 horses about 280 are sick, and not 400. It must be remembered that one battalion of Yeomanry has been sent to Bulford to train, where horses are provided. Some of the officers are promoted troopers, and have been selected on acoount of their being likely to become good leaders of men. I am aware that there is a deficiency of the officers and men mentioned, and every effort is being taken to meet it. As
  274
  many horses have been assigned to the Yeomanry as the General Officer Commanding considered desirable.

  Yeomanry Officers' Allowances.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the facts that the subaltern officers of Imperial Yeomanry raised for service in South Africa are in many cases entirely dependent upon their pay, and that this pay is 7s. 8d. per diem, without rations, which are provided on active service, whether he will either grant them the Militia allowance of 4s. 3d. per diem while in England, or employ them, as originally intended, in South Africa; and whether he will take care that no cost of moving these troops about from one garrison to another in England falls upon the officers.
  LORD STANLEY: The Militia messing allowance—which is 4s., and not 4s. 3d.—is not granted on embodiment. The officers will receive the usual allowances should it be found necessary to move them from one station to another. As soon as possible after the units to which they have been posted have completed their training, they will be despatched to South Africa.

  Telegraphists in South Africa.
  MR. HERMON-HODGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a detachment of telegraphists who volunteered in May, 1900, for service in South Africa on the same terms as the Imperial Yeomanry and Field Service Volunteers, are still detained in South Africa; and whether, as these men have now been on active service nearly two years, he will make arrangements for their relief.
  LORD STANLEY: May I refer my hon. friend to my reply to a similar Question put yesterday by the hon. Member for the Western Division of Newington.†

  War Clasps.
  MR. McLAREN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the fact of any officer or man having passed through
  † See page 130 of this volume.

  275
  Cape Colony, the Transvaal, Orange River Colony, or Natal, on his way to join any of His Majesty's forces, entitles him to a clasp in respect of each of these colonies; whether a man who has proceeded from the Cape to Natal, and has seen active service in both Cape Colony and Natal, can only receive one clasp in respect of both these colonies; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of allowing men to hold both the Natal and Cape Colony clasps if they have seen service in both colonies.
  LORD STANLEY: No soldier can hold both the Cape Colony and Natal clasp; further, a soldier holding a battle clasp in a colony cannot hold the colony clasp. It is not contemplated to make any change in the Regulations affecting the issue of the South African medals and clasps.
  MR. McLAREN: The noble Lord has not answered the first part of the Question.
  LORD STANLEY: No, I am afraid I overlooked that.
  MR. McLAREN: I will put it another day.

  Naval Gunnery Practice—Prizes for Marksmanship.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether Petty Officer Grounds, of H.M.S. "Terrible," who last year accomplished the feat of putting eight hits on the prize-firing target in one minute from a six-inch quick-firing gun, while his ship was steaming past at twelve knots, received any special monetary reward for this skill; and whether, having regard to the fact that the King's prizeman at Bisley obtains a monetary prize of £250 and a gold medal and badge, the Admiralty will consider the advisability of instituting some national prize to be competed for each year by the captains of the guns of His Majesty's Fleet.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. Arnold-FORSTER,): The sum of £21 15s. was placed at the disposal of the captain of H.M.S. "Terrible" for distribution in prizes for firing with the six-inch gun. The petty officer referred to received his proper
  276
  share of the amount allotted to the gun's crew of which he was the captain. The conditions under which heavy gun firing is conducted in the Royal Navy are such that it is not considered possible, even if it were desirable, to institute a prize similar to the King's Prize competed for by the Volunteers at Bisley. Every effort is made, by the offer of money prizes and by taking advantage of the esprit de corps and rivalry prevailing between different ships, to encourage gunners in the Navy to obtain proficiency in gunnery. There are objections to any attempt to put the gunnery of the Fleet on the lines of a military rifle competition

  Navy Clothing.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can give the reasons which have caused increases in the prices of clothing materials, such as serge, flannel, duck, and twill, used in the Royal Navy; and if he can see his way to reduce the prices of these articles to the previous figures.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The prices at which clothing materials are issued to the men are revised every three years. They are arrived at by taking the average of the prices actually paid by the Admiralty during the previous three years, to which is added five shillings to cover establishment charges, losses, condemnations, etc. Any rise or fall in the prices charged to the men is the result, solely, of the rise or fall in the prices paid by the Admiralty. It is, therefore, impossible now to reduce the present prices without a loss to the Crown.

  Navy Pay.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the forthcoming increase in the pay of private soldiers, it is in contemplation to make a corresponding addition to pay of the bluejackets, stokers, and marines of the Royal Navy.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: As stated in prievous answers the question of the pay of the Royal Marines is under consideration. The circumstances under which the other Naval Ratings referred

  277
  to serve are so dissimilar to those prevailing in the Army, that, in the opinion of the Admiralty, the question of their pay must be considered as altogether independent of Army rates. No changes in the rates of pay in Naval ratings generally are in contemplation.

  Accident on Board H.M.S. Mars.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I wish to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can give the House any information concerning this accident.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Information has been received from the Vice-Admiral commanding the Channel Fleet, and from the Rear-Admiral at Queens-town, with respect to this lamentable occurrence. It appears that while at gun practice a misfire took place in both the forward barbette guns of the "Mars." Orders were given to use the auxiliary firing circuit. Four minutes later an explosion took place in the port gun, by which the breech-block was blown to the rear, the projectile remaining in the gun. The Starboard gun remained unfired. Every one in the barbette was killed or wounded. I regret to say that the number of those who were killed, or have since succumbed to their injuries, is eleven, including Lieutenant James Bourne and Lieutenant Thomas Miller, and nine men. Mr. Geoffrey Cowlard, midshipman, and six petty officers and seamen were also injured, and are being treated in hospital at Queenstown. No explanation of the explosion can at present be given, but an inquiry has been ordered and will take place immediately.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Inquired if adequate provision would be made for the relatives of those who had been killed in the unfortunate accident.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That will be done, but the Question can perhaps be dealt with after longer notice.

  Armenian Affairs.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretory of State for Foreign Affairs whether
  278
  His Britannic Majesty's Consul at Diarbakir has been sent again to Moush this year; whether His Majesty's Government have any reports indicating the renewal of massacres in Armenia; and, if so, whether they are taking any steps alone or in conjunction with other Powers to avert the danger.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,: The British Vice-Consulate at Bitlis has been re-established and His Majesty's Consul at Diarbakir is now residing there, his duties at Diarbakir being fulfilled by another Officer. Moush is in the Vice-Consular district of Bitlis and within easy reach of that town. The reports received by His Majesty's Government indicate that a disturbed state of affairs exists in some of the Vilayets, especially in the Hekkiari district, but there is no evidence pointing to the likelihood of a renewal of massacres. His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople has recently on three or four occasions called the attention of the Porte to the matter.

  Macedonia.
  EARL PERCY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affaire whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that orders have been issued to the Valis of Salonica and Monastir to arm the Mussulman civilian population; and whether representations have been or will be made to the Sultan by His Majesty's Government urging him to discourage such measures, with a view to allaying apprehension and preventing misunderstanding.
  LORD CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Government have not heard that any orders of the nature referred to have been issued by the Porte. The most recent instructions issued by the Grand Vizier to the Valis in Macedonia are to the effect that regular troops and police only are to be used for any repressive measures which may be necessary, that the civilian population are on no account to be employed for such a purpose, and that the Mussulman population must not enter into any conflict with their Christian compatriots.

  European Turkey.
  MR. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now communicate to the House, either as a Parliamentary Paper or in reply to a Question, the text of the Circular Note recently addressed by the Powers to the Porte with reference to the condition of European Turkey: and whether he will lay upon the Table copies of the Reports addressed to Sir Nicholas O'Conor during the past twelve months by His Majesty's Consular officers in Macedonia.
  LORD CRANBORNE: No such Circular or collective note has been addressed by the Powers to the Porte. His Majesty's Ambassador, as well as the representatives of other Powers, have, however, been in frequent communication with the Porte as to the condition of Macedonia. It would not be desirable in the public interest to present Papers to Parliament at the present moment.

  Philippine Exports.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what is the amount of export duty paid on manila fibre or hemp from the Philippines to America and England respectively, also the duty charged on the same goods entering the United States, and what proportion is remitted by reason of such goods coming from an American colony, and what advantage in first cost the American manufacturer would have over his British competitor.
  LORD CRANBORNE: Manila fibre and hemp are not the same thing, and are differently treated. Under the United States Tariff Act, hemp is subject to an import duty of 20 dollars per ton, but grasses and fibres, including manila, are duty free. The export duty under the act of the Philippine Tariff Commission is the same in both cases, viz., 7.50 dollars per ton. But all articles, the growth and product of the Philippines, admitted into United States ports free of duty, will, if they come direct and are for use and consumption in the United States, be exempt from export duties imposed in the Archipelago. It appears therefore that no export duty will be levied on manila fibre exported to the United States and
  280
  that the American manufacturer has in this case, in his own market, an advantage of 7.50 dollars per ton over his British competitor.
  MR. MARKHAM: Arising out of that answer, as the noble lord has stated that the Government have sought an assurance from the United States Government that no preferential tariff shall be established, will he make a friendly communication to the United States Government in order to remedy this state of things under which there is a preferential tariff.
  LORD CRANBORNE: I stated that representations had been made the last time the hon. Gentleman put a Question on this subject. I must ask him to give me notice of any further Question.

  Russian and French Ships at Morocco.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have information to the effect that the French and Russian: Governments have ordered the meeting of Russian and French Squadrons at Tangier; and, if so, whether their information shows that such meeting has been concerted with the Spanish Government, and what is the object of such action.
  LORD CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Minister in Morocco reported the contemplated visit of a Russian and French Squadron to Tangier and their arrival there on the 10th instant. They were expected to remain for twenty-four hours. His Majesty's Government have no information to the effect suggested in the last Question.

  Co-operative Stores and the Income Tax.
  MR. COGAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Army and Navy Co-operative Society, Limited, the Junior Army and Navy Co-operative Society, Limited, the Civil Service Co-operative Society, and other trading wholesale and retail co-operative societies throughout the United Kingdom, are assessed to Income Tax in the same manner as other trading companies and individuals are assessed.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. Hicks Beach,): I will send the hon.

  281
  Member a printed statement, which explains the law on this point. I may, however, mention that the general impression that these societies are exempt from Income Tax is erroneous.

  Stamps on Medicines.
  MR. LAYLAND-BARRATT: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in cases where penalties under 42 George 3, c. 59, for selling medicines without affixing the stamps in payment of duty required under that Act, are not recovered by process of law, but are claimed by, and paid direct to the Inland Revenue authorities, the informer is entitled to any portion of such penalties; and if so, to what portion; and whether, if the informer is a Government official, he is entitled to a similar, or any portion of the penalties.
  Sir M. HICKS BEACH: The Board of Inland Revenue are empowered to grant rewards to informers, whether Government officials, or otherwise, in cases of the kind referred to. The amount awarded to the informer depends upon the circumstances of each individual case.

  Budget Proposals—Corn and Grain Duty.
  MR. STANLEY WILSON: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his intention to treat existing grain contracts of bonâ fide traders in the same way that he treated similar coal contracts last year.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, Sir, certainly not. The circumstances are quite different. The position of the grain contracts is precisely that of the sugar contracts last year, and the matter is governed by the provisions of Section 10 of the Finance Act of last year.
  MR. LOUGH: What goods are included under the heading of grains, flours, and meal? Does it include all cereals, such as peas, haricots, lentils, and rice, and also manufactured goods such as macaroni, semolina, starch, tapioca, sago, and arrowroot.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I only received notice of this Question as I came into the House. Longer notice should, I think, be given of a detailed notice of that kind; but, subject to that observation, I think I may safely say the answer is, Yes.

  Islington Poor Rate.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received any communication from the Islington Borough Council with reference to alleged extravagance on the part of the Board of Guardians; and whether, considering the increase of the poor rate in that parish, he will be willing to grant an inquiry into the matter.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. WALTERLONG.): I have recently received a letter from the Borough Council asking that an inquiry may be held with reference to the expenditure of the Board of Guardians. I am at present in communication with the latter body on the subject.

  Kew Gardens.
  MR. McLAREN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if his attention has been called to the number of crippled, stunted, and half-dead coniferous trees in Kew Gardens which are no longer properly representative of the species to which they belong; and whether he will suggest to the managers of the gardens the desirability of removing all such trees and replacing them by young stock, providing them so far as possible with the soil most suitable for their special requirements.
  I beg also to ask the First Commissioner of Works if his attention has been called to the complaints of the pollution of the air near Kew by the smoke-producing factories at Brentford, and to the complaints that the Urban Council of Brentford neglect or decline to suppress the nuisance; whether his attention has been called to the injury done to evergreen trees and shrubs in Kew Gardens by the smoke-laden air; and whether he will consider the feasibility of instituting proceedings against the offending parties.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (MR. AKERS DOUGLAS,, St. Augustine's): The cultivation of coniferous trees is not attended with success in the northern part of the gardens owing to the smoke of Brentford; but it is already carried on in the (southern part on the lines suggested. The matter referred to in the second Question is receiving most careful consideration.

  Central Telegraph Office Staff.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that duties which have been defined as proper to the class of senior telegraphists and overseers at the Central Telegraph Office are frequently performed by men not belonging to that class; and whether he will consider the advisability of increasing the number of senior appointments at the Central Telegraph Office to meet the requirements of the service.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): So far as the Postmaster General is aware, it is not the case that duties which have been defined as proper to the class of overseers and senior telegraphists at the Central Telegraph Office are frequently performed by men not belonging to that class, though this does occasionally happen when there are more absentees than usual amongst the seniors. In present circumstances the Postmaster General is not able to entertain the question of creating more senior appointments.

  National Income and Expenditure Accounts.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state why no copies of the accounts of the national income and expenditure to 31st March last, which were supplied to and published in the daily newspapers of the following day, have been or are distributed to Members of this House; and why no copies of these accounts are obtainable at the Vote Office.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: In accordance with what I find has been the usual practice, copies of these accounts were not sent to the Vote Office on the 1st of this month, because the House was not then sitting, and Members would see the statement in the Press before they could receive it from the Vote Office. I have, however, given directions that copies of the last accounts shall be at once placed in the Vote Office, and that in future copies shall always be sent to the Vote Office, whether the House is sitting or not.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can it not be arranged to forward them to hon. Members addresses?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That does not rest with me. I believe hon. Members can obtain them by signing the Pink Paper.

  Goods Rates on Irish Railways.
  MR. FIELD, St. Patrick): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the average rate per ton on merchandise carried by railways in England, Scotland, and Ireland has been calculated, and shows that in 1880 the excess was 21·83 per cent. above the English rate, and 27·13 above the Scotch; in 1890 the excess was 22·75 above the English, and 29·22 per cent. above the Scotch; and in 1900 the corresponding percentages were 37·14 and 33·97; whether any steps will be taken by the Government to reduce the cost of transport in Ireland, where there is an average difference of almost £2 per ton in the carriage of goods: whether he will cause inquiry to be made into those figures with a view to providing a remedy.
  THR CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. WYNDHAM,): The figures are as stated, except that the average difference in the cost of carriage of goods on British and Irish railways is 2s., not £2. It should be observed, however, that the proportion of expenditure to receipts on Irish railways is higher than on the Scottish lines, and almost as high as on the English rail-ways. The rates in Ireland are presumably within the legal maxima which

  285
  the companies are authorised to charge. In reply to the concluding inquiry, I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to the Question put by him to me on Tuesday last. †

  Police Protection at Faha.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of policemen employed in the protection of Mr. Morrogh Bernard at Faha, County Kerry, the yearly expense in salary and otherwise of these policemen to the public, and the yearly rents of the farms from which tenants have been evicted by Mr. Bernard in the district.
  MR WYNDHAM: Two constables who, when not employed in protecting Mr. Bernard, are engaged on other police duties. Their emoluments amount to about £102 a year. I have no information on the last query.
  MR. MURPHY: But is it not the fact that ten policemen are engaged in protecting this man, in an area not exceeding a square mile?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Not ten, but two:
  MR. MURPHY: Well, I am personally aware that ten are so engaged.

  Kerry Police.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the expenses of the police hut kept in Ballyferriter, Dingle, County Kerry, are charged upon the rates of the county.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to this Question is in the negative.

  Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say when the national teachers are likely to be paid the balance of the residual grant, 1900–1901.
  † See preceding volume, p. 1260.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Payment of the grant for the period mentioned has long since been made.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the consolidated salaries of all Irish national school teachers have been finally determined; whether special consideration has been given to all cases where the average of three years income would be inequitable; and whether he proposes to institute any change in the constitution of a Board which has failed, after two years, to finish this work.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to the first and second queries is in the affirmative. The suggestion that there has been remissness on the part of the Board in determining the salaries of the teachers is not warranted by the facts.

  Education Bill.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, although the Elementary Education Act of 1897, relating to necessitous school districts, is left unrepealed by the Education Bill, the effect of the Bill will be that, where such a district is absorbed in a county, the district will lose the whole benefit of the Act of 1897, although it will retain the entire burden of building debts from which that Act at present partly relieves it; and, having regard to the fact that, unless the entire county should be necessitous within the terms of the Act, the money at present paid over to the district will be unissued and the Act a dead letter in such counties as may put in force the permissive powers of the Bill, whether he will consider the possibility of introducing an Amendment to meet the point.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The matter alluded to by my right hon. friend is undoubtedly one that will have to be dealt with, but I think I can hardly discuss it by means of Question and answer.
  MR. REA: I beg to ask the first Lord of the Treasury whether, in the event of the Education Bill becoming law, the associations of voluntary

  287
  schools, established under the Voluntary Schools Act, 1897, will continue to exist: and, if so, will the shares of the aid grant payable under that Act continue to be allotted by them in accordance with Section 1, Sub-section (3), of that Act: and, if Part III of the Education Bill is not adopted in any district, will the aid grant continue to be allotted to the voluntary schools through the associations as at present; and where Part III is adopted and the grant is paid to the education authorities, as provided by Clause 8, Sub-section (3), of the Education Bill, will that grant be paid in accordance with schemes prepared by the governing bodies of the association, as provided by Section 1, Sub-section (4), of the Act of 1897.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In the event of the Education Bill becoming law, the associations of voluntary schools as bodies with statutory duties will cease to exist; but if Part III of the Bill be not adopted, the aid grant will continue to be allotted as at present.

Business of the House.
MR. BRYCE: Can the Leader of the House give any indication as to the business for Friday and the probable course of the debate on the Budget?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On Thursday there will be a general discussion on the Budget, and subsequently on the Report stage of the Resolutions. On Friday I propose to take Revenue Votes in Supply, beginning with the Postal Telegraphs Vote, which was not placed first last year.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: Will it be possible to discuss the proposed tax on corn on the Resolutions taken on Thursday?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes, but I hope this will not be necessary, as a special day is to be set apart for the Report stage, which can be used for that purpose.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: When is that; likely to be?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Probably on Monday.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES)
Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures (during the consideration of the Shop Clubs Bill):—Mr. Burt, Mr. Tennant, and Major Evans-Gordon; and had appointed in substitution, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Thomas Bayley, and Mr. Agg-Gardner.
Report to lie upon the Table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (WAYS AND MEANS).
(4.0.) Motion made, and Question put, "That this day the proceedings of the Business of Ways and Means have precedence of all other business, including Business of the House (Procedure).—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
The House divided:—Ayes, 227: Noes, 93. (Division List No. 109.)

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Causton, Richard Knight

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

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

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bignold, Arthur

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Bill, Charles

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Black, Alexander William

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Boulnois, Edmund

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

Chapman, Edward

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Charrington, Spencer

Austin, Sir John

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Balcarres, Lord

Brymer, William Ernest

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

Baldwin, Alfred

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

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

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Caldwell, James

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Bartley, George C. T.

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Corbett, T. L. (Down. North)

Horner, Frederick William

Purvis, Robert

Cranborne, Viscount

Horniman, Frederick John

Randles, John S.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Crossley, Sir Savile

Hoult, Joseph

Rea, Russell

Dalkeith, Earl of

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Remnant, James Farquharson

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

Rickett, J. Compton

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge

Denny, Colonel

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Dewar, T. R (T'r H'mlets, S. Geo.

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Dickson, Poynder, Sir John P.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Dorington, Sir. John Edward

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Russell, T. W.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Knowles, Lees

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Lawson, John Grant

Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Seely, Maj. J. E. B (Isle of Wight

Fardell, Sir T. George

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

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

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Smith, H C (North'mb. Tynesde

Finch, George H.

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

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Fisher, William Hayes

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Spear, John Ward

Fison, Frederick William

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Lucas, Reginald. J. (Portsmouth

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Flower, Ernest

Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

Forster, Henry William

Macdona, John Cumming

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Foster, Philip S (War wick, S. W.

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M' Taggart

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Garfit, William

Malcolm, Ian

Strachey, Sir Edward

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Markham, Arthur Basil

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn

Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriessh.)

Tennant, Harold John

Gorst, Rt. Hon. St. John Eldon

Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Milvain, Thomas

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

Mitchell, William

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Ure, Alexander

Grenfell, William Henry

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Valentia, Viscount

Gretton, John

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

Warr, Augustus

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Mount, William Arthur

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Gunter, Sir Robert

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Muntz, Philip A.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

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

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Grh'm (Bute

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Wills, Sir Frederick

Hardy, Laurence (K'nt, Ashford

Myers, William Henry

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

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

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

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Paulton, James Mellor

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

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington)

Wodehouse, Rt. Hon. E. R (Bath

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Pemberton, John S. G.

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

Percy, Earl

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

Helder, Augustus

Pierpoint, Robert

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Younger, William

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset. E.

Plummer, Walter R.

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

Holland, William Henry

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Ellis, John Edward

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Crean, Eugene

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Crombie, John William

Fenwick, Charles

Blake, Edward

Delany, William

Ffrench, Peter

Burke, E. Haviland-

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Field, William

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Dillon, John

Flynn, James Christopher

Cawley, Frederick

Doogan, P. C.

Furness, Sir Christopher

Channing, Francis Allston

Duncan, J. Hastings

Gilhooly, James

Cogan, Denis J.

Edwards, Frank

Griffith, Ellis J.

290

291

Hammond, John

M'Kenna, Reginald

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Harrington, Timothy

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Hayden, John Patrick

Mooney, John J.

Stevenson, Francis S.

Hope, John Deans (Fife. West)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Sullivan, Donal

Jacoby, James Alfred

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan. E.)

Jones, David Brynm'r (Swansea

Moss, Samuel

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Jordan, Jeremiah

Murphy, John

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

Joyce, Michael

Nannetti, Joseph p.

Tomkinson, James

Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wallace, Robert

Leng, Sir John

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

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Levy, Maurice

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

White, Patrick (Menth, North)

Lewis, John Herbert

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

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Lloyd-George, David

O'Dowd, John

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Lough, Thomas

O'Shanghnessy, P. J.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Lundon, W.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Priestley, Arthur

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk. Mid.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Reckitt, Harold James

Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

MacVeaph, Jeremiah

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Yoxall, James Henry

M'Crae, George

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick, O Brien.

M'Govern, T.

Robson, William Snowdon

M'Kean, John

Roe, Sir Thomas

OLD AGE PENSIONS (No. 2) BILL.
"To provide pensions for persons over sixty-five years of age." Presented by Mr. Channing, under Standing Order 31; supported by Mr. Burt, Mr. John Burns, Mr. John Wilson (Durham), Sir Walter Foster, and Mr. Broadburst; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 153.]

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[MR. JEFFREYS (Hampshire. N.) in the Chair.]

WAYS AND MEANS.

  LOAN.
  1. Motion made, and Question put, "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1903, sums not exceeding £32,000,000 may be raised by means of the creation of 2¾ per cent. Consolidated Stock within the meaning of The National Debt (Conversion) Act, 1888; and that any annuities forming stock so created be charged on the Consolidated Fund.
  "That all expenses incurred in connection with raising the said sums, including any additional remuneration to the Banks of England and Ireland, be charged on the Consolidated Fund."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. DILLONsaid he was surprised that a Resolution of this kind should be moved in silence, and that not a word of explanation was offered to the Committee.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. Hicks Beach,): I fully explained my reasons for proposing this loan last night.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman was last night asked to give, and was understood to promise, a full explanation, when this Resolution came to be moved, as to the character of the loan, whether it was to be Consols, and, if so, whether it was to be subject to the reduction to 2½ per cent. in 1903.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: There could be no doubt on that subject in the mind of anybody who listened to the Resolution which the Chairman read just now. I propose to borrow this £32,000,000 in Consols, and, being so borrowed, they will be subject to precisely the same rules as existing Consols—namely, the reduction to 2½ per cent. in 1903. That, Sir, is really the whole explanation to be given.
  MR. BLACKasked the right hon. Gentleman whether the amount of issue would be £32,000,000, or whether it would be for a larger sum, in order to cover the discount at which the loan would require to be issued.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The amount of issue will be £32,000,000.
  MR. DILLONreminded the right hon. Gentleman that in his Budget speech he distinctly stated that he proposed to ask the House to authorise the raising of £32,000,000 on terms which he would fully explain.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, I did not say that. I said I would explain the nature of the loan. That is explained in the Resolution.
  MR. DILLONsaid that that was not the impression which the right hon. Gentleman conveyed to the House. When a Minister promised to explain, at a later stage, the nature of a loan, the House naturally expected that he would personally make a statement, and not content himself with having a Resolution read at the Table. From the course of his observations the previous night, he was convinced there was a pretty wide expectation in the Committee that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going, in the course of his explanation, to come to close quarters with the question of the liability of the two colonies for some portion of the debt. He knew that that opinion was widely shared, and that the right hon. Gentleman's explanation was looked forward to with a certain amount of interest in consequence. But now they gathered from what had been said that, as regarded the loan of £32,000,000, there was no prospect whatever of recovering any portion of it from the colonies, and that they were in precisely the same position as they stood in regard to the £60,000,000 loan of last year. That was exactly what he expected. He did not believe, and he never had believed, that one single solitary sixpence of any one of those loans would be recovered from the two colonies. But certainly the Committee was, both last year and yesterday, led to expect that some provision would be made for ear-marking, at all events, a portion of the loan to be charged on the credit of the colonies, and repaid in the future. If that could not be done legally, as he believed it could not at the present time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought, at any rate, to make some definite statement with regard to the intentions of the Government in connection with these loans.
  In his speech of the previous day, the right hon. Gentleman took great credit to himself, when citing the enormous figures of his Budget, for putting the worst rather than the best aspect before the House, and for not
  294
  prophesying a smooth state of things. He thought the right hon. Gentleman in that respect took a great deal more credit to himself than he was entitled to, because, although his Statement would be a distinct improvement from that point of view as compared with previous Statements, yet even this year the Government had pursued the course which they had pursued from the very beginning of the war, viz., the course of leading on the people of this country from step to step by keeping them in the dark as to the true condition of affairs in South Africa, and the true obligations they were being called upon to face. Last year they were asked to sanction a loan of £60,000,000, and it would be within the recollection of the Committee that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced, in his Budget speech, that he had to provide for a deficit of £41,000,000. To do so, he asked for a loan of £60,000,000, a course which was absolutely without parallel in Parliamentary history. What was the ground on which he justified that course? He said that he had been frequently accused of underestimating the cost of the war, and that therefore, although, in the Estimates of last year, provision was made to continue the war for as long a period as the; Government then believed it would be necessary to continue it, and although they took provision also for the expensive operations of concluding the war, bringing back the troops, and paying pensions and bonuses and other outlays incidental to the disbandment of the Reservists and the Yeomanry, in spite of that, and in view of the charges which had been made against him in the past, he was determined to have an ample margin for contingencies. He fixed that margin at £5,000,000 or £6,000,000, a very generous margin indeed, in view of the fact that the Government were supposed to have made full provision in the Estimates of the year for the war and contingent expenses. The right hon. Gentleman also went on to say that, owing to the peculiar nature of his Budget, and to the fact that so large a share of the income was to be derived from the income tax, which mainly came in in the last quarter of the financial year, he must call on the House of Commons not only to provide that generous margin of £5,000,000 in addition to the Estimates,

  295
  but also to give him further borrowing powers to the extent of £10,000,000. He also said that if that total margin of £15,000,000 were not required, it would, by the redemption of Treasury Bills, be restored to the taxpayers. Shortly after the Loan Bill was sanctioned, there was suddenly sprung upon the House, without the slightest hint of warning, a Vote for £6,500,000 as a grant in aid to the new colonies. The Government must have known that that was going to be proposed to the House, yet they kept hon. Members in absolute ignorance of it while they were seeking to obtain their other demands. Later in the autumn, before the House separated for the holidays, the First Lord of the Treasury stated that, after the most careful investigation of the military situation in South Africa, in conjunction with Lord Kitchener, the Home Government had arrived at the conclusion that about the month of September it would be possible to bring home some 70,000 troops. That was an extraordinary instance of the policy of leading the people of this country by a system of deception from point to point, so that they might never have a just and true conception of the liabilities and responsibilities which the war was casting upon them. As soon as Parliament rose, the whole of that beautiful vision vanished and dissolved into thin air, and not only was the whole sum voted for the prosecution of the war, and for the bringing home of the troops, and for allowances for soldiers on disbandment absorbed in running the war, but the margin of £5,000,000 taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was also swallowed up, and in addition only £4,000,000 remained of the £10,000,000 of the loan sanction for which had been obtained, although that money had been expected to remain in hand at the end of the financial year. He ventured to assert that that was not honest finance, and that the country was not being treated fairly, or being told what it was really called upon to pay.
  With that experience before them, they now had to face another demand from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who asked them to sanction a loan in excess by many millions of the Estimates before the House. He wanted, in fact, a blank
  296
  cheque to enable him to spend money for a variety of purposes of which the House had not approved. That was a system of finance which was not only without precedent but which was, in his opinion, calculated immeasurably to loosen the bonds of economy and strictness in the great spending Departments of the State, and to encourage extravagance of the wildest character. What was the use of the Chancellor of the Exchequer appealing to the House of Commons to assist him in withstanding the pressure of the spending departments, and to aid him in carrying out a policy of economy, when he himself set the fatal example of loosening all the checks which the experience of generations had devised? The very fact of his asking for enormous borrowing powers for vague and indefinite purposes was an encouragement to the spending departments to increase their demands, because they would have the knowledge that those demands would not be subjected to any close scrutiny in the House. They were told to be cheerful in the face of the demand for a loan of £32,000,000. Why were they to be cheerful? Because the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed them that even those who were most hostile to this country were now obliged to admit that the end of the war was approaching. Of course it was. But it had been approaching from the time the first shot was fired, and it must approach if the war was not to last for ever. He was unshaken in his belief that the war might have been ended two years ago by offering the Boers in the field fair and honourable terms. And if they now profited by the bitter experience of those two years, in the course of which so many lives had been lost, and millions of money spent, and if they were going to meet the Boers in a fair spirit, it was quite possible that the end of the war was really approaching. But to tell the House, in vague and general terms, that the war was coming to an end, and that that fact was admitted by those who were most hostile to this country, was simply to mock the House of Commons.
  This demand for a loan of thirty-two millions had come with a shock of surprise upon all classes throughout the country. No one who had watched the

  297
  anticipations of the financial proposals of the right hon. Gentleman thought that the loan asked for would exceed. £15,000,000 or £20,000,000. All who were outside the secrets of the Treasury were simply astonished and bewildered by the size of the loan. He had in his hand an extract from a letter by Sir Robert Giffen, whose authority on financial matters when he was a Home Ruler was not so widely recognised as it was at the present time. In one of the famous letters he had written to The Times in support of the Government policy, he said—
  "It may be assumed, I hope, that in the circumstances described in my previous letter in The Times of January 7th, grave as the financial position is, there will be no talk of extensive borrowing."
  That was Sir Robert's opinion of the financial situation, which he certainly had not minimised, but had rather exaggerated, because he practically admitted in his last letter that the expense of the garrisons in South Africa for many years to come would not be under £20,000,000 sterling. Yet upon such a basis as that he expressed a strong hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not on the present occasion have recourse to borrowing on an extensive scale. In spite of that, however, the House was now asked to sanction a loan of £32,000,000. On what basis was the estimate made which could justify the extent of the loan? The Chancellor of the Exchequer took great credit for his consistent refusal to prophesy smooth things in regard to the war. But what had been the course taken by the Government this year? The Secretary for War produced an estimate for the cost of the war during the coming year of £41,000,000, and he took considerable credit to himself by pointing out how much the cost had been reduced by the exertions of Lord Kitchener. When, in the course of the debate, some of his hon. friends expressed a doubt whether the war could be carried on for the sum asked for, they were informed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary for War had gone into the subject with the utmost minuteness, and were agreed that £41,000,000 would be sufficient for the conduct of the war until the end of the current year. Had the Government intended to deal honestly with the
  298
  country, they would have told it what they believed would really be sufficient. But, instead of that, they had pursued their old policy of optimism, of suppressing and censoring despatches, and of keeping the country in the dark as to what was going on. Within two months of that estimate they were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the war had not gone on so prosperously or so rapidly as the country could have wished, and that he was now obliged to add to his deficit between £10,000,000 and £17,000,000 in order to provide for the expenses of the war if it were continued. Was that a proper way in which to treat the House and the country? What had happened in those two months to so completely alter the judgment of the military advisors of the Government in South Africa? From the very beginning of the war Ministers had indulged in optimistic statements, and had been telling them that the war must soon end. Then suddenly new loans were asked, and yet Ministers gave no explanation of their changed attitude. This had been going on ever since the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a light and airy spirit, asked for his first £10,000,000 in order to send British troops to Pretoria. He then told the House it need not be alarmed by the magnitude of the Vote asked for, because they had to deal with rich and prosperous colonies, which he was determined should bear their fair proportion of the cost of the war. Since then they had had to find some £200,000,000 sterling, and they had been told that, even if the war were concluded as the result of the present peace negotiations, a portion of the £32,000,000 now asked for would be needed in order to re-settle that devastated country.
  The only sentence in the Budget speech to which he listened with any pleasure or gratification was that portion which spoke of the re-settlement of the country. Never in the history of the House of Commons in modern times had millions been kicked about the floor in such a reckless and indifferent manner, and never had money been voted upon the mere ipse dixit of a Minister, without any justification being-put forward for the demand. Never before had he heard a responsible Minister use such language in regard to a country in which there had been adopted the insane and wicked policy of reducing it to the state of a howling wilderness. He would be glad to agree to the giving

  299
  of any sum of money in reason to restock the farms, always provided that it was not devoted to a policy of confiscation and the planting of settlers on the farms which the Boers formerly held. He thought it was a rather hard tiling on the taxpayers of the country that some of the millions which they were now asked to impose upon them were for the purpose of undoing the ravages—the barbarous and purposeless ravages, of the British Generals in South Africa, in pursuit of a policy not only criminal, but, as he believed, illegal according to the custom of civilised nations. There was one other purpose for which this money was said to be required in South Africa, on which he desired to say a word—it was with regard to the support of the South African Constabulary. They might laugh at his fears and anticipations on this point, but he thought in this Constabulary they were inflicting on South Africa a curse. They in Ireland knew what such a Constabulary meant, and if it was kept up permanently, what had happened in Ireland would happen in South Africa, Time would justify his warning that as long as they maintained this Constabulary to keep down the Dutch they would not have a loyal or a peaceful South Africa. They talked now of conciliating their gallant foes, but what did they mean by keeping up at the same time this armed force as a menace to the Boer population? What was the object of it, except to crush and keep down the Dutch? He held that as long as that force was maintained in the two Republics they were maintaining there a poisoned arrow that would prevent for ever the existence of contentment or peace. They were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Constabulary was to consist of 10,000 men, of whom (5,000 would he charged on the revenues of the two Republics and 4,000 or, the loan. For 6,000 men, costing £1,500,000, the charge was to be on the revenues of the two Colonies after the 1st of July next. He believed it was a false hope to hold out to the taxpayers of the country to say that the Transvaal and Orange Free State revenues could bear such a charge. He should like to know how the revenue of these States was made up, of which returns were sent over from time to
  300
  time. Did it include anything in payment of supplies to the troops, or railway charges for the conveyance of troops or supplies? Until they got full details on this point, the House of Commons would be in the dark, and the country hoodwinked. He wanted to know whether that money was not part of the War Charges which were being voted by the House of Commons. The whole matter with regard to the Constabulary was a gross blunder in policy. Either they really meant to conciliate the Dutch people in South Africa, or they did not. If they had seriously an idea of doing it, even in the remote future, they would not set up an armed Constabulary. Let them keep a garrison, which would be recognised as a temporary measure; but an armed Constabulary would be the symbol of a perpetual, or, at all events, a prolonged servitude.
  There was another extraordinary statement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that in addition to the Constabulary and the additional War Charges, he might like, and probably would feel called upon to propose, a considerable sum for our Sugar Colonies. Was not that proposal put in the Estimates of the year?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: When the Estimates were presented, the Conference at Brussels was still going on.
  MR. DILLONasked how the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew that the House of Commons would sanction the proceedings at the Conference, whose proceedings some of the greatest authorities upon this sugar question regarded as disastrous? But the hon. Member would leave that aside, and ask him how that Conference threw an obligation upon the Government to come to the assistance of the sugar countries. If there was no Conference, would they not be equally in want of aid? Why should the House of Commons be asked to raise a great loan, one of the items of which was an indefinite amount—a grant, the details of which they knew nothing about? Why should they be called upon to incur an obligation absolutely in the dark? For his part, while he sympathised with the suffering people in the sugar colonies, he thought the policy was a monstrous one. What did it lead to? The price had been raised upon the English manufacturers, who had inundated us

  301
  with complaints; yet there was a conference which had for its object the further raising of the price on the manufacturer and the poor consumer. He thought they would have a good deal to say about that before this Brussels business was ended.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to go into this matter about the sugar.
  MR. DILLONsaid he quite agreed. It was merely incidental to the fact that part of this loan was to be allocated to an indefinite extent in aiding the sugar colonies. But he was in order in asking what had the signing of the agreement at the Brussels Conference done to render what he said necessary. Was it not rather the other way? If the conference had broken up without an agreement, he might have said that the Colonies were disappointed, had no prospect of assistance, and were therefore entitled to a grant in aid. He was opposed to the whole principle of these grants in aid. However, their action was opposed to one of the chief articles of the conference, and might, in his opinion, lead to the breaking up of the conference altogether. And that was not all the extraordinary finance. The Chancellor said that in pursuance of the policy of last year it was very likely he would be obliged to come here later on and propose a further loan of about £10,000,000. He ventured to prophesy last year that if they got a loan, the greater part of it would be melted in the course of the year. They would have the same thing repeated this year. The fact was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whilst making admirable speeches and congratulating his friend the hon. Member for Oldham upon his advocacy of economy, and standing before the House as a martyr struggling desperately in the same cause, should, if he was sincere, recollect that the best way when he came amongst such people was to keep his hands in his pockets.
  The right hon. Gentleman was adopting a policy which was absolutely fatal. He assumed the posture of a martyr struggling desperately against the Departments and his own colleagues in the cause of economy. The only safe way, if he was sincere in that policy, was to keep his pockets empty. There was no use in going among a set of robbers with his
  302
  pockets bulging with coin. The right hon. Gentleman asked for seventeen or eighteen millions as a margin; and he added that he would resist the importunity of his colleagues. But they would have the overwhelming argument that the right hon. Gentleman had run through the dangerous passages of the House of Commons, that he had the money at his disposal, and had no excuse for refusing it. The policy of asking for loans greatly in excess of anything that could be justified was a continuation of that conduct on the part of the Government which had marked the whole course of the war, namely, their refusal to make a frank statement to the people of the country as to the position in South Africa. It was a policy which, in spite of the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was directly calculated to, and undoubtedly had, demoralised the spending Departments of the State.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Member commenced his speech with a strong denunciation of myself and my colleagues for a policy of concealment with reference to the expenditure on the war. That denunciation referred in the first place to what occurred during the last financial year. At the outset of the last financial year we placed Estimates on the Table of the cost of the war, and which, as was plainly stated by the Secretary of State for War in the Memorandum which he issued, were to provide for the cost that would be necessary in certain contingencies for the maintenance of the field force in South Africa for a certain period, and then for its diminution in the later months of the year. As time went on; it proved that that amount was insufficient, and it was necessary for us, when the Budget time arrived, to state to the House, what I did state a year ago, that more money would be required than had been placed on the Estimates, and that it would be necessary to raise a loan and add to taxation, in order to obtain that sum. At the time I did not know of the large grant in aid that would be required for the Transvaal Colony. I knew certainly that some of it—a considerable sum—would be required for the equipment and maintenance of the Constabulary; but I was not aware that that would be imposed on the revenue

  303
  of the Colony, and that, therefore, it would require a civil grant in aid. We stated to the House when the time came precisely what was required, and the House, after full discussion, voted that sum. Now, Sir, the hon. Member complains that that was a policy of concealment, and I thought that he seemed to imply, although he did not state it, that that policy of concealment had also been earned on in the present year. It is impossible for any person who has to be responsible for the finances of the country when engaged in a costly war, the determination of which cannot be foreseen, to judge precisely, before the commencement of the financial year, how much will be required to carry on that war, within the year. I should have thought that even the hon. Member, with all his readiness to interpret, as it seems to me, in the most unfavourable way anything we say or do, might have admitted that. But this year I have adopted another course. I have been, in introducing the Budget, perfectly frank with the House. I have stated that, assuming the war to go on for the whole of the year before us, involving the maintenance of the field force now in South Africa at its present strength, a sum of between £16,000,000 and £17,000,000 would be required towards that purpose in addition to the sum of £40,000,000 already on the Estimates. How am I met by the hon. Member? He says I am asking the Committee to give me a blank cheque, because no Supplementary Estimates have yet been laid on the Table. It is difficult to please the hon. Member. I have endeavoured to tell the country fairly what expenditure might, in possible circumstances, which we all hope will not occur, be required. Yet he accuses me of a policy of concealment in the first place, and then of asking the Committee to give me a blank cheque, without stating for what purpose the expenditure is required.
  Then the hon. Member falls foul of two comparatively minute items in the additional provision which I informed the Committee last night might be required for the services of the year beyond that which appears in the Estimates—in the first place, a grant of £750,000 for the support of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony Constabulary, and secondly, a grant in aid for the West Indian Colonies. The hon. Member appears to
  304
  have an extraordinary antipathy to the term Constabulary. He can hardly be aware that a precisely similar force under the name of the Cape Mounted Police has been for years past in existence in Cape Colony; and why it should be wrong to maintain a force in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony under the name of Constabulary, and yet justifiable and right, as I think the hon. Member must admit, to maintain such a force under the name of the Cape Mounted Police in Cape Colony, is a matter I cannot understand. I do not think the hon. Member ought to object to this particular grant, because as far as it goes it will be distinctly in relief of military expenditure, and he is anxious, above all things, to put an end to military expenditure in South Africa. He also objects to any grant in aid to the sugar producing colonies in the West Indies, and he asked me to say why it was wanted, and what it would be. I am unable to say what it will be, or of what precise nature it will be but as anyone will see who adds up the figures I gave last night, it will be a very small sum indeed out of the £18,500,000, certainly not more than £250,000, and it may be less. The reason it is to be granted is this. Owing to the present low price of sugar, the condition of the sugar-growing industry in some of the Islands at the present time is simply deplorable. It would not be in order for me to go into that subject tonight, but at the proper time my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary will be able to place the circumstances before the Committee, and I do not think the Committee will hesitate to grant any aid, shown to be required in such a manner, after full consideration, as may be proposed to be given by the Government. The reason it has not appeared in the Estimates is this. We had hoped that at the Brussels Conference it might be possible to arrive at an agreement which should commence within a very short period of the agreement being arrived at. For reasons which it is not necessary to enter upon, it was found necessary to postpone the operation of the Convention under which the sugar bounties are to be abolished until the 30th September, 1903; and I have no doubt that at the proper time my right hon. friend will be able to show that the position of the colonies up to the time at which the bounties are to be

  305
  abolished would be such that some temporary aid must be granted in order to save some of these Islands from absolute ruin, and the population, possibly, from starvation. That is all I need say on that subject, because I hope the Committee will remember that both in regard to this matter and all the£18,500,000 to which I alluded last night, every item will have to be brought before the House and to be fully explained on the Estimates, and then, of course, there will be an opportunity for anyone to object to them.
  The hon. Member referred to a point on which, I think, it would be right that I should say something. He stated that in his opinion it was an absolutely absurd idea ever to expect that the Transvaal would be in a position to pay for its Constabulary.
  MR. DILLON: I said it would be absurd ever to expect it to repay any of the money we are borrowing in this country. I thought it was unlikely that it would be able to pay for its Constabulary next year unless out of railway rates and duties.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I will deal with the Constabulary first, The Committee will remember that the financial year of the Transvaal and Orange River Colony commences on the 1st of July. Undoubtedly, a year ago, the financial position of the Transvaal was extremely bad. I think I remember stating to the Committee when I introduced the Budget last year that it was Sir David Barbour's opinion, owing to the condition to which the Transvaal was reduced, that there must be a heavy deficit for two years after the conclusion of the war on the charges for the administration of the country; and as the revenue of the year ending 30th June, 1901, was only £513,000 as against a civil expenditure, exclusive of the Constabulary, of £753,000 it was perfectly clear that there was a great deal of foundation for Sir David Barbour's opinion. Although the war has been going on, yet there has been, considering the circumstances, a remarkable development of the gold-mining industry during the last nine months. The number of stamps at work was reported
  306
  the other day to be between 1,600 and 1,700. The gold product of the month of March was as much as one-fourth of what it had been before the commencement of the war. For many months after the 1st of July, 1901, owing to the railways being very deficient in rolling stock and being almost entirely taken up by military transport, it was hardly possible for any civil transport to be carried on, so that neither the white population could get back to the gold-fields, nor could the supplies be taken to them which would be necessary to maintain them. And, of course, for the same reason the Customs revenue of the Transvaal were comparatively small. But within the last few months all that has been changed. In the Vote to which the hon. Member refers a sum of £1,000,000 was included for the purpose of providing new rolling stock. Well, Sir, there was never a better investment, I will venture to say. That new rolling stock has been gradually arriving, with the result that the amount of civil transport has largely increased, the white population is rapidly returning. Customs are increasing, native labour is rapidly coming in.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Hear, hear!
  Sir M. HICKS BEACH: Is that a thing to which the hon. Member objects? They come in perfectly willingly. After careful examination my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary and Lord Milner are convinced, and I think on absolutely good grounds, that from July 1st next, assuming that the administration of the railways can be handed over to the civil authorities, so that the amount of military traffic will he comparatively small—thatdepends, of course, on the peaceful condition of the country—the revenue of the Transvaal next year may be between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000. For the present year, ending with June next, there is no question whatever but that the revenue of the Transvaal will reach £1,200,000: it had reached over £850,000 in March, and, as I have said, it is rapidly increasing.
  MR. DILLONasked whether in this revenue were included any duties upon stores and other things consumed by the troops, and also freights.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, Sir. I, imagine there is no charge on goods consumed by British troops, and as to freights, the railways are at present, and have been, in the hands of the military authorities, and not only is no freight paid by the military authorities to the colony for military transport, but the military authorities take for military purposes all the profits of the civil transport also. So on that point, at any rate, the hon. Member will be satisfied. Assuming Lord Milner's anticipations are realised, and they are founded, as I believe, on sound bases—but, of course, that depends on the condition of the country and the progress of the war—it seems absolutely certain that the Transvaal will next year not only be able to bear the cost of the Constabulary proposed to be imposed upon it, but also the interest on the debt of the old Government, all the charges of civil administration, and the interest on the debentures and shares of the railways. I do not think the Committee will consider that that is a bad prospect, considering the war is not yet over. The civil administration of the Orange River Colony, apart from the cost of the Constabulary, has never cost us a penny ever since our administration has been established.
  Now I come to the reference of the hon. Member to the possibility of the Transvaal's bearing in future a portion of the cost of the war. He stated that it was an absolutely absurd idea that this could ever happen. Sir, the Committee are aware that I have not been disposed to be over-sanguine in this matter. I placed before the Committee last year with perfect frankness, as I think will be admitted, Sir David Barbour's opinion. I then said it was a pessimistic opinion. In my opinion, looking to the development that has already taken place, even under the present circumstances, it was a pessimistic opinion, and having very carefully examined the matter, what I have to say is this—it has always been our intention to charge upon the revenue of the new colonies such a share of the expenses of the war as may fairly be expected to be borne by them without unduly hindering the development of the country and of its principal industry. We consider it premature at the present stage to fix definitely any sum as the maximum of this contribution. But, after
  308
  the termination of hostilities, we believe it will be practicable to earmark certain sources of revenue, and to apply them from time to time to the service of some portion of the loans raised by us for the war. We anticipate that these specially indicated sources of revenue will be sufficient within a few years of the close of the war, to provide for the annual charge on a capital sum of £30,000,000 in the first instance. Subsequent additions will be made on the prospective increases of these sources of revenue.
  Now, it has been suggested that my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary and myself have some difference of opinion upon this matter. Sir, we have a little difference of opinion. I think the Colonial Secretary is more sanguine and more anxious to make this charge upon the Transvaal perhaps even than I am; and yet it can hardly be supposed that, having repeatedly stated to this House that, in my judgment, such portion of the cost of the war as can be reasonably levied on the Transvaal should be levied, I should be backward in doing whatever may be possible. But I have stated to the Committee, what in our judgment, and in Lord Milner's judgment, will be perfectly possible before very long. How soon that time may arrive is a matter, of course, on which I can say nothing today. It has not yet arrived. If it had arrived I might be proposing to the Committee that the loan which I now ask you to sanction should be raised in a different way. But the time for that is not yet come; we must at present borrow on our own credit without reference to the Transvaal. I can only say that I hope the Committee will feel that at any rate the statement I have made does not bear out the lugubrious views of the hon. Member as to the present position of the Transvaal, or as to its future, and that they will be convinced that what we can do shall be done to carry out the policy I have indicated.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman has given us a very pleasant prospect, and I think he should have attempted to fix the time when the British taxpayer is to receive this relief.
  Sir M. HICKS BEACH: It is difficult to argue with the right hon. Gentleman, because he has always said the British

  309
  taxpayer would never get it. It is a little hard to ask us to fix the time precisely.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: We have the definite promise of the right hon. Gentleman, and perhaps still more definitely the promise of the Colonial Secretary, that we are to have £30,000,000. It would have been agreeable to us to know when it was likely that we were to receive that £30,000,000 from the Transvaal in relief of the loan that has been made, because we have had a very encouraging pledge from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and when the time comes, we hope—no one wishes it more than I do—he will be there to redeem the pledge to produce£30,000,000 from the Transvaal in reduction, say, of the debt which is being raised tonight—that is. £32,000,000. That he undertakes, as far as he can, shall be met by the Transvaal. I should like very much an assurance that that is consistent with the payment of compensation, with the restoration of the ruined condition of the Transvaal, with the repatriation of the Boers who are prisoners, with dealing with the camps, with the settlement which is to turn the Transvaal into a British colony, and with the development of the country, which is to be done at once. That is not the language of those people in the Transvaal who are chiefly concerned. If you ask the gentlemen who are producing this gold, they say, "No; it would be extremely unfair; it would be extremely impolitic to do anything of the kind." They say, "You should not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs." But the bird is not a goose at all. It is a bird of a very different description. It is a bird rather like those described by Burke when he called the Nabobs of India in the old days "birds of passage and birds of prey." That is the bird you have to deal with. There are mines, as we know, which are floated not to be worked but to be sold. The money made out of these mines is not a source of wealth. It has been what is called "milked." Mines have been started and they have been sold, and most of their projectors are no longer in the Transvaal at all. Therefore. the contingent promise of this £30,000,000
  310
  depends upon the anticipation that the Transvaal shall have reached its own development by these immense liabilities—liabilities of development, of this plan of settlement, of irrigation, of all these works—and I wish I was as sanguine as the right hon. Gentleman of being able to get within any measurable time £30,000,000 from the Transvaal. I hope it will be so, and nobody will be more delighted than I shall be. If you listen to all the golden dreams which are put forward, you may believe it; but these golden dreams are mere advertisements of prospectuses put forward in order that there may be more flotations of mines. That is the reason for these splendid plans of future prosperity. But when you come to touch them, you find that the people at the bottom of them have no disposition to carry them out. I confess I am not as sanguine as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he ought to know a great deal better than I do. If in his next Budget the right hon. Gentleman is able to produce £30,000,000—
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I never said that.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Or in the Budget after that—if he is able to produce £30,000,000 for this purpose, I should be extremely gratified. This is a matter of very great importance, and will have to be examined. When we receive, as no doubt we shall, by telegram in the course of the next week, the expression of a fervent desire on the part of the gold industry to close with this estimate of the right hon. Gentleman, then we shall all be happy.
  But I rose for the purpose of calling attention to a matter which is of very great consequence, and that is the course which has been followed in the last three years in dealing with this question of taxation and loans—the proportion which the taxation has borne to the loans. We are constantly assured that the country has been enthusiastic in regard to this war, and that it has been willing to make great sacrifices. So it has; it has made sacrifices of life to a terrible degree. But, Sir, there has been no war waged, I believe, in which the Government, I suppose judging the

  311
  temper of the people, has ventured to ask such small sacrifices of the generation who have made the war. A great responsibility belongs to the generation that makes a war, and it ought to bear itself a considerable part of the burden, and to be very chary of throwing that burden upon their posterity, who were not responsible for making the war. But what have we done in this case? I asked the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, and he was good enough to say he would procure me the exact figures. I cannot give the amount in cyphers, but the proportion is obvious enough. The right hon. Gentleman stated last year that up to that time all the additional taxation that had been levied was exhausted by the normal expenditure. Consequently, up to last year, the £12,000,000 voted in 1900 contributed nothing at all to the war; therefore, in all that debt which you were raising you paid nothing towards this war, because the whole of the burden falls on posterity. The borrowing at that time, I think, amounted to £62,000,000. That is the figure which stands in the Consolidated Fund Return. The additional taxation was estimated at £12,000,000. I am accurate in that figure, I know, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech last year, in speaking of the termination of the war, said that all the additional taxation of 1900 would be required for the normal expenditure if the war came to an end in three months. Very well. Then there is the money that has been spent or contributed in additional taxation in the year just concluded. That, I suppose, includes the £12,000,000 additional taxation of 1900, and £11,000,000 estimated taxation in 1901. But that does not make more than between £20,000,000 and £25,000,000 of taxation, without speaking of the £5,000,000 you are now going to add. Therefore, unless these figures are entirely wrong, it comes out at something like £30,000,000 of taxation in the three years.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: More than that; it, is more like £35,000,000.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I knew I had not the exact figures. We will say about £35,000,000 including the £5,000,000 of this year.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, no.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Then I do not see how that is consistent with the statement of last year that all the additional taxation had been absorbed by the normal expenditure.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I cannot trace that statement, though I may be wrong.
  Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am quite sure I am right about that. The right hon. Gentleman said that if the war came to an end there would be no possibility of reducing the additional taxation, because it was all wanted for the normal expenditure.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not think I said that.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have not the speech with me tonight, but it is on page 13. [The Chancellor of the Exchequer handed the right hon. Gentleman a copy of his 1901 Budget speech.] Yes, this is the pamphlet I referred to. Here is the passage—
  "The question we have to ask ourselves is—How has this increased expenditure been provided? It has been provided simply by the additional taxation imposed last year. What was that additional taxation imposed for? It was not for ordinary expenditure, but for war services. It was proposed and it was intended by this House to be additional taxation for war expenditure, and we all hoped and expected that at the end of the war it could be remitted. But since then our ordinary expenditure, apart from the war, has enormously increased, and looking at the way in which the increase is going on, supposing the war came to an end three or four months hence—[Opposition cries of "Oh, oh!"]—well, supposing it came to an end sooner than hon. Members opposite expect, as it possibly may, our ordinary expenditure would not permit us to remit the additional taxation which was imposed for war purposes last year."
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I think the right hon. Gentleman is carrying that farther than I intended. I did not say that our ordinary expenditure swallowed up the whole of the additional taxation, but that the additional taxation could not all be remitted.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I confess I find it difficult to extract that

  313
  from these words. I had not quite finished the sentence—
  "Supposing it came to an end… our ordinary expenditure would not permit us to remit the additional taxation which was imposed for war purposes last year, and which, let me remind the Committee, included an income tax of no less than 1s. in the pound. I hope the Committee will feel that I am trying to place before it the financial situation frankly and fearlessly."
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: We are discussing this matter under some difficulty in the absence of figures. To the best of my recollection, the revenue contributed to the cost of the war in the year to which I was then alluding was £15,500,000.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: However, for the purposes of what I desire to say, it does not matter whether it is £30,000,000 or £35,000,000. I think I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman stated yesterday that the money raised by loans up to this time had been £119,000,000.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes; it is rather more.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: We are going to raise now £32,000,000. We will call the total £150,000,000. In that case, if the money raised by taxation is between £30,000,000 and £10,000,000, what does it mean? It means that the amount you have raised by taxation for this war, for which you are so enthusiastic, and for which you are ready to make such sacrifices, is about one-fifth of the whole.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It is more than that. I gave the figures showing how much of the total expenditure had been raised by loan and how much by taxation up to the end of March last. The amount raised by loans is over £119,600,000, and by taxation a little under £45,500,000.
  MR. McCRAE: Including the suspension of the Sinking Fund and realised surpluses, which amounted to over £18,000,000.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not accept at all the suspension of the
  314
  Sinking Funds, as additional taxation for war purposes. It is simply an aggravation of the debt by destroying the Fund which was set apart to discharge it. It is not an addition to, but a discontinuance of, taxation. I think there must be some fundamental error there. I will take what really are the taxes levied for the war. That is the only test I apply. I say that in round numbers the amount is about £30,000,000. What has been the practice in former times when the country was much less rich and populous? It is supposed that we are all enthusiastic and ready to make the greatest sacrifices. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman was willing to impose as much taxation as he thought the country was fit to bear. In his first speech, where he laid down admirable principles of taxation, and pointed out to the country how ready it ought to be to accept the taxes which he then proposed, he referred to the precedents of former times. He referred to the great war waged by Mr. Pitt, and he pointed out how at that time when the population was not half what it is now and when its wealth was incomparably less, the country cheerfully accepted an income-tax of 2s. in the pound, how there was taxation on every conceivable thing, and how there was contributed to the cost of that war £391,000,000 in 13 years. What is the proportion contributed by this great and wealthy country compared with the sacrifices that we made at that time? But let us come down to later times which I remember myself. The Crimean War, which he also quoted as an example of the way in which this country ought to be prepared to act, cost £70,000,000. He stated that the larger proportion of that £70,000,000 was raised by taxation and not by loan. Therefore, half a century ago, when the country was much poorer than it is now, the taxpayer was prepared to pay more than half the cost of a contemporary war. We degenerate people, enthusiastic and patriotic as we are, are asked to contribute one-fifth—if the right hon. Gentleman's figures were taken it might be one quarter—of the expense of the war.
  It seems to me that that does not show much financial courage—I will not say on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for I have no doubt he asks

  315
  for all he thinks he can get and all lie thinks the people will pay. You are going to throw upon posterity, including the Vote we are about to give tonight, £150,000,000. I know there are some people who think that when we appropriate whole sections of a continent we are giving them something which will be to them of enormous pecuniary advantage. That is not so. It may turn out to be a source not of wealth, but of great expenditure. I have seen in this country, myself, great families and great landowners who, not satisfied with their ancient and noble hereditary estates, would not rest until they had acquired the property of everybody around them. They borrowed money at great interest in order to effect those purchases. They mortgaged the old hereditary estate, and when they had effected a great expansion, the family was ruined by that policy. It is possible that that may be done by States as well as by individuals. There may be a limit beyond which enormous acquisitions of territory will not add to your strength. It is said that we are going to send out people to populate these enormous countries—countries three or four times bigger than our own. I am not so extremely anxious to send out from this country the best among our population. I alluded last night to a plan, sketched out by Mr. Rhodes, of settling 2,000 people at a cost of £8,000,000 in the Transvaal. If £8,000,000 of money are to be spent upon settling cultivators upon the soil, I should like to spend it at home. We hear of the exodus of the rural population. Eight millions of money might do something towards keeping the labourer on the land.
  In connection with these enterprises for the purpose of expansion, our attention is drawn to other cases. We point with pride to the administration of Egypt by Lord Cromer. [Hear, hear!] Yes, but the conditions of Egypt are very different, and so are the conditions that you have to deal with in India, where we occupy a country, the population of which are accustomed to labour and accustomed to government. There you may do a great deal. But where you go and occupy, as we are occupying in vast regions of Africa, great tracts which have no population except savage
  316
  people, where the white man cannot labour and the black man will not work, there the notion that investing large sums of money is going to be a profitable investment for posterity is, I think, open to question. I think it is a very serious responsibility that we undertake when we burden posterity To a certain extent this war is one which I do not say could have been avoided; but it has not been avoided; and when this war expenditure is forced upon us I regret that we should not have shown a disposition to make greater sacrifices ourselves before casting so heavy a burden on posterity. I believe that before you place these new territories and these new colonies in a prosperous condition—in that sort of condition and development which a great nation like England ought to expect in the new territories it acquires—you will involve yourselves in far greater future expenditure and greater loans.
  The right hon. Gentleman hinted at guaranteed Transvaal loans. When you begin the practice of guaranteeing loans of this description you are entering upon financial obligations of the most perilous character. They are nothing less than land speculations and reclamation schemes, and anybody knows that if there is one thing more ruinous than another it is a reclamation scheme. But this is to be a reclamation of continents. I heard with great admiration and satisfaction the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham last night, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has paid the tribute which was due to it. He cast his view a little forward, and drew attention to the dangers in which this country may be involved when it enters upon unlimited expenditure and unlimited loans. I confess I regard with some apprehension and with great regret that we should today be completing loans for £150,000,000. I fear that we are not by any means at the end of the loans which will follow when this war is over. I know that there is no manner of use in endeavouring to oppose the loan and I do not oppose it, but I think it right at all events to state the dangers which seem to me to exist. This tale of expenditure, and that which lies behind it, ought to be a warning to us not to be too ambitious to extend the great liabilities which we have already incurred.
  MR. COHENsaid he had for the last seven or eight years agreed almost invariably with the canons laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, but he had made one statement which seemed to him so extraordinary that he could not understand how it could emanate from such an authority. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the necessity of making the present generation hear a fair share of the cost of the war, and joined issue across the table with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the arrangements which were proposed. The Sinking Fund must be suspended the moment the country went to war; but to exclude from the amount paid by the existing generation the sum liberated by that temporary suspension was, with all deference to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, scarcely an accurate representation of what was being done. He himself would have been glad had his right hon. friend raised more by loan and less by taxation. He believed it would be a long time before the sugar and coal taxes and the excellent corn tax were repealed, and he hoped that when the war had ceased they would contribute to the formation of surpluses of income over expenditure, which would resolutely be applied to the extinction of the Debt. He asked the Committee to remember that immense blocks of Debt were liable to be paid off within a shorter time than even the most optimistic could have hoped to see them liquidated. We had £10,000,000 of Exchequer bonds maturing next year; £14,000,000 in 1905; and £30,000,000 of war loan at 2¾ per cent in April 1910. He hoped all these bonds would be paid off at maturity from the contributions to be raised from the Transvaal and the Orange River Colonies. If that was done, then, with the taxation which the right hon. Gentleman had imposed, and which he hoped would be maintained, he believed we would be able to resume the Sinking Fund, and to repay our Debt in the rapid and creditable manner which had been going on during the last few years. He was strongly of opinion that we should never, as we did in 1898, relieve taxation at the expense of the Debt, just as at the present moment he was not desirous of relieving the Debt at the expense of taxation.
  MR. McCRAEsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down was evidently of a trustful disposition. If he expected £60,000,000 to be paid off from the resources of the Transvaal he was very much more sanguine than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman, in replying to the hon. Member for East Mayo, had not given any reasons at all to the House why this loan had taken the form it had taken. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken a wise course in issuing Consols, but the House was entitled to hear the reasons for the form which the loan was to take, and also as to the amount of the loan. No doubt a loan of £32,000,000 nowadays was taken very much as a matter of course, and therefore the Chancellor was somewhat reluctant to make a statement on the question. He thought that both the House and the country had some reason to complain of this Star Chamber method of asking for a loan of £32,000,000. What justification had the Chancellor of the Exchequer for asking this sum? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech yesterday made merry over those who had prophesied that they should have an Autumn session last year to vote further supplies on account of the war. He was not one of those who thus prophesied. He had occasion to speak in the country, and he pointed out over and over again that the Chancellor had means at his command without coming to the House of Commons for further supplies. But why were those prophecies made by those who made them? They believed, in their simple innocence, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would meet the expenditure on the war from the money that had been voted by the House for the prosecution of the war. The right hon. Gentleman met the expenses of the year by swallowing up all the money that had been voted for terminal charges at the end of the war for transport and gratuities; and in addition to that, he had trenched on the margin of £19,000,000 to such an extent that at the end of the year there was only £4,000,000 left. He asked the House to bear with him while he looked at the present position of expenditure in connection with the war and the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise £32,000,000 by way of loan. In his statement yesterday the right hon. Gentleman gave the total

  319
  expenditure on the war up to the end of the last financial year at £165,000,000, and he pointed out that that sum had been met by way of borrowing to the extent of £120,000,000, £45,000,000 being raised by taxation. But of that £45,000,000, only £26,700,000 had been raised by taxation for the war.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: How was the balance raised?
  MR. McCRAEsaid he was going to tell the right hon. Gentleman. If he might say so, with all respect, the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to be acquainted with the figures in his own Return. In this Return, which was granted on the motion of the hon. Member for Poplar, it was distinctly stated that £18,500,000 was provided, £9,000,000 by the suspension of the Sinking Fund and £9,000,000 or £9,500,000 from realised surpluses.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It was raised by taxation, but I agree that it was not raised by additional taxation.
  Mr. McCRAE: It was raised by taxation for the specific purpose of reducing the Debt so far as the Sinking Fund was concerned; and so far as the realised surpluses were concerned, the right hon. Gentleman knew very well that those would have been applied to the reduction of capital expenditure had it not been for the war. It was no argument to say that the whole of the £45,000,000 had been raised by taxation, because they were not reducing the old debt, which would otherwise have been reduced to the amount of £18,500,000. He would go further, the estimate for the present year was £58,500,000 for war purposes. He would drop the £500,000, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that that was applicable to the relief that might be given to be sugar-growing colonies.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I put the amount at £250,000 at the outside.
  MR. McCRAEsaid he would take the total for war purposes at £58,000,000, which, when added to the £165,000,000 already devoted to war expenditure, gave a total of £223,000,000. He would even
  320
  deduct from that the £5,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman had said was applicable to China, and therefore they had the actual and the estimated expenditure for the war in South Africa amounting to £218,000,000. If that was so, it meant that they had, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire had pointed out, an outstanding debt of £120,000,000, together with the £32,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman was asking powers to borrow, which would make up an outstanding debt for war purposes of £152,000,000. Therefore there was a balance of £66,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to raise by taxation and otherwise, He had already pointed out how £45,000,000 of that amount had been raised. The same principle was to be adopted this year. The Sinking Fund was to be suspended and the surplus of last year applied in reduction.
  Taking the taxation that was to be put on this year, including the old taxation, and the additional £5,150,000, and adding them to the £26,700,000, the sum raised by taxation for the war in South Africa amounted to £45,000,000, or at the very outside one fourth of the total expenditure upon the war. He remembered when the right hon. Gentleman came down to the House, and told them at the commencement of hostilities how during the Crimean War this country, with resources not nearly so large as they were today, paid over one half of the cost of that war out of taxation. Therefore, the proportion which the right hon. Gentleman was paying out of taxation was a small proportion, not at all commensurate with the proportion which ought to be put upon those who incurred the expenditure. Then there was another point: Was the estimated expenditure for the current year in South Africa sufficient? He pointed out last year that it was only sufficient because the Chancellor of the Exchequer trenched upon the money that was to pay for the terminal charges at the end of the war. The estimated expenditure last year was £58,230,000.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: That included China.
  MR. McCRAE: But excluded the charge for Interest on War debt, and he thought the House was entitled to know what amount there was in last year's Estimate on account of terminal charges, transport, gratuities, etc. He had calculated it at £25,000,000, and it meant that if this war was not brought to a speedy conclusion, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was allowed to devote the money voted last year for terminal charges to other expenses, he had under-estimated the expenditure to be incurred by £25,000,000 sterling, and that ought to be taken into account in discussing the question before them. That meant that the expenditure this year, instead of being £58,500,000, should have been nearer £80,000,000 sterling. Every year since the war began the Chancellor of the Exchequer had largely under-estimated the expenditure that would be necessary to meet the war charges, and he should not be surprised if, in the present instance, the estimated expenditure would be found to be insufficient. He made bold to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not carrying out the principles which he had himself laid down in connection with this war. Upon making his Budget statement last year the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "I never will be responsible for the fatal policy of paying the whole cost of the war out of loans without charging a reasonable amount to the taxpayers of the day."
  Having regard to the large expenditure which was to be incurred, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was not charging a reasonable proportion to the taxpayers of the day. Why should he be afraid to do so, if this war was so popular as they were told it was? He thought there had been a slackening in the enthusiasm on behalf of the war on the opposite side of the House, and he was afraid that the country was beginning to realise that the policy of the present Government had been one of rashness in entering into hostilities, and of postponement in paying the bills. This Government would be remembered as one which warred in haste, and repented and intended to pay at leisure. What did all this postponement of liabilities lead to? It meant that the right hon. Gentleman was going to leave a legacy to those who came after
  322
  him, and he would not be there when the bills came to be paid. It meant that the capital liability of the nation was increasing to an enormous amount. They heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the National Debt amounted to £768,000,000 at the close of the last financial year. If the present loan asked for of £32,000,000 was added, then the National Debt of this country would be £800,000,000 sterling. When did the National Debt stand at that figure before? They had to go back to the year 1870, when the National Debt stood at £801,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman had not been discharging his duty to the country by the way in which he had faced this expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman had been studying the speeches of Mr. Gladstone, and he quoted him in his Budget speech yesterday, and in his Budget statement last year. There was, however, one quotation from one of Mr. Gladstone's speeches, which he commended to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, delivered in 1879, in which Mr. Gladstone said—
  "We are not fond of taxation, but we are fond of this—we are fond of financial honesty. We are fond of squaring the account, and no nation in our judgment is financially honest which does not use its best exertions to square the account."
  He unhesitatingly stated that the policy of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was not one of "squaring the account."
  MR. CLAUDE LOWTHERshared the regret that this amount was not to be raised by a Transvaal loan with an Imperial guarantee. The future wealth of the Transvaal was a subject as to which he had acquired information from the cleverest financiers both in England and South Africa, where he had lived for some years. He was convinced that the Transvaal of ten years hence would differ as much from the Transvaal of today as did the Transvaal of fourteen years ago. In 1884 the revenue of the country was £200,000; in 1898, including the Free State, the revenue was £5,000,000. These two States, at the close of hostilities, could not entirely pay the interest on a loan of £32,000,000, but when the revenue augmented by leaps and bounds they would be able to

  323
  take a considerable part, if not the whole, of the war loan. Whether the revenue would develop so as to realise the golden dream referred to, he could not say; but if they attached importance to the opinions of those best qualified to judge, or gave credence to the speeches of mining leaders, the Transvaal had a magnificent future in store. The most important of its present resources, the motive power of its industrial life, was the gold mining industry. It seemed to him extraordinary that the capabilities of this industry were ignored in this House, for otherwise it would have been impossible for the right hon. Baronet opposite to speak, as he did last session, of the Transvaal as a bankrupt State utterly incapable of contributing one penny to the cost of the war. There were £2,500,000,000 worth of gold in the Witwatersrand alone. This amount was calculated in two periods of thirty-five years each. The output for the first thirty-five years was as much as anything in nature could be assured, as the amount of gold left owing to the equal dissemination of the ore could be reckoned with almost mathematical accuracy.
  Then, other industries should be taken into account. There was the coal industry, which would do a great deal to develop the country. In the Transvaal there were 60,000,000,000 tons of a very high quality of coal. The coal between Middleberg and Ermelo was very nearly equal in quality to the best Welsh coal. The industry had been crippled by the most corrupt Government in the world, exportation had been crippled by the scarcity of railroads, and excessive freights of those in existence, but under good and enlightened government we had every reason to believe that the Transvaal would become in the future the great market of the shipping trade of the Southern Hemisphere. He did not wish to weary the House, and therefore would neither discuss the various minerals, especially iron, with which the country abounded, nor the agricultural fertility of the soil, which he could tell them, from his own experience, would, with a sound system, make the Transvaal self-supporting, even when denuded of her minerals. That was the real wealth of South Africa, and during the next decade, what issues might not be
  324
  expected from such a policy? Mining companies would spring up, markets for agricultural produce be created all over the country, until what was now a wilderness would be converted into a district of prosperous commercial and agricultural life. Was it too much to ask the Government to lay down a policy which should provide, when that day of prosperity had come, not indeed that the British people should profit from it, but that they should be repaid the cost of their outlay on the war? The right hon. Gentleman had not mentioned the sum which the Transvaal was to pay: he had not mentioned any sum.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I carefully abstained from mentioning any sum, for the precise reasons that the hon. Gentleman has just stated.
  MR. CLAUDE LOWTHERexpressed his gratification at the course the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to pursue. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman did see that South Africa was a country of such potentialities that he would be able to charge, a very great part, if not the entire sum to her. But if the right hon. Gentleman intended in the near future to state a sum—a sum which it was to be hoped would be a large proportion of the total—if the right hon. Gentleman in wished to see the revenue of the Transvaal accumulate to such a sum that it would not only pay its civil and military expenditure, but would be able to pay interest on and provide a sinking fund for, say, £150,000,000, then a general readjustment of taxation was necessary.
  He had no intention of going into details with regard to general taxation of these States, but he wished to say a few words with regard to the taxation of one industry in particular, and about the lenient way in which the Government had been advised to tax it. He referred to the gold industry. The mining magnates never lost an opportunity of shewing this country what advantages could he derived by taxing every other branch of trade, every other form of industry except the mines. But they were extremely modest where the

  325
  mines were concerned. No doubt they felt extreme delicacy in flaunting the wealth of their own possessions in the face of an impoverished nation. What did Sir David Barbour propose? He proposed the abolition of nearly all the indirect taxation bearing on the mines. That was a reform in the right direction, as the incidence of taxation should fall on result and not effort, and such a reform would enable lower grade mines to be profitably worked. He wished to especially point out to the House that it was an acknowledged fact that these reforms, calculated on the amount of ore crushed in 1898, would mean a saving to the mines of £4,000,000 a year. That was not disputed; the mine owners admitted that if this reform which Sir David Barbour advocated were carried out, it would be a saving to the mines of £4,000,000, and having benefited the industry to this extent Sir David Barbour advised the Government that the mines would be in a position to bear a tax of 10 per cent. on the profits. In 1898 that would have brought in half a million a year. In other words, Sir David Barbour saved the mines £3,500,000 a year. But if this saving were effected, he could tell the House that the mines could bear a tax of 40 per cent. on the profits. That would, calculating again on 1898, mean £2,000,000 a year. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had spoken of killing the goose that laid the golden eggs; on the contrary, they were fattening the bird. The only danger was that it might die of violent indigestion, because he only asked for half the £4,000,000 saved by Sir David Barbour's advice.
  Then there was the cry that capital would be driven away if the mines were taxed, but that was a cry which occurred on the introduction of all new taxation. Capital driven away Why, was it likely, with every bourse in Europe on the qui vive to share in the enormous profits of the industry. But, sup-posethesetimid gentlemen packed up their goods and chattels and went away, what would happen? They would be replaced by capitalists from all parts of the world; for, in his opinion, this war had been a magnificent advertisement for the mines.
  326
  He did not believe there was a corner of the civilised world, unless it were the House of Commons, where something was not known of the prodigious capabilities of the South African gold fields. He, of course, knew that this 40 per cent. tax, to those who were not versed in the taxation of gold mines, would seem big, but it was not exorbitant or even out of the common. He had already told the House that the neighbouring Government of Rhodesia levied a tax of 50 per cent. on the profits. The Chinese Government had lately concluded their mining regulations, and they had established a 10 per cent. tax on the gross, which amounted to some 30 per cent. on the profits, and moreover, participated to the extent of 25 per cent. in the profits. That had not prevented every nation in Europe from tumbling over one another in the race to obtain concessions.
  The contentions of the mining magnates were absurd. They had no intention of leaving the country. What had been their attitude during the war? Whilst the mind, the brain, and heart of the whole country had been rivetted on the battlefield of South Africa, the eye and brain of these gentlemen had been concentrated on its gold fields. During the last three years they had had their agents in every part of the Transvaal, who had bought up at rubbish prices every available claim, which they would doubtless sell at enormous profits on the English market.
  One other point. He had heard that after this war had ended the policy of this country was to be one of great leniency and generosity; he personally thought too much sentiment had been expended on the enemy and too little on our fellow subjects, if we were to pursue a policy of leniency and great generosity, then, he said, it was to the Boers, to the rural and the agricultural population, that we should show this leniency. It was to an enemy whose bravery we all admired, and whose generosity we had had reason to appreciate that we should display generosity. Did anybody imagine for a moment that the good feeling we wished to see established between Briton and Boer would be assisted by prodigality on our part to the speculators

  327
  and capitalists who had after all been the indirect cause of this war. Why this lavishness? Why this prodigality to the gold owners, when it must be remembered that every penny with which they were relieved came out of the pockets of the British taxpayer? It was all very well to say we were a great nation and we could afford to be lavish, but could we? Were we not looking at a rather over-painted picture of our own greatness? Were we not putting generosity before justice? Should we be prodigal to the mining princes, when at home we were being crippled by taxation? Should we be munificent to South African industry when the trade of the mother country was languishing under the burden of a long continued war, and should we be lavish to millionaires abroad with a Treasury so depleted that we could offer nothing better to our own poor at home than a wretched end in the workhouse?
  MR. MARKHAMsaid he agreed with the hon. M ember who had just sat down when he said this war had been engineered by the people who were now to be relieved of taxation. He impressed on the Committee the necessity of taking a broad view of this matter. If the Government persisted in their present policy they would have to incur an expenditure of £2,500,000 in maintaining 10,000 police in the Transvaal. In addition to that, they would have to maintain a large standing army. It would be impossible to carry on the administration of the Transvaal, and pay for the policing of the colonies and the maintenance of the standing army. The whole prosperity of South Africa had been built up by the goldfields. In 1886 the revenue of Natal amounted to £816,000; in 1898 the revenue had increased to £2,121,000. In 1887 the revenue of Cape Colony amounted to £3,181,000; in 1889 it was £8,781,000. The white population of Cape Colony was 376,000; that of Natal was 53,000. The population of the Transvaal was difficult to estimate, but good authorities put it at 250,000, and in 1898 the revenue amounted to £3,500,000. Long before the war commenced it was said that the Uitlanders were groaning under the burden of taxation imposed by President
  328
  Kruger's Government. He would give figures showing the taxes levied on the mines under President Kruger's Government and the amount now levied. The Robinson Gold Mining Company—to take that as an example—was floated with a capital of £2,750,000, of which the vendors received £2,250,000. If we adopted the Chartered Company principle we should be entitled not to one half of the profits, but to one half the vendors' interest on flotation, or 1,125,000 shares, the income from which was £168,750, as the Company paid a dividend of 15 per cent. But the total of the taxes levied by President Kruger's Government, according to the balance sheet of the Company for 1897, was only £1,084. It was true the industry was behind in the matter of dynamite, but that was a small question in comparison with the real issue at Stake. According to the authority of the mine owners, an undue burden was being placed on the Transvaal by the levying of this £3,500,000. If in addition to this they had to maintain 10,000 police, where was the money coming from for the standing army? That was the crux of the question. It was a question of policy, and it was idle to talk about levying tribute on the mines until the question was settled. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted most wisely in not now fixing any limit to the amount the Transvaal should bear. All Members on that side of the House recognised the firmness and moderation the right hon. Gentleman brought into the debates. They only wished the administration and carrying on of these affairs had been in his instead of other hands. The whole of the future prosperity of the devastated colonies depended on a spirit of moderation being shown in regard to taxation. The imposition of heavy taxation would stop that development in the Transvaal which was essential for the restocking of the country and the bringing about of prosperity, and check the industry which was the very life of South Africa. That land was decimated and laid waste by fire and sword; its only wealth came from the mines. Were the Government going to cripple that one industry by the imposition of taxation at the present time, when the Uitlauders themselves were away, when martial law and unsettled conditions prevailed? When he spoke on this question eighteen months

  329
  ago, he did not forsee that the Government would embark on this policy of unconditional surrender, and he thought then the wealth of the Transvaal would pay for the cost of the war, which at that time amounted to £40,000,000 or £50,000,000. That policy meant ruin in South Africa, and until that policy was changed he failed to see any prospect of prosperity. He therefore implored the House not to be led away by the very natural desire to tax millionaires, but to regard the interests of the whole of South Africa as of far more urgent importance than the question of merely getting back a small proportion of the war expenditure. A change of policy would give in a few months far more than would he obtained from the Transvaal if the present policy were persisted in. If the Government agreed to the policy foreshadowed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the policy of making—by being generous to them—friends of the people with whom they had been fighting, they would perhaps be able to recover from the Transvaal the interest on the cost of the war.
  There was one question he desired to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the account of the revenue collected from the Transvaal, had any amount been taken credit for in connection with the sale of farms in the Orange River Colony in the Transvaal? Of all the iniquities or wrongs committed, or the barbarous methods adopted by the Government, one of the worst was the selling of the farms of men on commando, or men who had died for their country, and whose wives and children were in the concentration camps. For the sake of a wretched few thousand pounds, these farms had been sold without the widows and orphans even being able to bid for them if they so desired. A large syndicate had actually been formed in the City of London with the object of purchasing these farms.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANintimated that the hon. Member was departing from the subject before the Committee.
  Mr. MARKHAMsaid he was asking whether any portion of the money of which the Government were in receipt had been derived from the sale of these farms.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid he was not aware that anything was included from the source named by him.
  MR. MARKHAMsubmitted that if these farms had been sold during the last twelve months, the Government must be in receipt of the money.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The hon. Member is under an entire misapprehension. As far as my knowledge goes, there may have been one or two farms sold, but very few sales have taken place, and the amount received is absolutely insignificant, and any money that has been received has gone to the military fund, and not to the ordinary revenue of the Transvaal.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid that if this amount had gone for military expenditure he wished to know if he would be in order in discussing it.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would not be in order in discussing that subject.
  MR. MARKHAMasked if such subjects as the concentration camps could be discussed.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would be perfectly in order in going into the general policy, but not into matters of detail.
  MR. MARKHAMreplied that the Colonial Secretary had stated that the amount received was absolutely insignificant, but if that was so, then all the more shame that his Majesty's Government should have adopted such a policy. He declared broadly that thousands and hundreds of thousands of acres had changed hands in the Transvaal during the course of the last few months, to the great detriment of a noble foe, and that was a policy which he believed the people of this country would not approve or sanction. He believed the Government had acted wisely in not fixing the amount the Transvaal had to pay. The future prosperity of the community in the Transvaal depended on moderate measures, and the Government should take every precaution not to hamper the gold industry of the Transvaal, which was the source from

  331
  which Rhodesia and Cape Colony were developed and the source from which South Africa derived its chief revenue.
  MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid he agreed with the observation made by the last speaker that it was not wise for His Majesty's Government at this stage to speculate with anything like accuracy as to the finances of the Transvaal. It appeared to him that the first thing they had to consider with regard to the Transvaal and its resources was—Was it able to maintain itself as a community governed from an Imperial centre? He for one ventured to doubt whether in this year, or anything like the near future, they would have a surplus on Transvaal finance upon which they could make any draft for Imperial purposes in the way of repayment of the loan. A greatinterest had been added to the debate by the speech of the hon. Member for the Eskdale Division of Cumberland. He understood the hon. Member to seriously avow that his view of the future was very hopeful on account of the well-known capacities of the mines, the value of which he appeared to treat with mathematical accuracy. He seemed to suggest that apparently without delay we should take something like 40 per cent. of the profits of the mining industry in those colonies. If that had been the avowed policy of Britain before the war broke out. he thought it extremely doubtful whether there would ever have been a gun fired. But before they talked of taxing the gold industry they must first produce peace in South Africa, and create conditions under which the community might live and thrive. He ventured to think that if it was part of their policy to impose a tax of 40 per cent. upon the profits of the gold mining industry, it would produce a state of unrest which might last for many a year to come.
  The object of his rising was to point to certain elementary facts with regard to the National Debt and the relation of the amount of that Debt to military expenditure in the past. He had made the best calculation he could upon the available data with regard to the military expenditure of this country. In the Napoleonic wars this country
  332
  spent £831,000,000 on military equipment and operations. In the Crimean War we spent £70,000,000. He had endeavoured to ascertain what was to be the amount of expenditure upon the footing that this war closed within a few weeks, and he could not put it at less than £200,000,000. The result was that there had been an expenditure upon these three great wars of no less than £1,100,000,000 sterling. That was a stupendous figure. The question, however, to which the Committee should address itself was—What was the proportion which the present loan bore to the taxation levied upon the current ratepayer? They had a precedent which was of extreme value upon this issue, and that was the Crimean War. That war cost £70,000,000, and £36,000,000 of that total was defrayed by taxation, by the very people who made the war, at the very time when the war was going on. Therefore, during the Crimean War £34,000,000 only was added to the National Debt. In other words, 53 per cent. of the expenditure upon the Crimean War was paid by the current taxpayer of the day, and only 47 per cent. was put upon the National Debt.
  What was the situation with which they stood confronted in the financial proposals which had just been made? If they took the moderate estimate or £195,000,000 as the expenditure of this war up to date, no less than £150,000,000 of that total was to be added to the National Debt, and the remainder was to be paid out of taxation. He was making a very large allowance when he put the amount to be paid out of taxation at £45,000,000 sterling. What were the results of this? Whereas in the time of the Crimean War they taxed the people to the extent of 53 percent, of the total war charges and only put 47 percent. upon the National Debt, in the present instance only 23 per cent. of the cost of the war was being paid by the taxation of the day, while no less than 77 per cent. was put upon the National Debt of the country. That was how the cost of an avoidable war, which was in itself not only a wicked but a senseless war, was being met. The only thing that would bring this country to its senses was the finance of the war, and his regret was that the present Government were not

  333
  administering this war in anything like the proportion which governed the Crimean War. The present Government were simply postponing the payments, and if they had adopted the Crimean precedent and put upon taxation 53 per cent. of the cost, then the people would have risen to inquire whether the time had not gone by when this war ought to have been brought to an honourable conclusion. So far as this war in South Africa was concerned, the National Debt had gone back in consequence to the limit at which it stood some twenty-five or thirty years ago. This war' had already undone from twenty-five to thirty years of retrenchment upon the national finances, and this had been largely due to the pusillanimous policy of saddling upon the shoulders of posterity a burden
  which ought to have been discharged by the present generation. He had protested from the first against the whole scheme of the war, and he urged the Government to face the financial situation more in accordance with precedents.
  COLONEL BLUNDELLcontended that the present war ought to be compared with the war in America, and not with the Crimean war. It was absolutely impossible in a great war like this to throw an enormous proportion of its cost on the taxation of the country.
  Question put.
  House divided:—Ayes. 229; Noes 102. (Divison List No. 110.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Win.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Colomb, Sir. Jn. Charles Ready

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Helder, Augustus

  Austin, Sir John

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Herman-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Balcarres, Lord

  Denny, Colonel

  Holland, William Henry

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

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

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

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hoult, Joseph

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Dorington, Sir. John Edward

  Howard, Hn. (Kent, Faversham

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Doughty, George

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Elibank, Master of

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Bigwood, James

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Kenyon, James (Lanes., Bury)

  Bill, Charles

  Fielden, Edward Broklehurst

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Finch, George H.

  Keswick, William

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Knowles, Lees

  Boscowen, Arthur Griffith-

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

  Fitz Gerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

  Langley, Batty

  Brassey, Albert

  Forster, Henry William

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Butcher, John George

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lon. Univ.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Campbell, Rt Hn J. A. (Glasgow

  F'oster, Phil. S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Lawson, John Grant

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

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

  Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

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

  Chamberlain J. Austen (Wore'r

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Gretton, John

  Lowe, Francis William

  Chapman, Edward

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londond'y

  Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

  Macdona, John Gumming

  Purvis, Robert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

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

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Tomlinson, Win. Edw. Murray

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Ure, Alexander

  Malcolm, Ian

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dmnfriessh'e

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheffi'd

  Milvain, Thomas

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Mitchell, William

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Morgan, Dav. J. (Walthamstow

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Round, James

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Depford

  Russell, T. W.

  Williams, Rt Hn J. Powell-(Bir.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Rutherford, John

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham Bute

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B (Isle of Wight

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, M.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Myers, William Henry

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

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

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

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

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Wylie, Alexander

  Parkes, Ebenezer

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Spear, John Ward

  Younger, William

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Platt Higgins, Frederick

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Start, Hon. Humphry Napier

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Partington, Oswald

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Joyce, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc, Stroud

  Kinlock, Sir. John Geo. Smyth

  Price, Robert John

  Black, Alexander William

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Reddy, M.

  Blake, Edward

  Levy, Maurice

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Brigg, John

  Levis, John Herbert

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Lough, Thomas

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Burns, John

  Lundon, W.

  Roberts, John H' (Denbighs.)

  Caldwell, James

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  MacNoill, John Gordon Switt

  Roche, John

  Cogan, Denis J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  M'Crae, George

  Schwann, Charlas F.

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  M'Govern, T.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick. B.)

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Kean, John

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Delany, William

  Man-field, Horace Rendall

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Dillor, John

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sullivan, Donal

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Minch, Matthew

  Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Mooney, John J.

  Thomas,. J A. (Glam'gan, Gower

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Moss, Samuel

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

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Tomkinson, James

  Feowick, Charles

  Murphy, John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Field, William

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

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nolan, Joseph (Longh, South)

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Gilhooly, James

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid).

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wodhouse Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

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

  Young, Samuel

  Hammond, John

  O Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Hannsworth, R. Leicester

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

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Dowd, John

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES, Mr. Channing and Mr. Whitley.

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  O'Malley, William

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Mara, James

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  STAMP DUTY (BILLS OF EXCHANGE).
  2. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That on and after July 1st, 1902, two pence shall be substituted for one penny as the Stamp Duty on Bills of Exchange payable on demand, or at sight, or on presentation, or within three days after date or sight."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR LOUGHsaid he wished to protest against the imposition of this tax. He thought the matter should receive a little more attention from the Chancellor of the Exchequer than it did in the Budget. The stamp duties were not progressive. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had to admit that he had realised £200,000 less last year than he had estimated they would produce. A great many of the stamp duties were levied on trade and commerce, and as trade was not particularly flourishing at the present moment, it was unfortunate that the Chancellor had elected to put on a burden of this kind, which would press heavily on every branch of industry throughout the country. This was a worrying and irritating tax on trade. It was a tax on financial transactions and conveniences which might have no profit attaching to them. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer persisted in the proposal to put a two penny stamp on cheques, he would be disappointed in the result of the tax, and if he were not, the burden on commerce would be out of all proportion to the advantage gained. He had no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a calculation of the number of cheques used at present, but the great use which was made of cheques had grown up because the tax was 1d. If they made the tax 2d., the whole Custom of trade would be altered, and cheques would not be drawn for small amounts as at present. He cited one case of a small Co-operative Society in Ireland. The profits of the concern were not more than £200 or £300, and the Society now paid £90 a year for cheques. If this Resolution was passed, and The Society continued to use cheques, they would in future have to pay £180 a year. Of course the result would be that they would cease to use
  338
  cheques altogether, and would fall back on coin, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get nothing, and would deserve to get nothing, because, not being satisfied with the substantial sum he was at present receiving, he proposed to double it, and in that way would lose all. In London and other commercial centres a practice had grown up of practically making the bank the accountant of the firm. Almost everything was paid by cheque, because the cheque book was a kind of check on the accuracy or the other books. At present the Chancellor of the Exchequer got a penny out of every transaction, but did the right hon. Gentleman suppose that cheques would continue to be issued for small sums of 1s., 2s., or 10s., if they were to cost 2d. each? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this would be a convenience to bankers, but he said respectfully that the right hon. Gentleman ought not to interfere in the matter. It was not his business to save the bankers trouble. The present arrangement was a great commercial convenience, out of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer received a good revenue, and it ought to be left alone. He held in his hand a telegram sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer this day from the President of the Belfast Chamber of Commerce, which, he believed, supported the right hon. Gentleman loyally with reference to the war. But that telegram stated that the Belfast Chamber of Commerce very emphatically protested against the proposed additional 1d. stamp on cheques, which would constitute an unequal burden on small traders and retailers, would dislocate existing business methods, and create a great amount of delay and irritation out of all proportion to the yield of the tax. That was a very strong protest indeed, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to pay attention to it. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider representations that would be made to him on the matter. The right hon. Gentleman could not be sure that he was not doing something which would be very worrying and very vexatious to business men. He hoped, therefore, that even if the Chancellor of the Exchequer insisted on having the Resolution passed tonight by a somewhat obedient majority, he

  339
  would at least, in the interests of commerce, promise to give an attentive ear to the representations that would be made to him, and that, if he found the burden would be greater and the duty less productive than he expected, he would not press it.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLANsaid he wished to make a few remarks on the proposed additional stamp duty on cheques. He thought, as a business man, that the right hon. Gentleman had made a great mistake, and that when he saw the great amount of bother and trouble that would be given to many small retailers and dealers, he would be well advised to withdraw that part of the Budget. He would recommend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a very simple way of getting the money without dislocating trade or bringing himself into odium with the country. It was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could get the money he required if he would only put a tax of 1d. per pound on share certificates on issue. Let the Committee suppose that a company was formed with a capital of £100,000 in £1 shares. What was to hinder the Chancellor of the Exchequer putting a duty of a 1d. per pound on each share certificate? That would cause no dislocation and no irritation. He called it paltry to put a further 1d. on each cheque. Was he expected to put a postage stamp on each cheque he issued, or get another cheque book or what? It was not real business, and was a paltry way of raising money, and it was well worthy of the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would not abandon his present position, and put a stamp on every certificate issued by a limited company. He was speaking entirely as a business man to a business man. Why should not the right hon. Gentleman put a tax on pig iron warrants? There again he could get the money with the least possible irritation. He spoke merely with a view of getting the Chancellor of the Exchequer into a right business frame of mind, and he was sure that if the right hon. Gentleman only substituted a penny on every share certificate for his present proposal he would get far more money.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: For the last two hours I have been abused for not attempting to raise more money by taxation for the necessities of the year. Now I make a humble proposal calculated to produce £500,000, and it is denounced by the very Gentlemen who just before complained that enough taxation was not being raised. Every tax which I have proposed in the last three years, except the increased income tax and the duties on beer and spirits, has been denounced by the Gentlemen who abuse me for not raising more by taxation. It is all very well to talk of this proposal as petty; but hon. Gentlemen do not realise what an enormous resource there is in penny taxation. All that hon. Members have said as to the delay and worry that will be caused by the twopenny stamp on cheques, is precisely what was said when the original proposal for a penny stamp was made. Now the revenue from that penny stamp amounts to £800,000 a year. I cannot see why the addition of a penny should cause any additional delay. The duty will not come in force until July 1st; and as to worry, what worry will there be? Whether you pay a penny, or whether you pay twopence, there is no more worry about it. What burden it will impose on givers of small cheques is another point, and is a point that has been enormously exaggerated by the hon. Member for West Islington. He told us that a Co-operative Society in Ireland paid to the Exchequer £90 a year on cheques. According to my calculation, the Society must be doing a large business, and issuing about eighty cheques in a week, and I think the hon. Member must have made a mistake in calculating the dealings of the Society. Where the payments required to be made are very small, why could not people make them by postal orders?
  MR. LOUGH: Why should you stop them?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Because I am informed by those who ought to know that I should increase the revenue by £500,000 a year.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PHASE: How much at present is raised by the penny on warrants and on cheques?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The whole produce of the penny duty on bills at sight is estimated at £800,000, but, of course, my proposal only applies to nine months of the present year. I can only; say that in dealing with these stamp duties, one has to act very often without being able to make much inquiry. I will be perfectly willing to receive from any quarter, any suggestions as to the inconvenience or difficulty that may be caused by the operation of this tax, but I must ask the Committee to vote it tonight. I cannot hold out any hope whatever that I am prepared to abandon the tax, but I will be prepared to consider any representations that may be made to me. (8.5.)
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taunted the Opposition with having from time to time criticised the Government for not taking enough money out of the taxpayer, and for leaving to posterity great liabilities in regard to loans in connection with the cost of a war for which posterity was in no sense responsible. The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to criticise the Opposition, because they had denounced the proposal to raise money by an additional penny on cheques and dividend warrants. But the objections were quite consistent. There were many Members of the Opposition quite ready to condemn the Government, not only for the insufficiency of the amount they had raised from the taxpayer, but also for the method they had selected by which to raise even the small amount to be imposed during the current year. Many other methods, such as the imposition of additional burdens on royalty rents and ground values, might have been adopted. Personally, he thought everyone should pay according to his ability, but the ideal of a graduated income tax was somewhat difficult to carry out. Direct taxation certainly had some advantages over indirect taxation. It tended to economy. Persons who paid direct taxes realised how much they were paying for the services of the State, and they consequently exercised a very salutary cheek upon the Government of the day in regard to expenditure. But there were also one or two inconveniences connected with the system. Direct taxes were more easily evaded, and they encouraged attempts on the part of the
  342
  public to circumvent the Government. That was one of the greatest objections in connection with the present proposal to impose another penny on cheques. The idea, however, had the merit of novelty. Nobody had expected the Government would make such a proposal, and it was difficult at a few hours notice accurately to say what would be its effect. One hon. Member had alluded to a Cooperative farm upon which an additional charge of £80 a year would he imposed by this tax. He had had placed in his hands a letter from the Secretary of an asylum for the blind, stating that the charge would place on that institution a burden of £40 a year if they sent out the same number of cheques as hitherto. Similarly, the proposal would prejudicially affect many worthy charitable institutions, such as hospitals and so forth, in which an enormous number of commodities were required. There would be a tax upon those bodies in every payment they made month by month or week by week. How did this proposal affect private persons? In future most business people would obtain postal orders for their small amounts which they had been in the habit of sending by cheque.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,: And the revenue will profit by it.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid that when the amount was a small one they would only obtain a half-penny Postal Order, and the result would be that the revenue would lose on the transaction. Many people wrote cheques for small amounts, but if the Government made it worth the while for people to obtain small Postal Orders instead of making out cheques the Government would lose by the transaction. He believed that the result of this change in the stamp duty would be a reduction in the amount yielded instead of an increase. He had served on the Finance Committee of a Corporation for ten years, and on the Finance Committee of the County Council for fourteen years, and he knew something about the way the finances of local bodies were conducted. Upon public bodies nearly every payment was made by cheque. The various

  343
  Committees in connection with county I and boroughs councils required a large number of commodities, and they had to make a large number of small payments. Upon the two public bodies with which he was connected he should say that about 5,000 cheques per month were used. Therefore the county he referred to paid £250 per annum for cheques at the penny rate, but if they had to pay at the twopenny rate it would cost them an additional £250, and they would naturally devise some expedient for not issuing so many cheques. Take, as another instance, a borough of 40,000 people where a penny rate would produce about £500, and suppose they issued about 5,000 cheques per month. From such a borough the Government would expect to get £500 per annum. Surely a town realising that this stamp duty would mean one penny in the pound on the rates, would do its utmost to avoid drawing so many cheques. By this proposal they got the ludicrous position of the Treasury granting relief to local rates, and the ratepayers contributing to the Imperial funds out of the rates. This proposition would be an inducement to people to pay as much money as possible either in cash or in some other way. It was a very easy thing for the public body to pay in cash. Take for instance the county of Durham. There a large number of commodities were purchased from the city of Newcastle, and it would pay that county to send a clerk to the various trades people to pay their accounts rather than draw 400 or 500 cheques. This proposal would induce public bodies as well as private persons to evade as far as possible this new tax. As a person responsible for the drawing of a large number of cheques he could see his way to reduce the number drawn by 25 percent., and in the interests of the concerns with which he was identified he would do this. He thought that instead of anything like £500,000 being produced by this additional penny on cheques the Government would find that it would add very little to the total revenue. So far as he was able to judge he considered it would be a vexatious and irritating tax which was not calculated to serve the interests of the country.
  MR. DAVID MORGAN, said that in a charitable institution with which he was connected they were in the habit of drawing every month a large number of cheques, and it was more convenient for them to draw cheques than to obtain postal orders. Their object ought to be to make business easy and not difficult. If a man had to pay a large number of small amounts he could draw cheques with very little trouble and without any waste of time, but if he had to get postal orders a good deal of time would be wasted in the process. He had received from a large number of small traders in his constituency already a large number of protests against this tax, which they stated would cause them much extra expense in their businesses. The small trader had, at the present time, great difficulty in making both ends meet, and this tax would reduce still further his margin of profit. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that it they voted this tax now he would consider later on any proposition which might be made upon the subject. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer was determined to adhere to this proposal he would ask him to put the extra penny only upon cheques of £100 or upwards. This would prove a great saving in the case of charitable institutions. There seemed to be only one class of people who were pleased with this tax and they were the bankers. One banker had told him that this was a splendid thing, because he would now have to keep less clerks.
  MR. FIELDsaid he did not think this tax was worth the irritation it would cause, for it was a tax upon the small transactions of traders. A Liverpool salesman had told him that this tax would be a burden upon him of £2 per week, and he stated that he would certainly devise some other method of payment instead of by cheques. He did not think the right bon. Gentleman realised how much this tax would strike at their home trade. He was the chairman of the Blackrock Technical School Committee and it was his duty every month to sign a number of small cheques for the salaries of their officials, and occasionally he had to sign as

  345
  many as forty cheques at a time. If this tax was agreed to, it would be the duty of that school to devise some other means of paying those officials instead of using cheques, and the Exchequer would lose by the transaction. At the present time a penny stamp had to be paid upon a receipt of £2 and upwards, and if the payment was made by cheque in the future it would mean that an ordinary business transaction would cost threepence. In small businesses now there was some keen competition that it was very doubtful whether these small transactions could bear this additional expense. In all transactions for over £1 it was very convenient to pay by cheque, because they were able so keep a record, and the cheque itself was a receipt and this simplified business very much. That process would not be possible in transactions where postal orders were remitted. Without considering the question of expense the cheque system was preferable to business men, and he could not quite understand why this proposal had been made in such a hurry. Instead of the right hon. Gentleman trying to rush this question he thought it ought to be postponed. The Chamber of Commerce, the mercantile associations and business men all over the three kingdoms had a right to be consulted before a proposal of this sort was rushed through the House of Commons. He therefore trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the proposal, and postpone the question until the opinion of the country had been ascertained. This was a tax upon home trade. The charge for the transfer of foreign securities was 2s. 6d. per cent., and yet it was proposed to charge 2d. for cheques. The ratio of expense was not equal at all. He held that it ought to be the duty of the House to protect and develop home trade. If no one else divided the House on the question he would certainly do so.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid he desired to join in the protest against the proposed additional tax on cheques. It seemed to him a most irritating tax, which would throw a certain amount of grit into the mercantile machinery of the country. There was no doubt that the cheque system had
  346
  developed enormously on account of the facility it afforded for the making of payments. The irritation which the change would produce would be most objectionable. The penny stamp was a very good one, because it made the cheque a recognised document with a legal stamp on it. It seemed to him that the maximum of inconvenience would be produced for the very small amount of benefit to be obtained. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find, if the tax were persisted in, that he had made a great miscalculation as to the amount it would produce, because the tax would be resented by a great many people in trade, and some other mode of paying accounts than by cheque would be devised. He was sorry to oppose the Budget in any way, but he could not support the present Resolution.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that on this occasion at all events, they had heard a great deal of fault expressed from all quarters of the House in regard to the proposed additional tax on cheques. It was undoubtedly an unpopular and unwise tax, and would not realise anything like the amount anticipated. There seemed to be a strange fatality about Chancellors of the Exchequer, who at some time in their careers seemed impelled to introduce a species of tax which was thoroughly unpopular, and had to be withdrawn. Mr. Lowe made that error when he endeavoured to introduce the match tax, and one of his successors, Mr. Goschen, also made a similar mistake, when he tried to put a tax upon the wheels of certain vehicles. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, after a brilliant career, was proposing a tax that the country would object to, not because they objected to pay the amount of the tax, but because it was irritating in its character, and would probably result in the defeat of the object which the right hon. Gentleman had in view, namely, that of increasing the revenue. It had been said that probably bankers would view this additional impost of a penny upon the cheque with favour. No doubt, because it would cause a less number of entries to go through their books At the same time it would impose a great amount of harassment upon business men, and would be hurtful

  347
  to those persons who dealt with small sums, and who would feel the irksome-ness of the tax. It had become a habit of people, not only the small but the largest business firms and traders, to pay by cheque, because this ensured good accountancy, which was of the first importance. If they wanted to keep their books right and save peculation from petty cash, the sure way was to pay by cheque. Then the transaction was entered in their journals, and everything was testified to in an accurate manner. It used to be the custom to draw a cheque for £20, £30, or £50, and pay out the small amounts in cash. That was no longer the habit in large business houses. They drew cheques for 5s. or 6s. sooner than expose their employees to the risk of temptation. He was afraid the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find that he would be grasping at the shadow and running the risk of losing the substance. He now got for every hundred cheques drawn 8s. 4d. He anticipated that he would get for every hundred 16s. 8d. The hon. Member very much doubted whether if he persisted in that tax he would get the original amount of 8s. 4d. He had occasion this morning to invite opinions from some of those with whom he worked in his business, and they assured him that the proposed tax had induced them to make an investigation into the amount of money that was being paid by cheque, and they were perfectly certain that there would be a great diminution in that: direction. The lavishness now-exercised in paying by the penny cheque would be brought to an end. The tax could be avoided in many ways. The money order system would be taken advantage of to a very great extent, because they could obtain a 10s. 6d. postal order for a penny. Then, again, customers who wanted to remit money to their wholesale houses, instead of paying the 2d tax as the Chancellor of the Exchequer expected they would do, would be induced by the wholesale merchants to use the numerous branches of banks now existing in every part of the country, and the transaction would be completed through the ordinary banking account in connection with the particular business house concerned. To the commercial classes of this country such a tax would be oppressive. If the Chancellor of the
  348
  Exchequer wanted more money, Jet him obtain it in a bold way, let him put another penny on to the income tax. The right hon. Gentleman would be, well advised to withdraw this proposal, just as last year he was advised to withdraw the proposed tax on contracts, and thus save the mercantile community from a matter which was more or less trumpery, but which at the same time would be strenuously resisted.
  MR. FLYNNsaid a suggestion was thrown out by the hon. Member opposite that a limit might be placed on the tax, and that 2d. might be charged on cheques of £100 and upwards. The tax as proposed embodied the maximum of inconvenience and harassment with the minimum of result. The objections to the proposal with regard to small commercial transactions in England would apply with much more force in Ireland, where a system had grown up for settling by cheque small transactions between town and country, in poultry, butter, and eggs. The revenue really got 3d. for each of these transactions when over £2–1d. for the cheque, 1d. for the receipt, and 1d. for postage. He thought this tax would be a most tin-popular one, while it would produce very small results, and he hoped there would be some indication given from the Treasury Bench that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reconsider the matter.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid he entirely sympathised with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the difficult task which he had to face, but what he wanted to point out was that the right hon. Gentleman had not succeeded in this tax in finding a new class of persons to bear it. The persons who would pay this £500,000, if the tux was carried, would be the people who were already paying income tax, the death duties, and all those taxes which had been heaped upon their shoulders. This was not a tax which would be paid by the great consumers of the country, and by putting this 1d. on cheques, the right hon. Gentleman was practically putting a 1d. on the income

  349
  tax, instead of taxing an entirely new class of persons. He objected to the tax on the ground that it was an unnecessary interference with trade. He excused the right hon. Gentleman for the unintentional blunder that he had made, because he could not be expected to know much of the realms of trade. The right hon. Gentleman had taken the advice of bankers. Such advice with regard to towns might be good enough, but when the right hon. Gentleman came to talk of the customs of trade, of the method in which we paid our accounts and servants, of our dealings in country markets with our farmers, it was an entirely different matter. What happened in Scotland? In olden days men went to the markets of Edinburgh and other places with their pockets full of money, and had, in the course of their dealings, to resort to public houses. Why? Because there alone could change be obtained. What happened now was that men wrote cheques, and all these adjournments to public houses had been done away with. They had been got rid of largely by the facility of the 1d. cheques. Did the right hon. Gentleman know what the Scotsman was? Did he suppose he was going to pay 2d. when 1d. would do? The success of his countrymen had been largely due to the care they took of their pence, and the right hon. Gentleman had no conception of the trouble they would take to evade an impost of this sort. He, himself, since the debate had been in progress, had begun to consider how much he had spent in cheques, and he found that he had spent in 1d. cheques £300 in a. very short time. A Scotsman did not spend £50 unless he had previously found out a way of saving it, and he was perfectly certain that the result of such an impost as this would be that men would take the opportunity of looking into the money which they spent in this way, and would discover a way by which they might evade this 2d. duty. He had always observed that when a new tax was imposed, that tax was apt to become permanent. Loans had been spoken about, and the Committee had been told that those loans would be paid by somebody else. That might be so, but whether that was so
  350
  or not with regard to loans, if this tax was passed it would remain, and he trusted under the circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman would find some other means of attaining the end he had in view.
  MR. CORRIE GRANTthought there was a good deal to be said for the suggestion that this tax should not be imposed upon cheques below a certain limit. A limit of £100 had been suggested, but in his opinion it would be sufficient if the limit was made £20. If that limit was fixed there would be this advantage, that bankers would refuse to issue these 2d. cheques except to customers whose, means were undoubted, and as a result business men would at last have a cheque with a certain guarantee, or, at any rate, a cheque with a greater guarantee than there was at the present time. That would certainly be an advantage to those; who had large dealings with cheques coming from persons of whom they knew nothing but their signature. Then there was the other point of view, the position of the small professional man who had great difficulty in making both ends meet. The person who had a small banking account had a constant check upon himself, because if he overdrew his account the bank did not treat him in the same way as they would treat a large customer; he would be at once asked to close his account. Again, a great many people now used their banking account as a cash account. They paid in everything and they paid everything by cheque, and relied on their pass-books to see how they were going on. He thought if this tax was passed the right hon. Gentleman would find at once that an endeavour would be made on the part of the public at large to See, he would not say how to evade it, but, to see how they could avoid drawing so many cheques. Another reason why the present system should not be interfered with was that a cheque was primâ facie evidence of payment to the person to whom it was drawn. One of the greatest difficulties which traders experienced when they came to the Law Courts was not the validity of their case, but the nature of the evidence required to prove it. It frequently happened that a case to recover £ 10s. involved a cost

  351
  of £5 for the evidence necessary to prove the case, but a cheque was primâ facie evidence. The temptation to the right hon. Gentleman was apparent. Here was at least £500,000 which it seemed he could easily collect. No doubt he had some figures which justified the assumption that 120,000,000 cheques were drawn annually, and one could easily understand the temptation to put an extra penny stamp upon those cheques. If the argument was sound, one could justify the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in asking for £500,000 in this way, which would be something towards making up his deficit. He, however, thought that the number of cheques he should draw at 2d. a cheque would be much less than the number he drew at 1d. He had always paid by cheques since he had had a banking account, and he now drew perhaps 200 cheques a year, but if this tax passed, instead of drawing a cheque for each amount he would draw a cheque for the whole sum and distribute the cash among his tradesmen afterwards. That, he believed, would be the way this tax would affect everybody who had to pay small sums, and as a result the revenue of the Chancellor of Exchequer would be reduced instead of being increased.
  MR. BANBURYhoped the Government would reconsider this tax as far as it referred to cheques. So far as it concerned bills at sight and dividend warrants he had no objection to it, but he believed, so far as it concerned cheques, even if the right hon. Gentleman imposed it he would gain nothing by it. His objection to it was two-fold. In the first place it would fall very unequally upon the tax-payer. Certain men drew few cheques in the year. Others, who might be poorer men, drew many more. One man had told him that he drew on the average sixty cheques a day for small sums. A difference would be made to him of over £75 a year. That in itself seemed to show that the tax would be unfairly imposed. In the second place, it would not be an advantage to bankers, but a loss. It would destroy banking facilities, and people would go back to the old custom of keeping money in their houses. He had
  352
  been told by a banker of his acquaintance that it would entail great loss on the banks, because it would diminish deposits. People would draw cheques once a month or once in two months, and pay their accounts with the money they had drawn. Thus the people would hoard gold, which it was not desirable that they should do. He was of opinion that the tax, if passed, would not only not increase the revenue, but would go a great way towards destroying the banking facilities of the country.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESexpressed regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not have been in his place during the whole of this debate. If he had been, he would have found that on this occasion not one defender of the Government could be found. There was not one ewe lamb even from the Inns of Court. Every Member who had spoken upon it had spoken against this tax. He could not conceive how the tax had ever got into the head of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He could only suppose that there must have been some re-consideration of the Budget at the last moment, and something withdrawn which left a deficit of half a million, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put in this tax to fill up the gap. Of course, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in a new tax of this kind he could not always command expert advice as to the effect of the tax and its merits, but surely on this occasion he must have been in a position to obtain good advice. Sitting near the right hon. Gentleman was the President of the Board of Trade, who, no doubt, was extremely conversant with all these matters, who had both private and official knowledge of them; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not sought the advice of the President of the Board of Trade on this occasion, he had missed an opportunity which he ought to have taken. He entirely agreed with every hon. Member who had spoken as to the extraordinary demerits of this tax. He thought the device was a most unfortunate, inadvisable, irritating, and foolish one. What was the genesis of the cheque? Originally mankind carried out their commercial transactions by a

  353
  brutal system of barter. They then evolved a system of currency, and eventually elaborated a system of credit. The cheque was the crown and summit of the modern system of credit. It was that which marked the great difference between the highly civilised and commercialised man and the savage. And it was largely because of the increased reliance upon the system of credit which we knew as "the cheque" that we had such an enormous increase in the commerce of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer really seemed to desire, so far as his tax could do it, to put an end to that system of credit, and to drive us back to the methods of barbarism, to force us to leave our money no longer with the banker, by whom it would be lent to others and left to fructify, but to withdraw it from our bankers and keep it in drawers in our private houses. This tax was mischievous in every way; it would be mischievous in its effect on the banking system; it would diminish the capital available in the country for commercial purposes, and would have every sort of pernicious effect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think that this extra tax would not make much difference. It would make all the difference in the world. Nobody minded paving a penny; everybody minded paying twopence. It seemed strange, but everybody who knew human nature knew that it was so. Between the penny and the twopence there was a wide chasm fixed, which nothing could bridge, in the imagination of man. It was so. Let the House take the example of the Post Office. The Post Office earned its enormous revenue entirely by virtue of the penny. It was the magic virtue of the penny postage which enabled the Post Office to earn its revenue, and not to only earn its own revenue but to carry on its shoulders the loss of the higher tariffs of the telegraphs and the telephones, all of which it was responsible for, and which were carried on at a loss. Would either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Postmaster General dare to raise the postage to 2d.?
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer recognised, as did everybody else, that in the case of small cheques the extra charge would be enormous, but his argument was that in the case of large
  354
  cheques it would make no difference at all, and for the transmission of smaller amounts the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Post Office might be utilised, and instead of sending a cheque a money order might be sent. In the first place, to send an amount not exceeding £1 by means of a money order cost 2d., and between £1 and £3 it cost 3d., and there were other restrictions. You had to put your name and write it carefully, and it there was a mistake the Post Office would not recognise it. If one wanted to "stop" it, then it cost 4d. more. And, last of all, the Post Office took no responsibility. There was no banker or merchant—no man who dealt in cheques or transmission of money—who could cover himself with such a mantle of irresponsibility. To suggest the use of the Post Office was little less than a mockery. As a substitute for a cheque, one would have to send and sign for a money order, which was all time and trouble. What one had to do when one wanted to send money to the other end of the town or the other end of the Kingdom, or to some other Kingdom, was to write a cheque and cross it and one felt perfectly at ease as to the safety of that cheque. Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer apply this system to the £150,000,000 of the savings of the people which the Post Office had in its charge? Every halfpenny of that could be drawn out without a stamp at all. If we required a stamp for 2d. when we drew out money from the bank, why not apply the system to the Post Office? Why should the Post Office perform its business—and very badly it did it, as a rule—under such circumstances as these? It was not fair to leave that establishment entirely free from the fiscal charges laid upon other banks. As had already been pointed out, this tax in effect amounted to an other in come tax. Cheques were used as a rule by those who paid in come tax; those who did not pay income tax did not as a rule use cheques. If in times to come some more liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer took a halfpenny off this tax, then probably cheques would be used by those who had small incomes and who read the Daily Mail. This tax was an addition to the daily expenses of those who used cheques, and practically amounted to an addition

  355
  to the income tax. He did not know how many cheques people drew as a rule. He personally drew perhaps 300 cheques in the course of the year, and so there would be no considerable addition to his payments upon these transactions. But it would be putting an additional shackle on trade, and he begged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to abandon a proposal which had caused considerable irritation and alarm.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I am surprised at the extraordinary importance that appears to be attached to this small additional charge by hon. Members, not on behalf of those who use cheques to a very large extent, but on account of their own personal convenience. The hon. Member for Rugby spoke of drawing 300 cheques a year, and said that this tax would make him consider how he could reduce them. Was the addition of 300 pence an insupportable burden to him? The hon. Member for King's Lynn spoke as if the additional penny would very seriously
  affect the banking business, and induce people to keep their money in a stocking. He, it appears, draws 300 cheques annually, and will he give up the convenience of the banking system for 25s.? I appeal to the Committee to treat this as a business matter. I have not been able to be present throughout the entire debate, but I have heard a great deal of it, and will make myself acquainted with all the objections urged. I have already promised to look into these objections and any communications I receive. I admit that there is something to be said in favour of differential treatment of cheques for small amounts, and it may be possible to modify my proposal, though I cannot now say anything definite upon that. I hope the Committee will now agree to close this preliminary discussion and take the Resolution.
  (9.56.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 186; Noes, 119. (Division List No. 111.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Green, Walford D. (Wed'bury

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gretton, John

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Gordon, Sir W. Brampton

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cranborne, Lord

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Mid'x

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'derry

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

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

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

  Balfonr, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Helder, Augustus

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Doughty, George

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Bignold, Arthur

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset. E.

  Bigwood, James

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Black, Alexander William

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

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

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

  Hoult, Joseph

  Bond, Edward

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Brassey, Albert

  Finch, George H.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir Jn. H.

  Brotberton, Edward Allen

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kenyon, James (Lancs. Bury)

  Butcher, John George

  Flower, Ernest

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Forster, Henry William

  Keswick, William

  Cavendish, V. C W. (Derby shire

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lon. Univ.

  Knowles, Lees

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Foster, Phil. S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lawson, John Grant

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

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

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Chapman, Edward

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Charrington, Spencer

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

  Leveson-Gower, Fred. N. S.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Stewart, Sir Mark. J. M Taggart

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th.

  Purvis, Robert

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Lyttleton, Hon. Alfred

  Pym, C. Guy

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Randles, John S.

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Rea, Russell

  Take, Sir John Batty

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Malcolm, Ian

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E. (Wig'n

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Mitchell, William

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Mount, William Arthur

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Russell, T. W.

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Rutherford, John

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Myers, William Henry

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

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

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Spear, John Ward

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Malley, William

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Mara, James

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Blake, Edward

  Langley, Batty

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bowles T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Brigg, John

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Reddy, M.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Levy, Maurice

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Burns, John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Caldwell, James

  Lough, Thomas

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lundon, W.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Cawley, Frederick

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Roche, John

  Charming, Francis Allston

  Macneill, John Gordon Swift

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cogan, Denis J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  M'Cann, James

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  M'Crae, George

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  M'Govern, T.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Kean, John

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Delany, William

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dillon, John

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Doogan, P. C.

  Minch, Matthew

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

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Mooney, John J.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Fvans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Morgan, David J. (W' lthamstow

  Tomkinson, James

  Fenwick, Charles

  Moss, Samuel

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Ffrench, Peter

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Field, William

  Murphy, John

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Gilhooly, James

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

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Grant, Corrie

  Norman, Henry

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, John (Durham. Mid.)

  Hammond, John

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

  Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Young, Samuel

  Harrington, Timothy

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

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

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

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

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

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Dowd, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

  CONTINUANCE OF ADDITIONAL CUSTOMS DUTIES.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the additional customs duties on tobacco, beer, and spirits imposed by sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Finance Act, 1900 (including any increased duties imposed by Section 5 of that Act), shall continue to be charged until the 1st day of August, 1903."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. FLYNNsaid they had hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would announce a reduction of the tobacco duty. To the Irish working man tobacco had become almost a necessity, and he spent upon it a larger proportion of his earnings than the people of the wealthier country of England. Many a hard-working Irishman, peasant or town artisan, would rather go without his breakfast than forfeit his dearly-loved pipe of tobacco. That might be very wrong or foolish, but at any rate he paid the tax. He had been talking to a Member of the House who was a teetotaller, and who did not smoke or take tea, and the only way in which this Budget would touch that hon. Member was by the additional penny which was put upon the income tax. And yet the poor Irish peasant had to pay more upon his tea and tobacco than the hon. Member he alluded to paid upon the income tax. He thought the. Committee generally would not have objected to an additional four-
  pence on the income tax, rather than that an additional burden should have been placed upon the peasantry of Ireland. The case of the poor people of Ireland had often been brought before the House, and he wished to point out to hon. Members that tobacco and tea had become almost a necessity with the Irish people, for those articles had long since ceased to be luxuries. Well-to-do people looked with amazement at the fact that an Irish working man generally spent ninepence or a shilling a week upon his beloved weed. To the Irish peasant woman, who consumed a large amount of tea, and to the Irish workman, who was fond of tobacco, the high duty now being imposed was practically a sumptuary law. He bad no association or sympathy whatever with the huge tobacco "combines" which had been formed, but he thought that in this Budget there should have been some assuagement of the burdens upon Irish working men. He hoped that before the Budget was finally adopted they would get some crumb of comfort from the right hon. Gentleman. He pleaded for the Irish working men, and he sincerely trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to see his way to give some little concession.
  (10.16.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 272 Noes, 56. (Division List So. 112.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. P.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bignold, Arthur

  Chapman, Edward

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bigwood, James

  Charrington, Spencer

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Bill, Charles

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Black, Alexander William

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Bond, Edward

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Brassey, Albert

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Arrol, Sir William

  Brigg, John

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Butcher, John George

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Caldwell, James

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

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

  Cavendish, V. C. W, (Derbyshire

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Chamberlain, J. Ansten (Worc'r

  Davies, Sir Horatio D, (Chatham

  Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Lawson, John Grant

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Doughty, George

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants, Fareham

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Leng, Sir John

  Round, James

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Russell, T. W.

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

  Levy, Maurice

  Rutherford, John

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Sackville, Col. S. G Stopford-

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lowe, Francis William

  Seely, Maj. J E B (Isle of Wight

  Finch, George H.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Shaw-Stewart. M. H. (Renfrew

  Flower, Ernest

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Forster, Henry William

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks

  Fuller, J. M. F.

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

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  M'Crae, George

  Spear, John Ward

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

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

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

  Malcolm, Ian

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

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

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Grant, Corrie

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Gretton, John

  Mitchell, William

  Thompson, F. W. (York, W. R.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Morgan, David. J (Walthamst'w

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Tomkinson, James

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Moss, Samuel

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Mount, William Arthur

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

  Welby, Lt. Col. A C E (Taunton

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Whiteley, H (Ashton und Lyne

  Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

  Norman, Henry

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Holder, Augustus

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

  Hermon-Hodge. Robert Trotter

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Wills, Sir Frederick

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

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Holland, William Henry

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Platt-Higgins. Frederick

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks

  Howard, John (Kent, F'versham

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Woodhouse, Sir. J T (Huddersf'd

  Priestley, Arthur

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

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Wylie, Alexander

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Purvis, Robert

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Jones, William (C'rnarvonshire

  Pym, C. Guy

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

  Randles, John S.

  Younger, William

  Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bary)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Keswick, William

  Rea, Russell

  Kitson, Sir James

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Knowles, Lees

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Langley, Batty

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  362

  363

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Malley, William

  Blake, Edward

  Lundon, W.

  O'Mara, James

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cogan, Denis. J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Reddy, M.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  M'Cann, James

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Govern, T.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Kean, John

  Roche, John

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Delany, William

  Minch, Matthew

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Dillon, John

  Mooney, John J.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Murphy, John

  Sullivan, Donal

  Ffrench, Peter

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North

  Field, William

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

  Young, Samuel

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nolan, Joseph (Lonth, South.

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Hammond, John

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and MR Patrick O'Brien.

  Harrington, Timothy

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow. W.

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Dowd, John

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon. N

  CONTINUANCE OF ADDITIONAL EXCISE DUTY ON BEER AND SPIRITS.
  (10.31.) Motion made, and Question put, "That the additional excise duties on beer and spirits imposed by Sections G and 7 of The Finance Act, 1900, shall continue
  to be charged until the 1st day of August, 1903."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 288; Noes, 56. (Division List No. 113.)

  CUSTOMS—TEA.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the customs duty now charged on tea shall continue to be charged until the 1st day of August, 1903 (that is to say):—
  Tea … … the pound Sixpence."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that tea in Great Britain, on account of the better scale of living of the people, was not a necessary but a luxury, whereas in many parts of Ireland it was an absolute necessary. The reason was perfectly clear. In Ireland the people were reduced to a fare which was practically starvation fare, and was literally only sufficient to keep body and soul together.
  368
  When a family had only Indian meal, sometimes without milk, a little tea became a necessary as a stimulant to enable them to go back to their work again, and it was cruel that tea, used in such circumstances, should be taxed. The English people were not a nimble-minded people, and it was very difficult for them to understand any conditions of life in which they themselves had not been placed. It was quite impossible for them to know what it was to feel really hungry. Why, the whole lives of many people in Ireland were passed in a chronic state of unsatisfied hunger. He felt very strongly on the matter, because he represented one of the Divisions of Donegal which was largely composed of congested districts, and where the population was very poor, and even at the best of times in want of the actual necessaries of life. He felt that to tax a necessary of life was little short of an act of cruelty. The House of Commons had shown itself wholly insensible to shame in dealing with Irish questions, especially the question of the financial relations. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown by his absence his utter contempt for the Irish people.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked me particularly, during his brief absence, to take note of what the hon. Member would say, and to report it to him.
  Mr. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he was glad of that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was one of the most conciliatory of the Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, and he had always treated the right hon. Gentleman with respect. He felt it his duty as a representative of the people to show to the Committee, and through the Committee to the public, the absolute necessity of enabling congested districts in Ireland to have cheap tea. Evidence was given before the Royal Commission

  369
  on the Financial Relations by the person who of all others was best acquainted with the wants and daily lives of the poor people in the congested districts of Donegal. He meant the Most Rev. Dr. O'Donnell, Bishop of Raphoe, whose character, services, and benevolence had been admitted by the Government who appointed him a member of the Congested Districts Board. Dr. O'Donnell supplied the Commission with a budget of a Donegal peasant's expenditure. He might perhaps tell the Committee that a Catholic Bishop was intimately acquainted with the wants, feelings, and wishes of the very poorest of the people. He was quite unlike an English Bishop. It he himself wanted to know anything of the habits of the people, he would inquire of a Catholic Bishop, whereas, if he wished to know something of the aristocracy, he would ask an English Bishop. The gentleman who was examining Dr. O'Donnell was Sir David Barbour, who gave such a rosy description of the Transvaal gold mines. In his evidence Dr. O'Donnell said that the Irish farmer with a valuation of under £10 was practically a vegetarian from year's end to year's end. He further said that a substantial part of the food of the poorer people in the congested districts consisted of potatoes, and when the supply of potatoes failed, the main article of food was Indian meal, sometimes with a little milk, oftentimes not; and he added that that stirabout had a great deal to do with the large use of tea in the poorer parts of the country.
  "When (he continued) a man is pretty hard worked and has for his dinner only potatoes or stirabout, a little tea with some bread is really a necessary of life in order to enable him to go back to his task with anything like spirit. It was not unusual to have tea and bread either as a supplement to the food I have described, or as a substitute for it."
  Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer think, as between man and man, that it was lair to tax an absolute necessary of life, such as Dr. O' Donnell had described? Dr. O'Donnell further said that in Donegal duty was chiefly paid on tea and tobacco, and that, except in the towns, the people did not drink at all. The only stimulant the poor people in
  370
  the congested districts had was tea, and for that they were taxed just like the millionaires and the well-fed working men of England. Could hon. Members by any effort imagine a family of five with a total income of something like £25 a year, and of that, according to Dr. O'Donnell, no less than, £5 was spent on tea as an absolute necessity of life. He would quote a very forcible observation by Dr. O'Donnell in his evidence. He was asked if the scarcity of milk had anything to do with the introduction of tea. And he replied—
  "Undoubtedly. You see, it is very difficult even for the poor to consume potatoes and water, or stirabout and water, and sometimes tea and bread accompany the meal. They need something like a drink of tea to make them forget their bad meal and put them in humour for work again."
  He quite realised that the great difficulty in this matter was that the Irish people were united to the English people, who had consistently robbed them. As long as he had the honour of a seat in the House of Commons he would protest against the persistent, cruel, and heartless robbery of the people of Ireland by English statesmen, and English financiers, although hon. Members would that night record their votes in favour of a tax on an article which had become a necessary of life in many parts of Ireland owing to the poverty of the people, which poverty had been created by the British Government. The Irish Members not only protested against the war for which the tax would be used, but they also protested against the tax itself. There was no doubt that it was morally wrong. The Committee had no right to tax an article of food of the people when the representatives of the people protested against it. The whole system of Government in Ireland, especially in its fiscal relations, was a system of fraud. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"] He was grieved to think that hon. Members were unable to tolerate an Irish Member when he spoke of the grievances of his country. The manner in which the Irish Members were interrupted made it rather difficult for them to address the House, and he doubted whether it was a place where an Irish Gentleman ought to be at all. He would put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it was proper, as between man and man, to put a tax on tea, which was an absolute necessary of life for poor people whose only food was Indian

  371
  meal at the best of times. That was against all the laws of political economy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knew very well that from the days of Adam Smith downwards every political economist was agreed that no taxation should be levied on anyone until first of all he was able to live. If tea were a necessary of life to the English people, the tax would not be imposed, and he for one would strongly protest against it as an act of fiscal robbery.
  MR. FIELDsaid his hon. friend had opposed the tax on certain grounds, but he would take up another position. As a temperance man he entirely objected to increased taxation on tea. He knew very we I that certain hon. Members regarded the financial relations between England and Ireland as being based on the equality of taxation. That was not so, and that fact had been recognised by former Parliaments. If he had read the history of the tea tax correctly, it appeared that up to 1874 it was much greater in Eng land than in Ireland. The fact was that the English people did not even then use tea to the same extent as the Irish people, and the latest statistics showed that the consumption of tea per head in Ireland was half as much again as what it was in England. Therefore, identity of impost meant a much larger taxation on Ireland than on England. If he remembered aright, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced the tax, he gave a kind of a promise that it would be reduced as soon as possible, and he thought the time would come when effect should be given to that promise, although he agreed that it was very difficult to differentiate taxation as between Eng-land and Ireland. There were special circumstances, however, connected with the tea tax. Undoubtedly the taxation of an article had a large influence on its consumption, except, perhaps, in the case of spirits. In America, when the taxation of tea was largely increased, the consumption fell; and when the taxation was reduced, the consumption largely increased. That was a natural consequence in almost every country in the world, and, taking that fact into consideration, and also the facts mentioned by his hon. friends, he thought that the tax should be reduced. He took a stand as regarded
  372
  that particular article, because he believed that tea drinkers, as a rule, were not fond of alcoholic liquors. Sober people were generally thrifty, and people who drank tea and not whisky generally succeeded well. The population of Ireland had been decreasing, while the taxation was increasing, and the increasing taxation was falling not only on a lessening population, but on sections of the community who were not able to bear increased burdens. The emigrants were mainly the bone and sinew of the country. There were left behind the old, the infirm, the lame, the blind, and the pauper. The Imperial taxation of Ireland last year amounted to over £11,000,000 on a diminishing population of 4,500,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was a fair-minded man, who was willing to do what was right and reasonable by the three countries, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would recognise that that tax pressed unduly on Ireland, and that there ought to be some special rebate, or some other means devised, whereby the burden could be reduced, especially having regard to the fact that the article taxed was much more largely consumed in Ireland than in England. He thought the question was one which had a special claim on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he maintained that he had made out a case which demanded the serious consideration of the right hon. Gentleman, and he trusted he would be able to hold out some hope that the tax would be reduced. He thought the Irish Members were entitled to some consideration in the matter, and he would move that the tax be reduced from 6d. to 4d.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'Sixpence,' and insert the word 'Fourpence.'"—(Mr. Field.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'Sixpence' stand part of the proposed Resolution."
  Sir M. HICKS BEACH: I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member who has just sat down, and the hon. Member who preceded him, have not in their minds some idea that, by this Resolution, I am increasing the present

  373
  tax on tea. That is not the fact. It is I simply the continuation of the existing tax for another year.
  MR. FIELDsaid his Amendment was to reduce the tax.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Both hon. Members have very fairly admitted that I can hardly be expected to assent to any reduction of the existing tax, and they also, equally fairly, admitted that any differentiation in this tax as between Great Britain and Ireland is hardly practicable. Therefore. I am afraid, having regard to the great revenue from tea, I must resist the Motion of the hon. Member. But in doing so, I may admit that the hon. Member for South Donegal, who undoubtedly represents a very poor population, has greater reason than many hon. Members to object to the tax on tea. But, of course, there is a poor population in Great Britain as well as in Ireland. The tea tax is a tax that certainly does affect the poor more than the classes who are better off. I quite admit that, but even the poor ought to pay something towards taxation. This is a tax which hon. Members who have spoken appear to think presses very heavily upon them, and more heavily now than before. If any hon. Member will examine the course of the price of tea in the last few years, I do not think he will find that it bears out that idea. No doubt the tax has been increased from 4d. to 6d.; but when that increase was made the enormous crop of tea so brought down the price of the article that I believe practically little of the tax reached the consumer here. The price of tea now, I suppose, is almost lower than it has been in previous years, and therefore the extreme burden which is supposed to have been placed upon the poor as compared with former times is really a matter of the imagination. No doubt this is a tax which presses upon the poor, but I think it is necessary that it should remain at 6d.—at any rate for the present. As for the future, I cannot speak until the situation is such that reduction of taxation appears to be possible. At present, all I have to do
  374
  is to endeavour to find means of raising money which are not objectionable to Parliament and the people. Reductions I must dismiss, and I fear that that can be my only answer to hon. Members opposite.
  MR. BROADHUESTprotested against the doctrine laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if an article of general consumption on the part of the poor became cheaper by increased production or some other cause he had a right to take the whole of that advantage for the benefit of the revenue and to save the pockets of the rich. The right hon. Gentleman had put forward theories which he ought to be ashamed to propound, because he was really capable of better things. He had been led into these fallacies by his evil associations. His idea seemed to be that unless the poor paid these enormous taxes on tea and similar articles they would pay no taxes at all. Agricultural labourers, earning 12s. a week, had to pay 6d. per pound on an article of which, next to bread, they consumed more than of any other taxable article, and the right hon. Gentleman contended that unless they no paid that 6d. they would be making contribution to the welfare of the State. Was not the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that this class made a contribution which millionaires and the well-to-do classes did not make in any measure whatsoever? It was the class that cultivated the soil of the country and provided the fighting material for the Army and Navy. Such a class ought to be exempted from these extraordinary and severe fines—he could not call them taxes—which were levied for the purpose of carrying on wars and ventures in various parts of the world for the special interest and profit of a particular class. He could not expect a great and mighty Chancellor to remember the speeches of a humble individual like himself, but if the right hon. Gentleman would instruct one of his myrmidons to look up the reports of previous debates he would find that he had always opposed the tea tax.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I remember hearing the same speech from the hon. Gentleman for seven years past.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid the right hon. Gentleman was extremely kind and indulgent in his admission. If, however, he remained Chancellor for the next seven years, and remained as wicked, he would still hear the same speech. There was no reflection in delivering the same speech if the same causes continued to exist. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer remove the cause, and he would not again hear the speech. But, after all, he also had heard the same speech for the same number of years from the right hon. Gentleman himself; in fact, his speeches were becoming intolerably the same. If the Tory Government would make him (the hon. Member) Chancellor of the Exchequer for one year only, he would promise to find something new and original, which the present Chancellor had never attempted to do. He could only say that in delivering the same speech, he had followed a most distinguished example, and he was in no way ashamed of having copied so great a man. But seriously, with regard to this tax, he voted against the 4d., he voted against the 6d., and he should vote against its continuance, because the very poor were the people who most depended upon tea for their daily drink. The rural population, more than any other class, were exposed to the dangers to health arising from impure water. But in every cup of tea they drank, and in every bottle of tea they took with them into the fields, the water had been boiled, and that was a great sanitary security for the health of the people. The Government ought to encourage the taking of such precautions, however small and unimportant they might appear to the rich. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been left alone, if he had not been contaminated by his surroundings or associated with the Party which had formulated the Tory policy of the last three years, he would never have made these proposals. When he first knew the Chancellor of the Exchequer the right hon. Gentleman had spikes in his boots which he used on the down grade of the
  376
  fair trade movement. The right hon. Gentleman's associations had worn down the sharp points of those spikes, and he-was now unable to stop even himself or to arrest his progress on the down grade. It was to be hoped that this matter would be pressed home, and that it would be brought to the notice of the people that in the great work of Empire-building, as some described it—although others called it Empire destroying—the Government were bemeaning themselves by imposing upon the shoulders of the worst-paid class of the community a tax which was larger, heavier, and more unbearable than the income tax levied upon the well-to-do classes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had charged him with having made the same speech every year for seven years. All he had to say was that he would continue to make the same speech every year as long as the Chancellor of the Exchequer continued to offer to this House his sophistries with regard to the justice of this tea duty, and to the necessity of making the labourers pay so much towards the taxation of this country. The labourers had paid their share in blood and misery and life-long suffering which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done nothing to mitigate. On the contrary, he had squandered his income in other directions and left the poor people where he found them. Not only this but he left them, worse off in the matter of taxation upon corn and flour and in other respects. And in the face of all this the right hon. Gentleman got up and interrupted a poor private Member by telling him that he had heard the same speech for seven years past. He had voted against this tax every year for the last twenty-two years, and he should vote against it upon that occasion with even more confidence and greater determination than he had done upon any previous occasion.
  (11.45.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 228; Noes, THE (Division List No. 114.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt, Sir Alex. E.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Elibank, Master of

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cawley, Frederick

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

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

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Fenwick, Charles

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton

  Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Chapman, Edward

  Finch, George H.

  Arnold-Forster. Hugh O.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Arrol, Sir William

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Flower, Ernest

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Coghili, Douglas Harry

  Forster, Henry William

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Foster, Sir Michael (Lon. Univ.

  Bailey, Jarmes (Walworth)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Foster, Phil. S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Balcarras, Lord

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Furness, Sir Christopher

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

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Gardner, Ernest

  Balfonr, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Cranborne, Viscount

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

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Gordon, Hn J. E (Elgin & Nairn)

  Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bignold, Arthur

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Grant, Corrie

  Bigwood, James

  Davenport, William Bromley-

  Green, Walford D. (Wedn'sbury

  Bill, Charles

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Gretton, John

  Black, Alexander William

  Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Bond, Edward

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Boscawen, Arthur Gritlith-

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Brassey, Albert

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Brigg, John

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Mid'x.

  Brook field, Colonel Montagu

  Doughty, George

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londond'y

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Win.

  Burns, John

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent Ashford

  Butcher, John George

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Harmsworth, K. Leicester

  Caldwell, James

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Hayne, Rt Hon. Charles Seale-

  Mitchell, William

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew-

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

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Helder, Augustus

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Skewes-Cox. Thomas

  Hermon-Hodge, Robt. Trotter

  Morgan, Dav. J. (Walthamstow

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Smith, H. C (North'd, Tyneside.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

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

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Moss, Samuel

  Spear, John Ward

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

  Holland, William Henry

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

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

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M' Taggart

  Hoult, Joseph

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bato)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Norman, Henry

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Thomas, David Alt. (Merthyr)

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Thomas, J. A (Glanv'gan, Gower

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

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

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Kenyon, James (Lancs., Bury)

  Partington, Oswald

  Tomkinson, James

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Keswick, William

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Kitson, Sir James

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Knowles, Lees

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C E (Taunt'n

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E (Notts.)

  Lawson, John Grant

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

  Purvis, Robert

  White, Luke (York. E. R.)

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Randles, John S.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Rankin, Sir James

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Leng, Sir John

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Williams, Rt Hn J. Powell-(Bir.

  Leveson-Gower. Fredk. N. S.

  Rea, Russell

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Levy, Maurice

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Long, Rt. H n. Walter (Bristol, S

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

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

  Lowe, Francis William

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Wolff, Gustay Wilhelm

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

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

  Round, James

  Wylie, Alexander

  M'Crae, George

  Russell, T. W.

  Wyndham, Ht. Hon. George

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Rutherford, John

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Younger, William

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Malcolm, Ian

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B (Isle of Wight

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

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Field, William

  M'Cann, James

  Blake, Edward

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Govern, T.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Gilhooly, James

  M'Kean, John

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hammond, John

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Harrington, Timothy

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Minch, Matthew

  Crean, Eugene

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Mooney, John J.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Joyce, Michael

  Murphy, John

  Delany, William

  Lundon, W.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Dillon, John

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

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

  Doogan, P. C.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Nolan, Joseph (Lough, South)

  Ffrench, Peter

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

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

  366

  367

  O'Brien, P. T. (Tipperary, N.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Sullivan, Donal

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Reddy, M.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

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

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Young, Samuel

  O'Dowd, John

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.

  Roche, John

  O'Malley, William

  Schwann, Charles E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES, CAP tain, Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  O'Mara, James

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

  Garfit, William

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

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

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Gordon, Hn. J E. (Elgin & Nairn

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Morgan, David. J. (Walthamstow

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  Mount, William Arthur

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gretton, John

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Bigwood, James

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Penn, John

  Bond, Edward

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Brassey, Albert

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick George

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bull, William James

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Purvis, Robert

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Pym, C. Guy

  Butcher, John George

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Randles, John S.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Helder, Augustus

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Henderson, Alexander

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Rea, Russell

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J (Birm.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hogg, Lindsay-

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Chapman, Edward

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Charrington, Spencer

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hoult, Joseph

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversham

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Round, James

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Russell, T. W.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Rutherford, John

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Keswick, William

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Knowles, Lees

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Laurie, Lieut-General

  Seely Maj J. E. B (Isle of Wight

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lawson, John Grant

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Carrie

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Davenport, William Bromley.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Dickson-Poynder Sir John P.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Spear, John Ward

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

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

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Doughty, George

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Douglass, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

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

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  Macartney, Rt. Hn W. G. Ellison

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Finch, George H.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Fisher, William Hayes

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fison, Frederick William

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Flower, Ernest

  Malcolm, Ian

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts)

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

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

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Calloway, William Johnson

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mitchell, William

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  378

  379

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks)

  Wills, Sir Frederick

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

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

  Wylie, Alexander

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

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Holland, William Henry

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon. N.

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Malley, William

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Mara, James

  Beaumont, Wentworth C B.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Black, Alexander William

  Joyce, Michael

  Partington, Oswald

  Blake, Edward

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Kitson, Sir James

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Brigg, John

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Price, Robert John

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Priestley, Arthur

  Burns, John

  Leng, Sir John

  Reddy, M.

  Caldwell, James

  Levy, Maurice

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Lundon, W.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Roche, John

  Cogan, Denis J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  M'Crae, George

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Crean, Eugene

  M'Govern, T.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Kean, John

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Delany, William

  M'Laren, Charles Benjamin.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dillon, John

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, Alf red (Glamorgan, E.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Minch, Matthew

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Elibank, Master of

  Mooney, John J.

  Ure, Alexander

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Ffrench, Peter

  Moss, Samuel

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Murphy, John

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Furness, Sir Christopher

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

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Gilhooly, James

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Norman, Henry

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

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Young, Samuel

  Hammond, John

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

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Harrington, Timothy

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Field and Mr. Broad hurst.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

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

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

  O'Dowd, John

  Resolutions to be reported tomorrow.
  Committee to sit again tomorrow.

  AMENDMENT OF LAW.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it is expedient to prolong the term of certain annuities, and to amend the law relating to the National Debt, the Customs, and the Inland Revenue."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he understood that the Resolution was a formal one, but he was quite certain that the vast majority of the Committee did not understand what it meant. He did not think it desirable that any Resolution, however formal, should be passed without its object being understood by the Committee.
  Sir M. HICKS BEACH: This Resolution is one which, in my own interest, I would be content not to pass. The effect of it is to enable the House to move Amendments to the Finance Bill in relation to matters not in the Budget at all. The Resolution is considered essential to the liberties of the House of Commons.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (VENTILATION.)
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the ventilation of the House.
The Committee was accordingly nominated of, Mr. Akers-Douglas, Mr. Dillon, Dr. Farquharson, Sir Michael Foster, Mr. Goddard, Mr. Penn, and Sir John Tuke.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That three be the quorum.—(Sir William Walrond.)

CREMATION BILL [LORDS].
Read a second time, and committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc.
Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the certificates from the examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with—
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order.
And also the certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with—

Cornwall Electric Power.

Erdington Tramways.

Finedon Urban District Water.

Newport Corporation.

Reading Gas.

Shepton Mallet Gas.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY (NEW LINES) BILL [H.L.]
A petition of Messrs. Travers, Smith and Braithwaite, and Robinson, of 4, Throgmorton Avenue, London, Solicitors, praying for leave to present a petition of Kinsman Hitchens and others, praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, although the time limited by Standing Order No. 92 for presenting such petition has expired; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and Standing Order No. 92 to be considered on Thursday next, in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said petition.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The order made on the 13th of February last discharged, and Bill committed.

MIDLAND COUNTIES JUNCTION RAILWAYS (SALE) ACT, 1901 (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill.
258
Order of the day for the Second Reading read, and discharged. Ordered, that the Bill be not further proceeded with.

SUTTON BRIDGE DOCK BILL [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill. Order of the day for the Second Reading read, and discharged. Ordered, that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
BROMLEY GAS BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
BROADSTAIRS GAS BILL.
Read 2a and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
NATIONAL TELEPHONE COMPANY (KINGSTON-UPON-HULL) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to order).
ISLE OF WIGHT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL [H.L.],
  SCOTTISH EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL [H.L.],
    STREET URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL [H.L.],
    Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
    BARKING GAS BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
PETITION.
  IMPERIAL INSTITUTE.
  Petition of the Imperial Institute of the United Kingdom, the Colonies and India, and the Isles of the British Seas, under their Common Seal, praying for leave to introduce a Bill to provide for placing the Imperial Institute under the management of the Board of Trade, and for other purposes; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  SOUTH AFRICA.
  The Spion Kop Despatches.

  LOCAL TAXATION (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Final Reports of His Majesty's Commissioners appointed to inquire into the subject of local taxation, in so far as relates to (1) Ireland; (2) Scotland.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION ACT, 1889.
  Minute by the Board of Education sanctioning the subjects to be taught under Clause 8 of the Technical Instruction Act, 1889, for the city of Bath. (Third Minute.)

  INEBRIATES ACTS, 1879 TO 1899.
  Rules for retreats licensed under the Acts in Scotland, approved by the Secretary for Scotland on the 14th April, 1902.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LONDON WATER BILL.
  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. 40.)

THE LATE LORD KIMBERLEY.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND LORD PRIVY SEAL (The MARQUESS of SALISBURY): My Lords, before we go to the business I think it is proper that I should say a few words to note the very great loss which this House has undergone since we parted for the holidays. The death of the Earl of Kimberley is a sad mark in the annals of this House. His position here was very peculiar He enjoyed great influence, and had a power in this House more than he perhaps had in other parts of the country, but his loss is a very great one because of the peculiar position which he occupied and the great influence he enjoyed here. One of the great peculiarities of his position was that he wholly belonged in a public sense to the House of Lords. I have been trying to think, but I cannot remember any other case of a Leader of this House who was never in the House of Commons.
EARL SPENCER: The Earl of Rosebery.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I forgot Lord Rosebery. Lord Kimberley was a man marked out by great qualities of a peculiar kind. He was a man of great intellect, great learning, great knowledge of public affairs, and almost unequalled experience, and he invited intercourse with all men by the kindness and affability of his manners and his great personal popularity. I think, however, his marked peculiarity was his singular impartiality in public affairs. I do not say that he was absolutely impartial—under our system of government that is impossible, and I suppose that a man who is absolutely impartial can bear no leading part in the administration of our form of government—but if he was not absolutely free from all bias, he came as near it as. I think, any man whom we have listened to and followed in this House. He could not have been absolutely free from bias; if he had been, he would have been like some public men who lost their influence simply because they were never for a long time on one side or another. That is not the way our system of politics works. But the peculiarity of Lord Kimberley was that, while he was sufficiently a Party man always to be faithful to his Party, and regarded and followed by them with great devotion, he never allowed it to be seen, either in his conduct or his public utterances, that any bias of any kind governed him. He had the art of maintaining the appearance and the reality of great impartiality; and the reality was greater than the appearance, because he always could select the point on which it was possible to lean without appearance of bias or partiality, and yet that would be the point which brought him into close connection and harmony with the school of thought to which during the whole of his life he was devoted.
Lord Kimberley was a Whig, and in the presence of the noble Lord opposite I dare not say the last of the Whigs, but he had all the peculiarity and all the honour which attaches to fidelity to that school. He consequently enjoyed an influence out of all proportion to the more brilliant qualities which have given

261
predominance in this House or the other. He was followed not only by those on whom he could have called for a partisan vote, but he always had an influence largely in excess of that given by his Party position. Again and again I have by experience noticed how powerful his influence in argument and in division was in this House, even on questions and at times when the predominance of his Party was not assured. We cannot part from him without a deep regret at the ability, the character, and the honour we have lost, and without feeling that if our somewhat inexplicable system of Party government is to succeed, it can only be because there shall be from time to time in this House, and in the other, men whose fidelity to Party ties and to the Party school of thought is yet so tempered by fairness, impartiality, and honour, that they will always enjoy an influence considerably in excess of that which their natural political position would confer on them. I feel that we have suffered a very serious loss, and I trust that in the future we may from time to time have men whom we shall regard with the same feelings of affection and the same trust with which on all sides of the House we have regarded the Earl of Kimberley.
EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I rise to follow the noble Marquess in the very admirable remarks which he has just made with regard to our friend Lord Kimberley. We must all rejoice when we find that the traditions of this country with regard to Party controversy have been maintained and exemplified. I refer to that feeling in Party politics which, after a bitter contest may have occurred, enables all acrimony to disappear, and opponents who may from time to time have been in active controversy admit with generosity the good qualities of their opponents, and state them frankly in this House. Long may that state of things last! It is a thing we are proud of in this country; and we thank the noble Marquess for having so generously and clearly expressed those views in what he has said about one with whom he has often been in active conflict, and with whom he has had argument, always fearlessly expressed by Lord Kimberley, but in a way not to rouse feeling on this side in this House. We approach the subject
262
possibly from a somewhat different standpoint. We knew Lord Kimberley not only as a great Parliamentary figure, but also as a private and political friend, and with more knowledge than possibly the noble Marquess or those opposite had. We have had a terrible loss. We have lost an able counsellor, a tearless Liberal. Whether he is the last of the Whigs or whether he was only a strong Liberal I do not know, but he was one who never advanced views of whose justice he was not convinced, or views which he thought would not conduce to the benefit of his fellow countrymen. No doubt he often differed from the noble Marquess and noble Lords opposite, and sometimes he ex pressed those views in strong terms, but I doubt whether he ever did so in a manner which gave offence to your Lordships.
The noble Marquess truly said that we very rarely have had in this House a man of such great Parliamentary experience. The whole of that experience was connected with your Lordships' House. He had a very long experience in administration. Fifty years ago he was a member of Her Majesty's Government, and from that time to the last few days before his death he took the deepest interest in politics and public affairs. I heard the other day from his son that up to within a few days of his death Lord Kimberley, with that keenness and clearness of mind which always characterised him, followed not only the debates in Parliament on public measures, but actually had the debate on the last public measure of the Government—namely, the Education Bill—read to him in extenso, and he discussed the measure. I mention this to show his deep interest in public affairs, and how his whole life was surrounded and imbued with a devotion to public duty. We have probably had more eloquent men in this House; but his learning and classical education were always conspicuous in the language he used and in the sentences with which he adorned his speeches. He was singularly clear-minded, and he had an extraordinary talent for mastering details. That gave him a power of mastering Bills in Parliament which few in this House or in the country are aware of. He was a typical Englishman in many ways. I

263
need not refer to his love for sport. He was a very keen sportsman, an excellent shot, and in his last days he referred with the greatest possible affection to his hunting when he was young. He was a bold and fearless rider. In country affairs he was an exemplary landlord. He took an intelligent interest in agricultural questions, and was not only a liberal, but a critical, landlord. He was beloved by his tenantry; he took part in all county business. For many years he was Chairman of the Board of Guardians in his district of Norfolk, and I believe he was Chairman of the County Council. His great power and ability were bestowed on these local affairs just as much as they were on public affairs. This knowledge and experience gained in local and county affairs added greatly to his weight, influence, and ability when he faced what may be called the higher duties of public administration Lord Kimberley occupied nearly every great office in the State, and, from what I have heard, he left behind him, at each office which he filled, the highest possible reputation as an administrator. His own people admired his activity, assiduity, and loyalty to all interests, and, whether at the India Office, the Colonial or Foreign Office, all those remarkable qualities were eminently shown.
I would refer to one particular point which always struck me very much in considering Lord Kimberley's character. It may not be known that naturally Lord Kimberley was an exceedingly impulsive man; but, though he might take an impulsive view of any subject brought before him, he never allowed that view to prevail until he had tested it by his common sense and acuteness of mind, and no one will say that Lord Kimberley ever rashly undertook anything or rashly supported any policy with which he was connected. Another point in his character was one which we all admire and must remember—and that was his determination to do his duty even at personal risk. I would allude to two occasions, which, probably, are familiar to some of your Lordships, and which will illustrate this point in his character. In January of 1894 the Government of Mr. Gladstone had carried through in another place a very important measure of local
264
government, which is generally known as the Parish Councils Act. At the time when it came to this House, early in January, Lord Kimberley was ill, and my noble friend behind me, the Marquess of Ripon, was entrusted with the management of that Bill. He introduced that Bill, and it got the Second Reading, I think, on January 25th, and the Bill went into Committee on February 1st. On February 1st Lord Kimberley undertook the charge of the Bill. Perhaps it is not known to your Lordships that a very few days before—I have this on the highest authority, namely, that of the physician who was called in—as late as January 16th in that year, Lord Kimberley was in a most dangerous state of health. He had had a violent attack of pneumonia; his temperature was abnormally high, and there was a good deal of difficulty in controlling him, because he was delirious, and the doctor considered that he was in considerable danger of his life. A few days after this, Lord Kimberley declared that it was his duty, and that he must come to London to take charge of the Bill. The physician said to him, "Well, I do not know how to control you, but if you were a poor patient of mine, in hospital, I would say that you must not rise from your bed for a month." But so determined was he, and so convinced that it was his duty to be here, that he came to this House, as your Lordships know, and conducted, in a most master ul way, one of the most complicated measures that ever came before your Lordships.
Another occasion was, I think, a very pathetic one, for it was the last occasion on which my noble friend ever appeared in this House. I believe it was on February 14th, 1901, when he was here for the last time and made his last speech. It was on the occasion of the debate on the Address to the King after the death of Queen Victoria, and those who had seen my noble friend a few days before were perfectly aware of the state of his health. He was exceedingly ill, and he was exceedingly emotional, and those who had seen him before he came to the House felt the greatest anxiety. Personally, I never went through greater anxiety than when I sat by him listening

265
to him on that occasion. But, owing to I his determination and his mastery over himself, he was able to get through that duty, which was one that few men in the state of health he was in would have undertaken, and it was done at great risk of his life. I might dwell on other points of the noble Earl's character, but I have, I think, said enough to show: how great, in my opinion, is the loss of Lord Kimberley to this House. We have lost not only a great friend, we have lost an able and experienced counsellor. We hope that his memory will long remain before the country, and that others may, from that memory, be urged to emulate his high honour, his great industry, and his great toleration, combined with fearlessness. I feel that when we are alluding to him tonight we may say with perfect truth that we have lost not only a very great statesman, but that we shall with difficulty find his equal—one who shall be such an honour to the country and of such assistance and credit to your Lordships' House.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I need scarcely tell your Lordships that I do not rise under any belief that I could add anything to what has been said so admirably by the Prime Minister and by my noble friend who has just sat down. But, as I believe that I have been associated with the late Lord Kimberley for a longer continuous period in political and private friendship than anyone now living in this House, I cannot resist adding a few words by which I may express how cordially I agree with all that has been said by those who have preceded me. There is but one further remark I would desire to make, because it points to a characteristic of Lord Kimberley to which, I think, allusion has not yet been made, and which, I think, was very remarkable, and very well known to those who enjoyed his intimate friendship. I have never known, in a long life, any man so perfectly free from all taint of self-seeking as was Lord Kimberley. He bad a natural ambition—an ambition which it was proper and right a man of his powers should feel—to attain a position in which those powers might be exercised for the benefit of his country; but I venture to say that throughout the long course of my connection with Lord Kimberley I never
266
recollect—indeed, I may say I know-there never was a single occasion upon which, in considering any complicated public question that came before him, he thought for one moment of how the course which he was likely to take would affect his own personal position. He looked to the public interest, and to that alone. It may be partly, perhaps, owing to this that he enjoyed, as the noble Marquess has said, in this House for some period a greater reputation than he did in the country, for he never sought popularity, and he never resorted to the means too common for attaining that object. He looked to the public interest. He was content to do his duty. He grew, I think, in the estimation of the public down to the day of his death, and I doubt not that hereafter men will look up to him as one of the brightest examples of an English statesman.

MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order); Amendments made; Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 41.)
House adjourned at Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.