Sitting of 9 June 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILL [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz:—

  Hastings Harbour District Railway (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords]

  Imperial Institute Bill [Lords]

  Liverpool Cathedral Bill [Lords]

  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

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

  75
  Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:
  Oyster and Mussel Fishery Provisional Orders Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time tomorrow.

  LIMPSFIELD AND OXTED WATER BILL, MANCHESTER CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL,
  Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE AND DUKIN-FIELD CORPORATIONS (ALMA BRIDGE, ETC.) BILL [LORDS].
  Verbal Amendments made; Bill read the third time, and passed with Amendments.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (SUBWAYS AND TRAMWAYS) BILL (KING'S CONSENT SIGNIFIED).
  Read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL,
  LONDON, TILBURY, AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY BILL,
  Read the third time, and passed.
NEWCASTLE AND GATESHEAD WATER BILL [LORDS],
  SWINDON UNITED GAS BILL [LORDS].
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
ABERTILLERY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [LORDS],
  BRADFORD-UPON-AVON GAS BILL [LORDS].
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  SWANSEA CORPORATION WATER BILL [LORDS].
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time tomorrow.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to Middlesex County Council Tramways Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to Chigwell, Loughton, and Woodford Gas Bill [Lords], Scottish Equitable Life Assurance Society Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Coatbridge Gas." [Coatbridge Gas Order Confirmation Bill (Lords).]

  COATBRIDGE GAS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [LORDS].
  Ordered, under Section 7 (2) of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, to be considered upon Wednesday.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against; From Barnsley (five); Ibstock; and, New Swannington; to lie upon the Table.
  PHYSICAL TRAINING (EXISTING PROVISIONS AND SYSTEM).
  Petition from Manchester and Salford, for inquiry by a Royal Commission; to lie upon the Table.
  PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
  Petition from Halifax, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WIFEBEATING AND OUTRAGES ON CHILDREN (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT OF OFFENDERS).
  Petition from Royal and other Burghs of Scotland, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  POPULATION, NUMBER OF ELECTORS, AND REPRESENTATION.
  Return [presented 6th June] to be printed. [No. 205.]
  INEBRIATES ACTS, 1879 to 1899 (TRANSFERS OF INMATES OF INEBRIATE REFORMATORIES).
  Paper [presented 6th June] to be printed. [No. 206.]
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877, (OXFORD).
  Copy presented, of Statute made by the President and Fellows of Magdalen College, Oxford, on 11th December 1901, amending Clause 8 of Statute XII. (Grammar Schools) of the Statutes of the College [by Act]: to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 207.]
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
  Copy presented, of Statute made by the Governing Body of New College, Oxford, on 15th January 1902, amending Statute III., Clause 11 [Marriage and Residence of Tutorial Fellows) of the Statutes of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 208.]
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (CAMBRIDGE).
  Copy presented of Statute made by the Governing Body of Christ's College, Cambridge, on 7th February, 1902, amending Section 2 of Chapter XXXVII. of the College Statutes [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 209.]
  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
  Copy presented of Rules made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the provisions of The Capital Punishment Amendment Act, 1868, for regulating the execution of Capital Sentences [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1809.
  Copy presented of Report by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, that they are of opinion that the Highland and Invergarry and Fort Augustus Railway Companies Order ought to be dealt with by Private Bill and not by Provisional Order [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  GAS AND WATER WORKS FACILITIES ACT, 1870.
  Copy presented of Report by the Board of Trade as to dispensing with the consent of the Wood Green Urban District Council in the case of the Hornsey Gas Provisional Order [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 210.]
  GAS AND WATER WORKS FACILITIES ACT, 1870.
  Copy presented of Report by the Board of Trade as to dispensing with the consent of the Shirland and Higham Parish Council in the case of the Clay Cross Gas Provisional Order [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 211.]
  GAS AND WATER WORKS FACILITIES ACT, 1870.
  Copy presented of Report by the Board of Trade as to dispensing with the consent of the Bothwell Parish Council in the case of the Bothwell and Uddington Gas Provisional Order [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 212.]
  ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1902–3 (SOUTH AFRICAN WAR).
  Copy presented of Statement showing approximately under principal sub-heads the sums still required to be expended on the Army in South Africa in 1902–3 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION (PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, ETC).
  Copy presented, of Statistics of Public Elementary Schools, Evening Continution Schools, and Training Colleges, 1900–1901 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  FINANCIAL STATEMENT, 1902–3 (AS REVISED).
  Copy ordered, "of Table giving Revised Balance Sheet, 1902–03, in substitution for Table VII. in Financial Statement previously presented [No. 141, of Session 1902]."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 204.]

  ALLOTMENTS (SCOTLAND).
  Return ordered "showing the proceedings of Parish Councils in regard to allotments and common pasture,

  79
  under Section 26 of The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, and the proceedings of County Councils in regard to representation by Parish Councils for orders, under The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894, Section 26, authorising land to be taken on lease compulsorily for allotments, since the date of the last Return on the 4th July last."—(Mr. Eugene Wason.)

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (PROSECUTIONS).
  Return ordered, showing—

  (1) The number of persons proceeded against under the Act from the 1st day of January to the 1st day of June, 1902.

  (2) The offences with which they were charged.

  (3) Result of proceedings—(a) discharged; (b) convicted.

  (4) Number committed—(a) six months and above five; (b) five months and above four; (c) four months and above three; (d) three months and above two; (e) two months and above one; (f) one month and above fourteen days; (g) fourteen days and under.

  (5) To find sureties or recognisances.

  (6) Appeals—(a) confirmed; (b) reduced; (c) reversed.

  (7) Number of persons undergoing imprisonment on the 1st day of June, 1902."

  "And, also a Return containing the names of all persons proceeded against under the Act during the same period, with the result of proceedings in each case."—(Mr. Delany.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  South African War—Pensions for Relatives of British and Boer Slain.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to provide from the revenues of the Transvaal pensions for the widows and relatives of both British and Boers who have fallen in South Africa; and whether, seeing the difficulties of collecting taxation from the Transvaal after the establishment of
  80
  responsible government, he will undertake before any charge is levied on the mines that these pensions shall be a first charge.
  (Answer.) Pensions are already provided for the widows and children of Members of the British forces who are entitled to be pensioned. There is no intention to make any other provision.—(Colonial Office.)

  Railway Car Lavatory Cisterns.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the North British Railway Company have yet acted on the suggestion contained in a letter dated the 20th January, 1902, in which Mr. Armitage (Board of Trade inspector), in commenting on an accident which occurred to a railway porter at Edinburgh on the 7th September last, recommends that the practice of filling railway car lavatory cisterns from the standpipe in the six-foot way should be discontinued, and that the lavatory cisterns should either be filled when the coaches are in the carriage sidings or from the platform.
  (Answer.) No, Sir. The Railway Company concerned state that the standpipes are in the most convenient place for the work, and that when this work is performed in the ordinary course by the carriage cleaners, a look-out man is provided. The circumstances under which, in the particular ease referred to, a porter was employed in getting water were exceptional, as pointed out by the assistant inspecting officer, and the Railway Company explain that the cans might have been filled from a tap on the platform.—(Board of Trade.)

  Red Sea Lights.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state whether the work of constructing a lighthouse on Jibel (Mount) Teir, Red Sea, has been commenced; and, if so, can he say when the work is expected to be finished.
  (Answer.) I informed the House on the 5th ultimo that the work of construction of this and the other lights was to be actively pushed on till the hot weather set in, by which time it was hoped that

  81
  all except the Moka light would be nearly complete. From information, however, which has since reached the Foreign Office, we have learnt that the foundations of the lighthouse on Jibel Tier have not as yet been begun, and that it will not be finished for fully nine months.—(Foreign Office.)

  Parcel Post with the United States.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can state whether arrangements have been concluded for a parcel post between the United Kingdom and the United States of America and, if so, whether he will state particulars.
  (Answer.) Negotiations having for their object the establishment of a parcel post between this country and the United States have for some time been in progress; but no statement as to the final result can yet be made.—(Post Office.)

  Carrigan (Cavan) Postal Facilities.
  MR. M'GOVERN: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, is he aware that complaints have been made as to the want of proper postal facilities in connection with Carrigan sub-office, Ballinagh, county Cavan, owing to the fact that the letters are only delivered on four days in each week, and that there is no means of replying to a letter until the day after it has been delivered; and could the Department see its way to have a daily delivery of letters, and have two or three pillar letter boxes erected in the district, which could be cleared by the rural postman each day on his way back to Ballinagh.
  (Answer.) No complaints have reached the Postmaster General in regard to the postal service at Carrigan, Ballinagh, county Cavan, but he will inquire whether it is practicable to effect any improvement in the existing arrangements, and the result shall be communicated to the hon. Member as soon as possible.—(Post Office.)

  Richard Cloudesley Charity.
  MR. LOUGH: To ask the Parliamentary Member of the Charity Commission whether the Trustees of the
  82
  Richard Cloudesley Charity have submitted their accounts for the year ended 31st March last; and, if so, whether they are open to public inspection; and whether, if they have not been received, he will ascertain and inform the House when they will be available.
  (Answer.) The latest accounts of the Richard Cloudesley Charity which have been submitted to the Charity Commissioners are those for the year ending 31st December, 1901. They may be seen on application at the office of the Commission.—(Charity Commission.)

  Thefts from Bonded Warehouses.
  MR. ALBAN GIBBS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the recent police case in Liver-pool, where the plaintiff in an action, Welsh v. Duckworth and others, was stated by the judge to have been for years stealing at the bonded warehouses; and whether he will give such directions to the Board of Customs as will ensure to merchants, whose goods are stored in such warehouses, an immunity from such tampering with their goods, as was shown to have taken place in the case mentioned.
  (Answer.) In September last the attention of the local officers of Customs was drawn to certain suspicious circumstances in connection with the stock in the warehouse to which the allegations of ex-Police-Sergeant Walsh relate, and a thorough examination of the contents of the warehouse was thereupon made. In two instances excessive deficiencies were discovered, on which, by direction of the Board, the duty was required to be paid. The Board are informed that as a result of this examination certain employees of the warehouse-keeper were discharged on suspicion of having tampered with the goods; and since then the officers have no reason to believe that any irregularities have taken place. Under the standing regulations applicable to all bonded warehouses, the warehouse-keeper is alone responsible to the owner of any goods deposited in his warehouse for their safe custody and for their proper delivery. He is also answerable to the Crown for the duties on such goods. In circumstances such as those referred to in the Question the merchant should look to the warehouse-keeper for his remedy.—(Treasury.)

  Income Tax—Assessment of Foreign Artistes in England.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state what steps are taken to ensure that income tax is paid upon the earnings of foreign musicians and artistes in London during the season.
  (Answer.) Foreign artistes exercising their vocation in this country are called upon to make returns of their profits for purposes of assessment to income tax, and are assessed in the usual way.—(Treasury.)

  Taxation of Transvaal Gold Mines.
  MR. BLACK: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he anticipates any recovery for the Imperial Exchequer from the Transvaal gold mines during the current financial year; and, if so, how will it be applied.
  (Answer.) I have already informed the House that it is our intention, after the termination of hostilities, to earmark certain sources of revenue in the Transvaal and to apply them from time to time to the service of some portion of the loans raised for the war. No time will be lost in making arrangements for this purpose, but whether any sum will be available from this source during the present financial year I cannot at present say. It depends largely on the rapidity with which the main industries of the country, and the revenue, recover from the effects of the war.—(Treasury.)

  Revised Balance Sheet, 1902–3.
  MR. MANSFIELD: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will issue a financial statement, similar to that issued at Budget time, showing the position of the estimated revenue and expenditure for the current year, according to his statement of the 4th June, 1902.
  (Answer.) Yes.*—(Treasury.)

  British Officers of Burma Battalions—Allowances on Service in China.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will make inquiry as
  *See Appendix to this Volume.
  84
  to the reason why the Indian Pay Department refused to continue to the British officers in the only Burma battalion of Madras Infantry which has been serving in China the local allowance of 100 rupees per mensem granted to them under paragraph 847 Part 1., Volume I., Army Regulations (India), Sec. IV., although their extra allowances have been paid in China to the native ranks of the same battalion; and, whether, considering the officers have to pay their servants in China the extra Burma rates (being double those of bearers and syces of the ordinary Indian Army), with additional expense for their rations, clothes, fuel and lighting, and extra cost of men-establishment, the decision of the Pay Department can be revised.
  (Answer.) In the Regulations quoted by my hon. friend it is distinctly stated that to the British officers of Burma battalions the Burma allowance is admissible only whilst present with their regiments in Burma; and, on the other hand, that to the native ranks the local allowance will be continued when they are employed elsewhere on field service or on duty or on foreign service beyond sea. The extra expense referred to in the Question is equally entailed upon officers of all regiments when serving in China, and I am not prepared to give any order which would have the effect of placing the officers of the Burma battalion in a more advantageous position than the officers of other regiments employed on the same service.—(India Office.)

  Trawling on the Norfolk Coast.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty will allow a gunboat to patrol the coast of Norfolk between Cromer and Salthouse during the months of May and June for the protection of the line and whelk fishermen, who have suffered from the action of trawlers in fouling their gear.
  (Answer.) Owing to a complaint received last week as to the destruction of fishermen's gear between Cromer and Salthouse by trawlers, a coastguard

  85
  cruiser has been despatched to those waters, and is now there for the protection of the fisheries. A gun boat already visits the whelk grounds at least once a week during the months of May, June, and July, and it is not considered necessary that a gunboat should be permanently detailed for this particular duty.—(Admiralty.)

  Dingwall—New Barracks.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for War, seeing that the depôt for the 3rd Battalion Sea forth Highlanders, Ross-shire Militia, is at Dingwall, will he explain why the regiment and greater part of the staff are quartered at Fort George; and will he say whether any of the sites in the vicinity of Dingwall, such as are suitable for barracks, have yet been inspected by the War Office.
  (Answer.) I have nothing to add to the replies which have been given to previous questions on this subject put by the hon. Member.—(War Office.)

  Coronation Processions—Facilities for Service Officers.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for War if at some points it will be possible to allow officers of the Army and Navy and Auxiliary Forces in uniform to stand on foot within the lines of sentries during the Coronation processions, as at Her late Most Gracious Majesty's funeral, but on the distinct understanding that they are not to attempt to follow the processions.
  (Answer.) I am afraid that it will not be possible to carry out this suggestion. Some confusion was caused at the late Queen's funeral by those within the line of sentries.—(War Office.)

  Death of C. V. Freer, Cape Mounted Specials.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Charles Vernon Freer, a private in the Cape Mounted Specials, when recovering from a wound received at Tweebosch, died at the General Hospital, Kimberley, after being put under chloroform for the purpose of extracting teeth; whether
  86
  he will order an inquiry into the circumstances of this man's death; whether he will state why his parents received no official notice of his death, and why the friends of deceased at Kimberley were not permitted to see the remains or attend the funeral; and whether compensation will be made to his parents for the loss sustained by his death.
  (Answer.) The man died as stated in the Question. As the verdict at the inquest was to the effect that "due care was observed by the professional men engaged in the operation, and no blame attaches to either the surgeon or to the dentist," no inquiry appears necessary. I have no information regarding the notification of the death or the treatment of the friends of the deceased. No question of compensation arises.—(War Office.)

  Coronation—Special Allowance to Militia Officers.
  MR. HOZIER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any special allowance will be granted to Militia officers to meet the extra mess and other expenses to which they will be put in the event of their regiments being moved from their training grounds in the first instance to Aldershot for the Royal Review, and subsequently to London for the Coronation.
  (Answer.) The Regulations do not admit of any special allowances other than those for conveyance and travelling.—(War Office.)

(2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  South Africa—Terms of Peace.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there are any pledges or assurances given to the Boers by Lord Kitchener which have not been made public.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. Balfour,): As far as His Majesty's Government are aware, the answer to the Question of the hon. Member is in the negative.

  Grant to Lord Kitchener.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether ample time will be given for discussion on the Report of the Vote to Lord Kitchener.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope that much time will not be required for the Report of a Vote which has already been assented to.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: So far as I am concerned I only wish for time in which to make a protest on behalf of myself and my hon. friends, who feel very strongly on this matter. Will the Report of the Vote be taken tonight?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not see how it can he taken tonight unless the debate in Committee on the Budget finishes at an unexpectedly early hour.

  Relief and Resettlement of Loyalists.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state what financial arrangements, if any, have been made for the purpose of assisting the restoration of the loyalists of South Africa to their homes, and supplying those who, owing to war losses, are unable to provide themselves with food, shelter, and the necessary amount of seed, stock, and implements, for the resumption of their normal occupations.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Part of the sum allotted for relief and resettlement out of the amount voted last year as a grant in aid of the revenue of the new colonies has been expended in assisting lovalists returning to their homos, and further sums will be placed at Lord Milner's disposal for the purpose of ensuring that the assistance given to the loyalists needing help shall be not less generous than that given to the burghers.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: How much has already been expended?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I must ask for notice of that.

  Cape Constitution.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to the agitation by capitalists in Cape Colony for the suspension of the Cape Constitution, and whether he has received any communications from the Cape Cabinet on the subject; whether the suspension of the Cape Constitution, which was created by an Act of the Imperial Parliament, can be effected by any method, and, if so, by what method, other than that of legislation in the Imperial Parliament; and, whether he will give an undertaking that the sanction of the Imperial Parliament be a preliminary to any alteration or modification of the Cape Constitution.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of any agitation by capitalists on the subject; but I have received through the Governor of the Cape Colony a petition addressed to him by forty-two members of the Cape Parliament in favour of a suspension of the Constitution of the Cape Colony; but I have not yet received the observations of the Cape Ministers upon it. The present Cape Constitution was created by letters patent and local legislation. I understand that for the suspension of the Cape Constitution an Act of the Imperial Parliament would be required.

  Sales of Boer Farms.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the effect of the terms of surrender agreed upon with the Boer representatives on the sales of land belonging to burghers, to make good the charges for their families in the concentration camps.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information beyond that contained in telegram No. 24 in C. 1096.
  MR. CHANNING: But are the sales to be proceeded with or not?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not like to give a positive answer, but I think no fresh sales will take place.

  Concentration Camps.
  MR. PAULTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any arrangements can be made for utilising the accommodation provided for housing the occupants of the concentration camps upon the farms that have been cleared, and where the homesteads have been destroyed.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, sir, I understand that this accommodation can and will be utilised for the purpose suggested.

  War Pensions.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the number of pensions granted in respect of the South African war, either to soldiers themselves or to widows and dependants, up to 31st May, 1902; and what are the numbers of soldiers, widows, and dependants who will thus receive pensions.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): The number of soldiers who, having been discharged medically unfit for further service on account of disability due to the South African War, have been awarded pensions, is 14,398. The numbers of widows and children of soldiers who have died through the war, who have been awarded pensions are: widows, 2,863; children, 4,184. It is not possible to give any estimate of the numbers of future recipients of such pensions.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is the whole value of these pensions equivalent to the Kitchener grant?

  Military Censorship.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, now that peace has been concluded in South Africa, whether he will state when the Military censorship on telegrams, letters, and newspapers, will be discontinued.
  The following Question also appeared on the Paper—
  MR. BRAND: To ask the Secretary of State for War, in view of the importance to business generally, whether he will state when the censorship on letters and telegrams in South Africa will be withdrawn.
  LORD STANLEY: My right hon. friend cannot make any statement on this subject at present.

  Repatriation of Boer Prisoners.
  MR. PAULTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether the repatriation of Boer prisoners will commence at once; whether any priority will be given to those who took the oath of allegiance before the surrender of the Boer forces; and what steps will be taken to repatriate the Boers who are interned in I Portuguese territory.
  LORD STANLEY: Repatriation will commence as soon as possible, but I am not in a position to give further details at present.

  Restocking of Farms.
  MR. PAULTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether any arrangements are being made for the disposal of the stocks of cattle, horses, and supplies which will no longer be necessary for military purposes, with a view to securing them for those whose farms have been cleared during the recent operations in South Africa.
  LORD STANLEY: The disposal of the stocks in question is now being carefully considered by the authorities in South Africa, and full consideration is being given to the points suggested in the Question.

  Private Slight, 12th Lancers.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the report of an inquest held at Ballincollig, county Cork, on 22nd May, on the body of Private William Slight, of the 12th Lancers, who had only seven months service, and who had complained of being tired of service in the Army; and can he state with what kind of bullet this soldier committed suicide.
  LORD STANLEY: My right hon. friend's attention has been drawn to this case. Private Slight appears to have died of a wound self-inflicted by a service rifle, presumably using the ordinary service bullet.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the noble Lord aware that it was sworn at the inquest that the deceased's great coat contained Dum-dum bullets, and that he committed suicide with one of them?
  LORD STANLEY: I am not aware of that.

  Royal Naval Victualling Yard, Deptford.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, if he can say whether a reduction of hands at the Royal Naval Victualling Yard, Deptford, within the next few weeks, is in contemplation; and, if so, whether, seeing that a number of men are now working overtime, he will consider the advisability of discontinuing overtime and of keeping extra men employed in order not to add to the number of men in the district already unemployed.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): No reduction of the numbers of workpeople at the Royal Naval Victualling Yard, Deptford, during the next few weeks is in contemplation. That being so, the points referred to in the second part of the hon. and gallant Member's Question do not arise.

  H.M.S. "Terrible."
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether H.M.S. "Terrible" has left the China station for home; if so, what was the port of departure and date of leaving it, and what amount of tons of coal she shipped prior to commencing the voyage.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The "Terrible" has not left the China station, and no orders have been given for her return.

  Chinese Indemnity Payments.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
  92
  whether he can state the date approximately that the Chinese indemnity bonds will be ready for distribution to private claimants.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): A scheme for the issue of bonds for the British share of the indemnity has been proposed by the British delegate on the commission of bankers at Shanghai and is under consideration by His Majesty's Minister at Peking. I am not yet able to say when the bonds will be ready for distribution. His Majesty's Government have, however, agreed that death claims of £100 and under shall be paid in cash out of the first half-yearly instalments, due on the 1st of July.

  Uganda Railway—Cost of Construction and Equipment.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state what has been the total outlay on the Uganda Railway up to the time of the rail-head reaching Victoria Nyanza; what is the estimated sum required to finish the permanent way and fully equip the line with rolling stock for goods and passenger traffic; what is the estimated amount of the annual charges for working expenses; and the estimated annual loss when interest on capital and working expenses have been charged.
  LORD CRANBORNE: It is impossible to say what the total outlay on the Uganda Railway had been on the exact date, viz. the 20th of December on which the rails reached the lake but at the end of the year it had reached a total of £4,832,501, 15s. 3d. The managing member of the Uganda Railway Committee has just returned from his inspection, and I hope therefore to be shortly in a position to inform the House of the further expenditure which will be required.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: Will the noble Lord see that we have this information before the Vote is taken?
  LORD CRANBORNE: I will see if it is possible. I can assure the House there is no disposition on the part of the

  93
  Government to take the House by surprise. We shall take care to give the fullest information in our power.

  Emin Fad el Allah.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether it is now admitted that the French expedition which effected the destruction of the Emin Fad el Allah killed that chief in British territory; and whether that chief was at the time engaged in negotiations with the British authorities.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Fad el Allah in July last committed a raid on a district where the French had a post. He was pursued by them into the British sphere of influence, defeated and mortally wounded. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where the encounter took place?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I cannot do so from memory.

  Preferential Tariff for Empire Products.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give an assurance that, should definite proposals, upon which the Colonics may he generally agreed, be submitted to His Majesty's Government in favour of the establishment of a system of mutual trade preference within the Empire, the House of Commons will be consulted before the Government is committed by any expression of approval to such a policy.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am unable to give an answer to such a hypothetical Question.

  Colliery Special Rules in South Wales.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has submitted to the Members of the Monmouthshire and South Wales Coal Owners' Association certain modifications or Amendments to the Colliery Special Rules that he proposes to make in respect to timbering,
  94
  under the provisions of sub-section (2), of section 54, of the Act of 1887; whether the proposed alterations have been submitted to the non-associated employers and to the colliery workmen of South Wales or to their representatives; and, if not, will he, before proceeding further in this matter, instruct the mines inspector for the district to afford non-associated employers and colliery workmen the same opportunities for considering the proposed changes as are being given to the associated owners.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): I propose to make new rules with regard to timbering in South Wales on the same basis as those recently adopted in other parts of the country, but with any modifications which the circumstances of the district render necessary. No formal proposal has yet been made, but the draft rules are being discussed informally: and both the Coal Owners' Association and the representatives of the workmen are being consulted. I cannot at this stage, before the rules are formulated, consult the non-associated coal owners individually: but at a later stage, before the rules come into force, every owner will have an opportunity of stating any objections he may have.

  Metropolitan Street Outrage—Murder of Mr. Murray Spicer.
  MR. MILDMAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Murray Spicer, lately of the 35th Company Imperial Yeomanry, who has succumbed to injuries inflicted by roughs on the night of the peace illuminations; and whether he will consider the advisability of giving instructions to the police that they should, on Coronation night, deal severely with any such conduct in the streets as was indulged in, frequently with impunity, on Monday last. Perhaps the House will allow me to say, in putting the Question, that Mr. Murray Spicer was a trooper in my Yeomanry Company, and that no more trustworthy and conscientious soldier served the King in South Africa.
  The following Question also appeared on the Paper:—
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the murder of a merchant of the City of London, Mr. Murray Spicer, by a gang of roughs in Gower Street on the night of the peace celebrations; and whether, with the view of preventing such crimes by similar bands during the forthcoming Coronation celebrations, he will consider the advisability of drafting extra police from beyond the metropolitan area, or of making use of the services of the military, for the more effective patrolling of the streets of London, outside the line of route of the procession, during that period.
  MR. RITCHIE: My attention has been drawn to a newspaper report of this case. The police are making every effort to bring to justice those who are responsible for Mr. Spicer's death, and three arrests have already been effected. Arrangements were made some time ago for the provision of additional police for the preservation of order in the metropolis during the Coronation, and the police will, of course, take such action as may be necessary to suppress disorder in the streets on the night of June 26th.
  MR. FLOWER: Can the right, hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that on Monday night last the forces usually allotted for the control of these places were withdrawn, and sent into the centre of London?
  MR. RITCHIE: I do not know, but I will inquire if the hon. Gentleman gives notice.

  Patent Fees.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the surplus of revenue from patents, amounting last year to upwards of £107,000, it is contemplated to reduce the renewal fees, so as to approximate the cost of a patent in the United Kingdom to that in the United States.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): It is not at present in contemplation to reduce these fees. If the Patent Bill now before the House becomes law, a considerable increase in the staff of the office must follow, and the work done—which should be of material benefit to the inventor—will cause so large an expenditure of money as very greatly to reduce the present surplus.

  Alien Immigration.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the resident of the Board of Trade if his attention has been directed by His Majesty's consular agents in Roumania, or by other means, to the exodus of poor Jews from that country, and to the efforts they are making to come to London; and what steps he is taking to prevent their ingress into Great Britain.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: His Majesty's Minister at Bukarest has furnished a copy of a law relating to the organisation of trades in Roumania dated March 5, (18) 1902, which appears to affect the industrial position of Jews in that country. I have seen it stated that this law is likely to stimulate the emigration of Roumanian Jews, but so far the number of Roumanians arriving in this country shows no material increase compared with last year. The whole question of alien immigration is at present under the consideration of a Royal Commission.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: And will this information be laid before the Royal Commission?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that in the past few months over a thousand persons seeking admission to the United States have been rejected as undesirable citizens; and what steps he has taken to prevent their coming into the crowded centres of Great Britain.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no means of knowing whether the figure given in the Question is accurate. The

  97
  last published returns show that in the year 1900–01 3,879 alien immigrants, or only 1 per cent. of the arrivals, were rejected from all causes by the United States authorities. During 1901 383 rejected immigrants were returned to this country, including 180 of British nationality. From these figures it would appear that only about 5 per cent. of aliens rejected by the United States authorities are returned to this country, and some of these probably do not settle here. As I have already stated, the whole question of alien immigration is now being considered by a Royal Commission.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that this information is laid before the Royal Commission?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no doubt that it will be

  London Elections Bill.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, before proceeding with the London Elections Bill, he will lay before the House a list of the Metropolitan boroughs affected, showing the population and the number of electors by which each Parliamentary division will be either increased or diminished owing to the operation of the Bill.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): I should be willing to obtain a Return on this subject if the right hon. Baronet will move for it. I will communicate with him as to the form of the Return.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: Is there any precedent for altering Parliamentary divisions in this way?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am afraid I cannot answer that.

  Physical Training in Elementary Schools.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can insert provision in the
  98
  Education Bill for making physical and military instruction compulsory in all schools supported by public funds.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,, for Sir J. GORST): The kind of physical instruction given in a public elementary school is left to the discretion of the managers. It is obvious that military training would be unsuitable in schools for little boys, girls, and infants.

  St. Michael's Infants School, Worcester.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that St. Michael's National Infants School, Broadway, Worcester, from which Mrs. Morgan was recently dismissed, and to which the attention of the Vice-President has been previously directed, is now being instructed by pupil teachers, without the services of an adult teacher; and whether the Vice-President will make a communication to the Managers on the subject.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: The Board of Education are informed that there is a certificated mistress now in charge.

  Scottish Licensing Laws.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, seeing that His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland urges the necessity for legislation to make The Public Houses (Hours of Closing (Scotland) Act, 1887, compulsory throughout Scotland, and to bring icecream shops under statutory regulation, as bearing on the efficiency, usefulness, and cost of the Scottish constabulary and police, whether he can say when it is probable the Bill dealing with the Licensing Laws will be introduced by the Secretary for Scotland.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The Secretary for Scotland desires to take the earliest possible opportunity of dealing with the Licensing Laws, but the state of public business does not permit of the hope that it can be done this Session. The Secretary for Scotland is aware

  99
  of the widespread desire that ice-cream shops should be put under statutory regulations. The object would not in his opinion be wisely embodied in a measure dealing with the Licensing Laws; but he sympathises with the object of the Bill which has been introduced by the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs.

  Government Printers—Strike at Messrs. Wyman's Works at Reading.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that a strike has recently taken place at the works of Messrs. Wyman & Sons, Government printers, Reading; and if he can state the number of hands on strike and the minimum rates of wages paid to women and girls recently employed in the different branches of the printing trade by the above-mentioned firm at Reading.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I am informed that it is the case that a strike has recently taken place at the works of Messrs. Wyman & Sons at Reading. Messrs. Wyman have reported to the Controller of the Stationery Office that
  "About seventy to eighty" men "left off work on Friday, May 30th, without notice of any kind, immediately upon an additional girl layer-on from Edinburgh being put to feed a machine"; and that "about forty folding girls … were persuaded the next day to stay out."
  As regards the rates of wages paid by Messrs. Wyman at Reading, the firm has reported as follows:—
  "We are in all branches paying provincial typographical scale. We had about twenty girl feeders of machines paid from 9s. weekly to 13s. weekly, and for special work 18s. weekly. Some of these came from Beccles, where they received 10s. Some were already working in Reading at 9s. in other offices. The Reading rate paid before we went there was 7s. 6d. to 10s. … We have no layers on at lower rates than mentioned."
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in consequence of this strike we are not able to obtain the Debates in the Library later than those for the 26th May last, whereas we ought to have those for Friday, June 6th, and will he say whether this has been due to the staff at this end or the printers at the other end?
  MR. NANNETTI: And will the hon. Gentleman make inquiry into this matter of the societies interested as well as of Messrs. Wyman?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If they wish to make any representations they can address them to me. I have not had my attention called to the point; raised by the hon. and gallant Member for West Newington, and I cannot say if it is as he states.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I only wish to draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman—[Cries of "Order, order!"] Then may I ask—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The supplementary Question was going beyond that on the Paper, and notice ought to have been given of it. And now the hon. Member proposes to make some observations on it.

  Worcester Race Meeting—Telegraphic Arrangements.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that no telegraphists from Birmingham performed duty at the Worcester race meeting on 15th and 16th April and the Wolverhampton meeting on 19th and 20th May, and that, notwithstanding the extra cost of travelling and subsistence allowance, telegraphists from other towns further removed were employed; whether it is intended that the privilege which has hitherto been enjoyed by the Birmingham telegraph staff of furnishing a proportion of the staff for special events is to be withdrawn; and, if so, on what grounds.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Postmaster General is aware that no telegraphists were withdrawn from Birmingham for the Worcester race meeting; but one was sent to Wolverhampton during the race meeting there. There were circumstances which rendered it practically impossible to withdraw any more. It is not intended to make any alteration in the practice of withdrawing staff from Birmingham for duty in connection with special events when telegraphists can be conveniently spared from that office.

  Cattle Breeding in Ireland.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a ease heard before the Irish Land Commission, of Pat Foy, tenant, v. H. D. F. Montgomery, landlord, which was an application by the landlord to resume the holdings of some mountain tenants in the County Fermanagh for the purpose of introducing a breed of Scotch cattle; and whether he will introduce a Bill taking away the power of the landlords to make clearances for such purposes; and, seeing that among the witnesses examined by the landlord at the hearing of this case, was an official of the Agriculture and Industries Department, whether he will take steps to prevent public officers of this Department from appearing in such cases in future.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): In the case mentioned, the Land Commission reversed the decision of the Sub-Commission, and refused the application of the landlord for liberty to resume possession. An appeal has been lodged against the decision of the Chief Commissioners, and consequently I am debarred from discussing the matter further. The attendance of the witness referred to was secured by subpoena. He was merely called to give his opinion on the qualities of a certain breed of cattle, and gave no evidence with respect to the lands involved in the case.

  Irish Land Bill.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, since the introduction of the Land Bill, agreements for sale and purchase under the Land Purchase Acts have ceased; whether the Government intend proceeding this Session with this Bill; and, if so, can he state when the Second Reading will be taken.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Land Bill was introduced on 25th March. In the following months 888 applications for loans under the Land Purchase Acts were received, as compared with 992 in April and May of 1901. I should much regret the postponement of this measure
  102
  until next year; I have inferred from what has been said in this House and elsewhere that the parties principally concerned consider the Bill, in some of its chief provisions, to be a practical step in the right direction. I doubt if it would be worth while to have a Second Reading debate unless there were prospects of compressing the remaining stages within a compass which would justify the expectation of passing the Bill this Session. That expectation can scarcely be entertained if the Committee stage must be taken in the whole House. The Bill, again, could not be sent to a Grand Committee unless it came within the definition of a noncontentious measure. I should be ready to confer with those entitled to speak for all the parties concerned with a view to deciding, before it is too late, whether the Bill now has, or could be given, that complexion without detriment to its essential provisions.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: May I ask whether, in view of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, he will move to discharge the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill, and not continue the farce?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Did I understand correctly that the Bill is to be referred to a Committee, the great majority of which are English and Scotch Members, and on which there will only be a handful of Irish members?
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: The whole thing is a farce.
  MR. WYNDHAM: If the hon. Member will confer with those who are interested as to the best means of facilitating the Bill, it might be passed. The usual course will be pursued.
  MR. DILLON: Was not the Bill introduced for the purpose of influencing the East Down election?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think that the reception of the Bill on the First Reading justifies the remark of the hon. Member.

  Irish Judges and Constabulary Reports.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant

  103
  of Ireland, seeing that some of the Irish judges have expressed disapproval of the practice of furnishing judges of assize with Returns of reported offences prepared by the Royal Irish Constabulary, and in view of the fact that no similar Return is presented to English judges, whether he will consider the advisability of discontinuing the practice.
  MR. WYNDHAM: None of the judges have expressed disapproval of the practice of furnishing these Returns. The premise upon which the second part of the Question is based, does not, therefore, exist.

  Millstreet Coercion Court.—Hire of Cars by Police.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that numbers of the policemen drafted into Millstreet on the occasion of the holding of a coercion court there, on 19th May, got cars in Dunmanway, though they were not stationed in that town; will he state from whom they got these cars; and, seeing that cars could be had in the districts in which they were stationed, will he further explain why the course stated was resorted to on this occasion.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The hon. Member has been misinformed. The cars were obtained in every case from the locality from which the police were drawn.

  Police Supervision in Millstreet.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, at the last fair in Millstreet, a young man named Williams, the son of an evicted tenant in the locality, was followed wherever he went by two policemen, and that the evicted tenant is subjected to similar treatment; and, seeing that the town and district of Millstreet are free from crime, can he explain why the movements of these men are watched by the police.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir; these men were under police supervision on the occasion mentioned, because there was good reason to believe they were engaged in the illegal practices of boycotting and intimidation.
  MR. SHEEHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the recent quarter sessions, the County Court judge had no criminal business before him?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Wren and Stokes Estate, North Kerry.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an order was made before the Master of the Rolls for the sale of the estate of Wren and Stokes, North Kerry, in the year 1895, No. 319; and, seeing that this order has not been carried out, whether he will state the cause of the delay.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The case referred to appears to be that of Elliott v. Wren. The order for sale was made upon the condition that the sale should not be proceeded with without the further order of the Court, and liberty was reserved to the parties to apply to the Court as they might be advised. No application on the subject of the sale has since been made by any of the parties.

  Labourers (Ireland) Act Amendment Bill.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when he proposes to introduce his Bill for the amendment of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts.
  MR. WYNDHAM: At an early date.

  Illicit Distillation Conviction at Ballinamuck.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on 23rd January last Timothy Brennan was fined £24 for alleged illicit distillation at Ballinamuck petty sessions, and that, as the defendant was a poor man, the presiding magistrates advised him to petition for a reduction of the fine; and, seeing that such petition was signed by several magistrates of County Longford, and in view of Brennan's circumstances, and that he bears a good character, some rebate of the fine will be granted in his case.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Commissioners of Inland Revenue decline to mitigate

  105
  this penalty. Brennan is an old offender, and has twice previously been fined for the same offence.

  Irish Railways—State Control.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a, resolution passed at the Irish Trades Congress, stating that the time has arrived when the Irish railways should be owned and worked by the State in the interest of the taxpayers, the travelling public, and the commercial and agricultural community; and whether, with this object, he will advise the Government to appoint a special Commission to sit and examine witnesses in Ireland with a view of reporting to Parliament on this question.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir.

  Appointments of Englishmen to Irish Postmasterships.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will explain why Englishmen have been appointed to vacant postmasterships in Lisburn, Roscrea, Kilmallock, and Bullevant, while competent men could be found in Ireland; and whether it is intended to make similar appointments to the vacancies in Kingstown.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: When the postmasterships referred to were vacant, candidates were invited to apply for them in the usual manner, and from amongst the candidates the Post master General selected in each case the officer who appeared to be the best qualified for appointment, having regard to rank and seniority as well as efficiency. In one at least of tin; cases referred to the person appointed is believed to be Irish; but under ordinary circumstances no reference is made to the nationality of the candidates. The postmastership of Kingstown has already been filled up.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Was there any application from Irish officers for these positions?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know, but I should think it probable there was. Does the hon.
  106
  Gentleman mean that no Englishmen should be appointed, and will he be prepared to accept the corollary that no Irishmen should be employed in English post offices?
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Why should Irish offices be reserved for Englishmen?
  MR. REDDY: Is this the policy of "killing Homo Rule with kindness"?

  Education Department Statistics.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will take care that the abstract containing the statistics of the Report of the Education Department, which has been in the printers' hands between two and three months, shall be circulated without further delay.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Every effort has been made to expedite the presentation of the abstract. I am assured by the printers that we may have it on Friday.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I am not asking in any spirit of obstruction, but it is impossible to proceed further with the discussion of the Education Bill until we have these figures.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hardly agree with the right hon. Gentleman in that, but I hope they will be presented in time.

  Physical Training Inquiry.
  SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will consider the expediency of extending to England the inquiry now proceeding by a Royal Commission into the physical training of boys in State-aided schools in Scotland.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I find that I answered a Question similar to that of my hon. friend on May 5th. I then said that it would be more prudent to await the result of the Commission now inquiring into the subject in Scotland—an inquiry which, though not absolutely

  107
  conclusive, must certainly throw considerable light on the English question, and in the second place we should await the result of our debates on the Education Bill.

  Business of the House.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: What is the course of business to be this week?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I propose to take Supply as usual on Thursday. Apart from that, the programme for the week will be Committee on the Budget, after which will come the Education Bill. We shall go on with Class 4 of Supply, as arranged. As we have already had a full afternoon sitting debate on the Education Estimates, I do not propose to put the Vote down first, but we shall take other Votes in the same class.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked when it was proposed to take Irish Supply.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No day has been fixed. I shall be anxious to meet the convenience of the Irish Members in any arrangement that can be come to. I ought to add that at the evening sitting on Thursday, I shall take Class 3, Votes 7, 8, and 9.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he intends to take Vote 12, Navy Estimates.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As the House is aware, we were disappointed in the opportunity we hoped to obtain of taking this Vote. I cannot give my noble friend an absolute pledge, but I hope to be able to put the Vote down for a Friday sitting at no distant date. I think that would really be more convenient to the noble Lord than the original arrangement.

  The Budget.
  MR. LOUGH: I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question of which I have given him private notice, viz., whether on the basis of existing taxation as shown in Appendix II of his Statement circulated to Members, after providing for the charges for the termination of the war, interest on the new Debt, the South
  108
  African Constabulary, the restoration of the Sinking Fund and the West Indian grant, the deficit to be provided for is £28,574,000 and whether towards meeting this deficit and without including the proceeds of the new taxation, he has now in hand £4,029,000 last year and £29,270,000, the proceeds of the new Loan making a total of £33,949,000.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): No, Sir, I think the inferences drawn by the hon. Member are not correct.
  MR. LOUGH: Do the figures not show at any rate that the right hon. Gentleman has in hand two millions more than he wants?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not think they do.

NEW BILL.
  ELECTORS' REGISTRATION BILL.
  To facilitate the Registration of Parliamentary and Local Government Electors and to amend in certain respects the Registration of Electors Acts, 1843 to 1891, and the Representation of the People Acts," presented by Mr. Guest, under Standing Order 31; to be read a second time upon Monday 7th July, and to be printed.—[Bill 229.]

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 1:—
SIR HENRY FOWLER): I rise to move that Clause 1 be postponed. My reason for asking for the postponement of the clause is the unfortunate procedure which has been adopted with reference to what, after all, is a supplementary Budget, a procedure of which the House has had some cognisance of in the last few minutes, by a Question and answer which show the difficulty in which we have been placed by the mode in which

109
this question has been dealt with. The Committee has been placed in a difficult position by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's bringing forward what are his new financial proposals in the altered circumstances on the Second Reading of the Loan Bill. It was impossible on that Bill to have anything like a discussion on the statement he then made; and, by the Orders of the House, we are now precluded from entering upon a general discussion of these Budget proposals on going into Committee. I have no wish to interfere with a large number of the clauses of this Bill, clauses about which there may be some difference of opinion on various points with which we are familiar in Finance Bills, but I do venture to submit to the Government that it is not fair to ask the Committee to proceed any further in the imposition of new taxation until we have from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a statement, not of a vague, uncertain character, but a statement embodied in the shape of Estimates, laid upon the Table of the House, telling the House how he proposes to spend the large sum of money which will now not be required, but which the House has provided for the war. I will endeavour to lay before the House my reasons for arguing that, by pointing out the difficulties with which we are faced. Some eight weeks ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in a Budget in which he estimated for a gross expenditure of £193,109,000. That sum included the ordinary provision for the Sinking Fund, and the estimated expenditure was, therefore, reduced to £188,469,000. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not differ from me if I say he would not have budgeted for that sum if eight weeks ago he could have foreseen that in so short a time the war would have been practically closed, and the House have been attending thanksgiving services over a Declaration of Peace, on terms universally satisfactory both at home and in South Africa, and that the normal state of affairs was being rapidly resumed. It was a War Budget; the Chancellor of the Exchequer looked at the position in the gloomiest way, and in those circumstances rightly asked for this very large sum of money. Now a new state of things has arisen, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember what he included in his Estimate. I was not present when the right hon. Gentleman made his statement—
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): Hear, hear!
SIR HENRY FOWLER: But I have read it most carefully, and I cannot reconcile his figures, nor, if I understood the debate correctly, could a much greater authority, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire understand them. Therefore there is something to be explained to the ordinary man in the street. As I understood the Estimate, it included, not only the ordinary Estimates for the year, about which there can be no dispute, but £40,000,000 for war expenditure for between eight and nine months. The Secretary for War had only made provision for carrying on the war till practically the end of the year, at a cost roughly of £5,000,000 a month. It included interest, not only on the war debt which had then been incurred, but also on the war Debt in respect of that which was to be borrowed this year.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Which has been borrowed.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: The Budget provided for the payment of £750,000 interest on the new war Debt, and, subject to the correction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it provided, I think, £750,000 for the South African Constabulary. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not make that clear the other night, but he included £1,800,000 as a special grant for civil administration in South Africa.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: That is in the Estimates already.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: Yes. I am enumerating the figures outside the ordinary Estimates which were included in the Budget. It included the £40,000,000, the interest on the Debt incurred, the £750,000 for the South African Constabulary, and over and above that, £17,000,000 for what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was requisite to carry on the war until the end of the financial year,

111
because he was not satisfied with providing for only eight or nine months expenditure. I cannot make out from the figures whether the right hon. gentleman provided for the £250,000 Grant to the West Indies—my impression is that the right hon. Gentleman did not, and, therefore, I do not put that in; but it was mentioned to the House. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House quite fairly that he had not included a variety of charges with reference to the termination of the war; he had not included the gratuities which would be paid at the end of the war; the transport and other terminal charges, and those are the charges now before the Committee. The Budget of 1901–02 made large provision on the assumption that there would be extra charges at the end of the war, and, though, the bulk of that sum has been expended in consequence of the prolongation of the war, there is still a balance of between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000 which went to swell the Exchequer balances at the end of the financial year. We cannot discuss it now, but I beg to enter my respectful dissent from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's view with reference to these Exchequer balances. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not provide for the stores and horses, payment for which would be required at the close of the war, and he did not provide for the concentration camps. I state frankly that the House had full notice that these sums would be required at some future date.
What was the revenue on which the right hon. Gentleman relied to meet the estimated expenditure? He took a revenue from the existing taxation of £147,785,000 and added new taxation £5,150,000, making his total revenue £152,935,000. Subtracting that sum from the expenditure, he showed a deficit of £35,500,000. That was the position as he left it at the end of the year, and when the change arose he ought to have laid upon the Table a complete statement of the scheme which he had in his mind, so that the Committee could check it at all points. As £40,000,000 was the estimated expenditure on the Army at its full strength for between eight and nine months, and as that estimate is now-reduced by two or three months, we can
112
see without going very closely into figures that there must be a large saving there. I gather that the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts the saving at, £28,000,000. Then there is the extra provision of £17,000,000, and that also is not wanted. Some accounts put this sum at £17,500,000, and others at £16,000,000, but I put it at £17,000,000. At all events, we are not far apart, and that sum is not wanted. But from the expenditure which would be saved, there must be deducted the new expenditure required, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that for the various items connected with the closing of the war he will require the whole £40,000,000 voted for a war expenditure of eight months, of which he saves £28,000,000. He now says that he will require the whole of that sum for the various items connected with the closing of the war and the transports, and for the other items of expenditure to which I have just called the attention of the House.
Then I raise the constitutional principle, that there has not been any estimate of that expenditure, and that it has never been considered in Committee of Supply. I do not think we ought to commit ourselves to the expenditure of £28,000,000 simply upon the mere ipse dixit of any Minister, however highly we may think of him—and nobody thinks more highly than I do of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is a constitutional principle involved of the control of the House of Commons over public expenditure. We know that a good deal of this expenditure will be War Office expenditure, and our past experience of War Office expenditure is not encouraging. Our experience of the War Office expenditure upon horses and stores, upon transport and other items, has not been very encouraging; and I do not think that any Department of the State ought to be given a free hand in regard to an expenditure of something like £28,000,000. Certainly the House of Commons ought not to be asked to vote new taxation until there is laid before it, signed by the Secretary of State for War, a statement of the mode in which the £28,000,000 is to be spent. The right hon. Gentleman has put the surplus, which will remain outside the loan, at £10,500,000. And he proposes to deal with it in this

113
way. He proposes to take £4,640,000 in order to replace the sum which was abstracted from the Sinking Fund. I think that is a proper course to take. It was borrowed money, and I do not question what he said on that point, but it is quite another question when we come to additional taxation. I think my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouthshire expressed not only his own view on this point but also the view of many other hon. Members who differ from him politically. My right hon. friend said that if we restored the Sinking Fund that would be a provision for the present and for the future reduction of the Debt, and he pointed out that it does not mean only £5,000,000 today, but in the future as in the past it would mean £7,000,000 devoted to the Sinking Fund. My right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouthshire also pointed out that there remained another £5,000,000 to be dealt with, and that while you are taking £5,000,000 for the Sinking Fund you might also relieve the country of the £5,000,000 taxation. That would dispose of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's surplus of £10,000,000 and it could not be called an unfair partition of the money at his disposal. That is a clear issue, upon which the House will be called upon to give a decided verdict. I endorse my right hon. friend's view completely. That is a very proper course, and £4,500,000 is a fair proportion in the interests of posterity. But something is due to the taxpayers of the present, on whom new burdens are to be imposed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given a rather singular account of how he proposes to spend the other £6,000,000 and here another constitutional principle is raised. First, the right hon. Gentleman wishes to deal with the floating Debt. The right hon. Gentleman says there is a considerable floating debt, but that should be dealt with at the proper time and in the proper place, and I do not think it is necessary to impose new taxation to deal with the floating debt which at the commencement of this year was not in contemplation when the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Budget. Then the right hon. Gentleman says that he requires money to finance the Exchequer. Owing to the arrangements
114
now made it is perfectly true that the great bulk of the expenditure is going on all the year and that the great bulk of the money, does not come in until the last quarter of the year. But that is a question of banking and not of borrowing the money. Previous Chancellors of the Exchequer under quite as difficult circumstances have had no difficulty whatever in arranging matters with the Bank of England.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: But you cannot go beyond a certain point.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: There was no difficulty last year. But if it is necessary to have further borrowing powers, let them be defined and limited. Then the right hon. Gentleman spoke of possible advances to the Orange and Transvaal Colonies, but he has told the House that those charges are to be met out of a loan on the revenues of the Colonies guaranteed by the British Government.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I showed plainly that I did not contemplate any advances made out of these £6,000,000 being more than temporary. Of course, it takes time to make the necessary arrangements for the sanctioning of a loan by the legislative body which will have to be established in the Colonies, and for bringing Bills before Parliament for our guarantee. In the meantime it may be absolutely necessary that advances should be made for the purposes which everyone approves. But the advances will be merely temporary.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: I do not understand the machinery of the legislation which is to sanction this loan. I am quite sure, however, that it could not be raised on better terms than the last issue of Consols. I do not think all these numerous schemes of expenditure which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has drawn within his net can come before the House of Commons as objects of expenditure for which new taxation should be imposed upon the country, and new taxation ought not to be imposed until the House of Commons has

115
approved of those measures and until the House knows all about them. I do not wish to detain the House any longer but I want to put this question fairly, and I shall be ready to fight any detail afterwards in the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In many of his proposals I do think he is making haste without making much speed. The House ought to have an authorised statement of what is to be done with the sums of £28,000,000 and £17,000,000, and should be given an opportunity of discussing this second Budget of the year.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 be postponed"—(Sir Henry Fowler.)
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman was not present on Wednesday last, when I made the very statement to the House for which he now asks. [Cries of "No."] I can give no other explanation than the repetition of that statement. The right hon. Gentleman has given two reasons for the postponement of this clause. The first is that he wants to know in what way we are going to spend the £28,000,000, of the £40,000,000 taken on the Estimates for the war expenditure in South Africa which will not be required or war expenditure owing to the earlier termination of the war. I said that the money would be required for certain military purposes, including the maintenance for a longer period than had been anticipated of the population now in the concentration camps—all of them being purposes which were not included in the original Estimate of £40,000,000. Then the right hon. Gentleman asks that a detailed statement of the mode in which it will be applied for that service should be laid on the Table. It will be laid on the Table; but I understand that the right hon. Gentleman desires that the money shall be actually voted by the House before the House proceeds with the Finance Bill levying the taxation necessary for the expenditure of the year. Such a proposal was never before made to the House of Commons. The clauses of the
116
Finance Bill are always considered in Committee long before all the Estimates are voted by the House.
MR. DILLON: But not before they are laid before the House.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Then is the demand simply that the Estimates shall be laid before the House?
SIR HENRY FOWLER: I ask that the promise of the Secretary of State for War that those Estimates would be laid on the Table shall be fulfilled before the House proceeds with the Bill.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: There are certain services admittedly necessary for the termination of the war. They are not like new Estimates or expenditure on which the view of Parliament might be doubtful. It is expenditure which must be incurred, and which every one will be glad to incur in view of the termination of the war. We are asked, before we proceed with the clauses of the Finance Bill proposing the taxation necessary to defray that expenditure, that fresh estimates should be placed on the Table of the House. I must say that the request seems to me to be entirely unreasonable. Then the right hon. Gentleman gives another reason for his present proposal. He agrees with my proposal with regard to the restoration of the Sinking Fund, but he differs from my proposal with regard to devoting the remaining surplus of the loans raised to the paying off of debt to which it ought properly to be devoted; and he referred to the suggestion made the other evening by the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire that instead of taking that course the proposed new taxes already mentioned by the House, after two considerable debates, should be dispensed with, and, in fact, that we should devote borrowed money towards the reduction of taxation. I decline to take that course. I have declined to take that course already; but I own I am surprised that such a suggestion should ever have come from the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire. The right hon. Gentleman has not only preached the duty of paying our way, but has practised it under great difficulties; and yet he is

117
actually the person to suggest to me that, with a deficit of £28,000,000, I should devote borrowed money to reduce taxation which has been in operation for nearly two months, and that suggestion is supported by the light hon. Member for Hast Wolverhampton. These right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Members who sit behind them have for the last three years been denouncing me because I did not raise enough from taxation and raised too much by borrowing for the purposes of the war. I am astounded that they should turn round in this kind of way and press me to take that course. It would be an evil precedent in the history of the finances of this country.
No, Sir, their real objection, of course, is not to the abstract principle of increasing taxation in order to provide something towards this deficit of £28,000,000 for the year. Their real objection is to the particular taxes—or to one particular tax which I propose to raise for that purpose. Then let us have the fight out. Why does the right hon. Gentleman interpose with this dilatory and obstructive Motion in order to prevent us from coming to that fight? The fight comes on in the first clause of the Bill, and if he desires to attack me for pressing the corn duty in place of yielding it and devoting borrowed money towards this great deficit, then let him denounce me as he is perfectly able to do when we are discussing that clause. But this is a dilatory and obstructive motion, and I will not pursue its discussion further.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not think I ever recollect an entirely new supplementary statement being produced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with so much vehemence and warmth. The case he has advanced to us is a very serious one. As to the figures that he laid before the House the other night—I suppose it is due to my own obtuseness—I was not able to understand them at the time, and I have examined them since in print, and I am totally at a loss to understand the statement he made then, or to reconcile the figures in print with his speech on the Budget or the tables accompanying it. He proceeded
118
to talk of £174,000,000 the other nigh as being the figure of the expenditure. I pointed out to him at that time that it was absolutely inconsistent with his own tables, where he showed an expenditure of £188,000,000. Therefore, I remain of the same opinion I held then after the most careful examination I can give to the statement that the surplus he has at his disposal must be considerably more than he stated on that occasion. Now he says that he laid before us the other night particulars of how the £28,000,000 were to be disposed of. He did not lay before us anything except a general statement. He said, "I am going to do this, that, and the other, and that will exhaust the £28,000,000." That is not, Sir, the information the House of Commons has a right to expect. If that is his view of what the Budget means, it is the most extraordinary I ever heard. He says that the Budget does not depend on the voting of Supplies. No, Sir, but it depends on the Estimates presented to the House. That is the essence of the Budget. If you disapprove of the Estimates presented to the House you object to them in the Budget, and you object to the new-provisions of taxation in that Budget.
The right hon. Gentleman chose tonight to treat the matter as if peace had made no change whatever in the financial condition of the country. In his view we, in April, settled the whole finances of the year when we were at war, and when he said, reasonably enough, that what he intended to do was to provide for a twelve months continuance of the war. Now he turns round and says that the House should sanction the whole of this expenditure. Can anything be more unsatisfactory, anything more unreasonable, anything more contrary to the fundamental principles of finance than that when you estimate the taxation of the country on the basis of expenditure at £188,000,000, and then find that that is £20,000,000 too much, you should say all this was sanctioned two months ago, and therefore cannot be altered? It ought to be altered. The conclusion of peace makes it necessary that it should be altered. It is trifling with the House and the country to assert that because

119
you made a statement founded upon a condition of things which has ceased to exist, therefore that statement and that policy is to continue. I say that no finance Minister ever dealt with the taxation of the country on such a basis as that. Under all former conditions of the same kind, when a peace was concluded the whole taxation of the country was altered. What happened in 1815? The House of Commons determined unanimously to abolish the income tax, and that is a precedent in finance against the conduct and the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman. Now we are placed in a very awkward position, and we ought to have some moans of escape from it. We ought really to deal with this matter as if we were engaged in the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. The Second Heading of the Finance Bill was founded on the hypothesis of twelve months war with expenditure corresponding to it; and the House is entitled, looking at the whole condition of things, and the whole of the expenditure contemplated upon the Estimates for which the spending Departments are responsible, to consider what burdens it will or will not lay upon the country. That is the finance of this country, and I hope it will long continue to be so. Now we are in Committee upon the Finance Bill, and no general view can be taken of the financial position when we are asked singly and one by one to vote taxes which, if we had a general view of the whole situation, we might pronounce to be unnecessary and superfluous. I say that the House is entitled to review the altered conditions of the financial necessities of the country in consequence of the happy establishment of peace. To ask in the first two months of the financial year that we should go on for the remaining ten months on a Budget founded on Estimates when war was in progress and might continue for ten months more, is in my opinion irrational and unjust to the taxpayers of the country.
I never listened to anything that astounded me half so much as the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman. He said that we object to a particular tax. Yes, Sir, of course we object to a particular tax. We object
120
to any tax which we think is unnecessary, whatever it is. If the general condition of the finance of the nation makes any one tax unnecessary, or makes all the taxes unnecessary we have a right, and it is our first duty, to pronounce upon that situation. Now there is a particular tax that we object to more than any other, and the defence of that tax was the condition of war. The Colonial Secretary went down to Birmingham and declared that it was a war tax in these very words—
"This is a tax for war, a just and necessary war."
You have gone down to the very dregs of taxation when you begin to tax the food of the people. It was only the extreme necessity of war that could have driven you to imposing such a tax, and therefore, above all, is it necessary that we should regard this tax, as well as others, from the point of view of the peace which has been now happily proclaimed. I cannot understand the tone assumed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter. He said the other night, and I entirely agree with him, that it is right and proper that you should raise taxation at the same time that you raise loans. But you have raised loans, and you have raised taxation on this occasion, upon the assumption of war, and having raised the loans and the taxation you find yourself in a condition of peace, and therefore any expenditure of money—
SIR M. HICKS BEACHmade a remark which was inaudible in the gallery.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I think you have in practice collected the taxes upon the preliminary sanction you obtained. But then that preliminary sanction was given in another state of things, and you have no right to rest on that preliminary sanction when the essential conditions on which it rested have been entirely changed. The House has a right, in fact it is our duty, to take into consideration the change which has come about with the promulgation of peace, In point of fact, the Government finds itself in possession of a large sum of money—the Chancellor of the Exchequer says £10,000,000, I believe it is more—but whether it is £10,000,000 or £20,000,000, there is nothing more unsound in finance than to allow the

121
executive Government to be in possession of such a large sum unappropriated. It is not by that means that we have avoided that waste, extravagance, and mischief to sound finance which has prevailed in other countries. It is in the rigorous adherence to rules which the House of Commons has insisted upon in protecting the money of the people that our system of finance is grounded. What is the condition of things? If you leave this £10,000,000 in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he is not bound to apply it in any particular way. It is money in his pocket. It is money of which no account has been rendered to the country at all. The right hon. Gentleman says that the money is wanted for the war. So is the Army wanted for the war, but we do not give £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to spend as he likes on the Army.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I cannot spend a penny of it until it has been voted by the House of Commons.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: What are you going to do with it? The appropriation of this money stands on the same touting as that for the Army itself. When we are going to spend money on the Army the Government requires to give the House of Commons the details of the particular items of that expenditure. Why should we not, in regard to this £28,000,000, have the particulars of the expenditure just as much as of the expenditure on the Army itself? The proposed procedure of the Government strikes at the roots of the whole financial system of our country. How ought this money to be dealt with? I say first of ail that we are entitled to have a new Budget. If peace had been proclaimed two months ago we would not have bad these taxes: that is certain. And that being so we ought to have time for consideration and to have an account rendered to us. I do not see why this £28,000,000 should be voted before a statement is laid on the Table of the House just as the Estimates are laid on the Table. That is the demand which the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion before the Committee has made.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I promised the other evening to lay a statement on the Table.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: What a promise! It is as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked for £30,000,000 for the Army on the promise that on some future day he would lay a statement on the Table of the House telling us how the £30,000,000 is to be appropriated. Was there ever such an absurdity as that? What is the meaning of the Order that within a certain number of weeks from the meeting of Parliament the Estimates shall be presented to the House of Commons? It is for the express purpose that Parliament shall know every single farthing you propose to spend; and if the Government does its duty, it ought to present details of all that the money is wanted for for the year; and a departure from that system, and introducing great Supplementary Estimates is a great evil and mischief. Why, part of the Supplementary Estimates are produced even before beginning the consideration of the Finance Bill. We are entitled, before we go a step further in the taxation of the people, to have an account on the basis of the expenditure to wind up the war. The right hon. Gentleman rather censured me for being a party to the suggestion that this money should be appropriated, half to the reduction of Debt, and half to reduction of taxation. There is a clear difference between money raised by borrowing and money raised by taxation. But you find yourselves now in a new position altogether. You have collected this money and have got it in hand, and it seems to me to be not unfair that when you make a disposition of it you should appropriate some of it to the Sinking Fund; and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the other night that he meant to do so, I applauded him. But appropriating the money to the Sinking Fund is very different from appropriating it to paying off Treasury Bills. Is this additional taxation necessary? If not, it is unjust. Those are the grounds on which I sincerely and cordially support the proposition of my right hon. friend. I think we ought not to proceed with further taxation until we have laid upon the Table the Estimates of the expenditure

123
to which that taxation is to be devoted. That is a very simple proposition. I think that if we were to go on in Committee without these estimates, and impose additional taxes upon the people, we should be acting inconsistently with the principles of British finance, and I hope, at all events, the House will pronounce upon that issue.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES)said he thought it was unfortunate that so much heat had been developed on what was after all a pure matter of business. The Budget introduced two months ago was a War Budget; this was a Peace Budget, and it was more portentous than the War Budget. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had a surplus of £12,000,000, and in addition to that there was a saving on war expenditure of £28,000,000, which was to be re-expended yet without details so far given, so that this Budget involved an unspecified expenditure unauthorised by any grants in Supply, of £40,000,000. It had been explicitly laid down by May that Committee of Ways and Means should precede Committee of Supply, and that the Committee of Supply could not go beyond the amount provided for in the Committee of Ways and Means. They were, however, now asked to leave in suspense an amount of £40,000,000. He admitted there was great difficulty in understanding the figures. He had tried his hand at them himself and if he had failed other Members might fail. He was not sure that there was not some misapprehension in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he told the Committee that he could not borrow from the Bank of England boyond a certain limit. The right hon. Gentleman could borrow every farthing that was granted for the service of the year. There was no such limit.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I did not say that there was a legal limit; what I said was that we could not borrow on Ways and Means beyond a certain limit without seriously disturbing the money market.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that that was quite another matter. But the original remarks of the Chancellor of
124
the Exchequer had certainly suggested to him that there was something in the law which provided that he could not borrow beyond a certain point. The right hon. Gentleman was well aware that there was absolutely no limit to his borrowing powers. He might borrow from the Bank every farthing of his Budget, except that he was bound to re-pay his borrowings in the succeeding quarter. This was an entirely new Budget; it was a Peace Budget; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer made no difference between a War and a Peace Budget, except that in the latter he had applied £4,640,000 to the Sinking Fund, and had taken off the Cheque Duty, a sum amounting to £500,000. His total estimated revenue was £152,935,000, but deducting the Cheque Duty it was £152,435,000. Add the produce of the Loan £30,000,000, and the draft the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make on the Exchequer balances of £5,500,000, and that gave a total revenue or resources for the year of £187,935,000. Now look at the other side. The expenditure specified was £170,719,000. Add to that the Sinking Fund £4,640,000—a total expenditure of £175,359,000. Now deduct that from his resources and the House would see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a surplus of £12,576,000.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not think the hon. Gentleman includes the money for the South African Constabulary and the grant to the West Indies.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he did not, because they were not in the original Budget. He only gave the changes made in the new Budget.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Oh, yes, they were.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that if they were, then they were also included in his figures. The right hon. Gentleman asked the Committee to put the loan out of consideration. He could not put the loan out of consideration in dealing with the Budget. The loan had been effected, and the right hon. Gentleman had the money. If he had not had

125
the money, the situation would be wholly different, and he would have been justified in talking about devoting borrowed money to the purposes of taxation. There was an old Italian proverb, "if my aunt were a man she would be my uncle." The right hon. Gentleman had got the loan, and they could not argue as if he had not borrowed it. He had, he thought, shown quite clearly that the right hon. Gentleman had a surplus of £12,500,000; but the right hon. Gentleman also stated that there would be a saving in war expenditure of £28,000,000, which he proposed to apply to purposes only generally indicated. That made £40,000,000 of undenominated expenditure, which the right hon. Gentleman should show reasons for before asking the Committee to provide it. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to show reasons, but they were vague and general reasons, not specific reasons, and he himself did not think that they were satisfactory reasons.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to treat the £40,000,000 surplus quite lightly; and he asked the Committee to be content with a very general and vague expression as to the purposes to which he was about to apply it. He could not treat that surplus lightly. It was more than the whole produce of the income tax for the present year, more than the whole cost of the war for the year as provided in the Budget, and was an enormous sum. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that it would be spent on gratuities—there were no details or figures,—on furlough pay, transport, deferred liabilities of the War Office, concentration camps, garrisons, and finally advances to restock farms. But these latter were purely temporary, because the final provision in regard to them would come out of a loan to be guaranteed by the country. As to his further suggestions that he would want money for financing the Exchequer, it was not a question of financing the Exchequer as it now appeared, but of financing the money market, because the right hon. Gentleman had avowed that what prevented him from borrowing up to his power was not any legal limit, but money market considerations. He could not accept as a Budget statement the vague generalities of the
126
Chancellor of the Exchequer, but let them for the sake of argument accept his figures as far as the £28,000,000 was concerned, and there still remained the £12,500,000 to be accounted for. Here he would remark, that with the peace Budget as in the war Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer entirely left out of account any contribution which would be received from the Transvaal mines towards the expenses of the war. He thought that was very important. He believed that unless a contribution were levied at a moment when the mine owners had a present or recent sense of danger, no contribution at all would be received, for the mining interests were very powerful, and had means of acting on individuals by salaries and syndicates of a potent character, and they would probably resist any considerable burden. When the war was entered upon, the right hon. Gentleman said he looked principally to the Transvaal for the expenses of the war, and he said that possibly even the whole expenditure and, at any rate, a considerable proportion of it, would be obtained in that manner. That considerable proportion had shrunk and shrunk and shrunk, and now the right hon. Gentleman only suggested that some part of the expenditure might be borne by the Transvaal mines. He passed from that and returned to the £12,500,000. That surplus was partly obtained by the imposition of new taxation—income tax £2,000,000 and the corn tax £2,500,000. Without these taxes there would still be a surplus of £8,000,000. He admitted that he was not quite certain of the figures, but he had taken them from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own statement, as far as he could make it out. But whether the surplus was £12,500,000 or £10,000,000, or even the £6,000,000 to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had sought to whittle it down, it was partly formed of taxation which was proposed when there was already a surplus in existence. By no conceivable manipulation of the figures, could the surplus be reduced to the £4,500,000 which was produced by new taxation. Without putting on either of the two taxes he had mentioned, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not only have ample money to

127
pay every specified expense of the year, but he would have sufficient even for unspecified expenditure. Under these circumstances, it was absolutely unjustifiable to impose any extra taxation at all. It was not a question of issuing a loan to relieve taxation. The right hon. Gentleman had the loan, and it was neither right nor proper to put on £4,500,000 of taxation, in order to swell the surplus he already had.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that whatever residue he might have, would, if possible, be applied to the reduction of taxation. But would that be possible? The right hon. Gentleman asked the Committee to leave his hands free; but his hands were full of money. There was no position so dangerous for a Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to have his hands free and yet full of money. That danger was immense. The only protection a Chancellor of the Exchequer had when his colleagues and the Departments of the State came to him with their demands was that he had not the money and would have to ask the House of Commons for it. The right hon. Gentleman would not now have that protection, because his colleagues and the Departments would reply that the right hon. Gentleman had the money and could, therefore, indulge them in any of these demands. Under such circumstances, it would positively rain Supplementary Estimates. There would be Estimates from the First Lord of the Admiralty, from the Secretary of State for War, and from the Vice-President of the Council, who would ask that the expense of education should be borne by the Exchequer instead of by the rates. But supposing the Chancellor of the Exchequer resisted all such demands, and that the £12,500,000 or, if the right hon. Gentleman liked, the £6,000,000, went to the Sinking Fund, he should remember that he had already applied £4,600,000 to that Sinking Fund. If he were to make it £10,000,000 or £6,000,000 more, surely that was a large sum to add to the Sinking Fund, at a time when taxation was extremely oppressive. In 1899 the right hon. Gentleman relieved the taxpayer by raiding the Sinking Fund; now he was raiding the taxpayer for the benefit of the Sinking Fund; he took from the Sinking Fund when he should not
128
have done so; and now he was taking from the taxpayer when there was no need.
He thought he had shown conclusively and clearly that, taking into account the new circumstances which had arisen, and the loan, there was no need, for the purposes of revenue, for increased taxation. Then why was it proposed? The Chancellor of the Exchequer was rather wrath with the right hon. Gentleman opposite who objected to the corn tax; but if that tax were not proposed for revenue, it must have been proposed for some ulterior purpose. (Cheers.) He heard cheers on both sides of the House. The right hon. Gentleman was a Free Trader. He went through Oxford, and the dismal conglomeration of pretentious platitudes which were known by the name of political economy, and emerged a Free Trader. But he was also a land owner, and when he remembered the maxims of Adam Smith, and Cobden and Bright, he kept a warm corner in his heart for the land, and also, perhaps, for the price of corn. He was inclined to apply to the right hon. Gentleman, with some variation, the language of Matthew Prior—
"The merchant, to secure his treasure
Conveys it in a borrowed name.
Revenue serves to grace my measure;
Protection is my real flame."
He did not propose to make a crusade against Protection. He admitted that new circumstances and new contingencies might require a great change of policy, and, if a Minister proposed it, he for one would be prepared to consider it with an open mind. He had never regarded Free Trade as a universal gospel capable of universal application in all circumstances, times, and places. He recognised that other countries had flourished without Free Trade and even under Protection.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman will not be in order in pursuing the discussion.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was about to remark that this was not the proper occasion on which to discuss that question; but neither was this a proper way for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to begin a change of policy. If such a policy

129
were to be initiated, let the right hon. Gentleman propose to put on 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. on all the imports of the country. A 4 per cent. charge on corn was not sufficient to please either friend or enemy. Would it please the Colonies?
THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is anticipating. He had better wait until I put the clause as a whole.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The real point of the Motion, and the point which made him look with a friendly eye upon it, was that the Committee had not yet had the details of the new Budget before it. As regarded the £40,000,000 included in the Budget they had not the figures or an estimate. Whether by postponing this clause, or in some other way, he submitted that it was absolutely necessary, before coming to a proper judgment upon the financial aspect of the year, that the figures for the year should be placed before the Committee.
MR. LOUGHsaid in his opinion the Committee were indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton for the Motion he had moved today, and he did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given at all a fair reply to the right hon. Gentleman. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he ought to have been present on the last occasion, but if the right hon. Gentleman had been present on the previous Wednesday he would not have been much wiser. The figures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Wednesday last were not very clear, and would not have given much information. He himself put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that day. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he had given up to that date the slightest explanation of what he was going to do with the surplus of £40,000,000 odd of last year's borrowing, but the right hon. Gentleman made no reply. The figures were very simple if they avoided complication, and looked at only those which were necessary. We were face to face with an entirely new-situation. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that he was relieved from the necessity of finding £17,000,000, and also from borrowing
130
another £12,000,000 which he had referred to earlier in the discussion. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that he was relieved from providing in the course of the year £29,000,000. All that was then suggested was that the right hon. Gentleman should give the taxpayer a similar benefit to that which had come to himself. That was the position he took. He thought there was an entirely new situation, and all that the Motion asked was that the right hon. Gentleman should pause before insisting upon new taxation which must and would cause a great disturbance to trade. If that single point were taken, the Committee would see that there was a great deal in the case which had been put by his right hon. friend. We were now in a state of peace; every telegram coining from South Africa showed that everything was going on well. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to pin the Committee down to the arrangement made two months ago, at a time when the country was at war. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of this taxation as already imposed. The tax had not yet been imposed; and, even if it were, he believed there were many precedents in recent years for rejecting Budget proposals which had been put into force. In the case of the present Budget, if the Committee were not able to look at the new situation in which the country stood, then the whole proceeding of the Committee was a farce. The Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton asked that the clause should be postponed in order that the Committee should have an opportunity of looking at it from the point of view of the present situation. I he right hon. Gentleman had revenue to the extent of £149,000,000 without any new taxation, and they had no undertaking as to how some £20,000,000 of that revenue was to be employed. He thought the tax-payer ought not to have to bear any greater burden. Every one knew that it was only temporary, now that we were at peace, and under those circumstances it seemed a very violent thing to increase so largely the normal revenue of the country. What harm would it be to postpone the clause? Lot them go on with the next clause, and go on with the Budget, and let the right hon. Gentleman

131
take time to consider this matter. The income tax payer bad got burdens to bear already. He naturally would say "What is the use of Peace to me, if yon are to wring out of me the last penny?" The same precedent was adopted in 1815. The income tax was taken off immediately on the receipt of the announcement of peace. It was a most reasonable suggestion that this clause should be postponed, and he hoped the appeal of his right hon. friend would be acceded to.
MR. TREVELYANsaid that at the end of the Crimean War the then Chancellor of the Exchequer took a very different line to the right hon. Gentleman opposite in regard to the Budget generally. When he brought in his first Budget the negotiations for peace were going on, and it was quite uncertain which way they would go. On that occasion the line which the then Chancellor of the Exchequer took, was to bring in a Budget for the first quarter of the year, in order that when it was ascertained whether peace was certain, he would be able to make his financial Statement for the year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day recognised that peace would lead to an entirely new situation and a new Budget, and before he brought that new Budget before the House he laid the revised Estimates upon the Table.
SIR EDGAR VINCENTsaid the debate had shown that no real agreement existed as to the essential facts under discussion. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should consent to lay on the Table a revised edition of the Financial Statement. The conclusion of peace had profoundly modified the financial position, and it was only fair that the Committee should know precisely how they stood with regard to the Finances of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed a fundamental change in their financial policy. He believed the corn tax was generally considered as such—and the onus probandi of the necessity of the tax lay upon the right hon. Gentleman. It was impossible to justify such a proposal unless the necessity was first proved, and that necessity could not be proved unless everybody was in possession of the figures relating to the national finance, and agreement established in respect thereof.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONendorsed the appeal that the Committee should be put in a position really to judge of the present financial situation before they were called upon to impose new taxation. Hon. Members who had dissented from the statement of the last speaker that large changes were being made, seemed to have forgotten that a sum of £30,000,000, originally proposed for certain purposes, was now to be applied to something totally different, and that a sum of £16,000,000 more than was required, which was borrowed under the Loan for war purposes was going to be applied in other directions altogether. The Committee were entitled to ask for time, properly to consider these fundamental differences between the original Budget and that now proposed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that no such proposal had ever been made before. Of course it had not, for the simple reason, that no Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever made such proposals as the present in previous cases of peace and war. Both in regard to the Crimean War and after the Continental War, the House of Commons had an opportunity with the facts and figures before it, of reconsidering the financial position. In the present year there had been no proper Budget at all. In his original statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given—as he seemed to have become accustomed to doing—the loosest possible Estimates, and for some £17,000,000 he could give no proper Estimate at all. Such a course was absolutely unprecedented, except when Supplementary Estimates or a Vote of Credit had been immediately introduced. In the same way, the right hon. Gentleman was now proposing to give the loosest possible Estimate of the way in which the money was to be expended. The Committee was certainly entitled to some delay in order that they might be able to judge of the necessity of the new taxation. The right hon. Gentleman would not be damnified in any way by such delay, as the tax was already in existence and being collected. The fact was the position in which they stood was largely duo to the hurry of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in issuing his loan for more than was ultimately shown to be required. He had

133
borrowed at 93 per cent. some £16,000,000 more than was necessary, and the country would have to pay that money off at par. He agreed with the principle laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in time of war a large proportion of the necessary expenditure should be met out of current taxation; his quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman was that in no year since the war began had he so raised anything like sufficient. Out of £200,000,000, he had taken out a new taxation of only £40,000,000 or £50,000,000. But there was nothing inconsistent between supporting that principle as a general principle, and objecting to a particular tax, which was not an old tax, being continued, but a new impost, proposed for one purpose, and now apparently to be applied to something entirely different. The country had always understood from the right hon. Gentleman and also from the First Lord of the Treasury and the Colonial Secretary, that the corn tax was to be imposed for war purposes.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No. The hon. Member misrepresents both my colleagues and myself. As a matter of fact, last year, and this year, I stated most plainly that the imposition of the new indirect taxation, whether on sugar, coal, or corn, was not only for the war, but also for permanent purposes.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that while he strongly objected to the corn tax as a separate tax, he objected to it still more as a permanent impost. He supported the imposition of taxation to meet war expenditure, but this tax was so bad in its nature that he would rather have cowardly finance than fiscal folly. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the strength of his financial principles in imposing taxation, but when slight pressure was brought to bear by the bankers he dropped a certain proposal and had brought forward no alternative to take its place. Throughout these debates, the Opposition, in objecting to the corn tax, had suggested alternatives which they would support. Those alternatives had been refused, and, as the right hon. Gentleman would offer no alternative himself, he should support the Motion of his right hon. friend.
MR. CHAPLINsaid that hon. Members who had urged that the conclusion of peace had profoundly modified the financial situation of the original proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that before these new taxes were voted the country ought to know the purposes for which the money was needed, must have forgotten the statements made in more or less detail, by the right hon. Gentleman when introducing the Budget. On that occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer took into consideration the very contingency which had since arisen, and explained that in the event of peace being concluded in a few weeks the money would be required for gratuities and bounties to the soldiers who had served in that war, for disembodiment, for transport home of reservists and others, for the maintenance of a considerable force in South Africa, for the relief and resettlement of the two colonies, for rebuilding and restocking farms, and so on. It was rather hard, therefore, that, because a contingency which the right hon. Gentleman took into consideration at the time had now occurred, he should be told that his proposals were altogether inapplicable to the present situation. Under the circumstances the demand for the postponement of this clause was clearly unreasonable. As for the corn tax being a war tax alone, if they would look at the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer they would see that a column or two of his speech was devoted to the necessity of broadening the basis of taxation. The opposition to this clause was aimed at this particular tax, and but for the corn tax this Motion would never have been made. This was simply an attack by a side wind upon a tax which hon. Gentlemen opposite disliked, and with regard to which he thought they were very much mistaken, because it was a tax which would inflict less hardship upon all classes of the community than any other tax which any Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to discover.
MR. McCRAEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford had taken up an amazing position, considering that he was such a staunch supporter of

135
Parliamentary procedure. The demand made was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should indicate the purposes for which the money was required, and that Estimates should be submitted showing how the money was to be spent. No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated in his Budget speech that if the war came to an end the money asked for might be required for other purposes of a more beneficial character, but the reason this Motion had been proposed was because the House was entitled to have a more specific definition of how this large surplus was to be applied. They bad heard a great deal about the policy of the open door of which he approved, but this new policy of the open purse was certainly contrary to the usage of Parliament. He would take the Chancellor of the Exehequer's own figures, and prove that he had at the present time £45,000,000 which he might spend, and for which no Estimates had been submitted to the House.
In the Budget speech proposals were made for an expenditure in South Africa amounting to £57,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman had shown that for two months the expenditure on the war had amounted to £12,000,000. That left £45,000,000 to be disposed of, and the Committee was entitled to ask for specific statements and an Estimate to show clearly how that money was to be spent. The right hon. Gentleman, in his very excellent speech last Wednesday, urged the House to leave his hands free, with a distinct understanding that all the surplus of £6,000,000 should be devoted to the reduction of the present Debt. He had every confidence in the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he did not think they should leave his hands free to dispose of such a large sum of money. It was a most dangerous doctrine that money should be spent without having been previously sanctioned by the Committee. In his interesting Supplementary Budget speech of Wednesday last the right hon. Gentleman explained how he was going to deal with the sum at his disposal. He wished to show the right hon. Gentleman how he could remit the corn tax without disturbing the Budget, and he thought this would constitute a reason why this clause should
136
be postponed. After providing, as the right hon. Gentleman intended to provide, for the restoration of the Sinking Fund to the extent of £4,600,000, and after applying, as he proposed to apply, £6,000,000 to the reduction of the floating Debt, he maintained that in addition to all that the right hon. Gentleman had a sum of £4,000,000 which he took into account in his Budget speech, but which he did not take into account on Wednesday last. If the right hon. Gentleman would apply that he would not require the corn tax and he would have in addition a surplus of £1,000,000 sterling.
He would present the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a Supplementary Budget. In his original Budget, after providing for the Sinking Fund contribution, the right hon. Gentleman showed a deficit of £26,800,000. Since then he had to provide £1,750,000 for the South African Constabulary, the grant to the West Indies, and the increased interest charge for the Debt. That made the total deficit £28,500,000. On the other side, he had the loan of £29,900,000. His proposed new taxation amounted to £4,600,000, and he had also the surplus of last year's loan amounting to £4,000,000, which gave him £38,500,000 after providing for the restoration of the Sinking Fund. The right hon. Gentleman must admit that the Exchequer balances at the present time were abnormally large, and he had in those balances the £4,000,000 which were borrowed last year for the purposes of the war. Therefore, after providing for the restoration of the Sinking Fund and the war expenditure to the conclusion of hostilities, the right hon. Gentleman had a balance of £28,000,000 this year; and in addition to that he maintained he had a further balance of £10,000,000 sterling. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken in no unmeasured terms as to the inconsistency of hon. Members on this side of the House proposing that the corn tax should be remitted, while they had always maintained that the right hon. Gentleman applied too small a portion of taxation to the redemption of war indebtedness. What was the principle he had applied? He would not include the contribution to the Sinking Fund. He had always maintained that the application of the

137
Sinking Fund to war expenditure was like the principle of the Irishman who cut off a piece of his blanket at the top and sewed it on at the bottom in order to make it longer. With regard to this £10,000,000 that was left he asked the right hon. Gentleman to apply the principle which he had hitherto applied in providing for war expenditure. Deducting the Sinking Fund contribution he had gone on the principle that he provided a quarter of the expenditure out of taxation and three-quarters by borrowing. He wished him to apply the same principle to the surplus of £10,000,000, and then they would have £7,500,000 for the reduction of the Debt, and £2,500,000 for the remission of taxation. He hoped the right hon. Gentlemen would consider that, because the £7,500,000 for the reduction of the Debt was in addition to the £4,600,000 restored to the Sinking Fund. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would accede to the appeal which had been made to him from his own side of the House, and give the Committee some statement as to how this £45,000,000 was to be expended. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to the hon. Member for Poplar, said he did not regard this as a war tax, and that that was a reason why the clause should not be postponed, but, having regard to the fact that in his Budget speech the right hon. Gentleman said he looked upon the corn tax as a trifling contribution to the cost of the war, now that it had come to a close, he hoped he would respond to the appeal made to him to reconsider the question of the remission of this tax, which to him was a hateful one, and a departure from the principles of Free Trade.
MR. DILLONsaid he strongly objected to the particular tax proposed to be imposed by this clause, but the present Motion was not concerned with the merits or the demerits of the tax. The Motion was made in order to give an opportunity of protesting against what appeared to many of them to be a thoroughly vicious system of finance. It was all very fine to attempt to defend this by stating that it would be confined to the present instance, and, saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so excellent
138
a man that they could trust him with a free hand to deal with £40,000,000 after he had stated in a vague way his intentions as to the disposal of the money. That was an absurd way of arguing a case of this kind. It was a question of precedent and principle. If the whole finances of the country were to be conducted in the House of Commons in that way, their business would be turned upside down, and there was no limit to the extent to which that precedent might carry them. He had always understood that if there was one vital principle more than another, which had always been observed in dealing with finance in the House of Commons, it was that Ways and Means should follow Supply, and that no demand should be made in Ways and Means except after Estimates had been laid before the House, on the authority of the heads of the various spending departments. He never heard a Minister until this year ask the House of Commons to raise in Committee of Ways and Means, a large sum of money in respect of expenditure, as to which no opportunity for discussion had been given to the House of Commons. That was not asking for a small thing. It was asking the Committee to make a great and fundamental departure in the whole procedure of the House of Commons in this regard. Why should they be asked to impose an enormous burden of extra taxation on the people on vague statements, and when they bad no information whatever as to the details? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said just now that he made on Wednesday last the statement for which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton now asked. He did nothing of the kind. It was not for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay such a statement on the Table. His business was not to prepare Estimates, but to provide Ways and Means. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the conclusion of peace, he would lay a revised statement before the House, and be replied that he would make a statement on Wednesday last, but on that evening he merely made a statement of the vaguest possible kind. He said that, roughly speaking, be would be obliged to use the whole of the £40,000,000, set down in the Estimates

139
of the year for the war in South Africa. After giving roughly the figures showing how the money would be distributed, the right hon. Gentleman said he would have a balance of something over £6,000,000 which he would devote, if he got a free hand, to the redemption of the floating Debt. That, again, appeared to be a totally new departure for the House of Commons. When the Departments knew that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to have a balance of £6,000,000 they would be encouraged to come down on him to get the money out of him.
This discussion was important not only on account of their objection to this particular tax, but also because of their objection to the enormous departure they were asked to make from the regular established custom of the House of Commons in dealing with financial matters. As bearing on the evil consequences which must flow from such a proceeding, he would refer to what was said in reference to the loan. The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked for authority, only about six weeks ago, to issue £32,000,000 of Consols, and on this very same vicious principle he asked that he should be allowed to include in that sum £17,000,000 not allocated or accounted for in the Estimates of the year. He gave only a vague account of what was to be done with the £17,000,000. The hon. Member and others protested against any such permission being given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they pointed out that in the uncertainty which prevailed the proper course, in accordance with purity of financial practice, was to borrow what was required to meet the services of the year, and if additional Estimates had to be laid before the House of Commons authority could be asked for a second loan. By borrowing £17,000,000 more than he required at that particular period, the right hon. Gentleman had lost to the country £1,000,000. That could have been saved if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had postponed the borrowing of the £17,000,000 until a later period when Consols had recovered in price. If the balance of £6,000,000, which was partly due to that loan, was to be used S in the redemption of Debt, he presumed
140
the Debt would have to be redeemed at par, and the loss of £1,000,000 would be the result of borrowing more than was required. They were now asked to provide for a great Budget, which was unduly hurried on the House of Commons quite unnecessarily while the question of peace or war was hanging in the balance. He could understand the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer hastening to make a financial statement while the negotiations for peace were going on, to impress the Boer leaders with the idea that the resources of this country were not exhausted, and that the Government were prepared to raise untold millions to carry on the war, but he could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman should force on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, at a time when the financial accounts of the year could be remodelled in the event of peace being concluded. There was absolutely nothing to justify or explain the extreme anxiety of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get the Finance Bill forward, once he got the taxes Resolutions. It would have been quite competent to hold back the Second Reading of the Bill until peace was concluded, and the Estimates recast, so that on the Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman might be able to announce the modifications he proposed to introduce in the Budget, in consequence of the conclusion of peace.
What was the position they were placed in now? In the first place they had voted very large sums of money under certain headings in the Military Estimates which, with regard to millions, were not to be spent in the way in which they were set forth in the Estimates; in the second place there were various heads of expenditure which had not come before the House in any shape; and in the third place the Committee were absolutely in the dark whether they would ever be allowed to discuss the revised Supplementary Estimate at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in answer to an interruption, that he could not spend a penny of the £40,000,000, until it was voted by the House of Commons. That was not absolutely true, because a great deal had been voted by the House on the War Estimates which would have

141
to be revised and corrected. He did not know whether it was the intention of the Government to have that money revoted, or whether they had power to divert it to other purposes altogether. With regard to the Supplementary Estimates, they undoubtedly would have to vote the money, whether they were allowed to discuss the various items or not. A great portion of the £40,000,000 might be taken on a closured night and shoved through the House without a single hour of discussion. That was a monstrous thing. He did not know to what extent they were safeguarded in this matter by the new Supply Rule. It was now fortunately enacted that, in regard to new services, they would have an opportunity, apart from the closure, of discussing them. With regard to the other services connected with the conclusion of the war, he was afraid they would be ruled out of that exemption. They might have all the new Votes on the Table two or three days before the end of the session, but what satisfaction would that be when they would all be closured in Committee of Supply without a single word of comment being allowed upon them. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asking was that this Committee of Ways and Means should provide £30,000,000, in respect of which there were no Estimates, and no security that Parliament would ever have the opportunity of discussing them. If that method of dealing with national finance were sanctioned, what was to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer introducing, at some future time, his Budget before the Estimates of the year had been laid before the House? The right hon. Gentleman might say—"I estimate the expenditure at £100,000,000 and you may trust me that it is all right. I want £30,000,000 for the Naval Service, £30,000,000 for the Army Service and £40,000,000 for the other services; and by-and-by you will have the Estimates presented to you." He had noted in his experience of the House of Commons the truth of the saying in the catechism that if you once fall into a venial sin, these venial sins mount up by little and little until you become all bad. Practically the House of Commons commenced sinning in small venial transactions. But these formed precedents, until, at last, a principle was
142
established. Therefore, he maintained, that if this principle were sanctioned on the present occasion by the House of Commons it would form a departure from the old Rule that both Committee of Ways and Means and Committee of Supply should have before them the Estimates for the year. Otherwise there was nothing to prevent a Chancellor of the Exchequer from basing his demand on a Budget night for a Vote on his own rough estimates, given in round figures, as to what would be required for the service of the year.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Member has based his support of the Motion of the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton not so much, or, indeed, not at all, upon objection to the particular tax referred to more than once, but upon objection to proceeding with the subject on the present occasion. The view of the hon. Member appears to be that, although I stilted in my speeches on introducing the Budget, that, in the event of the war coming to an early termination, the expenditure otherwise required for the war would be devoted to services connected with the termination of the war, and although I promised on Wednesday to lay on the Table a full Statement explaining how the diversions would be made, yet he is not prepared to go on with this Bill until he has seen that Paper. That, I think, was the position taken by the hon. Member. But that is not the position of the right hon. Member, who merely moved to postpone this particular clause. There was not a word in his speech to indicate that he was not perfectly prepared to proceed with the other clauses of the Finance Bill.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I said we should have a, new Budget in order that we might consider the whole of the financial position.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Then the contention is more unreasonable than I supposed, Hon. Gentlemen opposite will not proceed with the renewal of the ordinary taxes for the year which are required for the service of the year until this Statement in relation to the new allocation of the Army Estimates for the

143
service of the war is in their hands. A more unreasonable proposal I never heard submitted to the House. I undertake to lay a Statement before the House, at as early a date as possible; and I will promise, on behalf of my right hon. friend the leader of the House, that proper opportunity shall be given for discussing the alteration of the allocation of items as compared with the Estimates, before the end of the session, and in fact at a reasonably early date. I explained on Wednesday last the alterations in my financial proposals necessitated by the termination of the war. I will undertake that a Statement showing the differences from the Statement circulated at the date of the Budget shall be in the hands of Members within a short time; and, seeing that we have occupied two and a half hours in discussing whether we shall proceed with this clause or not, we might without further delay come to a decision on that point.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman, with an air of great candour, as if making a great concession, has not really conceded the point we wish to impress upon the House. His promise that in a few days a Statement shall be laid on the Table and an opportunity for discussion given before the end of the session—
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: That was in reply to the hon. Member for East Mayo as to the closure being inflicted.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: His promise to discuss the change in the Estimates does not meet us We are invited today not only to continue old taxes but to agree to the imposition of a new tax of a peculiar character in a condition of things in which it is difficult to see the necessity without the detailed Estimates and the Statement which ought to be in the hands of Members before they are called upon to vote on any such tax. The right hon. Gentleman has drawn a distinction between the postponement of this clause and the postponement of this stage of the Bill to a later date; but the whole matter centres upon this one clause, because it is a peculiar clause; for we are invited not
144
only to impose a new duty, as to which there is a strong feeling in the country contrary to its imposition, but a duty of no ordinary kind; it is a duty which is to lead to a total subversion of our whole financial system in regard to the commercial relations of this with other countries.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I never said so.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, but the right hon. Gentleman's friends have said so. We have had the greatest difficulty in discovering what this duty is. I am not going to discuss it. Sometimes it has been called a war tax, to-day it has been described as part of the permanent revenue of the country.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It is not a war tax only.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is partly a war tax and partly it is not. I will concede this, that the right hon. Gentleman was very adroit and astute in his Budget speech, which I think I have in my pocket. This is all in the right hon. Gentleman's favour. I thought I had got hold of a good weapon against him. This is what he said—
"I am convinced that the people know and feel, with the high wages of the present day and bread so cheap"—and so on—"the tax I am proposing could at the very worst be but a very trifling contribution on their part to the cost of a war which the great bulk of them approve, and to the ever-increasing charge of the Navy, one of whose primary duties it is to protect the food supply of the country."
I am bound, therefore, to offer my meed of admiration to the right hon. Gentleman for the astuteness with which at this early stage of the proceedings he anticipated the little difficulty that would arise on this point. Well, now we are to understand that this is partly a war tax and partly a permanent tax, and this means, I suppose, that it is meant to be a permanent tax; but advantage is taken of the war to get it imposed—that is the plain English of it. It is regarded, I think, by eminent persons near the right hon. Gentleman, as the door to a great change, the means for securing a fundamental change in the financial relations of this country with our Colonies and foreign countries. That is

145
an additional reason why we should look at it once, twice, and thrice before accepting it. That makes us more and more particular to insist, or demand, for we cannot insist, unfortunately, that we should have in our possession the full and accurate facts that justify the taking so strong a step at this particular juncture. That is the reason why my right hon. friend moved the postponement of the clause, and I certainly think the circumstances justify him.
MR. McKENNAsaid that, as far as he could judge from the cheers of hon. Gentlemen opposite and the emphasis of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the two arguments on which the right hon. Gentlemen relied were, that, there being a deficit on the year of £24,000,000, he was bound to make provision for that deficit other than by way of loan; and, secondly, that it would be improper to devote the borrowed money towards the reduction of taxation. He contended that the real deficit on the ordinary taxation of the year was not £24,000,000, but £47,000,000. How did the Chancellor of the Exchequer in preceding years provide for the war expenditure? In 1900–1901, out of a total war expenditure of £68,000,000, £15,000,000 was provided by taxation; in 1901–1902, out of £73,000,000 of war expenditure, the right hon. Gentleman provided £20,000,000 out of taxation. In the present year out of £47,000,000 of war expenditure, £23,000,000 was provided out of taxation. It was not anything like the same proportion. In the first year 22 per cent. of the amount required was found by taxation, in the second year 21 per cent., and now the right hon. Gentleman's conscience was not satisfied with less than 59 per cent. of the war expenditure being found out of taxation. Under those circumstances they were entitled to say it was not, as the right hon. Gentleman alleged, a necessary provision out of the taxation of the year for the cost of the war. It was a, provision of three times as much as the right hon. Gentleman thought necessary to make in the first year of the war. That being so, the Committee was entitled to say that to make this arrangement for the provision for the
146
deficit was really hoodwinking the Committee on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, and, he submitted, with all respect, that the right hon. Gentleman was not acting on anything like the same principle as that on which he acted in the first year of the war. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's second point, he submitted that, when the current expenditure was paid, not out of taxation, but out of money raised by way of loan, then they were relieving the necessary taxation by loan. Everyone would agree that, if the loan had not already been raised, it would not be proper to remit existing taxation, and then raise a new loan to meet any deficit that might arise. But that was not the case in this instance. Hero we had £10,000,000 in hand, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not propose to use that money in relief of taxation. He proposed to impose new-taxation and devote that surplus to the reduction of Debt, Was that an economical proceeding? New taxation cost money; the Treasury did not get it all. The right hon. Gentleman in his last borrowing had lost millions, owing to the price at which he had to issue his loan. That had gone, and could not be recovered, and he now proposed to add to that loss by compelling the people to pay an additional cost in the coming year on every pound raised. Under the circumstances he submitted that both the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman had failed. This was obviously bad finance, and he should be much surprised if hon. Members did not agree that it was bad finance to leave the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a balance of £10,000,000, which was a, bait for everybody on his side of the House, and which was a temptation to himself, inasmuch as it was money which he could spend without consulting again the House of Commons, and money over which the Committee had lost all control.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYthought that all would agree that the Motion of the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton was eminently reasonable and justifiable. The Motion was that the first clause of the finance Bill should be postponed until Parliament was fully seized of all the figures and facts of the new position of affairs, and until they

147
knew how the Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to deal with this surplus which he had in hand. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was raising revenues which were not appropriated in any shape or form, the expenditure of which had not been debated or passed by any Committee of Supply, and the expenditure of which had not in any way been foreshadowed by the Government; large sums of money, the destination of which was unknown, and the disposal of which nobody knew anything whatever about. It had always been the opinion of Chancellors of the Exchequer up to the present time that it was undesirable to take money out of the pockets of the people unless it was necessary; that it should be left to fructify; but the right hon. Gentleman opposite had struck out an entirely new line, and one which up to the present time had not been countenanced by any Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Committee had heard about floating Debts. Now they heard about floating surpluses. By this action on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he lost all his safeguards against the spendthrift habits of Government Departments. What was the right hon. Gentleman doing? At a time when taxation was heavier than it had ever been known by any hon. Member of the House, when the income tax had reached the high water mark of this generation, when now duties had been imposed on foodstuffs not before taxed, the right hon. Gentleman proposed that he should absorb a large sum of money for which he had no use in the reduction of Debt. The Committee had been bewildered by the figures of the surplus of the right hon. Gentleman. Some experts had put it at £45,000,000, whilst others had brought it down to £6,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman himself fixed it at £10,000,000.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: There would be a surplus from loans of £10,500,000; £4,500,000 of that will go to the Sinking Fund, and I may add that I pledged myself on Wednesday last that the remaining £6,000,000 should be used for paying off floating Debt, except so far as it might be necessary to divert it for the temporary advantage of South Africa. I never dreamt of devoting it to ordinary Supplementary Estimates.
MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman
148
showed the necessity of having some Statement with regard to this matter. Nobody but the right hon. Gentleman understood the position of affairs at present. Our fiscal affairs were in a state of jumble. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman stated that he would devote this surplus to the reduction of floating Debt pre-supposed that there would be a surplus. That being so, was the extra penny on the income tax, were these new grain duties, necessary at the present time? He submitted that they were not only entirely unnecessary, but mischievous and iniquitous. It had been urged that the Amendment of the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton was obstructive, but it could not be said to be anything of the kind. It raised the whole question of whether this new taxation was necessary or not, and he considered that this matter should be deferred until all the figures had been placed before Parliament. The Committee was arguing the matter in the dark, and would be well advised to accept the Amendment.
MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid there was undoubtedly a difference between the present situation and the situation as it stood when the Budget was introduced; but he thought that difference might easily be very much exaggerated. The Army was still in South Africa, and would still have to be fed, and would have to be be brought home, so that practically the only immediate economy was in the reduction of expenditure on ammunition. It was true that the charges which the right hon. Gentleman would have to meet in bringing home troops and so on were not put forward with the detailed accuracy to which the House was accustomed; how could they be in the expenditure of winding up a war? It was one of the evils of war that the House could not have the same control over expenditure of that sort as they had over the ordinary expenditure of the country. He confessed that he preferred taxation to increasing the Debt. Supposing the estimated expenditure when the Budget was framed had been less by the amount of the possible surplus, would hon. Gentlemen opposite have refrained from putting on new taxation, or would they have reduced the amount to be borrowed? Unquestionably they should reduce the amount to be borrowed. It was only proper that

149
strenuous efforts should be made to meet increased expenditure largely by taxation, and he was rejoiced that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, instead of falling back on the easy and self-indulgent policy of borrowing, had held to the austere method of raising from taxation as much as he possibly could. The principle of the new taxation which had been put in had been affirmed by the House, and acquiesced in by the country, and it was much better to utilise the money so obtained for the reduction of the Debt and the restoration of the Sinking Fund, than to go back upon the arrangement that had been made.
MR. BLAKEsaid the discussion had evidenced in a concrete form the viciousness of the course which the Government proposed that the House should take, and the utter disregard which it involved of the ordinary precautions taken in financial questions of this kind. Had the recognised and settled foundation of their financial principles been maintained on that occasion, it would have been quite impossible for such a discussion to take place. It would have been impossible that such doubt and difference as to the excess of the Ways and Means proposed over duly estimated Supplies. He would trot enter into figures, but was disposed to agree with the Member for King's Lynn in his large estimate of that excess. Why this doubt and dispute? It was because they had departed from what had been the established, and, up to now, as far as he knew, the invariable practice of the House of Commons that it should have laid before it in detail first of all what were the estimates of expenses which those responsible for the government of the country thought should be demanded in the interests of the nation during the year. This gave the House the opportunity of satisfying itself as to the amount which ought to be proposed. Then, and not till then, came the consideration of the question—what should be the ways and means? Ways for what, means for what? The ways to provide and the means to make good that Supply which the Estimates of the year had indicated to the satisfaction of the House were required for the public service of the country. But they had not yet had
150
the usual and proper opportunity of satisfying themselves that the gross amount raised by the various resources of loan, old taxes, and this additional taxation ought to be provided, not for the purposes originally named, but for other purposes under the new conditions. That was the difficulty which arose, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer found it convenient and in the public interest, upon the whole, to proceed with his Budget at a period when the finances of the country could not be absolutely arranged—matters being in the balance—at a period when the peace negotiations were about to commence. Notwithstanding, he considered it necessary at once to bring in a war Budget and to make a war Statement. It was on that basis that the Supplies were voted, the loan granted and the taxes proposed. It was quite true that the Chancellor threw out a vague alternative idea, and, in a mere sketch, a mere adumbration of a plan, spoke of some millions of money which might not be required, and of many more millions which might be otherwise employed, if the peace negotiations were successfully concluded. But who in the world would dare suggest that that adumbration would have been adequate ground for voting that motley directly for those vague purposes? No one. Estimates would have been demanded. Still less could it be solid ground when the mind of the House and country was at the moment fixed, not on the sketch, but wholly on the war estimates presented. No one would have been bold enough, upon the sketch thus propounded to the House, to say that they should agree to the Budget then brought down. It was thrown out as something which might satisfy the House, that a good deal of money would be required anyway, but that there was a possibility that they would have to reconsider those Estimates, because some other method of spending that money, or some other wants, would be brought forward in case the negotiations were successful. The vicious course was repeated, which had been pursued in the previous year, of asking, even on the war basis, for more money than was specifically estimated for. From the tone of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's remarks that day, he rather suspected

151
that it was intended that a very large proportion of the money voted by the House for pay for the Army and other expenses of carrying on the war would be otherwise used without the House having any further opportunity to vote upon it—that was to say, used for quite different purposes, for purposes connected with the end of the war, when the arrangements would be quite different, as they would have to do wholly with peace instead of wholly with war. These arrangements would demand as much consideration from the economical point of view as could be conceived, and would require far more scrutiny than any ordinary arrangements in peace times. But, as to these many millions, he feared there would be no check at all; and, as to the rest, there would be no effective check. Money voted for specific proposed charges would be spent on quite different charges, and the effective control of Parliament would be lost. The Chancellor asked for a free hand for himself. That was an unconstitutional demand; a free hand for the Chancellor meant a palsied hand of Parliament.
Now, what was the reason of the rule which had here been violated? The reason of it was that it was very much more difficult to persuade the representatives of the people to vote supplies before ways and means had been provided than it was to induce them to acquiesce in the spending of money that had been already borrowed and provided. Once the money was in the Bank the demands upon it were inexorable, and the power of resistance was nullified. To depart from the settled system of first dealing with supply, and later with ways and means for such supply was to enter upon a path predestined to extravagance and corruption. [Opposition cheers.] Then having, in the uncertain state of affairs, provided for a condition now changed, for war instead of peace, what ought they now to do? What they ought to do was to revert as quickly as possible to the normal and customary method. The moment the new state of things arose, the moment it was to be a peace Budget instead of a war Budget, the moment the position was altogether changed so far as concerned the application of a sum approx-mating to £40,000,000; that moment it
152
was the duty of those responsible for the government of the country to bring down fresh Estimates for the utilisation of the money which had not been voted for purposes other than the carrying on of the war. That was the wise and prudent course, and thus they would be upholding the sound system of finance which had been departed from in this instance. The House should have specific details as to the proposed expenditure of that money. The House should not be asked to proceed further with the consideration of Ways and Means till they had received satisfaction as to estimates of Supply. To preserve the rights of the House of Commons and protect the interests of the people, they resisted further progress at this time and would certainly vote in favour of Sir Henry Fowler's Motion.
SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid the hon. Member who spoke a few moments previously made a great point in his speech between raising money by taxation and raising money by loan. He had professed a great preference in favour of taxation to loan. He could not help thinking when that hon. Member had seen as many years pass over his head as he (Sir Joseph) had seen, he would probably be not quite so eager to raise money by immediate taxation as he would by a loan which he might not be called upon to pay! The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said very properly, that the money now asked for by the loan was already in his hands. The question before the Committee was, therefore, not that of the manner of raising money, but one which he looked upon as; much more important and serious. The objection was to any Chancellor of the Exchequer being left with a large amount of money in hand for purposes with which the House of Commons was not acquainted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division had urged that, in the difficult and obviously uncertain circumstances at present surrounding him, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be left with a large amount in hand. No doubt in view of having to wind up a war—especially one in which such excellent and generous conditions had been laid down as to providing money for the people

153
in whose country hostilities had been carried on—the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a larger claim to have a sum in hand than most Chancellors had, but if the House once admitted the principle that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have money in hand unappropriated, and of the appropriation of which the House knew nothing, it would lose that control over the purse-strings, which had been one of the strongest features of the Constitution the House had always possessed. The question of the particular taxes was as nothing compared with the principle contained in the Motion that the clause should be postponed until the Committee knew definitely the purposes for which the money was required. He trusted that, in deference to the old customs and habits relating to the authorities of the House of Commons, the right hon. Gentleman would give way, in order that the Committee might know for what they were voting, and how the money required was to be raised.
MR. CHANNINGpointed out that the amount raised by taxation in the present Budget was £152,000,000, which represented £9,500,000 more than in the preceding year. Of that amount £4,500,000 was raised by the addition to the income tax and the duty on corn. The right hon. Gentleman therefore had a sum of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000, from the increase of previously imposed taxation, which, in his opinion, was an ample margin to justify the principle of dealing with war expenditure largely by taxation, so that both the increase of the income tax and tin; duty on corn were wholly unnecessary from the financial point of view.
(5.53.) Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes. 176; Noes, 264. (Division List No. 209.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Doogan, P. C.

Langley, Batty

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Duncan, J. Hastings

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

Dunn, Sir William

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Ambrose, Robert

Edwards, Frank

Leamy, Edmund

Asher, Alexander

Emmott, Alfred

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

Leng, Sir John

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Levy, Maurice

Atherley-Jones, L.

Fenwick, Charles

Logan, John William

Austin, Sir John

Ferguson, R. C. Muuro (Leith)

Lough, Thomas

Barlow, John Emmott

Ffrench, Peter

London, W.

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Flynn, James Christopher

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

MacVeugh, Jeremiah

Blake, Edward

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

M'Cann, James

Boland, John

Gilhooly, James

M'Crae, George

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Broadhurst, Henry

Grant, Corrie

M'Kean, John

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Mather, William

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Hammond, John

Mooney, John J.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Burns, John

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Burt, Thomas

Harwood, George

Motley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Hayden, John Patrick

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Caldwell, James

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Newnes, Sir George

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

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

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Helme, Norval Watson

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Causton, Richard Knight

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Norman, Henry

Cawley, Frederick

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

Norton, Capt, Cecil William

Channing, Francis Allston

Holland, William Henry

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

Craig, Robert Hunter

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Crean, Eugene

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Cremer, William Randal

Jacoby, James Alfred

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

Crombie, John William

Joicey, Sir James

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Jones, David Brymn'r (Swansea

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

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Joyce, Michael

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

Delany, William

Kearley, Hudson E.

O'Malley, William

Dewar, John A. (Inverness sh.)

Kinloch, Sir Jno. George Smyth

O'Mara, James

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Kitson, Sir James

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Dillon, John

Lambert, George

Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)

Partington, Oswald

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Toulmin, George

Paulton, James Mellor

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Wallace, Robert

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Soares, Ernest J.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Price, Robert John

Stevenson, Francis S.

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

Rea, Russell

Strachey, Sir Edward

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Reckitt, Harold James

Sullivan, Donal

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Reddy, M.

Taylor, Theodore Cooke

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Thomas Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

Redmond, William (Clare)

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

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

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

Young, Samuel

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

Yoxall, James Henry

Robson, William Snowdon

Thompson, Dr. EC (Monagh'n, N

Runciman, Walter

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

Schwann, Charles E.

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

Tomkinson, James

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Gunter, Sir Robert

Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Guthrie, Walter Murray

Allsopp, Hon. George

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Hain, Edward

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cranborne, Viscount

Hall, Edward Marshall

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Bagot Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

Balcarres, Lord

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

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

Dalkeith, Earl of

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Davenport, William Bromley-

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Banbury, Frederick George

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

Heaton, John Henniker

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Helder, Augustus

Bartley, George C. T.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Henderson, Alexander

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Higginbottom, S. W.

Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Digby, Johh K. D. Wingfield-

Hoare Sir Samuel

Beckett, Ernest William

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Hope, J. F.(Shefield, Brightside

Beresford, Lord Chas. William

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Bignold, Arthur

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Hoult, Joseph

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)

Bond, Edward

Duke, Henry Edward

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Boulnois, Edmund

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Brassey, Albert

Faber, George Denison (York)

Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh.

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

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Brymer, William Ernest

Finch, Goerge H.

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Kenvon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Butcher, John George

Fisher, William Hayes

Kimber, Henry

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Hemy

Knowles, Lees

Cautley, Henry Strother

Flower, Ernest

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

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

Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W.

Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Galloway, William Johnson

Lawson, John Grant

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Gardner, Ernest

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Garfit, William

Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

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

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Chapman, Edward

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

Leveson-Gower. Frederick N. S.

Charrington, Spencer

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

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Long Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)

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

Graham, Henry Robert

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Coddington, Sir William

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Lowe, Francis William

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent)

Cellings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

156

157

Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Macdona, John Cumming

Plummer, Walter R.

Stock, James Henry

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Maconochie, A. W.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Purvis, Robert

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

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

Pym, C. Guy

Thornton, Percy M.

Majendie, James A. H.

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

Malcolm, Ian

Randles, John S.

Tritton, Charles Ernest

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

Rankin, Sir James

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Valentia, Viscount

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Vincent, Cl. Sir C. E. H (Sheffield

Middlemore, J no. Throgmorton

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Remnant, James Farquharson

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Milvain, Thomas

Renshaw, Charles Bine

Warr, Augustus Frederick

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

Webb, Colonel William George

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Morgan, David J (Walthamst'w

Ropner, Colonel Robert

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Morgan, Hn. Fred.(Monm'thsh.

Round, James

Williams, Rt Hn J Pow'll-(Birm.

Morrison, James Archibald

Rutherford, John

Wills, Sir Frederick

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Muntz, Philip A.

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

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

Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Gr'h'm (Bute

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Seton-Karr, Henry

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Myers, William Henry

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

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

Nicholson, William Graham

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Younger, William

Parker, Gilbert

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

Pemberton, John S. G.

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

Penn, John

Spear, John Ward

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

Percy, Earl

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Pierpoint, Robert

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

MR. CHANNINGsaid the Amendment which he had to propose raised a definite and restricted issue-Its object was that the tax should be imposed for one year, and one year only, in the same way as the tea duty and the income tax, and that at the end of one year it should be proposed again if necessary. It was not necessary to deal with the nature of the tax except as bearing on that issue. With regard to new taxes and there-imposition of old taxes, the onus of proof as to their necessity rested upon the Government. In the case of an old tax they ought to prove that the conditions under which it was originally imposed were renewed, or that the disadvantages which compelled its disuse were not now present or were outweighed by a supreme necessity. But the obligation to show cause was tenfold stronger when they sought to impose new taxes or re-impose old taxes in a permanent form. If a tax on bread was open to the gravest objections upon economical grounds, and if they were agreed that it did not bring
158
into the Treasury the full amount which was imposed upon the consumer, and that it imposed a heavy burden upon the poorest of the people, and made a revolution in the established principles of taxation on which the prosperity of the Empire had been built up, there was the strongest grounds for insisting that the Government should show cause before such a tax was imposed in a permanent form. The right hon. Gentleman had now admitted that this was partly a war tax and partly a tax for ordinary purposes, but they had a right to know what was the real meaning of this tax. Was this a war tax, and was it to be considered as an expedient to meet one of those grave emergencies which call for any or every sacrifice? Or was it to be part of the ordinary machinery to raise our ordinary taxation in the future? They were being left too much in the dark. The right hon. Gentleman had obtained an extra margin of 10 millions one year, and 17 millions the next, and now he had a loose sum of 6 millions.

159
The Government were now asking for indefinite powers, and imposing taxes for indefinite purposes, and the Committee had a right to challenge this policy fully and fairly upon the present occasion, and to insist on knowing what this tax meant, and where ail these proceedings were taking us. The Colonial Secretary said this was a tax for a just and necessary war, which interested the working class as much as any other portion of the public. If that were so, it, was an irresistible argument for imposing this tax for one year only. They knew perfectly well that the tax was not wanted as a permanent one on that basis. It was perfectly obvious from the figures submitted by the right hon. Gentleman the other night that the tax was not needed for the purposes of the war. It was not even needed in any sense whatever for the winding up purposes of the war. Was it needed for the ordinary expenditure of the country at the present time? The right hon. Gentleman boasted in his Budget speech that the enormous growth of ordinary expenditure was being arrested, and that, while the increase in 1901 had been no less than £12,500,000, the increase in 1902 had only been £3,500,000, or not more than the normal increase of revenue without additional taxes. This tax, therefore, was wholly unnecessary as part of the ordinary expenditure of the country. What would be the position of the finances of the country twelvemonths hence? It was perfectly clear that the ordinary revenue, irrespective of this tax, would provide a vastly greater amount than would be necessary to meet the ordinary expenditure. At the close of the present year, according to the Statist, there would be a surplus, supposing no new large expenditure was entered upon, of between £15,000,000 and £19,000,000 sterling, by the normal growth of the revenue without the taxes proposed this year. [Sir M. HICKS BEACH shook his head.] The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that is the contention of one of the foremost financial papers of the present day. Therefore, there was no justification for placing this war tax on a permanent basis.
160
Now he came to the apology given the other night by the right hon. Gentleman for going on with the tax—that it was, necessary to deal with the Sinking Fund and to proceed with the paying off of the Debt as fast as possible. He heartily agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in that. But that was an afterthought. When the resolution on this tax was moved, there was not the slightest hint given by the right hon. Gentleman that it would be treated as a means of restoring the Sinking Fund in any way, There was quite enough tax revenue this year, and plenty next year, for that purpose. It was not necessary to place this tax on a permanent basis as a war tax, and he had shown that it could not be justified as an ordinary item of the tax revenue, because, while the ordinary expenditure would be amply covered, there would be an important surplus at the end of the year. In endeavouring to ascertain the real reason for this policy they could not shut their eyes to the declarations of Sir W. Laurier in the Canadian Parliament, and also, he believed, of the Prime Minister of New Zealand, welcoming this tax as an instrument for asking the Government to institute a system of preferential duties between this country and the Colonies. That was not a question which he would develop at the present time, but it was a matter of the most supreme gravity. In view of the opinions held by the representatives of Colonial Parliaments, with respect to the bearing of the tax on the fiscal system of this country, he maintained that the Committee had a right to ask that it should only be imposed for one year, and that it should be open for Parliament to reconsider it twelve months hence when they had all the facts before them, and when they would be able to decide as to consequences of so portentous a fiscal revolution. Recent events had aroused the patriotic spirit of the Empire, but it was a perfect scandal if the patriotic impulse of the people, wherever it existed, were to be availed of in order to carry out this gigantic economic folly by placing this tax in a permanent form.
Amendment, proposed—
"In page 1, line 17, after the word 'Two,' to insert the words 'Until the 1st day of August. 1903.' "—(Mr. Channing.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I rise in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have the opportunity of explaining to us exactly what his view is as to the character of this tax. That must be, to a great degree, the deciding question both here and in the country. That it was not a war duty, or intended to be a war duty, but that it was proposed for the purpose of what was called broadening our basis of taxation, quite irrespective of the war, was the impression which was left on the House by the original Statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But then the Colonial Secretary goes immediately after to Birmingham and states the exactly opposite view. [HON. MEMBERS on the Ministerial Benches, "No."] Here is the litera scripta; here are the words—
"What is the argument in favour of this tax? It is raised for the war."
That is the argument for the tax. Now, nothing could be more completely contradictory of the Statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Did you say that the argument in favour of this tax was that it was a war tax?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Yes; it is.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Then be it so. All the authorities are agreed. It is a war tax. That is conclusive. Then why impose it after the war is over? But the statements with reference to this tax are rather confused, for the Colonial Secretary, having stated it was a war tax, went on to recommend it on another ground. He said it will enable him to negotiate preferential duties with the Colonies. Now, I have another question to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I hope he will give an equally definite answer to it. Does he contemplate this tax as a means of negotiating preferential duties with the Colonies? That, too, is a point upon which the country desires to be enlightened.
162
Whole columns of the newspapers are taken up in showing how this tax will be of use in binding the Colonies to us by making preferential treaties with them. We all know what preferential duties mean. They mean limiting the supplies of this country to one-third of the sources of supply. That means, of course, an enormous rise in the prices of all commodities introduced into this country. Besides that, it means making commercial' enemies of other countries. You embark in commercial hostilities and these are apt to end in international quarrels. We have only concluded the war in South Africa to open a war of duties with every nation all over the world. Preferential duties involve not only war with all other nations on questions of duties, but involve infinite quarrels with the Colonies themselves. No one colony will want exactly the same thing as the others. It will be a perpetual quarrel, always arising, because the demands will change every year, it will be necessary to continually make new arrangements which will disturb your commercial relations with each colony and all the rest of the world. That is what preferential duties mean, and, therefore, it is of consummate importance that we should know exactly where we stand. I cannot believe that that was in the mind of the Chancellor or the Exchequer when he introduced this tax. When he was speaking the other night, and my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition suggested to him the speech of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, both he and the Leader of the House indignantly repudiated the notion that the tax had any such connexion. But the Colonial Secretary goes down to Birmingham and develops at full length the subject of preferential duties and their relations to the Colonies. This is a matter of the deepest possible importance to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am certain that could never have been in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman—he is much too frank—when he introduced the tax. He has too much pluck, he is too honest to introduce a tax of this kind without saying anything at all as to these sinister motives which lay at the bottom of it. I take the right hon. Gentleman's contradiction; and that is exactly what I want. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is a

163
war tax. Then is it to cease after the war? The right hon. Gentleman the Chanceller of the Exchequer said that this tax has nothing to do with preferential duties or treaties. That is very satisfactory; and I am quite sure that there will he some concordat established between the Treasury and the Colonial Office. I only rose to put these questions because it would be highly satisfactory to hear the view upon them of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I confess I am astonished at the speech we have just heard. The hon. Member for East Northamptonshire had in a very moderate tone asked the Committee to limit the operation of this tax to one year. That is not a novel proposal, because the hon. Gentleman made it himself last year with reference to the sugar duty, and I think also with reference to the coal duty; and this year he has placed on the Paper Amendments of the same kind with reference to the duty on sugar, the duty on coal, and the excise duty on glucose. The mind of the hon. Gentleman appears to be turned in this direction with regard to every tax of which he does not approve. He seems to think that, by limiting the operation of a tax to only one year, he is giving Parliament a control over a tax which would be placed beyond the possibility of any Parliamentary interference if no such limitation was applied. Anyone who considers our system of taxation knows perfectly well that that view is not correct. Every year for many years past the Finance Bill has re-enacted two taxes—the duty on tea and the income tax. They are annual taxes, and they are annual taxes in order that the House of Commons may never be without the opportunity of checking the Government in dealing with the finances of the year. It is open on the Finance Bill to any Member of the House of Commons to move the alteration or repeal of any and every tax with which he does not agree, and, therefore, the House retains entire control over all our taxes. I should oppose the limitation of this corn duty to one year, just as I opposed the limitation of the coal duty, the sugar duty, and the glucose duty to one year. It has
164
never been the habit of this House to impose a new indirect tax for one year only, and that for the obvious reason that it would leave every one uncertain as to the future; for imposing any indirect tax only for twelve months would undoubtedly interfere with trade, for a reason which would probably be entirely inadequate, and which no Chancellor of the Exchequer would think of putting forward. That is the position so far with regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire sees in my proposal to place this tax on the same footing as all our indirect taxes and all our direct taxes, except the tea duty and the income tax—on the same footing as it occupied when it existed for twenty years, and on the same footing as the sugar duty has always occupied—some extraordinary notion of turning it into a scheme for revolutionising our whole Customs tariff, and of instituting in its place a Protectionist tariff against foreign countries.
This tax was imposed for two purposes. It was imposed to bear its share, together with the increase in the income tax, of the cost of the war in the present year, which would thus be divided between direct and indirect taxation. It was imposed for the second object of adding, I hope permanently, to the heads of indirect taxation. In my belief such has been the growth of our expenditure during the past few years, and such is likely to be its continued growth under any Administration, that it is absolutely necessary to increase the heads of indirect taxation. Now I know perfectly well that the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition are always telling us that this growth of expenditure is all the fault of His Majesty's Government. The Leader of the Opposition said the other day that it was mainly due, as it is mainly due, to increased armaments, and he intimated pretty clearly his own opinion that we had gone too far in that direction. Sir, the country differs from him. I do not believe that the country is likely to take that view, either with regard to the Navy or with

165
regard to the ordinary peace establishment of the Army; and if I wanted some testimony to the correctness of that opinion I should quote some words which recently fell from Lord Rosebery at Leeds. Lord Rosebery is a politician and statesman of great ability; but I sometimes think that he would be more powerful as a Leader if he had more definite and decided opinions of his own. He is remarkably apt to follow what he thinks the popular opinion, or at any rate not to go contrary to it. There is a curious difference in this matter between those two right hon. Gentlemen opposite and Lord Rosebery. Lord Rosebery referred to our great expenditure. Did he condemn it? Did he say that our armaments were excessive, that we had wasted money in colonial extension or in extension of our protectorates in Africa, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite said the other day? No, Sir, not a word of it. All he said was that it might be necessary, and for all he knew was necessary, that the ordinary expenditure of the country should have gone up by £32,000,000. He could pass no opinion upon it except that the situation was grave. Well, the Leader of the Opposition the other day compared me rather unfavourably to a signpost.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Hear, hear!
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: He told me that I was always pointing out the dangerous way, as I have sometimes stated it to be, in which the expenditure of his country has increased, but that I had done nothing to check it. The right hon. Gentleman does not know what I have done to check it. But this, I think, even he will admit. A signpost that does show the way in a certain direction is better than a signpost that does not show the way at all, and that is Lord Rosebery's position. But I agree with Lord Rosebery in his opinion in regard to our expenditure—I am speaking of our ordinary expenditure. Why do I think so? It is not so much because it is so very high, but because it has seemed to me that even in the short time that has elapsed since the termination of the war the first idea of persons of all shades of politics in the
166
country has been, not as the idea of our ancestors used to be when a war was over—how we should reduce expenditure, and how, therefore, we should reduce taxation—but how we should spend the money which we have, to what new purposes we should devote it. That is to my mind a grave situation. To my mind but a small portion of the ideas which are floating in people's minds at the present time ought to be realised at the expense of the national Exchequer; but even to realise that portion certainly involves a still further increase in our ordinary expenditure. Where is the money to come from? Is it to come entirely from the income-taxpayer? That is really the question which Parliament has to answer in this matter. If it comes from indirect taxation, is it to come from piling on more and more upon tobacco or alcohol—articles already taxed over and over again beyond their value? Yes, they are. Tobacco bears taxation amounting to 500 per cent. of its value, and alcohol is taxed in a similar way. It is perfectly certain that you will not raise increased revenue by piling on taxation on articles already so heavily taxed beyond a very small point. If you want to increase your revenue from indirect taxation you must add new articles to your list, and that is why I added sugar and coal last year and propose to add corn in the year now before us.
I have asked, "What is your alternative?" It is to keep up the income tax perhaps at very nearly its present limit in time of peace. What would be the result of that? Why you would raise such a feeling of injustice among the small class who at present pay income tax, such a feeling of unfairness as compared with other classes of the country who do not pay it, that I venture to say you would endanger the tax in a way that this country has not yet seen. But you would do something more. Keep your income tax at 1s. or 1s. 2d. in time of peace, and where is your great financial engine in time of war? God forbid that we should in our time ever again enter into a great war. But there may be circumstances, not the fault of our people, which may involve us in a great war. And, if it be so, Sir, if you commence a great war with an income tax of 1s. or 1s. 2d. in the pound, you will have to raise your revenue—unless you borrow it all—you will have to raise

167
your revenue for that war by indirect taxes of which we do not dream, and which would cause infinitely greater injury to the trade and commerce of this country than can be imagined for a moment from such taxes as those we now have upon sugar or coal, or corn, which to my mind cause no injury at all. I have been challenged as to the financial position of the future. That is my view of the financial position of the future. That is why I have proposed this corn duty as part of our permanent system of taxation.
And now I hope I have answered that question of the right hon. Gentleman. I come to the second part of his speech. I never was more astonished in my life than I was when the Leader of the Opposition got up at the close of one of our previous debates on this corn duty, and stated to the House that his great objection to the corn duty, apart from the incidence which he considered it had upon the very poor, was the idea that it was the precursor of a complete change in our fiscal relations with the Colonies and foreign countries. He put it, I think, that it was a prelude to a Customs union of the Empire upon a Protectionist basis. Well, I have proposed this duty as a revenue duty and nothing else. I know that Sir Wilfred Laurier made some observations on the subject in the Dominion House of Commons. I have the greatest respect for Sir Wilfrid Laurier as an able and loyal statesman, but this I must say, that I do not think Sir Wilfrid Laurier's opinions with regard to the tendency or the effect of any fiscal legislation here are of more value than my opinion might be with regard to similar matters in Canada. I disclaim altogether the interpretation which Sir Wilfred Laurier has placed upon the corn duty. But now I should like to say something to right hon. Gentlemen opposite. In a few weeks we hope that there will be a conference of representatives of the Colonies upon this question of commercial relations, as well as upon other questions affecting the interests of the Empire. Now, what is the position which right hon. Gentlemen opposite take upon this question of our commercial relations with the Colonies? Supposing it were possible that we should have Free Trade
168
throughout the British Empire, an Imperial Zollverein, do they not think that such an arrangement as that would be an arrangement binding together our Colonies and the mother country, and our Colonies themselves, more, perhaps, than anything else that could be devised?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean Free Trade with all the world?
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I mean Free Trade with the Colonies. Was it a good thing or was it a bad thing that the Zollverein was established in Germany? Was it a good thing or was it a bad thing that the United States formed themselves into a group with no Customs barrier between them? If we could have Free Trade with our Colonies, I do not see why that should necessarily involve increased duties on our part against foreign nations; but if we could have Free Trade with our Colonies, even some sacrifice in that direction might be made. Let us carry the matter a little further. It is not possible, as every one who has looked into the matter knows, that there should be Free Trade at the present time between England and her Colonies. Cannot we try so to settle the commercial relations between us that we may make trade freer than it is now, and that without necessarily injuring any foreign country at all? I am bound to say that my idea of dealing with this great question is upon the basis of Free Trade, not upon the basis of Protection. I know that some persons have suggested that you should impose duties against foreign nations—duties which do not now exist against foreign nations—in order to give an advantage to our colonies. That is not the policy of His Majesty's Government. But it is our policy, adhering to our own principles, to do what we can to make trade between ourselves and our Colonies freer, in order, as we believe, to promote the best interests of the Empire. I think I have answered the questions which have been asked. I am afraid I have trespassed beyond the limits of the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, but I felt bound, after the

169
direct challenge of the right hon. Gentleman, to state what, in my opinion, is the position. I have proposed this duty as a revenue duty; I have proposed it absolutely without prejudice to any discussions which may take place between us and the Colonial representatives on the question of commercial relations. I hope those discussions may be fruitful of good results; but it is not with regard to those discussions, but with regard to the necessity of raising revenue for this and future years, that I have submitted this duty to the Committee.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid everybody had listened with great interest to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his statement of the position of the Government had relieved many minds upon the subject of what might be called Free Trade or Protection. He, however, could not help thinking that the acceptance of the small Amendment before the House would give assurance to a great number of people who still felt anxious on this subject. It was not possible for everybody interested in free trade—who thought that the property of the Empire depended on Tree Trade—to have an opportunity of hearing, or even reading, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and knowing with what energy and whole-heartedness he delivered it; and he did not see that the acceptance of this Amendment would in any way-alter the policy of the Government. This was a matter which he believed would be realised to a far greater extent by hon. Members when they came to see their constituents. They would then see how unpopular this tax was, and how it pressed upon the poorest of the people. He would, therefore, like to see this tax terminable at some fixed period. That would not upset our fiscal system, because if it were made terminable say in August next year, long before the duty came to an end the Finance Hill for that year would have been passed. If the duty were made terminable it would relieve the minds of many, and assure them that it was not a tax levied for the purpose of Protection and for giving relief to the Colonies. He
170
thought in the future when there was a surplus the Government would relieve the country of the burden of this tax.
MR. KEARLEYsaid, although the Committee had every confidence in the right hon. Gentleman as a Free Trader, he felt that when the right hon. Gentleman came to throw the weight of his judgment against that of his colleagues, the right hon. Gentleman was in a hopeless minority. The right hon. Gentleman had asked whether it would not be a good thing to have preferential trade with our own Colonies, and somebody had interrupted and said we wanted Free Trade all over the world. What were the Colonies to give us? Would the right hon. Gentleman suggest for a moment that the Colonies would sell to us cheaper than they sold elsewhere? The Colonies also would take our trade so long as they could not get a cheaper market elsewhere. They would, no doubt, not object to our buying dear of them and selling cheap for their benefit. However deep the attachment of the Colonies might be, he did not think it would stand the strain of a dearer market than they could find elsewhere. What was the proposal of the Amendment? Under the extraordinary circumstances of the last two years, we had added to our tariff eighty-four new duties, and the proposal was that for a year or two we should have the opportunity of bringing them before the House and subjecting them to revision. In the previous year the right hon. Gentleman, when imposing the sugar duties, admitted that he was proceeding on very indifferent information, and stated that the duties must be looked upon as a tentative scale; that he had worked on the best materials he could obtain, and that he would be glad to have better knowledge. Put when the Committee brought that criticisim to bear which it was entitled to bring and the knowledge which the right hon. Gentleman had asked for, before the right hon. Gentleman, he refused to appoint a Committee of experts, and he simply clung to his duty in spite of the fact that it was pointed out that the plan that he had adopted was altogether faulty. At the end of the session the matter was again brought up by the hon. Member

171
for North Louth, and the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that any adjustment required could be made next year. How could that adjustment be made? They did not desire to repeal the duty but to adjust it. Innumerable articles had been added to the Customs tariff, and the House ought to have an opportunity of reviewing them. The right hon. Gentleman said today what he said then, that the question could be raised on the tea duty, which was always put in for the purpose. But what earthly chance was there of discussing on the tea duty the numerous miscellaneous duties which had been imposed in the last two years? The demand that they should come up for revision was a fair demand, and he thought it should be acceded to. Another point involved was, the enormous amount of taxation levied year by year under permanent Acts of Parliament which never came up for review. Of the £140,000,000 of taxation £102,000,000 was so levied. Why should the Committee be confined to discussing one article—tea? Was it suggested that there would be long and wearisome discussions? ["Yes."] That would not be the case at all. The tea duty came up annually, but the discussion occupied only four or five hours, and there was no reason to suppose it would be different in regard to these other articles. One of the causes of the weakening of the influence of Parliament was that the House of Commons was parting with its former powers and functions, and was not only putting the control into the hands of Ministers, but was allowing the Government to deny the opportunity of discussing these things from time to time. Parliamentary control over taxation was becoming a mere figure of speech; there ought to be an opportunity of discussing these taxes every year, and he should support the Amendment.
MR. BLAKEsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of his serious apprehension at the mental attitude which led everybody to say not "How should we save after the war is over," but "How should we spend the money we have." It was a pity the right hon. Gentleman had not remembered that before voting on the last proposal to
172
postpone. That was the very ground on which postponement was maintained. As to the purposes of the corn tax, there were some things in the right hon. Gentleman's speech with which he was in entire agreement. He himself had never entertained the idea that the tax had been proposed with the secret idea of converting it into a preferential tax in favour of the Colonies. It would have been a dishonourable and disingenuous action on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have proposed the tax with any such secret object in the words he used, or for the purposes he professed. Those words and purposes were plain, direct, and distinct, as was usual with the right hon. Gentleman, and they entirely precluded the notion that he intended to modify the tax in a way which would have reduced its productive qualities, and would at the same time have involved this great, far-reaching and most complicated question of preferential treatment. Therefore he had not believed that this could be the design of the Government. Notwithstanding that, the recent speech of the Colonial Secretary, coupled with previous utterances and movements of that right hon. Gentleman, had doubtless given rise to some anxiety, but that anxiety had in his view now been set at rest by the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had stated plainly that it was clear that at present no mutual fiscal arrangement could be made between this country and the Colonies on the basis of free trade between the Colonies and this country. That had been perfectly obvious all these years. It was a great pity that it had not been officially recognised before, and it was extraordinary that the Colonial Secretary, of all men, should not have perceived it. However, the basis of the original proposal of the Colonial Secretary was that of absolute free trade between the Colonies and the Mother Country, with the further suggestion that this country should therefore impose duties as against others than the Colonies upon certain articles of very large general consumption. The first part of this proposal was, as he had said, absolutely impossible from the Colonial point of view. The second part of the proposal, the imposition of duties by this country on certain extra Colonial Imports here—

173
which was the quid pro quo—the Chancellor of the Exchequer had also now plainly declared to be no part of the policy of His Majesty's Government, and in his (Mr. Blake's) view it would be a very damaging policy for this country. Thus neither the quid nor the quo were practicable. For his own part, he was not sorry. He had always been convinced that such a proposal would be one in which the mutual disadvantages far outweighed the mutual advantages, He had had occasion to look at this matter from both the Colonial and the Imperial point of view, there having been a day when he gave up his political position rather than support a policy of unrestricted reciprocity with the United States, because he thought it would in its political aspects and larger tendencies be bad for his country, leading to absorption with the States. While he would be delighted at any proposals which would enlarge the natural course of trade between the Colonies and the Mother Country, he was averse to the policy—to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared the Government also to be averse—of influencing that course of trade by the unnatural restrictive method of exclusive preferential duties. This was a radically different thing from offering to lower tariff dues in favour of all nations who had done or might do like wise. That would tend towards Free Trade and the open door, while this was the reverse. He would not enter into the argument, it was enough to say that the Chancellor had knocked the bottom out of the scheme of mutually exclusive preferential tariffs. It was true the right hon. Gentleman added a few general expressions indicating that there would be no objection to discussing some method whereby some mutual advantages should be secured, which would promote greater trade between the Colonies and the mother country, adding, however, that it was not right for him to prosecute that inquiry any further or make any suggestions then—that those were matters for the conference, and so on. The Chancellor could hardly avoid such general phrases, which, however, in face of his specific declarations did not count. These schemes would, doubtless, remain matters for the conference, and probably after this debate the public would hear very
174
little more about them. As to the corn tax itself, he was fundamentally opposed to the tax; he thought it ought not to go into force at all; he thought it ought not to last even for a year; but he would rather see it on the Statute Book for a year than for all time, and, therefore, he should vote for the Amendment.
MR. LOUGHdeplored the fact that the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had tended to draw the attention of the Committee away from the precise point under discussion. The reason given by the right hon. Gentleman took away the whole strength of his case, for refusing to accept the Amendment. The reason given was that no such Amendment was necessary, because any Member could in any year raise any question he pleased with regard to the sugar, coal, or corn tax, when the Finance Bill came before the Committee. If that was so, what was the objection to the Amendment? The only object of keeping the taxes out of successive Bills was to prevent the facilities being given for such discussions as they desired. It was important that from time to time these great taxes should come under review, and that a regular opportunity should be provided for looking at the experience of the year with regard to particular imposts. Nobody had said a word about the sugar tax, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken advantage of the fact of their being unable to raise the question in a regular manner to beast of the great success of that tax. He did not believe it had been a success at all, and in twelve months' time the country would, probably, not be in nearly so good a humour about the sugar tax as it was today. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had again referred to the fact that he was broadening the basis of taxation. That was true, but he was also extinguishing the control of taxation. The country and the House were beginning to feel that heavy burdens were being imposed on the people, while the old facilities for bringing those burdens up for consideration were being quietly stolen from Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman had repeated that the country was not in favour of economy. He did not agree with that statement; and the last election, which could not at all be taken as a test, showed that a

175
strong feeling was arising as to the heavy burdens the Chancellor of the Exchequer was flinging upon the country.
It being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman felt the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  Clause 1.
  Amendment again proposed—
  "In page 1, line 17, after the word 'Two,' to insert the words 'Until the first clay of August, 1903.'"—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RECKITTsaid that, in connection with the question of preferential duties, one could not help remembering that during the last eighteen months there had been a great tendency towards increased protection in our Australian colonies as a result of federation, although there had been a doing away of duties as between respective colonics. The Committee ought to bear that fact in mind in view of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the question of the financial relations between this country and the Colonies should be discussed from the point of view of Free Trade as far as we are concerned. The new tariffs of the Australian colonies set an example in that they did not tax raw materials, whereas in the case of the corn tax raw materials were not exempted. It was of great importance that a new tax of this character should be open to revision at the end of the financial year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken as his basis of differentiation between corn and flour the figures of 3d. and 5d., but it did not at all follow that in regard to the whole of the articles manufactured from the raw material enumerated in the schedule the same ratio obtained. In the present
  176
  feeling of the country it might not be easy to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the variations which might be, on the one hand, of a Protective character to the manufacturer, or, on the other hand, in the nature of a Bounty to the foreign consumers; but it would be of great utility to be able, a year hence, to reconsider the whole question, when they knew what the various effects on trade had been. He believed the right hon. Gentleman had always done his best to secure that the incidence of the taxation he imposed should not be of a Protective character, although in this case he had somewhat departed from that position by reason of the fact that he had not proposed an Excise duty on corn. A point to be borne in mind in this matter was that this country had not the particular machinery possessed by Protective countries in the way of Standing Committees on Trade which habitually discussed financial questions, and the effect they would have on the various trades. Here these questions had to be discussed in the whole House, and it necessarily followed that there was always a distaste for any particular trade to introduce its particular grievances or requirements. But if there was to be a system of taxation, such as this duty on corn, by which fifty-four articles were affected, it would be necessary sooner or later to remit the consideration of these matters to a Standing Committee where trade interests, which were prejudicially affected, might be heard He instanced a, ease in the North of England of a manufacturer of feeding stuffs for cattle, the basis of which was rice, who had to contend in the market with a manufacturer, the basis of whose feeding cakes was linseed. But whereas rice, under this Bill, was taxed, linseed was not.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I think the connection between the matter which the hon. Member is now discussing and the Amendment before the Committee is rather remote.
  MR. RECKITTsaid he mentioned it as an illustration of the difficulty of discussing in the first year a matter of such great importance as the tax upon corn. Even at the present time there

  177
  were matters of dispute between the Excise and consumers in reference to the sugar duty unsettled, and they could not be discussed on the Finance Bill. If the question could be debated again next year, these matters of detail could be properly discussed or referred to a Committee. It was impossible, on the first occasion of the re-imposition of such a duty, to pay proper attention to matters affecting small consumers and smaller interests, but whether the interest to be taxed was wheat or that of the person who sold locust beans, it should be equally deserving of attention in the eyes of the Committee. The question of whether or not a tax was Protective was of vital importance, whether a man was in a large or a small way of business, and it would be a great advantage to be able to discuss these questions again next year. He should, therefore, support the Amendment.
  MR. HARWOODsaid that while certain trades might be quite willing to bear the burden of this tax, if it was to be simply a war tax, they would strongly protest against it being imposed as a permanent source of revenue. It would seriously handicap trade, and some trades would be affected more than others. Hitherto the Committee had considered the tax as merely one upon food; he desired it to be regarded as a tax upon a raw material of manufacture. He was afraid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not realised what a serious matter it was from that point of view. Personally he was not afraid of a new tax. He was so charmed with the courage of the right hon. Gentleman in sticking to a tax which was electorally so unwise, that he was very reluctant to vote against him, but as a business man he felt compelled to call attention to the serious consequences of the proposal. To take the cotton trade as an example, doubtless, some Members had heard of "sizing," but probably very few were aware of what an enormous proportion of the calico exported consisted of flour. It was, he believed, well within the mark to say that of all the calico manufactured in this country one-third of its weight in flour was required for its use in one way or another. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might
  178
  say that the tax would not raise the price of flour, but most people who studied these matters would agree that, as a general principle, the price of a thing was determined by the source of its largest supply. When the registration duty on corn was allowed to go on under Mr. Gladstone, three-fourths of the corn was grown in this country, and only one-fourth imported, with the result that the three-fourths determined the price of the whole, and the foreigner sending the one-fourth had to ask himself whether he could afford to pay the duty and compete with the other three-fourths. But the positions were now reversed. The price would be determined by the same law as before, but, as three-fourths of the corn was now imported, the whole would have to bear the price of that which was imported. For the £2,500,000 which would go into the pocket of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the country would probably have to pay £3,500,000. The price of corn would be raised by so much, and wheat and flour would be so much dearer in this country than in America whence the flour came. What was the position of the trade on whose behalf he spoke? They had to bring their cotton from America, bearing the cost of bringing it 3,000 or 4,000 miles, and, in addition, this large element of flour was taxed hero while it was free to the American. The severest competition they had to encounter, and the still more severe competition they had to fear in the future, was that of the United States. It was very necessary, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was the custodian of their welfare, should be extremely careful that he did not handicap the trade in any way in meeting that competition. But that was what the right hon. Gentleman was doing. There were hundreds of trades into which flour entered very largely—such, for instance, as the manufacture of wall-paper, oilcloth, biscuits, and so on. At least, £10,000,000 of the £50,000,000 worth of grain imported into this country was used for manufacturing purposes, so that upon one-fifth of that import this would be a trade tax.
  The right hon. Gentleman had justified the tax on the ground that

  179
  it struck the balance between the income tax payers and the poorer people, and that each ought to pay their share of the cost of the war. That was perfectly right, but care should be taken that the tax did not fall where it was not intended. One-fifth of the tax would fall upon trade, and the trades affected were those which largely paid income tax. It would be interesting to know how much of the total income tax of the country was paid by Lancashire and Yorkshire. He believed that those counties contributed a very large sum indeed towards the upkeep of the Army and the Navy and the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman was in danger of killing the goose that lay the golden eggs. All success in manufacture in the future, as in the past, depended upon their getting the raw material as cheaply and as freely as possible. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would not dare to propose a duty on raw cotton; to tax the raw material of manufacture was preposterous, but that was exactly what he was doing. Wheat was a raw material of manufacture, so that the right hon. Gentleman, while he was getting something from what was called "the poor man's loaf," was also taxing trade. It might be said that the cotton trade was rich and could afford to pay the tax. But he was pleading on behalf not of the masters, but of the great masses of the work people. Anything which handicapped trade in competition with foreign rivals told most disastrously upon the wages and prosperity of the work people. It was a most costly way of raising money, and he begged the right hon. Gentleman to consider the matter from the point of view of wheat and corn as raw materials of manufacture. It was true it was only a small duty, but it prevented the free flow of those raw materials into the country. The time would come when it could not be hoped that the manufacturing supremacy of this country would be continued in its present degree. That was one reason why he supported the export duty on coal. Our future prosperity depended on the country being a depot for the world; it must be the one country into which all things could flow freely—the money market, the goods market, the product market of the world—and yet, in regard to one of the most vital products, that position was being done away with, and a barrier erected against that free coming in of
  180
  corn. England at present was the wheat depôt of the world—["No"]—but this tax would prevent it continuing to be. Foreign exporters instead of saying, "Shall we ship these cargoes of wheat to London?" would say, "Can weafford to pay this duty which we can never get back?" He thought this was a most serious step to take, and a step which would be a great blow to the prosperity of our trade, and a great hindrance in our competition, with manufactures all over the world. It was sure to handicap them in this struggle, and it would have a very serious effect in preventing this country maintaining its position as the great manufacturing centre of the world. They had heard during the debate something about the necessity of changing their fiscal system, and they had been told that their old-fashioned theories of economy had gone out of date. What was it that had enabled this nation to stand a strain of this war so easily, and which had enabled them to raise sums of money which would have startled their forefathers, and which to them would have been impossible? It was simply because the prosperity of this country was built upon the rock of sound economic principles, and upon that rock they had raised this superstructure of prosperity. Therefore he was anxious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not do anything to undermine that prosperity.
  MR. WILLIAM M'ARTHURsaid he did not possess the eloquence of the hon. Member for Bolton, but he had been for a good many years more or less concerned in business with some of their great Colonial dependencies, and in the absence of any clear declaration on the part of the Government upon this subject, he wished to say that Gentlemen conducting Colonial business had been put in a false position. He did not want to enter into any long argument with regard to free trade or protection, but he wished to speak on behalf of Colonial merchants. He admitted that a great many of those merchants held views contrary to his own, but he washed to point out that a certain amount of unrest and difficulty had arisen in the minds of Colonial merchants owing to

  181
  the attitude, he would not say of the Government as a whole, but of certain prominent Members of the Government. Shortly before the last Colonial conference, a suggestion was made by the Colonial Secretary, which rather pointed towards a Zollverein throughout the Empire. That created a large amount of expectation and hope in the minds of Colonial business men and politicians, who held the protectionist view. That feeling had been to a certain extent accentuated by the financial arrangements made last year and this year, and he did not think it was fair that those engaged in the Colonial trade should be left in any sort of uncertainty with regard to this matter.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. Member cannot have heard my statement upon this question this afternoon.
  MR. WILLIAM M'ARTHURsaid he had been present all the afternoon. He was not concerned so much with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, as with what the Government were doing. Having last year somewhat deviated from the old fiscal policy, this year they were still further deviating from that policy. They had been asked whether this particular tax was to be limited for one year, or whether it was to be indefinitely imposed upon the country. If this tax was to be a permanent one, it might be taken in some quarters as an indication of an intention to pursue the policy hinted at some years ago. So long as that question was not set at rest, and was further accentuated by the refusal to make this imposition for one year, there would continue to be unrest amongst Colonial people, who had large sums of money invested in British trade. Those who were doing business with the Colonies were entitled to have a clear and a plain declaration from the Government as to what this tax really meant. If the tax was imposed to pay the expenses of a war for which he admitted as much responsibility as any hon. Members opposite, he should otter no objection to the tax. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that he could not pay for the war under any other system that would be all right, but he contended the Colonial traders had a
  182
  right to know definitely whether this was another step in the direction which he had indicated. They had a right to demand a clear indication of the views of the Government upon this question. This corn tax, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer must know, had been taken in Canada, in Australia, and other parts of the Empire, as an indication on the part of His Majesty's Government of a desire to form a Zollverein within the British Empire. In those circumstances surely it was not unfair for them to ask for a clear and definite statement.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have given that statement.
  MR. WILLIAM M'ARTHURcontended that the very best indication that could be given would be for the Government to accede to the Motion made, and to limit the operation of the tax to one year.
  MR. STUART WORTLEYthought the demand made by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was a most unreasonable one. It was admitted on all hands that this tax was rendered necessary either by the war or by the permanent increase in the expenditure of the country or by both. Who could say that twenty-five years hence they would have got rid of this unfortunate burden. He thought the hon. Gentleman's demand for a further declaration from the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been advanced simply to bolster up this Amendment, and therefore his argument failed altogether.
  MR. MOULTONsaid it appeared to him that the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had raised the Amendment of his hon. friend from a mere detail to an Amendment of prime importance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had insisted with considerable force and with some show of reason that a tax which is imposed as a permanency is as much subject to yearly Parliamentary criticism as a tax which is voted for a year only. Under ordinary circumstances, therefore, the question raised by the Amendment would not be of great moment. But the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had

  183
  changed all this. He always felt a great deal of sympathy with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and personally he had much confidence in him. He believed him to be a sound financier, and he also suspected that there were many financial discussions between him and certain of his colleagues, in which he was not always victorious. But these tragedies remain the secret of his own breast. The House knows nothing of them. So brave is the right hon. Gentleman in bearing these tribulations that he "wears no less a smiling face although so brokenhearted." But in the present case he had been forced by the cross-examining skill of an old Parliamentary Counsel to make two admissions, or rather declarations, in the name and on behalf of the Government. He had frankly said in the first place that this tax is a war tax, and secondly that the Government had hopes of establishing what he might call preferential Free Trade with the Colonies. But while making this latter admission the right hon. Gentleman had raised his own voice in indignant denunciation of the suggestion of duties being imposed against other nations to enable the Colonies to have this Free Trade. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must think that those who sat on the Opposition side of the House were gifted with an infantile simplicity if he cherished the hope that they would not now see the reason why he insisted on this tax on corn being voted as a permanent tax. What the right hon. Gentleman hoped to be able to say was this: "I give Free Trade in corn to the Colonies, but I impose no countervailing duties against foreign nations." This he can say if he gets the duty voted permanently. For instance, he will be able to say, "I have put no duty on as against foreign nations. I have only let Canada and our other Colonies off an existing duty." Having first put the duty on against the whole world, he can let Canada and Australia off, and yet say that in; has put no duty on as against America. That is the reason why this tax is being imposed permanently. If the light hon. Gentleman gets this tax voted for one year only, and at the meeting of Colonial Premiers which will shortly be held, it is agreed that there shall
  184
  be a shilling duty against America, Argentina and Russia, and no duty against Australia or Canada, he will have to impose the tax in that form next year. He will no longer be able to come down and say "I will let off Canada and Australia, and who can say I have put any countervailing duties against foreign nations?" This was very ingenious, but it was not original. In conveyancing it used to be stipulated that one should pay a rent of, say £100, and that if the money was not paid to the day the amount of the rent should be doubled. The law very properly held such clauses to be oppressive and refused to enforce them, and consequently the conveyancer's devil varied the form of conveyance and made it stipulate: "You must pay £200 a year, but if you pay it to the day we will let you off with £100." Alas! this transparent device was sufficient to get over the scruples of the law, and the new form of clause was held to be valid on the ground that it was beneficent and not penal in character, although it was identically the same in operation as the other. That was precisely the plan which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was now following, and he no doubt hoped for it a like result. But it was absolutely necessary for the success of this plan that the tax should be imposed permanently; and this was the reason why the Amendment of his hon. friend, which they were now considering, had become a matter of prime importance.
  This brought him to the substance of this pronouncement of policy, this precious British Zollverein. He wondered when we were going to give up mimicking the greatness of other people, and be content with being great in our own way. He could assure hon. Members that they could not beat the way England had become great, by imitating other nations. In matters of Empire they should stick to the principles upon which England had been working so long and so gloriously. If they worked them out in the same spirit, they did not need to go to other nations for lessons in policy. Nobody admired the great German Zollverein more than he did. It was the great idea of a great genius, and he would tell the House why it was great, and why it

  185
  brought about great results. It did great things for two reasons. Firstly, it extirpated Customs frontiers, and secondly it destroyed no Free Trade. Think what Germany was then. At that time Germany was a mass of little States, each of which had Customs frontiers against its own neighbours. At one stroke Germany wiped those out and left only one great Customs frontier with nothing but Free Trade within. In the case of the British Empire, on the other hand, no Customs frontier would be destroyed. Every Customs frontier would not only exist as it existed before, but it would exist in the more odious form of a preferential Customs frontier. Instead of destroying the Customs frontiers this proposal would aggravate the evil tenfold, because it would harass trade at each Customs frontier with harassing inquisitions as to origin. So that with one of the two things which made the Zollverein in Germany great this proposal had nothing to do.
  Now consider the other cause of the beneficial effects of the German Zollverein. It destroyed no pre-existing Free Trade, but on the contrary, the German Zollverein brought in Free Trade on an enormous scale throughout every part of the great German Empire. But what would the British Zollverein do? It would destroy the Free Trade which exists now between us and all the nations of the world. It would destroy that vast system of Free Trade, and substitute for it protective tariffs with every other nation excepting our own Colonies. This suggestion that yon could have a British Zollverein and Free Trade between England and the Colonies, and no countervailing duties as against other nations, was an absurdity so great that one was puzzled why anyone had ventured to talk about it. He had thought over it very seriously, and he had at last discovered how it came about that it was put forward by some politicians as being their policy. People whose notion of triumph was to be found in newspaper puffs always liked to steal well-known ideas. It was just the same in music halls, where the oldest "chestnuts" produce the quickest response in laughter. Originality might take years to be recognised, and the men who had done the greatest things for their country had
  186
  often met with nothing but hostility from the Press, which has to make up its mind on the instant as to how to treat questions requiring years to think out. It favours anything which comes with an already acquired renown. Hence it was that second-class statesmen always liked to borrow accredited ideas which had been a success in the hands of other people. What had given such a great boom to this idea? Why, the word Zollverein, which brings with it all the associations of Bismarck's great achievements in consolidating the German Empire. Now that he has passed away it has passed as a second-hand article into the hands of smaller statesmen. That was the reason why this word had been taken up, and the Government were juggling with the word in order that they might benefit by the reflected glory of Bismarck's achievements. But just look at the results of this policy. What would be the effect of it between England and the Colonies? What would be the first consequence of this policy? We should have to take off the duty on tea. Almost the whole of the tea consumed in Great Britain comes from India and Ceylon. This duty must be taken off, and we must look about for something to replace it. Where is it to be found? We must either raise the missing revenue by direct taxation or put import duties on articles now untaxed. Take the other side of the picture. What about New Zealand? The greater part of the revenues of that colony were derived from duties on imported manufactured goods, and if those duties were abolished in favour of England we could easily supply her with all the manufactured goods she could require, so that her main source of revenue would be destroyed. What could we give her in return? How could we give to her exports oncoming into England a preference over those coming from other countries. There was not a single product from New Zealand upon which there was a tax for us to remove? The consequence was that we should have to tax some articles which we did not tax now for the purpose of taking off the duty in the case of New Zealand. And however advantageous such arrangements might be to the community in New Zealand, it must have revenue so

  187
  that it must impose new taxes to take the place of the abolished import duties, just as when England had lost its tea duty we should have to find some other convenient course of raising the revenue. The suggestion that we could have Free Trade between England and its Colonies, without imposing taxation on other things, in order that we might get our revenue from those other things when they come from foreign nations, was mere idle twaddle. In this House the representatives of the Government ought to pay hon. Members the compliment of not talking quite so superficially. He stood up, without fear of contradiction, when he said that nobody could sketch out a Zollverein between us and our Colonies without imposing duties which would be nothing more nor less than Protective duties against foreign nations to the benefit of our Colonies—the very thing which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had repudiated. He confessed that he thoroughly enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for South Longford, who praised the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was evident that this was not because he wished an Imperial Zollverein, but because he knew that if we bad not countervailing duties as against other nations an Imperial Zollverein was a thing which was impossible. So much for the suggestion that the aim of the Government was to have Free Trade with the Colonies and no duties against other nations.
  He would now call the attention of the House to the suggestion that it was important that the Government should have this corn tax in order that they might commence this Zollverein. This reversed the old fable, for it was the mouse that was in labour and brought forth a mountain. This miserable 1s. on corn, a thing which very largely came, no doubt, from foreign countries, but to a much smaller extent from our Colonies, brought in something like £2,000,000 or £3,000,000, and it was supported on the ground that it might be made the basis of reciprocal preferential arrangements between England and her Colonies. It was the small bird that was to be divided among the
  188
  hungry appetites of all those Premiers who were coming over the week after next. Of course, to discuss such a policy would be idle if it were not intended that ultimately this corn tax should be largely increased and kept permanent. That was what made the discussion of this corn tax so important. It was true that in its present form it was a small tax. But it was heralded in by the statement that our permanent expenditure required the broadening of the basis of taxation. It was called a war tax, but it was announced that it was to be permanent by the Chancellor of the Exchequer who piously hoped that there might be no more great wars. The occasion for it was a temporary need, yet the suggestion that it should be for one year was repudiated. It was, in short, heralded in with so much laudation, and so solemnly that one could not but believe that it was regarded by the Government as a baby which was to grow up and be big and strong. All these indications showed that it was the forerunner of much heavier taxation of a like kind, and if that was so it was most important that they should support this Amendment now before the House. It was quite true that the forms of Parliamentary procedure enabled one to criticise the tax, even though originally it was voted as a permanency; but if the House refused to vote it as a permanency it was a recognition of the intention of the House that it should not be a permanent source of revenue. He was not going into the details of his objections to the tax, but he did say that those who held that the tax was objectionable in itself felt that it was rendered tenfold more objectionable by its being put forward as the forerunner of the taxation which would give preferential duties against foreign nations with whom we ought to seek to be friendly. The Committee were told that this tax was intended to be the beginning of a policy of drawing the Colonies nearer to us. There was one piece of advice that he would give as to this. Do not let us try to bring our Colonies nearer to us by pushing other nations further from us. If they were wise and sought England's true prosperity and the friendliness of all the

  189
  world they would take this first opportunity of pronouncing heartily against any tax or any measure that tended to give to England an isolation which, instead of being a "splendid isolation," was an isolation of narrowness and greed.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid he need hardly apologise for interposing in the debate, for his presence had been made the subject of criticism by no less a person than the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Where are the Protectionists?" Well, he certainly took no part in the discussion of the corn tax, because he said he would wait until there was something to defend. He had contended throughout that this clause did not contain, in any shape or form, the element of Protection. If it did pretend to do so, it would be a contemptible pretence. The tax would give a paltry and insignificant source of revenue, and from the Protective point of view it was absolutely worthless. The provision, however, was a valuable one, because by widening the basis of taxation it would afford an opportunity to all classes to contribute their fair share towards the revenue of the country. He endorsed the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this was not a war tax. No one could ignore the fact that there was an immense progress of opinion in favour of preferential treatment as between the mother country and the Colonies. Hon. Members opposite might denounce that, but the facts were too strong for them. They might, like certain newspapers, decry eminent colonial statesmen who advocated what they believed to be for the true interests of the Empire. Preferential relations between the component parts of the Empire were coming, and coming rapidly. The hon. Member for the Launceston Division had said that a Zollverein for the Empire was absolutely absurd. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was outside the range of practical suggestion at present that the Colonies should admit of free competition with the United States in articles which would annihilate their manufactures and destroy their sources of revenue. But he could not follow the hon. Member for the Launceston Division and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the disparaging tone in
  190
  which they referred to what he called, rightly or wrongly, the practically unanimous opinion of the self-governing portion of the Empire, namely, that some help should be given to inter-British trade. Any who ignored the fact that there had been enormous progress in public opinion throughout the Empire in favour of preferential trade were people who had not been reading the signs of the times. There could be no doubt, be it right or wrong, that every self-governing community associated in the Empire was strongly in favour of this view. Practically the whole of the self-governing portions of the British Empire, except the mother country, had pronouuced in favour of this system. The mother country was not lagging much behind, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was out of touch on this subject with the rising opinion of this country. He did not think the public would go the length that he would, but they were in an inquiring mood, and would not prejudge the colonial emissaries before they had arrived. When the case of the Colonies was fully laid before the country, all old fads and crotchets would have to take a prominent back scat. The Committee must not run away with the idea that the stale platitudes of fifty years ago would stand against the rising tide of popular opinion in the present day. We should have to listen to the proposals which were submitted to us by our fellow subjects from all parts of the Empire, and those who thought that by appealing to the prejudices of bygone times they could deter the Empire from being welded into one homogeneous whole, largely through commercial influences, were struggling in vain.
  MR. McKENNAsaid that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet had made a most amazing speech. He had told the Committee that there was a rising feeling in favour of Protection. Did he forget that during the last fifty years this great England had been built up, and that we now enjoyed the most gigantic trade in the world? What possible reason or justification had he for telling the Committee beyond his mere ipse dixit, that we should be better off under Protection? The

  191
  trade of the United States with a population nearly double ours was not comparable to ours. The right hon. Gentleman forgot that in the trade returns which he had studied there were certain items which should be included, but were altogether omitted. He should remember what the carrying trade had done for this country. We took a toll upon nearly all the goods of the world which were carried across the seas. We took tolls on a large portion of the world's commerce through our bankers and insurance agents, and there was scarcely any business transacted "from China to Peru" on which some British merchant or other did not get a profit. That business did not appear in the Board of Trade returns. If the right hon. Gentleman was able again to bring Protection upon us, we should lose that mighty fabric of trade which we had built up during fifty years of what he called Little England feeling. The question before the House was whether this tax should he for one year or a permanent one. He understood from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that this tax-was to become permanent because it was necessary in the growing expenditure of the country to add permanently to indirect taxation. But what became of the right hon. Gentleman's assertion that there ought to be a certain equality maintained between direct and indirect taxation, when he promised to take off the extra penny on the in come tax at the earliest opportunity? Had the right hon. Gentleman abandoned that principle? Were they to find that the wealthy taxpayers were to be relieved and the poor taxpayers not? They had been told over and over again that it was necessary to broaden the basis of taxation. The right hon. Gentleman had referred with approval to that principle. What did he mean by it? What was the basis of taxation? He knew of no basis of taxation other than the taxpayers. The right hon. Gentleman meant by broadening the basis of taxation making the poor people pay more than their fair share of it. He himself would be very glad to hear any other explanation of the phrase than that it meant giving relief to the direct taxpayers.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that surely his hon friend knew that never before in the financial history of the country had a greater burden been borne by direct taxpayers.
  MR. McKENNAsaid that, of course, the direct taxation was mainly borne by the well-to-do classes, and indirect by the poorer taxpayers. It had been the boast of the Chancellor of the Exechequer that he had maintained the equality between direct and indirect taxation; but their complaint was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised the Committee that at the earliest opportunity he was going to relieve the direct taxpayers and to reduce the income tax below 1s. in the £. If the right hon. Gentleman reduced the income tax by 3d. or 6d. what equivalent of indirect taxation was he going to take off? The argument was plain and simple enough. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to leave off the tax on corn, and flour, and sugar, and keep it on tea, tobacco, and beer? In 1900, when he laid additional duties on these articles, he said that he looked upon it as a temporary addition to the existing taxation—he hoped merely for the coming year. That was to say, that the right hon. Gentleman was so tender to the duties on tobacco and beer, that they were only to be imposed for one year; but when he came to sugar and bread he was content to make the tax on them permanent. Accepting the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own rule and principle, that the equality between direct and indirect taxation was to be maintained, when he came to take off 3d. from the income tax, which had he chosen. To abolish the duty on corn; or reduce, the duty on tobacco, beer, and spirits?
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he thought that the mover of the Amendment had great reason to congratulate himself on the very important speech which he had elicited from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of a matter which had been in everybody's mind during the last few weeks, and upon which there had been no very definite expression of opinion from the Government, or from anyone in a position of authority; and for his

  193
  part, he welcomed the statement which the right hon. Gentleman had made that evening. He thought we should make a very great mistake if we were to commit ourselves to an attitude of uncompromising hostility to the colonial proposals, before any of these proposals had been definitely made. We had no right to prejudice the question. The representatives of the Colonies were coming over to England at a moment when we were particularly glad to welcome them. They had come over with proposals which they had carefully and deeply considered, and we should give them a fair hearing. There was no doubt that, economically, in so far as we were to give the Colonies a preference in our markets, we should be taking the money out of our own pockets. But there were other things in the world besides money, and it was quite possible that the colonists might have something to give us which would be equivalent to the actual financial loss which we suffered. They might give us great military strength—50,000 or 60,000 of probably some of the finest fighting men in the world, and he did not know how many more in the future. That was something to consider. He maintained that this was a question of balance between fiscal loss and sentimental and actual strength. At any-rate, this question ought not to be met in this House in an intolerant and impartient spirit, before they heard the discussions upon it by the colonial statesmen. The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, while very important, was also very gloomy in parts. He spoke of the increasing expenditure of the country, and apparently he assumed that nothing could be done to stop that upward tendency. It might be that next year the expenditure would still be on the up-grade, and that the efforts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to keep down expenditure, would be no more successful then than in the past. Rut even so, a very large reduction in taxation would certainly be possible. It was difficult to elicit from the figures exactly how far the present expenditure was in front of our normal expenditure; but it was incontrovertible that it was largely so. The point he wished to make, with the indulgence of the Committee, was that when the time came for reducing the expenditure it would be on a peace
  194
  basis—they could not do it this year, but they could next year—then the reduction in taxation must not seriously disturb the equality now reached between direct and indirect taxation. He believed immensely in the advantage of being able to restrict the spending desires of both the masses and the classes by pointing out to them that they would have to bear a share in any increase of expenditure. From a financial point of view the first tax to be reduced should be the income tax; but if the income tax was reduced some indirect tax would have to be reduced also, in order that the equal proportion between direct and indirect taxation should be maintained. Representing, as he did, a manufacturing community he could say that they would never tolerate any alteration in the ratio of direct and indirect taxation which would be to the marked disadvantage of the indirect taxpayer, and the marked advantage of the direct taxpayer. If they were to take off indirect taxation it might not be the corn tax, but the tax on sugar and beer. However, next year, when they would be in a, position to consider anew the financial condition of the country, they might easily decide which would be the best indirect tax to relieve. If the Amendment of the hon. Member were carried it would unduly limit the decision of the country.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he quite agreed with hon. Members opposite, who seemed to be impressed with the view that the Amendment embraced a very small point. That was true, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, on behalf of the Government, turned the Amendment into a very large question. He was not finding fault with the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having made so large a speech. He had listened to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with much appreciation and some relief, but it was absolutely necessary that those who felt strongly on this question should put on record their opinion on it. The right hon. Member for Oldham said that the House ought to reserve its opinion because the colonial representatives might put proposals before this country.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he did not say this question; but on any particular proposals which might afterwards be brought before the House.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet had given it a larger acceptation. But that suggestion came too late. A speech was made at Birmingham the other day, which had made it necessary for those who had decided views on the question, to express their opinion, and which had made it necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to express his opinion. There was another danger besides that of prejudicing the question, and that was the danger of loose talk over here misleading the colonial representatives before they arrived, and it was better that they should arrive as perfectly informed as possible of what the opinion of this country really was—[Sir HOWARD VINCENT: Hear, hear!]—and if they formed an accurate judgment it might save disappointment afterwards. He had listened with astonishment to the speech of the right hon. Member for Thanet, to the lightness of heart, the levity with which he was prepared to abandon all our old system of economics through which our trade had been built up, as if he were tired of the success of British trade, and wished to see a change. Was he really anxious to plunge into a new departure at this moment when trade was never so prosperous? His objection to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that it was a great new departure. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not propose this tax with any idea of its being a new departure. The right hon. Gentleman might propose, but other people would dispose afterwards. The disposal would be some time or other in other hands, and it was certain to lead to other things which the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not, and never would, contemplate, but for which he was opening the door. This tax was doing something for the first time after many years under very different conditions. The House was told that it was only the revival of an old tax, but it was not the same thing, leaving an old tax on the Statute-book from indifference and re-establishing it years
  196
  afterwards, when the conditions were changed. The conditions now were new, and our relations with the colonies were new. They were such as did not exist when this tax was imposed; and he was glad that this was so. He was glad to welcome the growth of the colonies and their growing trade; but now they would say, "The conditions have changed, and you this year for the first time are establishing a differential duty in favour of the British producer against the colonial producer." It was a duty against the colonial producer in favour of the British producer. This was the most serious aspect of the tax, and he did not see how we were to escape from the consequences of it. The colonies would plead with very great force that at this moment, after they had shown such courage and loyalty and devotion in helping us in a great war, after the assistance they had been proud to give and we had been proud to receive—this moment was chosen to establish a duty in favour of the British producer against the colonial producer. The colonies had always had leanings towards differential duties, and had been looking for something that would be a ever in their hands with which to move British trade in the direction of their own productions. Hitherto they had had no fulcrum for the lever, for we had always said, "Our system is a Tree Trade system. It does not operate against you in any way, and we are not going to alter it." Now they would get a fulcrum on which to rest the lever. If it was to lead to a Zollverein, which meant Free Trade within the Empire entirely, he admitted there would be some considerable compensation for other risks. But that was impossible. We could not have it, and the colonies could not have it. What was to become of the revenue duties of the colonies? They would be driven back to direct taxation. They would be obliged to maintain their revenue duties. They could never be in a position to dispense with them, and we could not object when we were saying that new revenue duties were necessary to ourselves. He knew the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that we should leave nothing undone to induce the colonies to reduce their duties, but he did not mean that that should be done by the establishment of differential duties

  197
  against the world. One result of that was absolutely certain, and that was that this country must pay increased prices for the whole of the food of the people and for the raw material.
  The hon. Member for Oldham had spoken of striking a balance between sentimental and economical considerations, but the hazard and risk to which our great export trade was exposed was such as could not be measured by any possible balance. A few years hence, when some Chancellor of the Exchequer was in a position to reduce taxation, it would be found that the Government would be only too ready to suggest that in reducing taxation there should be a modification of this corn duty and that it should not be dispensed with altogether. How could they resist that argument? They would be told that they opposed the duty because it was a Protective duty, and how could they resist the modification of a Protective duty? It would be argued that the modification would have a tendency to reduce the price of the food of the people, and they would be asked bow they could possible oppose a modification which would reduce the price of the food of the people. Those were the arguments which would be brought to bear a few years hence. That was the difficulty in which they were placed. His objection to the tax was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought he was doing a very little thing. That was his defence; but they objected to the tax because it was not a little thing, and the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that evening had increased his apprehension, because he turned a blind eye to the direction in which they were proceeding. Instead of doing a little thing, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was doing a big thing, so big that it became impossible to see what the consequences might be. Before the Colonial Conferences were over, however, the right hon. Gentleman would begin to feel that the future situation was becoming increasingly difficult. Putting aside for the moment that the tax was a Protective duty, and also the argument as to whether it would increase the food of the people, which was a very serious argument, he maintained that the danger in the tax really lay, not so much in the present, as in what it was bound to lead to in the future. He believed it
  198
  would lead to a preferential tariff, and he objected to it, not because it was a small thing, but because it was a very much larger thing than the Government had any idea of themselves.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNERsaid the straight forward statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been received with very general satisfaction on that side of the House. The tax had, however, afforded hon. Gentlemen opposite an opportunity, for once in their lives, of having a tabernacle in which they were able to meet in peace and unity on one subject at least, and it had also provided them with a cry on which to go to the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition waxed very eloquent on the subject some time ago, and tried to make out that this infinitesimal revenue duty would cost the working-classes three times the amount of the tax. There was one fact, however, with which hon. Gentlemen opposite did not attempt to deal, and that was that when this revenue duty was taken off, notwithstanding the fact that the price of corn at the same time went down 2s. the quarter, the price of the loaf did not sink, and there could be no possible reason why, when this infinitesimal duty was put on again, that the price of the loaf should rise. It was true that in certain places bakers had taken advantage of the tax in order to increase their profits. He himself had been in a few of these places, and he had given advice to the people, which, he was glad to say, had been adopted. He had advised them to bake their own bread. There was immediately immense lamentation amongst the bakers, and he had been informed from two or three sources that the result was, not only to bring the bakers to their senses, but also to show the people that they could actually make their own bread at a less price than that originally charged by the bakers. He thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would find that the working-classes were too sharp and shrewd to be influenced by their perfervid eloquence. For himself he heartily rejoiced that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown a firm attitude on the question, and that he had revived a very useful duty and expressed his intention of holding to it.
  MR. ABEL THOMASsaid the Amendment before the House was simply whether the tax was to be an annual or a permanent tax. Personally, he hated the tax, and that in itself would be a sufficient reason why he should vote in favour of the Amendment. The argument which was just used by the hon. Baronet was one of the most astonishing he had ever heard, because it was perfectly certain that in future a man would have to pay 5d. more for a cwt. of flour, and he would find that when that flour was baked into bread it would have cost him much more than 5d. than it did before. At present the tea tax and the income tax were annual taxes, and the reason why he would suggest to hon. Members opposite that they should vote for the Amendment was that it would leave the corn duty in exactly the same position as the income tax and the tea tax. The three could be discussed on the same footing next year, and if the income tax were reduced it would be possible at the same time to deal with the corn tax. Even hon. Members who believed in the Zollverein system should vote for the Amendment, because it would render it much more easy to deal with the subject next year if the tax were an annual tax. He himself believed that it was the most abominable tax that could possibly be imposed, because it would increase the price of bread, and the poorest families were the families who would have to pay most in hard cash for it. He would cordially support the Amendment.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid he entirely agreed with the arguments put forward by his hon. friend the Member for Berwick, that in this tax they were opening what was likely to be a new and probably a sad chapter in their fiscal history. Like his hon. friend he dreaded the consequences of the tax, and he was glad to have the earliest possible opportunity of voting against it that night as a protest. He should have other opportunities of protesting against it, and he would gladly avail himself of every one of them. He felt ashamed that the argument should be put forward so persistently and boldly
  200
  that it was necessary to buy the continuation of the attachment of the Colonies to the Mother Country. Up to the present they had given the Colonies no fiscal preference, yet, nevertheless, the Colonics had supported the Mother Country during the last three years in a fashion of which the Colonies were proud, and, as his hon. friend had said, of which they also were proud. He did not think it necessary to offer any monetary advantages to the Colonies, and he did not believe that the love of the Colonies for the Mother Country was simply cupboard love. He had rarely listened with such pleasure to any speech as that which had been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Thanet Division,. After many years, the right hon. Gentleman felt himself entitled to declare that hon. Members on that side of the House were believers in old shibboleths and exploded ideas. That was the very idea they had held about the right hon. Gentleman since they had had the pleasure of knowing him, and he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the joy he felt in making that statement. He would vote in favour of the Amendment because it would give him a further opportunity of declaring his opinion that the expenditure of the country was wasteful and improper. He believed that military expenditure was not expenditure for the strength of the Empire, but tended towards the weakening of the Empire. It was because he wished to declare that the tax should not continue longer than a year and also because he desired a further opportunity for advocating the reduction of expenditure that he would support his friend's Amendment.
  SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid he had listened to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with very different feelings to the feelings of some of his hon. friends. He observed that one of his hon. friends said that he felt greatly relieved, indeed, at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, because he had declared himself in favour of Free Trade. His opinion was different to that of his hon. friend, and he confessed that he was rather in a difficulty to understand what was quite the right hon. Gentleman's position in regard to Free

  201
  Trade. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he was thoroughly in favour of Free Trade with the Colonies. He himself was as strong a Free Trader as any Gentleman in the House, but he rather gathered from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that his idea of Free Trade with the Colonies was not quite consistent with that general Free Trade with the world which was advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth. So far as he had been able to gather, the right hon. Gentleman would not be averse to increasing trade between the Colonies and the Mother Country by means of giving preferential tariffs to the Colonies. That created a great deal of uneasiness in his mind, because he could not help thinking that the light hon. Gentleman had been bitten with the views put forward so admirably and ably by the. Secretary for the Colonies at Birmingham. It was a dangerous policy indeed to advocate so far as the general interests of the country were concerned. If they attempted to give preferential duties to the Colonies, they would create a strong ill-feeling in all their other customers in the different parts of the world, and he was afraid that it would create also serious retaliation on their part. Why should the Committee begin a system of retaliation when they could not tell where it would lead to. It would lead to a complete break-up of the tariff system with various countries with
  which they had at present many important treaties. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had considered what effect such an arrangement would have on the most favoured nation clause. Supposing they gave preferential rates to the Colonies—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is getting rather far from the Amendment.
  SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid that was not his intention, but he was dealing with points which had been brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman, and the right hon. Gentleman's speech was of such a startling character that he thought he would be in order in dealing with it. He would, however, simply content himself with protesting against the tax which had been forced on the country; and when they considered that the country had had no opportunity of expressing an opinion on it—it was a tax which be felt sure the supporters of the Government would not dare to broach during the last general election—he thought that was a strong argument for limiting the tax to a year.
  (11.3.) Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 173; Noes, 236. (Division List No. 210.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E)

  Burns, John

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Allan, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Caldwell, James

  Dunn, Sir William

  Ambrose, Robert

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Asher, Alexander

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone

  Austin, Sir John

  Cawley, Frederick

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan

  Barry, E (Cork, S.)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Fenwick Charles

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Ffrench, Peter

  Bell, Richard

  Crean, Eugene

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Blake, Edward

  Cremer, William Randal

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Boland, John

  Crombie, John William

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Delany, William

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Gilhooly, James

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Dillon, John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Doogan, P. C.

  Grey, Sir Edward (Berwick)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Mather, William

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Hammond, John

  Mooney, John J.

  Soames, Arthur (Wellesley)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Harwood, George

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Newnes, Sir George

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

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

  Sullivan, Donal

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Taylor, Theodore Cooke

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tip'era'y, Mid

  Tennant, Harold John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, H.)

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

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

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.)

  Holland, William Henry

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Horniman, Frederick John

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

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Malley, William

  Thompson, Dr. EC (Mon'gh'n, N

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Joyce, Michael

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading

  Tomkinson, James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Partington, Oswald

  Toulmin, George

  Kinloch, Sir John Geo. Smyth

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Kitson, Sir James

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Wallace, Robert

  Langley, Batty

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Price, Robert John

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Leamy, Edmund

  Priestley, Arthur

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Rea, Russell

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Leng, Sir John

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Levy, Maurice

  Reddy, M.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Logan, John William

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Lough, Thomas

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Lundon, W.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

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

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Young, Samuel

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Yoxall, James Henry

  McVeagh, Jeremiah

  Runciman, Walter

  M'Cann, James

  Russell, T. W.

  M'Crae, George

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. William M'Arthur.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  M'Kean, John

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Brassey, Albert

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Allhusen, Augnstus H'nry Eden

  Butcher, John George

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cautley, Henry Strother

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

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield

  Balcarres, Lord

  Chamberlain Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Disraeli, Coniogsby Ralph

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manchr.

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Chapman, Edward

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Bigwood, James

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

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

  Bond, Edward

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Finch, George H.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  204

  205

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Fison, Frederick William

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Round, James

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter Bristol, S.

  Flower, Ernest

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowe, Francis William

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Garfit, William

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Seton-Karr, Henry

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

  Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

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

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

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

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Smith, H. C (North'mb, Tyn'sde

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

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

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

  Maxwell, W. J H (Dumfriessh're

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Greene, Sir E. W. (B'ry St. Ed.

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Stock, James Henry

  Gretton, John

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Hain, Edward

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Ox'fd Univ

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hamilton, Rt Hn. Lord G (Mid'x

  Morgan, Hn. Fred. (Momn'thsh.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hardy, Laurence (K'nt, Ashf'rd

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf'rd)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Valentia, Viscount

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Vincent, Col Sir C. E H (Sheffield

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Helder, Augustus

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Hope, J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Welby, Lt. -Col. ACE (Taunton)

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Percy, Earl

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

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pilkington Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset))

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Purvis, Robert

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

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Randles, John S.

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.

  Keswick, William

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

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

  Knowles, Lees

  Ratcliff, R. F.

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Lawson, John Grant

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Younger, William

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareh'm

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

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

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  MR. KEARLEYsaid the object of the Amendment he now desired to move was that duty should not be charged on articles other than those mentioned in the Schedule, and also to ascertain exactly from the Chancellor of the Exchequer where they were, and on what principle they were proceeding, if there was any principle at all, in levying the duty. When the Bill was introduced they were given to understand it was merely the reimposition of the registration duty on corn and flour; but when
  206
  the Resolution was put from the Chair they learned a great deal more. The Resolution mentioned various articles, and also stated that all farinaceous articles used for food came within the purview of the tax. That appeared to be understood by everyone, but when they came to consider the duties levied by the Customs, they were utterly unable to find out where they were, and therefore, it was that he was endeavouring to elicit from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what principle he was

  207
  proceeding, and what articles were to be charged. In the first place, he would point out that the duties were being levied altogether contrary to the principle laid down in the Resolution. Duties had been levied on articles not starchy, and, indeed, not food at all, whereas, although the Resolution stated that starchy food substances would be taxed, many articles were excluded which were essentially starchy food substances. Take the case of locust beans. They had nothing in common with ordinary beans, except the name. They were the pods of a plant, and although they contained no starch, they were full of sugar and nothing else. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he could justify a duty being levied on such an article, which was neither a food nor a starch. Then there was an article called dextrine. It was perfectly true that it was a product of starch, but it would be equally true to say that whiskey was made from starch. It was not a food, and should be no more included in the Bill, than whiskey. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer proceeded on the hypothesis that all products of dutiable articles should be taxed, then why did they not tax carbolic acid and the colours made from coal tar. He ought to be consistent, and tax the by-products of coal. Then, again, would anyone contend for a moment that potatoes were not largely composed of starch. Why did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose a duty on potatoes? It was suggested that potatoes were not imported, but that was not the case because last year seven million cwts. were imported. There was another article which ought to come within the purview of the Resolution, and that was pepper, which contained as much as 60 per cent of starch. Why had not the right hon. Gentleman included that, which was an article which was very largely imported. Again, ginger contained from 65 per cent. to 75 per cent. of starch, and was, therefore, a starchy food and ought to be included, if the tax were to be levied on any principle. Some hon. Gentlemen might say that it was nonsense to talk about taxing ginger and pepper as food, but he based himself on the legal
  208
  definition of food which was included in the Sale of Food and Drugs Act of 1899. There was great difficulty in the way of prosecuting persons for adulteration, because up to then there had been no legal definition of food, and Section 26 of that Act stated that the expression "food" should include every article used for food or drink by man, other than drugs and water or any article used in the preparation of food. That made it perfectly clear that ginger and pepper came within the purview of the Act, if the Resolution meant anything at all. The Customs had made out a list of fifty-two articles, and he thought they should all be enumerated in the Bill before they proceeded to discuss the Schedule. Last year, when the sugar duty was before the Committee, it was impossible to ascertain all the ramifications of the duty, but the experience of last year had been an advantage to the Customs, and they had ascertained very quickly to how many articles the duty applied. His object was to have inserted in the Schedule all the articles taxed, and also to obtain from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some explanation as to the principle on which he was proceeding, in order that they might know the full extent of their liability in connection with the tax.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 18, after the word 'Schedule,' to insert the words 'and no other.' "—(Mr. Kearley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It is perfectly clear that the words which the hon. Member proposes to insert can have no operation at all, and I cannot assent to their insertion. Nothing can be taxed except the articles named in the Schedule. The hon. Member suggested that articles are being taxed which are not named in the Schedule. I deny that that is so. Several articles have more than one name.
  MR. KEARLEY: Would the right hon. Gentleman take the ease of millet?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Millet is not taxed. The hon. Member may take my word for it, that it is not. The first list, issued, I think, somewhat hurriedly, by the Customs was incorrect, and a number of names were quite unnecessarily included.
  MR. KEARLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if varine is being taxed?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not know; I never heard of it before. The hon. Gentleman asked me what was the basis of our proposal. The basis of our proposal is the old registration duty which applied to a certain number of articles which he will find set out in the old Act. That list has been practically copied into the new Schedule, with one or two omissions.
  MR. KEARLEY: Was rice included in the old Act?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Oh, no, Sir. The hon. Gentleman asked me why I did not tax this, that, or the other article, but I think I have included a sufficient number of articles to carry out the principle fully. If, however, the hon. Member will communicate with me with reference to any article which he says ought to be taxed, and is not included in the Schedule, I will be prepared to consider it.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I understand that there is a list exhibited at the Customs House.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: That is withdrawn.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Is it understood then that the list now at the Customs House does not go beyond the Schedule? I understood there was a list at the Customs House greatly in extension of the Schedule of the Bill.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: It was an extension caused by naming articles separately which really ought to be included under one term.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: One of the great evils of this tax is that it necessitates putting, as it were, under
  210
  the ban of the Customs a great number of articles not meddled with by the Customs before. One of the great reforms which took place in our finance was the diminution of the number of articles which were taxed by the Customs; but now these two apparently single taxes on sugar and corn involve an addition to the articles subject to taxation, amounting to several score. I understand that the number of articles which will be subjected to the annoyance, the trouble, and the hindrance to trade, of a Customs duty in respect of sugar and corn amount to seventy odd. What we really wish is a clear understanding that there shall be no Customs list interfering with the trade of this country in regard to any articles except those mentioned in the Schedule. If that is clearly understood, the evil of which complaint is made will be to some extent diminished.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONcould not understand why there had been so much mystery in regard to the articles to be scheduled. Those who took an interest in the matter had had the utmost difficulty in getting the list. The Cancellor of the Exchequer promised a Return, but that Return, when granted, was very inadequate, and one was forced to the conclusion that for some reason it was desired to prevent the Committee knowing the full details of what the tax would lead to. He desired to know what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do in reference to the preparations referred to.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Under the ordinary law, quite apart from the Schedule, preparations containing dutiable articles are liable to so much of the duty as would be properly leviable on the amount of the article contained therein. That was the case in regard to sugar last year. For instance, preparations containing sugar are taxed to the extent of the sugar in them.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid the answer of the right hon. Gentleman showed how great the mischief of this proposal was. At any moment, fresh articles might be discovered in the manufacture of which flour was used, and instead of fifty, sixty, or seventy articles being added to the list, the number might

  211
  run to hundreds. Each article containing any of the substances named in the Schedule would have to be examined to find out how much of it was taxable, and it was impossible to conceive anything which would cause greater injury to trade. The reply of the right hon. Gentleman had shown the proposal to be a great deal worse than he had ever supposed it to be.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHdid not think the inconvenience would be very great. There had been no difficulty in regard to the sugar duty.
  MR. KEARLEYasked why such articles as semolina, macaroni, and vermicelli should not be enumerated.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Those all come under flour.
  MR. KEARLEYurged that the trader ought not to be exposed to the inconvenience of finding fresh articles added week after week at the caprice of the Customs. There had now been ample opportunities for ascertaining the articles that were chargeable, and those that were not, and the present Customs list might very well be put in the Schedule. If the tax was to come up for reconsideration next year, there would not be so much to be said for this course being adopted, but seeing that the matter was about to be dealt with once for all, it was a most reasonable request that the articles which were well known should be put in the Schedule of the Bill.
  MR. LAMBERTasked whether feeding cake containing locust beans or maize meal, would have to bear a share of the tax.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: If it contained maize meal, yes.
  MR. LAMBERT: And locust beans?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: We cannot discuss the Schedule now, but as regards locust beans and some other minor articles, I shall be perfectly ready to consider them later on.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked whether, under those circumstances, before they reached the Schedule, the right hon.
  212
  Gentleman would seriously consider whether, from the point of view of the trader, it would not be better to have all these items specifically mentioned. No dispute could then possibly arise.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHwas understood to say that he would consider the point.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
  MR. FLYNNmoved to omit the words "or Ireland" The tax was one which would fall with special heaviness upon Ireland, as it would tax not only the food of the people, but also an industry which was largely in the hands of the smaller farmers of the country. The right hon. Gentleman could hardly have realised the peculiar weight with which the tax would fall upon Ireland, as compared with England or Scotland. It was difficult to get figures showing approximately how the burden would fall, but according to taxation returns prepared by a very competent authority, with regard to County Kerry, it was estimated that on that one county alone the tax would fall to the extent of £27,000 or £28,000, of which sum about £10,800 would be on the food of the people in the shape of flour, and the balance upon their cattle-feeding industry Unfortunately, owing to the poverty of the people of Ireland, maize or Indian meal was largely used as a food, so that the maize tax would affect the poorest of the poor. The matter was the more serious in the present year because the potato crop prospects were of the gloomiest possible character. On the basis of the figures he had given for County Kerry, he estimated that the burden of new taxation on the whole of Ireland would amount to £500,000 or £600,000. As that country was already over-taxed, such a prospect could not be regarded with anything like equanimity. If it was admitted that the tax on wheat or flour would fall heavily on the artizan classes of this country, who were comparatively prosperous, he I thought a very strong case would have been made out for the exemption of Ireland, where the bulk of the peasantry, especially in a bad year, had to exist almost exclusively on Indian meal. If

  213
  the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not undertake to exempt Ireland as regarded flour and wheat, he might as Ear as maize was concerned. The Customs difficulty could easily be got over, because by far the greater quantity of maize was imported direct to the parts in the ships' bottoms. The small peasant farmer had to compete with the Dane. No tax was imposed on offals in Denmark, and the competition which was already very keen, would be much more severe if this tax were imposed. He hoped that before the Report stage was reached the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reconsider the matter with a view to relieving Ireland from some portion of the burden.
  Amendment proposed—
  In page 1, line 19, to leave out the words "or Ireland."—(Mr. Flynn.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'or Ireland' stand part of the Clause."
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid that the hon. Member would probably see, on consideration, that he could not possibly accept this Amendment. It would necessitate the establishment of separate custom houses, and that would be a system which would be injurious both to Ireland and to England. This matter could be most conveniently discussed on the Schedule, when they came to the particular article to which the hon. Member had referred. The hon. Member had not laid much stress upon wheat, and with regard to maize there was probably a larger consumption in Ireland than in England. But, as he had said, that was a matter which ought to be discussed when they came to the article in the Schedule. He was bound to say, however, that maize competed so largely with wheat that it would be very difficult to differentiate between maize and wheat in the amount of duty. He understood from a recent speech of the hon. Member for Waterford that hon. Gentlemen from Ireland desired something in the nature of a Protective duty for agricultural products. If the effect of this proposed duty was to raise the price of corn in
  214
  Ireland, that would, to some extent, be what they desired. But he did not believe it would be found that the duty would have that effect. There was an enormous surplus of maize in America, and that surplus had to come to this country, because other countries had considerable duties which prevented it from going there. Therefore, except under very exceptional circumstances, he did not think that a duty of 1s. a quarter would have any serious effect on the price of maize. However, he did not desire to argue the question at the present stage; that could be better done on the Schedule, and he hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment.
  MR. DILLONdesired to draw attention to the peculiar hardship and injustice of this particular tax which was primarily levied for the expenses of the war, but was now to be taken as a part of the permanent financial system of the country. The poorer the taxpayer, the more heavily would the tax press. He represented a district in Ireland where a great number of the people throughout long periods of the year could not afford to eat bread at all. He had seen them, in their own homes, eating potatoes and salt, and he remembered years when they had to subsist on Indian meal. It was monstrous and cruel of such a rich Empire to throw on these people any portion of the burden of the war for which they certainly had no responsibility, and from which they would reap no benefit whatever. There was no doubt that Free Trade had been the ruin of Ireland. The complaint of the Irish Members was that England had always carried on her fiscal system with a view to her own interests, and an utter disregard of those of Ireland. He was no bigot in the matter of Free Trade. He had seen America and Australia grow prosperous under a system of Protection as they could not have done under a system of Free Trade, but that was because they had suited their system to their circumstances. England, at a certain period of her history, embraced the principles of Free Trade, because enlightened men said that system would lead her in the path

  215
  of prosperity and wealth. And so it did, to an extent unparalleled in the history of the world. Free Trade literally deluged England with prosperity and money, but at the time England adopted Free Trade she struck down Ireland as an agricultural country, having previously robbed her of her manufactures and her industries by the laws directed against them. Today along the whole western and southern portion of Ireland ruin and misery and desolation were to be found where once, flourished the mills and granaries and stores through which the products of Irish tillage were sent to the markets of the world. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to be under the impression that maize could be grown in Ireland, and he said that the Irish wanted Protection.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid he could have made himself clear. He did not, of course, suppose that maize could be grown in Ireland. All he meant was that if the tax raised the price of maize then pro tanto it would encourage the growing of corn in Ireland.
  MR. DILLONasked if anything could be more absurd than that? Indian meal was simply used by the people there because it was the very cheapest. Used in the way the people ate it in Ireland, it was food upon which no Christian people should be obliged to depend for an existence. The tax was simply another drop in the cup of misery of those poor people. But if the Government proposed a really substantial task it might be that the Irish members—although he would be sorry that it should be so—would feel themselves obliged to support it in order to lighten the intolerable burden which at present lay upon the people in Ireland, driving them out of the country because all prospect or future for them at home had been absolutely ruined. But so long as they had landlords in Ireland, every single shilling of a really Protective duty would pass into their pockets, and he had no idea of encouraging any Protective measure which would have the result of raising the rents in Ireland and putting money in the landlords' pockets. It must however be
  216
  understood that the Irish Party held themselves perfectly free to consider what their action should be in the event of the Chancellor of the Exchequer being dragged along unwillingly, and against his own better judgment, into extravagant proposals and new experiments in taxation. If justification were needed or the claim of the Irish people to manage their own affairs, it was supplied by the history of the taxation of Ireland and the cruel, thoughtless, and remorseless way in which the people of England had fitted their financial system to their own needs and commercial requirements, without the slightest regard for the way in which that system would affect the circumstances of Ireland. The action of the Government in proposing the present tax was simply in accord with that old and invariable practice. Ireland's experience of her partnership with Great Britain was that as long as she was tied to the Union no regard whatever was taken of the ruin which England's fiscal system entailed on the Irish people, and he was convinced that the longer the partnership existed the poorer would the people grow.
  MR. FLYNNsaid the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had filled him with alarm. If in addition to a bad harvest, which seemed all too probable, they were to have this tax on the top of the high price of maize, the figures he had given of the serious nature of the burden would be greatly under estimated. The tax on wheat would not cause any additional cultivation in Ireland, so that, while having to bear all the loss of the additional price of flour and of the enormous quantity of maize—used both for human food and in the industry of poultry feeding and so on—they could get no advantage whatever. It was useless to say that this matter could be discussed on the Schedule. Members would then be pinned down to one particular point, and a full discussion would be impossible. He therefore moved to report progress, in order that the question could be fully considered at a reasonable hour of the evening.
  Motion moved and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Flynn.)
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid he would not resist the Motion except for one reason. The hon. Member had made a suggestion to which he could not possibly agree, viz., that a tax which was to be levied in Great Britain should not also be levied in Ireland. If the hon. Member would now take a disvision on this Amendment and resume the debate on the Question "That clause 1 stand part of the Bill," he would find that from the Irish point of view he could equally well discuss the matter he desired to raise, and the Committee would, at any rate, have made some progress.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLdid not think it possible wholly to exempt Ireland from the tax. The real question they ought to consider was as to maize, and that could best be done on the Schedule. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should remember that maize was the food of a large number of the poorest of the poor in Ireland, and also that, so far as it could be classed as a feeding stuff, linseed and cotton seed cake, which were the principal
  feeding stuffs in England, were not taxed, so that from that point of view also, this was an unjust tax upon Ireland. He was prepared to resist the inclusion of maize as strongly as possible, when they came to the Schedule, but he did not think hon. Members would carry the Committee with them in asking for the total exemption of Ireland from this tax. He agreed with every word of the hon. Member for East Mayo as to the injurious effect of Free Trade upon Ireland, but for the reasons he had given he thought it would be better to join issue on the question of maize.
  MR. DILLONsuggested that the Motion should be withdrawn, although he agreed that the Irish question could not be properly fought on the Schedule.
  Motion by leave withdrawn.
  (12.38.) Question put, "That the words 'or Ireland' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 153; Noes 54. (Division List No. 211.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex F.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Finch, George H.

  Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wor'c.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Chapman, Edward

  Fison, Frederick William

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Charrington, Spencer

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Clive, Capt. Percy A.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Balcarres, Lord

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

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

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down. North)

  Core, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Beach, Rt Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Green, Walford D.(Wedn'sbury

  Bignold, Arthur

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Bond, Edward

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hamilton, Rt Hn L'rd G. (Middx

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'ndnderry

  Brassey, Albert

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dunn, Sir William

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Helder, Augustus

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Round, James

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Russell, T. W.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Milner, Rt Hon. Sir Frederick G.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Hoult, Joseph

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Howard, John (Kent, Favershm

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Morgan, David J. (W'lth'mstow

  Smith, HC (North'mb, Tyneside

  Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

  Morgan, Hn Fred. (Monm'thsh.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frderick

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Keswick, William

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

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

  Lawson, John Grant

  Norman, Henry

  Thomas, J A (Glamorg'n, Gower

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard

  Valentia, Viscount

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

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

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Purvis, Robert

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Randles, John S.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Ratcliff, R. F.

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

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Rea, Russell

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

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  M'Crae, George

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

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

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Ritchie, Rt Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Leamy, Edmund

  Reddy, M.

  Boland, John

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

  Caldwell, James

  Levy, Maurice

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lundon, W.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Cogan, Dennis J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Crean, Eugene

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Delany, William

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Dillon, John

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Morley, Charley (Breconshire)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Elibank, Master of

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Thompson, Dr EC (Monagh'n, N

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Toulmin, George

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Hammond, John

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

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Malley, William

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. Haviland-Burke.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Partington, Oswald

  Joyce, Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Question proposed "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

TEACHERS OF MUSIC (REGISTRATION) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
Read a second time and committed for Wednesday.
Adjourned at five minutes before One o'clock.

LORD KENSINGTON.
Ordered that the report of the Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, made to the House of Lords on the 6th day of this instant June, that the right of Lord Kensington to vote at the elections of representative peers for Ireland has been established to his satisfaction, be sent to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, together with a certificate stating that such report has been made, and that the House has ordered it to be sent to the said Clerk of the Crown in Ireland.
EARL FITZWILLIAM.
Petition of William Charles de Muro Wentworth-Fitzwilliam, Earl Fitzwilliam, in the peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of representative peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
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 Bills have been complied with:—

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Gas).

Local Government Provisional Order (Gas).

Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill—
Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law).
And also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with—

Croydon and District Electric Tramways.

Bournemouth Gas and Water.

Bexhill and Rotherfield Railway (Abandonment).

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

KENT ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
The Chairman of Committees informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Orders made on the 12th May, and Thursday last, discharged, and Bill committed.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported with Amendments.
GREAT NORTHERN AND CITY RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.

CENTRAL LONDON RAILWAY BILL [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): I wish to explain that, though this is one of the Tube Bills and I undertook to give my noble friend the Earl of Camperdown notice of certain clauses introduced into a good many of these measures, this Bill contains no new works and therefore the clause to which the noble Earl referred is not in. In these circumstances I ask your Lordships to read it a third time.
Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
DEVONPORT CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
MENAI BRIDGE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LEYLAND AND FARINGTON GAS BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
DOVER HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
DEVONPORT CORPORATION WATER BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
WIGAN CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CITY AND BRIXTON RAILWAY BILL, LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL,
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (SUBWAYS AND TRAMWAYS) BILL,

    LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL,
    LONDON, TILBURY, AND SOUTHEND RAILWAY BILL.
    Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4.) BILL.
    Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
    MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2.) BILL.
    Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
    EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SWANSEA UNITED DISTRICT) (No. 2.) BILL. [H.L.]
    Order of the day for the Third Reading read, and discharged; and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BARNES, &c.) BILL. [H.L.],
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1.) BILL. [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to order), and Bills to be read 3a Tomorrow.
DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
LONDON GOVERNMENT SCHEME (SOUTHWARK) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 97.)
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Statistics of elementary day schools, evening continuation schools, and training colleges, 1900–1901. Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.
  GAS AND WATER WORKS FACILITIES ACT, 1870.
  Reports by the Board of Trade as to dispensing with the consent of (1) the Shirland and Higham Parish Council in the case of the Clay Cross Gas Provisional Order; (2) the Bothwell Parish Council in the case of the Bothwell and Uddingston Gas Provisional Order; (3) the Wood Green Urban District Council in the case of the Hornsey Gas Provisional Order.

  CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
  Rules made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the provisions of the Capital Punishment Amendment Act, 1868, for regulating the execution of capital sentences.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877.
  (1) Statute made by the Governing Body of New College, Oxford, on 15th January, 1902, amending Statute III., Clause 2 (Marriage and Residence of Tutorial Fellows) of the Statutes of the College; (2) Statute made by the President and Fellows of Magdalen College, Oxford, on 11th December, 1901, amending Clause 8 of Statute XII. (Grammar Schools) of the Statutes of the College; (3) Statute made by the Governing Body of Christ's Hospital, Cambridge, on 7th February, 1902, amending Section 2 of Chapter XXXVII. of the College Statutes.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. [No. 94.]

  BRITISH MUSEUM BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I have the honour, on behalf of the trustees of the British Museum, to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill. It is a very short and succinct Bill, and correctly explains the object which the trustees have in view. I need not remind your Lordships that the great pressure on the space of the British Museum buildings in Bloomsbury is a constantly increasing anxiety to the trustees. It is proposed, therefore, to erect certain buildings upon a site, for the purchase of which provision has been made, at Hendon, about a mile from the Hendon Station on the Midland Railway. The buildings will be of sufficient size to receive provincial newspapers and other printed matter which it is not necessary to store in the existing buildings. Those papers which are constantly referred to by visitors, however, such as the London newspapers, will be preserved, as at present, in the British Museum buildings in Bloomsbury. The land to be obtained, through the Office of Works, at Hendon is between four and five acres; a very moderate sum of money has been expended upon its purchase, and the buildings will be of a simple and inexpensive character, although every care will be taken for the due preservation of the papers deposited there. With regard to the ample precautions which have been taken against lire, we have been in communication with Captain Wells, and danger from fire will be precluded as far as human foresight can provide. The site will be vested in the Office of Works, as are the buildings and site which the trustees at present occupy at South Kensington. If any references are desired to be made to the papers at Hendon it is expected that a notice of a very few hours would be quite sufficient to enable the authorities to meet the convenience of the public.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without Amendment; and recommitted to the Standing Committee.
LOAN BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
IMMORAL TRAFFIC (SCOTLAND) BILL (No. 95),

  UNIVERSITY OF WALES (GRADUATES) BILL (No. 96).
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Five o'clock till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.