Sitting of 25 June 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
UNOPPOSED PUIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  BROADSTAIRS GAS BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
  METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAYS BILL [LORDS].
  Re-committed to the Committee on Group 9 of Railway Bills.—(Sir William Hurt Dyke.)
  IRVINE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (UNDER THE PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.)
  Read a second time and ordered to be considered tomorrow.
  FLEETWOOD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  "To empower the Urban District Council of Fleetwood, in the county of Lancaster, to construct new outfall and other sewers, and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
  WEARDALE AND SHILDON DISTRICT WATER BILL [LORDS].
  Report [24th June] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read; Bill to be read a second t me.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against: From Cawston, Leicester (four), New Wortley, Denholme and Farnworth, to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions for alteration from Wortley and Leeds; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND TRANSFER ACT, 1897.
  Petition from London, for inquiry into the compulsory system of registration; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Thetford and Farnworth; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS WARNED.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 12th June; Sir Francis Powell]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 240.]
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) (ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACTS).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Proceedings of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, under the Endowed Schools Acts, 1869 to 1889, for the year 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 241.]
  EDUCATION (IRELAND) (COMMISSIONERS' ORDERS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 28th May; Mr. T. M. Healy]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 242.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES)
  Copies presented, of diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2829 to 2831 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (REPRODUCTIVE UNDERTAKINGS).
  Return ordered, "of the Reproductive Undertakings carried on by Municipal Boroughs (ordered by the House on the 4th day of August 1898) brought up to the 31st day of March 1902 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 88, of Session 1899)."—(Sir Henry Fowler.)
  NAVIGATION LAWS
  Return ordered, "containing a reprint of the Appendix to the Fifth Report from the Select Committee on the Navigation Laws, 1847, entitled 'A Comparative View of the Navigation Law of 1860 and 1847.'"—(Sir Howard Fin cent.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Position of Married Women Trustees.
  MR. EUGENE WASON: To ask Mr. Attorney General whether the attention of the Government has been drawn to the decision of Mr. Justice North, in the case of Harkness v. Allsopps Contract (1896, 2 Chancery Division, p. 358), that The Mairied Women's Property Act, 1862, does not enable a woman married since the commencement of the Act, being a trustee of real estate for sale, to convey to a purchaser, except with the concurrence of her husband, and by a deed acknowledged by her; and whether the Government intend to propose such an Amendment of the Act as will enable a married woman trustee to convey property of all kinds without the concurrence of her husband.
  (Answer.) My attention, has been directed to this case, and to the later cases of Brooks v. Fremlin's Contract (L, R, 1898, 1 Ch., 647) and Howgate v. Osborn's Contract (1902, 1 Ch., 451). The point may deserve consideration in any future Bill on the Law as to trustees, but it does not appear to me, at all events in the present state of the authorities, that special legislation on this point is expendient.—(Mr. Attorney General.)

  Indian Customs Duties.
  SIR JOHN ROLLESTON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the revenue derived from the import duties on goods entering India, imposed by the Government in 1894, is participated in by the Native States, or whether it is wholly absorbed by British India.
  (Answer.) The whole of the proceeds of the Customs duties levied by the Government of India are paid, like those of the other taxes, into the Treasury of that Government, and not into that of any other Government or State.—(India Office.)

  India—Moonsoon Prospects—Probability of Famine.
  MR. MOUNT: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received a Report from

  5
  the Meteorological Department in India predicting a serious deficiency of rain in Western India, more especially in Gujerat; and whether the Government of India are making preparations for a famine: And whether he can give any information as to the prospects of the monsoon.
  (Answer.) A statement has been recently made in various newspapers to the effect that the Meteorological Department in India have reported that a serious deficiency of rain is probable, especially in Guzerat, and that the Bombay Government are consequently making special preparations. This statement is incorrect. The Government of India have, however, decided not to make public the forecasts which the Department submit to them from time to time, 011 account of the admittedly imperfect data on which such forecasts are necessarily based. The weekly Reports which are sent Home by the Government of India and published in this country give the most trustworthy indications that can be obtained both of the actual facts and of the prospects for the future. The last of these reports for the week ended 22nd June stated that the moonsoon had given heavy rain in the West Coast districts, and light rain in the Deccan and Sindh, and showers in Guzerat. Good rain has also fallen in Burma, Assam, and Lower Bengal, and agricultural prospects up to date are satisfactory on the whole.— (India Office)

  Printing and Issuing of Royal Commissioners Reports—Port of London Commission.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury is responsible, through the Stationery Office, for the printing of the Reports of Royal Commissions after they have been presented to the Crown; and whether he can say when the Report of the recent Royal Commission on the Port and Docks of London, which wag presented to the House on the 18th June, will be obtainable by Members and the public.
  (Answer) The Secretary of a Royal Commission is responsible for preparing and marking for press the final revise of
  6
  the Report. The Stationery Office is responsible for the fulfilment by the printers of the terms of their contract. The Report referred to by the hon. Member will, it is hoped, be delivered on Monday morning next. The copy for press was sent to the printers, with some corrections, on Thursday last. It contains three plans which required to be lithographed and supplied to the printer to be bound up with the Report.—(Treasury.)

  Customs—Waterguard Department.
  MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Board of Customs have come to a decision in the case of the Customs boatmen, from whom they received a deputation in February last; and, if so, whether he will state the nature of that decision with respect to the various points submitted.
  (Answer.) The Board of Customs are giving this subject their careful consideration, but they have not yet been able to arrive at a decision with respect to the various points submitted to them by the deputation, which are closely connected with other general questions affecting the whole of the Waterguard Department.—(Treasury.)

  Woodnewton (Northamptonshire) Postal Arrangements.
  Colonel STOPFORD-SACKVILLE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has received a request from the Parish Council of Woodnewton, near Oundle, for the establishment of a post office and other postal facilities in that village; and can he hold out any hope that he will be able to comply with such a request.
  (Answer.) The Postmaster General has received an application from the Parish Council of Woodnewton for a post office, and also for an earlier arrival arid a later despatch of letters. A later despatch has been given, but an earlier arrival cannot be afforded because the Peterborough and Wansford mail cart cannot be diverted to Woodnewton, as suggested by the Council, without cans-

  7
  ing delay to correspondence for places further on. The mail at present is due at Woodnewton at about 7.40 a.m., a reasonably early hour. In view of the relatively high cost of the existing service a post office at Woodnewton is not warranted: but an office can be established if the County Council are prepared to pay the cost, estimated at £5 a year.—(Post Office.)

  Coronation Holidays—Pay and Leave of Postal Servants.
  MR. LOUGH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether all postal servants employed on Thursday and Friday will be paid full wages for the two days, and also be allowed two additional holidays later on in the year.
  (Answer.) All officers will receive their usual pay for the two days, and those who cannot be allowed two days leave of absence will receive either extra pay according to their attendance or time off later on.—(Post Office.)

  Bethnal Green Museums — Exhibition of Art Furniture.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGEEE: To ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether some means may be adopted for making known to the various trades in the East of London which are interested in the subject, that the collection of new art furniture, which was selected by the Vice President of the International Jury on Furniture, at the Paris Exhibition of 1900, and presented to the Victoria and Albert Museum by him, is now on view at the Bethnal Green Branch of that Museum; and also, whether a rule may be established that all important additions to the Bethnal Green Museum may be properly advertised in the local Press and by handbills sent to the workshops of any trades affected by such exhibits.
  (Answer.) I hope that my answer to this Question will make known the fact that the collection referred to is now at Bethnal Green Museum and is being arranged for exhibition there. The
  8
  duty of advertising locally exhibits from the Victoria and Albert Museum cannot be undertaken by the Board of Education.—(Board of Education.)

  Postal Service—Holiday Work and Leave.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will explain why, in the Customs Department, officials having to perform duty on Government or other holidays receive an extra day's pay, while officials in other Departments, the Post Office for instance, have the option of accepting pay at one and a half times their ordinary rate of salary or private leave to the extent of the number of days they are so employed.
  (Answer.) I understand that at the Post Office a man working on Government or other holidays, except Christmas Day and Good Friday, is paid an ordinary day's wages. If the head of the Department (not the man) thinks it convenient, a holiday on another day may be granted instead of such payment. I do not know to what "other Departments" the Question refers.—(Treasury.)

  Distillery Excise Officers—Holiday Work and Leave.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the fact that at certain distillery and other Excise stations in this country, officers of Inland Revenue are obliged to work on official holidays throughout the year, including Government holidays and Christmas Day, he will, wherever I the exigencies of the trade and the security of the Revenue require such exceptional attendance, direct that suitable extra remuneration or additional leave be granted to the officers concerned.
  (Answer.) The only Excise officers to whom this suggestion could in effect apply are those engaged in distilleries; and the fact that these officers have sometimes to give attendance on public holidays is already duly taken into account in arranging their work and leave as a whole.—(Treasury.)

  Disaster in the West Indies—Board of Trade Award to Captain Freeman, of the "Roddam."
  MR. FIRBANK: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Albert Medal will be bestowed on

  9
  Captain Freeman, of the steamer "Rod-dam," of London, in recognition of his conduct on the occasion of the Martinique eruption in saving the ship.
  (Answer.) I find from the terms of the Royal Warrant and the circumstances of this case, that I am unable to recommend the award of the Albert Medal. At the same time the Board of Trade fully recognise the highly meritorious nature of the service rendered by Captain Freeman, and they have decided to award him a piece of plate which will be formally presented to him in due course. —(Board of Trade.)

  Irish Elementary Teachers—Iustruction in Irish—Delay in paying Extra Fees.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will explain why the teacher of School Roll, No. 12,977 has not yet been paid fees for extra instruction in Irish, though the school was examined in March.
  (Answer.) The claim for payment to this teacher was not regular, as the Pupils had not been instructed on the full programme. But it has been specially considered, and the fees have been allowed and are included in the current issue of such payments.—(Irish Office.)

  Irish Education—Easter Examination of Monitors and King's Scholars.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the papers set in Easter week by the Commissioners of National Education to Monitors and King's scholars have been examined; and, if so, when will the marks be furnished to the examiners; and what is the cause of the delay in making known the results of the examination.
  (Answer.) The examination of King's scholars has not yet been held. The results of the examination of monitors are now being revised and will be communicated in the course of a few weeks.—(Irish Office.)

  Labourers (Ireland) Acts—Application of Mr. Norris, of Annagh, Limerick.
  MR. LUNDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is
  10
  aware that the application of Michael Norris, of Annagh, in the rural district of Galbally, county Limerick, No. 2 District Council of Mitchelstown, under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, was refused, although the officer presiding at the inquiry in Mitchelstown had previously recommended that Norris should get a cottage and plot; that the said cottage was to be built on a plot owned by Norris himself; that the passage into said plot has lately been repaired at the public expense; that Norris has a right of way to his land as well as two other farmers; and that the alleged cause of refusal was that the landlord and the agent had not been communicated with: And, will he consider the matter with a view to an order being made in favour of Norris.
  (Answer.) The application has not been refused; it was recommended conditionally on the consents of owner and occupier being obtained. The county council were requested last July to procure these consents but have not yet done so.—(Irish Office).

  Irish County Courts—Law of Landlord and Tenant.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the representations made by several Chambers of Commerce and County Councils in Ireland, ho will insert a clause in the County Courts (Ireland) Bill [H.L.], assimilating the Law in Ireland to that in England in connection with the execution of County Court decrees as regards a landlords claims for rent.
  (Answer.) The reply to this Question is in the negative.—(Irish Office).

  Deductions from Wages—Amendment of the Truck Act.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Bristol magistrates in the case of Squire v. Wathen, Gardiner, and Company, Clothiers, that the deduction of £2 5s., spread over two years, from the earnings of Caroline Lloyd, tailoress, for damage done to twelve pairs of trousers, for which she was paid 6½d per pair, the

  11
  damage consisting of wrongly placed pockets, no patterns or instructions having been given, was fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case; whether he will consider the desirability of amending Section 2, Sub-section (1) (c), of the Track Act of 1896 in order to protect the worker from such deductions; And whether, in the further case of Squire v. Broderick and Company, taken under Section 3 of the Truck Act, 1831, in which a pair of damaged trousers had been given to the worker in lieu of wage, the Home Office contemplates appealing to a higher court against the decision of the Bristol magistrates dismissing the case.
  (Answer.) Though the magistrates in the first case mentioned did give the decision stated as to what was a fair and reasonable deduction, they convicted the defendants on another charge in connection with the same case, and I believe there is reason to hope that the publicity given to the matter may lead to a change of practice among the wholesale tailors at Bristol. I am keeping a watch upon the operation of the enactment referred to, to see that it does not admit of a general practice of imposing unreasonable deductions against which it offers, as administered, no sufficient redress; and if at any time I find sufficient cause for amending the section I shall be prepared to undertake it. In the second case steps were taken with my sanction for carrying the matter to appeal.—(Home Office.)

  Scottish Volunteer Officers Training with the Militia.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: To I ask the Secretary of State for War, whether certain Officers of the Volunteer Force in Scotland, who were asked sometime ago to volunteer for service with the Militia at the Coronation, and on volunteering were informed that they would have to serve with the Militia during their four weeks annual training, and subsequently agreed to do so, have now been informed that their services will not be required.
  (Answer.) General officers were instructed to endeavour to fill up vacancies in the Militia during training by utilising the services of Volunteer officers, but no allusion whatever was made to the Coronation.—(War Office.)

  Arrangements under the new "Questions" Rule.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, in view of what took place on Monday last at Question time under the new Sessional Order, it is his intention to provide against the inconvenience caused to the House by anything calculated to delay the putting of Questions to the First Lord of the Treasury, many of which are of special importance, until the time is reached after which Questions cannot receive oral replies.
  (Answer.) I will certainly do my best to make such arrangements as are possible to obviate the inconvience of which the right hon. Gentleman justly complains.—(Treasury.)

  Naval Prize Money.
  MR. KEARLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether the list of persons entitled to Naval prize money, covering the period from 1856 to 1897, is now completed; and whether, when issued, steps will be taken to give it extensive advertisement, so that those entitled to participate may become aware of the fact.
  (Answer.) The list is not yet completed, but its preparation is being proceeded with as rapidly as possible, and a considerable portion of it is already in the printer's hands. On the issue of the list, due steps will be taken to give it all necessary publicity.—(Admiralty.)

(2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  The Intervention of Black Rod.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: said he desired to ask a Question with reference to a matter of practice, and to base it on the course adopted by Mr. Speaker Peel in 1891. On Monday last it would be remembered, Black Rod summoned the Speaker to the bar of the Upper House, and thereby encroached on the time allotted for Questions. In a similar case in 1891, Mr. Speaker Peel communicated with the officers of the House of Lords in order to secure that when Black Rod appeared, his intervention should be at an opportune time. It

  13
  would be seen on reference to Hansard, June 11th, 1891, that a Question was addressed to Mr. Speaker on the subject of the interruption. He would only ask whether, acting on that precedent, some arrangement would be made with the officers of the House of Lords by which the limited time allotted for Questions would not be curtailed by the intervention of Black Rod.
  MR. SPEAKER: The case to which the hon. Member refers was one in which Black Rod came while a debate was proceeding, and interrupted the debate. Since then it has been the practice of the Lords Commissioners to send Black Rod down at a time that has been found to be the most convenient—that is, immediately after prayers. Undoubtedly our rules have somewhat affected the convenience of that arrangement. I have no reason to suppose the Lords Commissioners will raise any objection to sending Black Rod at such a time as is found to be convenient to this House. The real difficulty is for this House to settle what is the most convenient time at which Black Rod should come with these messages. I have had that matter under consideration, and at the present moment my impression is that immediately after prayers is not an inconvenient time, provided the day is one on which there are not many questions.

  Martial Law at the Cape.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he will make a statement of the intentions of the Government in regard to the restoration of ordinary law in Cape Colony now that military necessity for the exercise of Martial Law has ceased.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOHI,): I cannot accept the statement of the right lion. Gentleman that the military necessity for the exercise of martial law has ceased, and I cannot at present make any definite statement on the subject. The administration, however, has already been materially modified, and my right lion, friends the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Secretary of State for War are in communication with the authorities at the Cape on the subject.

  Suspension of the Cape Constitution.—Lord Milner's Letter of 19th May.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a letter from Lord Milner under date of 19th May, and written at Johannesburg, in reply to a communication from Sir W. Hely Hutchinson, which contained a copy of a petition in favour of the suspension of the constitution of Cape Colony, alleged to be signed by forty-two Members of the Legislature; whether this letter has received the sanction of His Majesty's Government; and whether he can state if the telegraphed version of Lord Milner's letter was censored at Cape Town.
  The following Question also appeared on the Paper—
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to a letter, dated 19th May, alleged to have been written by the High Commissioner for South Africa, and giving his opinion on the desirability of the suspension of the Constitution of Cape Colony; whether it was written or published by the High Commissioner with the sanction of His Majesty's Government; and, if he is unable now to give this information, whether he will make the necessary inquiries.
  TOE SECRETARY or STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will accept this as an answer to his Question also. The reply to the first part of this Question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. I have no information as to the third. I think I ought to add that the letter was on the face of it the expression of Lord Milner's personal views at the time, and that it was written before the terms of surrender were arranged.
  MR. FLYNN: Did not Lord Milner say in that letter that it would be improper for him to express an opinion on such an acute controversy?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; that is not in the letter. Lord Milner said that he thought it would be improper of him to reply to a petition from Cape Colony, but that he thought himself justified in replying to his own personal friends.

  Colonial Help in the War.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state approximately the help afforded to the Empire by each of the Colonies during the recent South African War.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not at present complete information on the subject which would enable me to reply fully to the Question.

  Boer Leaders and the Civil Administration.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended to give any of the recent Boer leaders civil appointments in the Transvaal and Orange River territories; and, if so, will he give particulars.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am in communication with Lord Milner on the subject, but am not at present able to give any particulars.

  Return of the Refugees.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the present position of refugees who are returning to their homes in the Transvaal and Orange River territories as regards rent, rates, taxes, and furniture, if removed or damaged.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Rent payable on occupied property and the ordinary taxes are payable, but rates are not being levied in Johannesburg except in respect of such services as sanitary services; special arrangements have been made to enable the refugees to replace furniture removed or damaged.

  South African Constabulary—Officers' Gratuities.
  MR. FITZROY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the
  16
  Colonies whether a British officer serving in the South African Constabulary is entitled to the same gratuity or pension for wounds received in action as officers serving in the regular Army.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Lord Milner has been requested to consider this question of gratuities, but I have not yet received his report.

  South Lancashire Regiment—Volunteer Company—Medals.
  MR. PEIRPONT: I beg to ask the Secretery of State for War whether he is aware that the Volunteer Active Service Company of the South Lancashire Regiment returned from South Africa more than a year ago; that their claim for medal clasps was sent to the War Office more than nine months ago; and whether he will state the reasons why these clasps have not been given.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY,): Owing to the heavy pressure of work, and the necessity of carefully checking the medal rolls, it has not been found possible to dispose of these claims; but it is to be hoped that there will not be much further delay.

  Explosion at Waltham Abbey Mills—Case of W. Wilkinson.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can explain why William Williamson, a Government employee at the gunpowder mills at Waltham Abbey, who lost a limb as the result of an explosion at Waltham Abbey, has been denied a pension.
  LORD STANLEY: Apparently my hon. and gallant friend refers to the case of William Wilkinson. It is not admitted that the loss of the limb is due to the accident, which took place eleven years previously. William Wilkinson received the usual gratuity on discharge.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: But is not the noble Lord aware that, according to

  17
  the papers I gave him, the doctor certified that the loss of the limb was due to the accident? Surely the distance of time should not prevent the man getting a pension.
  LORD STANLEY: The Department do not accept that view.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: I shall move to reduce the noble Lord's salary.

  Gibraltar-Dock Labourers' Strike—Alleged Assistance to Employers by Army and Navy Authorities.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether Government craft are being employed in carrying cargoes of Moors part of the way from Tangiers to Gibraltar, where they are being taken to the latter place under contract, to take the place of dockworkers who have been locked out; whether two crews of H.M.S. "Echo" were discharged for refusing to man the boats whilst so employed, and bluejackets sent to fill their places; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTKR,): Nothing is known at the Admiralty of the employment of Government craft for the purpose referred to in the Question, or of the discharge of the crew of the tank vessel "Echo."
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the foreman, recently employed by the Admiralty at Gibraltar 111 connection with the discharge of coal cargoes at the docks there, is a person who has suffered six months imprisonment for having defrauded His Majesty's Government; whether lie is aware that this foreman is employing mainly Moors and other aliens to do the work, to the exclusion of native British subjects whoso work it is, and who are thus thrown out of employment; and whether he proposes to take any action to enforce the provisions of the Fair Wages Resolution of this House in this instance, and stop the employment of aliens imported under contract so long as there is a supply available of British subject labour.
  MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER: The Admiralty has no information whatever with respect to the allegation in the first paragraph of the Question. I have no means of ascertaining the nationalities of the persons now employed upon coaling. The coaling arrangements at Gibraltar arc in the hands of the senior naval officer. It appears that in April a body called the Labour Association, which had hitherto undertaken the coaling, refused to continue it unless they were paid double rates, and in the emergency, sailors and soldiers had to be employed in unloading the colliers for the service of the Fleet. The coaling is now being conducted under another agreement, arid is going on satisfactorily, the ordinary rates being paid. It does not appear that the -Fair Wages Resolution of the House has been violated in this case.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Has the lion. Gentleman made proper inquiries? The information supplied to him as to the men demanding double wages does not tally with that given to me.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have given the substance of the replies I got both by letter and telegraph. If the hon. Member desires information on any further point I will certainly inquire.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Sir George White, the Governor of Gibraltar, has caused Army blankets to be issued to Moors who are being kept in hulks by the Masters Federation of Gibraltar by whom they have been brought from Morocco to take the places of the dock labourers who are locked out; and under what Army order or regulation the Governor is acting in using Government property for such a purpose.
  LORD STANLEY; Nothing is known of this matter by the War Office.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Does not the noble Lord think the matter of sufficient importance to justify inquiry?
  LORD STANLEY: Sir George White would certainly have reported the matter had it occurred.

  Coronation 'Bus Fares.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that within the last few days 'bus fares in London have been doubled, trebled, and in some cases, quadrupled, without any notice to the public; whether he will say if the Government, or other authority, has power to prevent this increase of fares; and whether any steps have been, or will be taken in the matter; whether he is aware that officers of 'bus owners make demands on passengers to inspect tickets; and whether he will take steps to stop this practice.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TUB HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): I believe that the omnibus fares have been considerably increased during the last few days. The matter is within the discretion of the omnibus proprietor, so long as a table of the fares to be charged is distinctly painted in a conspicuous manner inside the omnibus. In addition, I understand, that there have usually been notices of the increase affixed to the outside of the omnibus. There is no power to interfere in the matter. As regards the last part of the Question, I see no reason for any steps on my part, even if I had power.
  MR. FLYNN: If the Home Office has no power to interfere, why is it that the Metropolitan stage carriages are numbered, and, so to speak, licensed.
  MR. RITCHIE: They are numbered and licensed, but we have no power over their fares.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether in future the Home Office will insist on proper notice of an increase of fares being given?
  MR. RITCHIE: I have no reason to suppose that proper notice has not been given.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to introduce legislation to give local authorities the control over omnibuses now held over tramways, so that the omnibus proprietors shall not be allowed to tax the working classes at their pleasure?
  [No answer was given.]

  Morecambe Winter Gardens—Alleged Cruelty to Animals.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a case of cruelty to a donkey which came before the magistrates at Lancaster on the 7th instant; whether he is aware that the animal referred to was mauled, during a public performance at the Morecambe Winter Gardens in Whit week, by lions, and died of the injuries received; and that the magistrates dismissed the case upon the ground that there was no intentional cruelty; and whether he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation for the prevention of performances attended with such risks to animals which take part in them.
  MR. RITCHIE: I have seen the newspaper extract referring to the case which the lion. Member was good enough to send me, and, having made inquiry, I must say that, while 1 doubt the practicability of any more stringent legislation in the matter, it seems to me that a view of the facts might have been taken which would have brought the case within the terms of the existing law. That, however, is a question for the magistrates, and I have no power to interfere.

  Ensilage.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will re-issue a leaflet on ensilage drawn up some years ago by the Board of Agriculture, and at the same time bring it up to date.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,): This leaflet was revised and brought up to date in January last. I have arranged that copies of the leaflet shall be at once sent to all the leading local newspapers with a notice that they may be obtained, free of charge, on application to the Board of Agriculture. If this weather continues, there will not, I should think, be much use for the leaflet.

  Belfast Smallpox Hospital.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in dealing with special hospitals for smallpox patients, the Local Government Board insist upon the buildings being at least a quarter of a mile from any dwelling-house, that being the striking distance of the contagion upon which the English authorities act; and, whether he is aware that at Perdysburn, County Down, where the Corporation of the city of Belfast propose to erect a temporary smallpox hospital, there are inhabited houses, a dairy, and a national school within the radius as prescribed in England; whether the sanction of the Local Government Board is required, or has been given, for the erection of this building; and, is he aware that the city of Belfast, although a seaport, is without any smallpox or isolation hospital.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNUHAM,): The requirement pointed out in the first paragraph is insisted upon by the English Local Government Board only in the case of smallpox hospitals provided out of loans sanctioned by it. The sanction of the Irish Department is not required, unless in the event of an application for a loan. If such an application be made, the Board will consider the question in all its bearings. The Board of Guardians maintain an isolation hospital in Belfast in which smallpox cases are treated.

  Irish Congested Districts Board -Boat Building Contracts.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state if any boat-building contracts for the Congested Districts Board have been placed outside Ireland; and, if so, with what contractors, on what date, for what amount, and on whose recommendation.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There are at present no contracts placed by the Congested Districts Boards with persons outside Ireland.
  MR. MACVEAGH: My Question was whether any contracts had been placed outside Ireland?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I think one was some years ago.
  MR. MACVEAGII: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me the particulars?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I will look into that. It is not very desirable to make public these matters.

  Irish Landlords' Combination.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the speeches of Irish landlords to the effect that they are combining in their own interests, he proposes to prosecute them for conspiracy, as in the case of the combination of the tenants.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir. As I informed the hon. Member on the 19th instant, I have seen no indication that any illegal combination exists, or is contemplated.

  United Irish League—Civil Action against Leaders.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Denis Johnstone, at present imprisoned at Sligo as a first-class misdemeanant, was on Saturday last served by a bailiff from Frenchpark with a writ at the suit of Lord De Freyne; and whether, having regard to the fact that Mr. John Fitzgibbon and Mr. Patrick Webb are co-defendants in the same suit, are charged therein with conspiracy, and are at present confined in the same prison, he will give directions that these persons shall have facilities for preparing their defence, and for private consultations in regard thereto, and that they shall be at liberty to receive private visits from the co-defendants not in custody.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I stated on the 19th instant, that every facility would be given to such of the defendants in a civil action, as might be in custody, to prepare their defence. The prison rules only provide in such matters that prisoners shall be allowed to interview their legal advisers and their authorised clerks. In the present case, however, the Governor has been instructed to permit the prisoners to see any person whom it may be necessary for them to see for the purpose of the defence.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Seeing that they are charged with conspiracy, will the right hon. Gentleman see that they can communicate with each other without the presence of the prison warder?
  MR. WYNDHAM: They are allowed to confer through their solicitors. The warder is in sight, but not in hearing.

  Rae's Estate, County Kerry.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the reason of the delay in sending an inspector to visit the estate of W. L. Rae, in the county of Kerry; and whether he will cause the same to be made without delay.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The estate will be examined by an inspector without avoidable delay. The request for an inspection was only received on the 17th April.

  Railway Carriage of Irish Produce.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as representing the Board of Agriculture, whether, having regard to the fact that as the Governments of the Colonies and foreign countries, importing butter into Great Britain provide refrigerator cars on their railways, cold stores at the ports of shipment, and refrigerator chambers on the steamships for dairy produce, the Board of Agriculture will be empowered to negotiate with the carrying companies, and provide similar advantages for Irish produce during the summer months.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This important matter is engaging the attention of the new Department. Refrigerating cars are provided on two Irish railway lines, and the principal companies have also provided wagons specially constructed for the carriage of butter, though not fitted with refrigerating apparatus. Similar facilities exist on some of the cross Channel steamers.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: At whose expense is this done—at the cost of the public, or of the railway companies?
  MR. WYNDHAM: At the cost of the companies, of course, in order to increase their goods traffic.

  Committal for Contempt of Court—Case of John Lavin.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether inquiries have been made into the imprisonment of an old man named John Lavin, of Carricknahorna, near Boyle, who is seventy-three years of age, for alleged contempt of Court; whether he is aware that Laving has for fourteen months ceased to be in forcible possession of the house from which he was evicted; and whether he can state when it is proposed to release this man from custody.
  MR. WYNDHAM: As I have previously informed the hon. Member, the Executive Government has no power to intervene in the case of prisoners committed for contempt of Court.

  Sligo Prison Staff— Hours of Working.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in Sligo Prison, the chief warder, the storekeeper, and clerk are required to be on duty ninety-six hours every week; whether the other warders have to be on duty each week-day from 6 a.m. to 6 p m., and on Sundays from 6.45 a.m. to 9 a.m., and from 2 p.m. till 10p.m.; and whether it is proposed to make any change in the number of hours that these officials are required to be on duty.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The chief warder is on duly about seventy-six hours; the store-keeper and clerk about seventy-three hours weekly. The hours of duty for ordinary warders are correctly stated. It is not proposed to make any alteration as suggested.

  Claims arising from Action of Ex-Sergeant Sheridan.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a claim has been received from James M 'Goohan, of Aughoo, Ballinamore, South Leitrim, that a quantity of his hay, oats, and turf, value £50, had been maliciously damaged by Ex-Sergeant Sheridan and Ex-Constable Reed on the night of the 6th November 1899; whether he is aware that M 'Goohan's son refused to give evidence, at the instance of Ex-Sergeant Sheridan, against Dan M 'Goohan; and whether he

  25
  can state if any investigation has been held into James M 'Goohan's claim; and if so, where it has been held, and what was the nature of the evidence.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I informed the lion. Member on the 14th May, that an inquiry had been made in James M 'Goohan's claim and that no evidence was forthcoming to support it. The inquiry was, for reasons which I have more than once explained to the House, of a private nature.
  MR. TULLY: Where was it held—at Dublin Castle?
  MR. WYNDHAM: It was a private inquiry in the locality.

  Crimes Act Prisoners.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in recent cases under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act several members of local authorities have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment varying from three to six months, with hard labour; and, seeing that those sentences prevent members of local public bodies from acting in their representative capacity, what steps he proposes to take to prevent these disqualifications.
  MR. WYNPHAM: This is a statutory disqualification. It is not proposed to take any steps in the direction suggested.
  MR. SHEEHAN: Were sentences of hard labour imposed in order to disqualify these public men?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I think the hon. Member is taking an improper course in suggesting that.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: What is the object of making these gentlemen common criminals?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Sligo Model School.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that when the
  26
  National Board of Education recently proposed to establish classes in the Model School, Sligo, under special teachers, for the instruction of the national teachers of the district in elementary science, under the new programme recently adopted by the Board, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Elphin refused to allow any Roman Catholic teacher in his diocese to enter the Model School for such purpose; and (2) seeing that, notwithstanding this refusal, the National Board have sanctioned the formation of elementary science classes in the Mercy Convent, Sligo, for nuns only, from convents in the diocese of Elphin and other convents; whether (3) he will say what provision the National Board intend to make for the instruction, in elementary science, of Protestant teachers and Roman Catholic teachers other than nuns, in the diocese of Elphin.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The facts are as stated in the first and second parts of this Question. No provision, I am informed, has yet been made for the instruction in elementary science of Protestant teachers and of Roman Catholic teachers other than nuns. The number of Protestant teachers who reside in and near Sligo is small, and the Commissioners did not consider it necessary to make special arrangements for their instruction in elementary science in the Model School. The buildings in which it was proposed to form classes for the instruction of Roman Catholic Lay teachers in elementary science were not considered suitable by the Commissioners.

  Cavan and Leitrim Quarter Sessions.
  MR. M 'GOVERN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that white gloves were presented to the County Court Judge for the counties of Cavan and Leitrim at the recent Quarter Sessions held for these two counties, as there was no criminal' case for trial; and whether he will explain the reasons of the Government for keeping these two counties proclaimed under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The reasons for proclaiming certain districts and counties under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act were stated when the Proclamation was discussed on the 17th April in this House. There is not such an improvement in the condition of Counties Cavan and Leitrim as would justify the Government in rescinding the Proclamation.
  MR. SHEEHAN: Is it not notorious that the proclaimed districts are the most peaceable in all Ireland?

  Illness of the King.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has any information to communicate to the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir, within the last five minutes I have received the following communication—
  "The King has passed a comfortable morning, and his condition is satisfactory."
  MR. CATHCART WASON: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether instructions will be given to publish the bulletins of the King's health at the telegraph offices of the United Kingdom.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: And will the bulletins be posted on Sunday mornings and evenings at the post offices when other sources of information are not available?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall be glad to consult with the Postmaster General in regard to the matter, but of course I cannot give an answer without consultation with him.

  Business of the House.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any statement to make with regard to business?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall propose to go on with the Licensing Bill on Friday, and put down some other Bills after that measure. We shall not propose to take the Education Bill until Monday. Tomorrow we shall take Scotch Estimates.

IMPRISONMENT OF A MEMBER.
Ordered, That Mr. Dillon be discharged, and that Mr. John Redmond be added to the Select Committee. — (Sir William Walrond.)
FINANCE BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. LOUGH: The present form of this Bill, compared with its form when first introduced, renders absolutely necessary some little discussion on this Motion. I do not suppose there ever was a Finance Bill, on which the Government had been almost defeated, which has been so completely transformed in many respects as the present Bill. Look at the first section. When the Bill was introduced it contained only four clauses, now it contains eight. I am glad to be able to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the addition of every one of these four clauses. They belong to a series of clauses to which the right hon. Gentleman has shown himself very friendly, and although they are of a small character, they are sure to prove very useful to trade and commerce. There is the one which imposes an additional surtax on spirits imported from abroad, made necessary by the new duties. Another raises the duty on glucose, and the principal one provides for the free admission into this country of alcohol to be used for manufacturing purposes. Four years ago I brought to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in connection with the debates on the Finance Bill of that year, the desirability of taking this stop. The right hon. Gentleman then said it was impossible for him to consider such a revolutionary proposal, although he had pointed out how it would greatly help certain manufactures in this country. During the four years which have since elapsed I am sure many useful manufactories have been planted on the banks of the Rhine and in other parts of the world, which might well have been established in this country had the suggested relief been given to imported alcohol. I think the House and the country are to be congratulated that

  29
  this provision has been engrafted on the Finance Bill, and I hope it will make great inroads on that somewhat stiff attitude which the Customs have adopted in regard to facilities of this kind for the purposes of trade and manufactures. The Chancellor of the Exchequer deserves credit for the readiness with which he listens to appeals of this kind. In no fewer than three Finance Bills has he accepted small Amendments of this character. For instance, the Amendments to Clause 10 in last year's Bill have proved very helpful to the trade of the country. I am glad to lie able to give this credit to the right hon. Gentleman, because I fear it is about the only complimentary thing I have to say to him in regard to the Budget Bill. So much for the first section. The second section—which was one of the most important—has disappeared altogether. I refer to the proposal to double the stamp duty on cheques. If we pass on to the schedules, we find the greatest possible change in them. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to put a duty on corn, and, being untrained in protective duties, he took what he thought was the simplest way. He imposed two duties—one of 5d. and the other 3d., and assumed that the matter was easy that trade could be carried on under the raw, ill-considered schedules which appeared in the first Bill. But in the course of the long debates on this Bill the right hon. Gentleman has been educated. We still have the two duties of 5d. and 3d., but we have also a 2½d. duty and a 1½d. duty, and there are two long provisoes added to the schedules. This shows the extent of the difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman has experienced in setting up his new Protective duties in this country.
  It may be said that the Bill has been sufficiently discussed already, and that it is a very serious matter to move its rejection on the Motion for Third Reading. I cannot at all agree with that. Notwithstanding several small improvements that have been made in the measure, I am convinced that the Bill, if passed, will be one of the worst Finance Bills passed by Parliament since 1841. It is the third and most violent step in the direction of broadening the basis of taxation. It is a reversal of the fiscal policy of the country which will bring just as great evils with it as were the benefits gained from the other policy of narrowing the bases of taxation. I am not at all satisfied with the
  30
  debates that have taken place. A great deal of interesting but irrelevant matter has been introduced because the Colonial Secretary made an indiscreet speech at Birmingham. I regret that we should have heard so much of the Zollverein, seeing that there is nothing in the Bill regarding it. But because one of my right hon. friends who took objection to that speech got some pledge from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he said they would let the Bill pass, or, at any rate, some step might be taken in that direction. I think that was a great misfortune. What we had to do on this Bill was to fight the new duty on corn, and I think it would have been far better to have waited until some definite proposal had been made to the country in regard to other matters before discussing so fully this Zollverein question. That is not the only fault I have to find with the debates. The right hon. Member for Montrose delivered one of the most interesting speeches from this side of the House, and said that the cheque tax had been relinquished owing to the appeal of a powerful section in the City lie added that he had always approved of that tax. I cannot help lamenting the fact that the right hon. Gentleman should have used such an expression. The cheque tax is almost as bad as the corn duty. It has not a single merit as a tax, because it would have produced a violent convulsion in trade. The truth is, that the right hon. Gentleman had not thought out this question fully before using such an expression, and' he has moreover, had no business experience. A great deal of our discussion in this House on financial and commercial matters is earned on by Gentlemen connected with the professions of literature and law, who have no business experience, and I do think that business men on both sides of the House should be listened to on matters which profoundly affect them. I have fault, too to find with the action of the hon. Member for Poplar, when we were trying to fight out the question of the duty on offal. My hon. friend the Member for East Somerset was endeavouring to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer who had already agreed to reduce the duty by one-half, to give it up altogether but the hon. Member for Poplar jumped up and said he accepted the right hon. Gentleman's proposal as a reasonable compromise, and thereby prevented the

  31
  development of the debate. The hon. Gentleman by that action made himself as much responsible for the tax as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think it is a pity that a case made out on these back benches with regard to commercial matters should be given away without more full examination of the proposals. Generally speaking, I think the case against the corn duty was pitched a little too high by the opponents of the tax on this side of the House. The tax is not open to the objection which attached to the old corn laws. A good deal too much has also been heard about the big loaf and the little loaf. I agree that the loaf may not be very much smaller—possibly it will not be reduced in size at all—and suppose that is so, look at the position in which the Opposition will be placed. The position will be analogous to that they occupy in respect of the sugar tax. Sugar has not become any dearer, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer rides in in triumph because the country has not suffered by the imposition of the duty. But our objection to the sugar tax is not removed because there has been a fall in price, for the people are paying a halfpenny more to-day, and the price to all intents and purposes has been raised as far as the consumers are concerned. One or two right hon. Gentlemen on these benches approved of, and voted for, the sugar tax; the very same Gentlemen have opposed the corn duty, and I think somebody with cleaner hands might have led that agitation. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition is sound on sugar, sound on corn, sound on coal, and sound on the whole of this bad principle of broadening the basis of taxation.
  My contention is, in respect of the corn duty, that any interference by the Customs with the great articles of import will be a profound interference with trade and with the increase of wealth. Hon. Members opposite who are in favour of the restoration of the duty believe that it will increase the wealth of the country. We disagree with them on that point; we assert that a reversal of the policy of Free Trade will simply produce poverty. That is the basis on which we ought to fight. I am trying to avoid the dragging in of high principles in this matter. Let us go in for expediency. One of
  32
  the greatest authorities on this subject, 130 years ago, wrote a book called "The Wealth of Nations." Adam Smith did not assume any high principles at all; all he said was that he desired to make a few suggestions as to the taxation of countries which would promote the wealth of nations. It is a very good basis to put it on. And on what did Cobden base his case? He was a commercial traveller, and the head of a small manufacturing business in Manchester. He wanted the means of building up his own business. He obtained sympathy in every part of the country, and it was soon found that every class could benefit by taking the same course as he did. He fought his battle in this House, in the same way as we on the back benches have to fight our battle today. Right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench received his arguments with no sympathy, and some right hon. Gentlemen who now claim Cobdenism and Free Trade as a thing that they themselves produced, gave him the cold shoulder and no assistance whatever, until Sir Robert Peel practically accepted the theory. Ever since they have posed as sturdy advocates of the new theory. There is good work to be done on these back benches if the commercial interests of this country are to be protected. Mr. Cobden never sat on the Front Bench at all; he never obtained any re-cognition of his work, and his work would never have been carried to a successful issue if the question of Free Trade had been allow ed to fall too much into the hands of right hon. Gentlemen rather than of practical business men. A number of small duties are now imposed, which it would be better to get rid of, and their effect is to cause a diminution of trade throughout the country. I think that we have been too negligent generally, and that the whole principle on which the country has proceeded is in danger of being sacrificed. Our Whole financial policy formerly consisted in narrowing the basis of taxation. The principle which Adam Smith taught to the country was, "tax as few articles as possible; tax no necessities," and for seventy years that theory was acted upon, until Cobden prevailed upon the

  33
  House to make the experiment of Free Trade. We have now for thirty years had experience of Free Trade, and how wonderful it has proved. Look at the growth of wealth: our ships are on every sea, our commerce is carried to every land; poverty and starvation are largely banished from our shores. Everything that has been won in increasing national wealth is at stake if the principle of broadening the basis of taxation is extended. I say it would be best for trade and the development of wealth and commerce if we avoid the irritating restrictions imposed by the Bill.
  Let me just give one example of the irritation which will be caused. Take the duty on imported offal. It has been reduced to 1½d., and the amount it will produce—compared with the difficulty of collection—renders it perfectly absurd-It is to produce £19,000 a year. Offal is light but bulky; the duty will work out at 1½d. per sack. It would take a large ship to bring over 1,000 tons—or 20,000 sacks—yet all these sacks will be examined to ascertain whether they contain more than 50 per cent, of starch; they will have to be counted and weighed, and when the whole cargo has been thus dealt with, it will produce £125. In order to get a revenue of £19.000, it will be necessary for the Customs officers to deal with' 320,000 sacks. Is the absurdity of the tax not obvious? Even now, at this late stage, this Bill ought to be recommitted, and this tax on offal got rid of altogether. I might repeat the illustration upon the tax on maize, but it is not necessary. I tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer this tax will greatly diminish the progress of commerce, and instead of promoting and increasing the wealth of this country, it will rather tend to promote poverty. A second thing which we must guard against is any recurrence of Protection. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that he is still a Free Trader. He will have some difficulty in maintaining that position when once he has passed this corn duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has two great authorities behind him in regard to this tax. One is Sir Robert Giffen and the other is The Times newspaper. In January this year Sir Robert Giffen wrote three letters
  34
  to The Times in defence of the principle of broadening the basis of taxation, and suggesting Is. duty on corn. But what did Sir R. Giffen say in 1870?—
  "The corn tax is the most indefensible now on the Statute-book. It is a Protective duty, because it is a tax on an imported article not compensated by a tax on the home-grown article. It is, too, a tax on an article of first necessity, and it is monstrous that such an impost should carry money to the pockets of the landlord and the farmer lather than to the Queen's Treasury."
  On April 10th, 1869, The Times said the corn tax
  "is a Protective duty, and this is sufficient to condemn it."
  On April 16th of this year the same newspaper spoke of the registration duty on imported corn and flour,
  "which Mr. Lowe, in a paroxysm of pedantry, repeated a generation ago."
  Therefore, we have the opinions of Sir Robert Giffen and The Times thirty years ago expressed exactly in the same form as the opinions we are expressing now. They have changed their opinions since, but I suggest that their opinions were probably much more sound thirty years ago, when they knew exactly how this tax worked, than they are today; and I claim on my side those two authorities in their better days, before they fell into their dotage.
  With regard to this being a Protective duty on corn, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Treasury, and the Secretary to the Treasury all say that this is a mere reimposition of Mr. Gladstone's duty abolished in 1869. Sir, this tax was imposed in 1849, and then it only produced £300,000. The tax continued, and gradually grew until twenty years later, when it produced £600',000 or £700,000, and those figures made it difficult to maintain that it was only a registration duty. But when it 'brings in £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 it is nonsense to call it a mere registration duty. It is a heavy burden on the country. When we oppose it, I am sure we are on firm ground, and I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will regret that he ever proposed it at all.
  Another point I wish to take is the way in which this tax will affect Ireland. Ireland has a separate story to tell, and

  35
  some of the Irish Members told the story so successfully that they persuaded the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give up half the maize duty. That shows us that Ireland has a separate case. Now, what is Ireland's position in this matter? The taxation of Ireland has grown until it is now £10,250,000. This new impost will raise it to £10,500,000 at least. Six or seven years ago, when the condition of the land was enquired into, the taxation was £7,500,000, and that was declared to be too much by half; but instead of reducing it by £3,000,000, we have increased it by £3,000,000. This is not a matter that I propose to follow up at this moment. I only desire to point out to the House that this is the way in which Ireland has been treated after the three great wars of the last century. After Waterloo the taxation of Great Britain was immediately reduced, but that was not the case with Ireland, and for twenty-five years after Waterloo Ireland was paying a tax which had been reduced considerably in England. In the case of the Crimea, it was the same thing, and now we have the Boer War at the end of the century, and that is made the excuse to raise the taxation of Ireland—already £10,250,000 —by another £250,000, as we raised it both fifty and a hundred years ago. And so we shall go on, until one day—violently, I am afraid—it will all be put an end to. I hope the right lion. Gentleman will take the opportunity of making some concession to Ireland with regard to this matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose has no doubt given the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this step that he has taken some little support, because he stated the doctrine that if a war were to be fought by a country, there should be such extended taxation that every class of person in the country should feel the burden of the war. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken advantage of that admission, which was rather too readily made by my right hon. friend. It is said that the poorer classes do not feel the effect of the income tax, but it must not be forgotten that the income tax limits the wages which are paid. I think myself the people have made a great many sacrifices in connection with the war, and if we are to accept a principle of
  36
  this kind, we ought to limit it in such a way that while we allow the burden to be spread broadly over all, we should not restrict the commerce of the country. I am afraid we are now taking a step which will greatly interfere with our trade and commerce. We have interfered with the most important trades of the country, but the tax on flour is worst of all; a tax on meal would have been bad enough, but a tax on flour is far worse. I think we ought to take in this House every opportunity of pressing the Government to reconsider a matter of this kind before it passes entirely out of our hands. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
  MR. JAMES HOPE: I beg to second this Amendment. I do not approach this question from quite the same point of view as the hon. Member. I rise to express a regret that no part of the revenue now sought to be raised is to be derived from Customs duties on foreign manufactures. I am aware that mine is a view which I cannot expect to commend itself to hon. Gentlemen opposite, nor at present, perhaps, to a majority of the House. Nevertheless I will ask confidently for that indulgence which I believe is always accorded to anyone who, with whatever shortcomings in himself or his subject, has a serious case to present to the House. This question may be approached from the industrial or fiscal point of view, and I do not wish to confound the two. Revenue and Protection are distinct and, to some extent, conflicting objects. Of course after a point, the more thoroughly effective a duty is for protection, the less remunerative it is for revenue; and, conversely, you may have a duty excellent for revenue and theoretically protective, yet entailing none of the consequences of protection. Such is, I think, the corn duty, which will not appreciably affect either the producer or consumer; and I confess I cannot share the elation of my hon. arid gallant colleague at its imposition. Certainly if I were to wish to introduce a protective system, corn is the last thing with which I should begin, and the very last to which I should come. I do not give any thanks to my right hon. friend for having put on this registration duty, and for all he has done in that regard he is entitled to wear the phylacteries of Cobdenism as broadly as over on his brow.

  37
  I fully recognise the distinction between "the fiscal and the industrial aspects of the question. I should like to say a few words OH the industrial side, and to draw attention to the growing disparity between our imports and our exports. I know it is no new argument, but present circumstances give it a special cogency. The following are the balances against exports from 1890 to the present time:—1890, £92,000,000; 1891, £126,000,000; 1892, £132,000,000; 1893, £127,000,000; 1894, £13.5,000,000; 1895, £131,000,000; 1896, £145,000,000; 1897, £155,000,000; 1898, £177,000,000; 1899, £156,000,000; 1900, £169,000,000; 1901, £174,000,000. The figures for 1899 show a fall, but I think I am right in saying that that was the year of the great coal boom, and it was also the first year in which the Board of Trade Returns gave the value of ships made in England and sold abroad.
  Now, as I understand the Free Trade theory, the difference between exports and imports is accounted for by the theory of unseen exports in the shape of foreign investments and freights in British ships. On the first point evidence is difficult to obtain; but such evidence as there is does not point to any increase in our foreign holdings. While on the painful subject of British shipping it is not necessary for me to dwell now, I submit that we are brought to the inevitable conclusion that we are paying for imports largely out of our national capital, and that our national productiveness does not increase. If I turn from the bulk to particular articles, some of the facts are very striking. I will not say much about steel, because I am electorally interested in it, but it is an ominous fact that steel rails were never imported till 1900, and the import rose last year from 38,000 to 55,000 tons. As to pig-iron, in 1870 our total production was as nearly as possible 6 to 4 against the total production of America, Germany and France combined. In 1880 it was rather more than 7 to 8, but last year it was equal to that of Germany only, and was less than half that of the United States. Or take the Welsh tin-plate trade, or the textile trades of the West Riding. The hon. Member for Halifax, speaking on the corn duty, admitted that in his department of the textile trade the export to America had enormously diminished, and that the home market, which to some extent they got as a compensation, was in so precarious a condition
  38
  that it was liable to be upset by the reduced productive power of the working classes consequent upon the corn duty Yon may go through other departments and you will find either that there has been no increase in exports or that the proportion of rise in exports has been very much less than that in imports.
  There is one industry on which I should like to dwell a moment—I mean that of silk. In 1859, the year before the silk duties were removed, our exports of silk were worth £1,600,000. Last year they wore £1,400,000—an absolute decrease; while the import, which in 1859 was less than £3,000,000, has risen to £15,000,000. This shows the enormous amount of silk bought by English buyers, but not produced by English manufacturers. Now, one of the chief centres of the silk trade was the town of Coventry, and this town supplies an example for the doctrine of the Free Trader who declares that everyone will make what ho best can, and who will point with satisfaction to the motor and cycle industries which have grown up in Coventry of recent years. In the first place, I should like to know why the destruction of the one industry is necessary to the growth of the other, and why under a different system they might not have flourished together. But apart from this, the doctrine is not wholly satisfactory to the silk manufacturer and those whom ho employs. "You indeed have lost your trade," he will be told, "but be of good heart; your ruin has been effected on the soundest principles. Look around you, and rejoice in the thought that if you had the money you could buy an excellent motor car, built in the very place from which you have been excluded. Therefore, go your way in peace." But this, I think, is the kind of consolation severely condemned in the Epistle of St. James. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said last year that the finished product of one industry was the raw material of another, and thereby argued that any system of Customs duties must handicap in some degree some industry. But what I want to say is, that there is a choice of evils in the matter. I do not pretend that an extension of our Customs system may not bear hardly upon some trades, but when engaged in an economic war you must sacrifice something for your main ends. It is a state of industrial struggle in which you must be content to suffer something

  39
  yourself in order that your adversary may suffer more, and learn wisdom through his suffering. For myself, speaking personally, I would rather live in the sin of retaliation than die in the odour of Free Trade sanctity.
  There is, however, another factor. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton said the other day in this House: "The cost of production must consist in the cost of the raw material, the cost of the labour employed, and the interest on the necessary capital." He also added, "you cannot get away from that." T think you can get away from it, for it leaves out of account another element, viz., the quantity produced. Mr. Byng, in his most interesting work on "Protection," has elaborated this argument. Here I will only say that the reasoning is as follows:—success in competition depends, ceteris paribus, on cheapness, cheapness depends upon quantity, quantity depends on the measure of the demand, the demand depends on the extent of the market available, and a Protectionist country will always have a wider market than a Free Trade country. In illustration of my contention, I trust I shall not be accused of melodramatic tendencies if I exhibit this little object to the House. [The hon. Gentleman held up a carbon.] This is a carbon for electric arc lamps, essential for naval and military searchlights. The manufacture of this article is an industry in which the initial capital bears a very high proportion to the wages and materials. The material is the refuse of gas retorts, and is very cheap, and the labour, in up-to-date establishments, represents less than 10 per cent, of the cost of the article; but the ovens and machinery must be very extensive, and the initial capital consequently large. It is, therefore, an industry in which increased production means lessened cost in a peculiar degree. If the daily output be 20,000 feet, the cost of production for each 1,000 feet is 42s.; but if the output be increased to 30,000 feet, the cost falls to 32s. Formerly the prices ruled at 50s. to 60s. per 1,000 feet, and the English manufacturer made a profit of some 20 per cent.; but afterwards the German manufacturers came along, and, by reason of increased production made possible by their protected home market, they sold in our open market first at 45s., and then at 40s., till they got below the English cost price, and absolutely killed
  40
  the industry in this country. If it ever be successfully revived without protection, it can only be by Government or sentimental buying, which, of course, are factors, outside ordinary economic conditions. I may also mention a kindred instance in the steel trade, vouched for by my hon. friend the Member for Newport, to the effect that the American Steel Trust can sell steel billets in England at 16½ dollars, whereas the price in Pittsburg is over 23 dollars; that is to say, they are able, by reason of their immense production, to deliver their surplus article in England at 7½ dollars less than they charge in America. So far I have been arguing from the point of view of the producer. But what about the consumer? Who is the consumer but the taxpayer — the same mouth and the same pocket? In order to get revenue you must hit this individual somehow. The question is, in which capacity? You hit him hard enough as it is directly. Formerly, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose told us last year, direct taxation was not more than 30 per cent. of the whole. Now it has risen to 50 per cent, or more. Thus indirectly you hit him, if not in his necessities, at least in his essential comforts. If he is a drunkard, you hit him hard; but even if he be the godliest of men, then, unless he forego the stimulating influence of tea and the quieting influence of tobacco, and unless he adopt the diet of a diabetic patient, you hit him at every turn of the day.
  The right hon. Gentleman argued thus: The present expenditure is serious and. menacing; if you go through with your Imperial policy, you cannot expect your expenditure to diminish; therefore, either you must raise a fresh revenue, in which case you will be forced to import duties, or you must give up your Imperial policy; but the policy is not worth the duties, and, therefore, you must renounce the idea of the duties. I believe that the duties must come anyhow; but, putting I this aside, I believe the reasoning is I sound, and only one of the premisses is fallacious. I say that, in honour and conscience, we cannot, and will not, give up our Imperial policy, that we must seek for fresh revenue, that we cannot build further on the present basis, and that to import duties we must come. What are the needs of the country? There is the Navy, for which this year we have a

  41
  minimum programme. There is the Army. I welcomed the statement of the Secretary for War, but it does not promise future economy. There is Education, for which we have just had a fresh Vote of £900,000, and that does not satisfy everyone. Then there is the restoration of the Sinking Fund; and lastly there is the problem, now becoming acute, of the relief of local taxation. Whence is it all to come? The right hon. Gentleman says he cannot increase direct taxation, and yet when he was pressed as to various excisable articles by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, he gave sound and adequate reasons why any increase in those respects would be either unproductive or unjust. We are confronted with the double problem—to aid industry and to obtain a. revenue. I admit the revenue must come first, and, I say, estimate your wants and get the money where it will be felt least. Let the burden fall first on the foreign producer, next on the consumer of luxuries, and last of all on the mass of the people. Our imports of manufactured goods are now from ninety to a hundred millions. Put on a 10 per cent, duty, and say they will drop to eighty, though the German experience is against this. Still even so, you will have a revenue of eight millions, and not only will you have your revenue, you will have something more. You will have a weapon of offence and of defence; you will have a scourge to flagellate the nations and teach wisdom to the Gentiles. Situations must often arise in which this country may have differences with others, and in which we may have occasion to obtain or defend something not worth the tremendous possibilities of war. It may be necessary to make our resentment felt, or to concede something for a fair equivalent; and what have we to threaten or to offer? We may oil or obstruct the wheels of diplomacy, but short of war or the menace of war we can do but little more. It was easier when the greater part of Africa was still unpegged; but now the spheres of influence almost throughout the world are denned, I am sure the country would not suffer any large alienation of territory; and we have not an indefinite number of Heligo-lands to throw into a diplomatic bargain. I can conceive a situation in China in which, the doors of trade might be shut against us, both in the north and the south, while
  42
  the trade of other nations might be unrestricted and flourishing in the Yangtzse Valley. In such a situation, to neglect the obvious and the easy way of retaliation, and all, I presume, for the sake of the mid-China consumer, would be altruism run to madness, which no Minister could defend before the country, and the lessons once taught in China would soon be learnt and applied at home. And, further, in the Transvaal I am sure that the country would never tolerate it that a swarm of esurient foreigners, who had done everything against us, should reap the material fruits of our victory.
  I do not deny that, in this country there is still a strong, though a waning sentiment in favour of Free Trade; but it rests, I am convinced, mainly on historic sentiment, which is losing its hold on the rising generation. This sentiment arose from two causes: First, there was in the middle of last century a marvellous extension of applied science, of the fruits of which Free Trade has usurped the credit. Secondly, Free Trade became identified in the minds of many with the triumph of democratic principles. Never was a conjunction more accidental. It may, it is true, be plausibly argued that if Parliament had not been reformed in 1832, the old landed interest would have been strong enough to prevent the abolition of the Corn Laws in 1846; but there is no natural connection between Free Trade and Popular Government. Almost all the modern democratic communities are Protectionist, and I cannot believe that it is only in London that economic wisdom dwells. Nothing shall convince me that with two exceptions the world is blind to its own interest. It is we who live under the domination of sentiment—the dying sentiment of a past age. The great champion of that sentiment is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who defends his convictions with a consistency and ability that excites our resentment but extorts our admiration. But I believe that even the right hon. Gentleman must feel that such is the ineluctable trend of events that even his cherished policy must go the way of the dead systems of former times—the way of the rest of laissez faire, the way of resistance to a

  43
  standing army, the way of religious uniformity. The time of the triumph of Free Trade was an epoch of many generous illusions. The unchecked march of science, the wide diffusion of knowledge, the magical developments of communication led men to look for moral- results which material agencies can never supply. Now, we know that extended communications bring forth new organisations of racial hatred—Pan-Slavisms, Pan-Germanisms, and Afrikander Bonds—that knowledge does not abate envy, that science multiplies the weapons of destruction and girds the nation with barriers of steel. Of the other illusions of that time we are sadly free today — the last cannot survive when we regard the onset of a menacing future, and look for a remedy equal to the need.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.' "—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. BRYCE: The debate upon this Bill has been a long one, and I feel that at this advanced stage there is very little that I can hope to add to what has been said already, so well by so many speakers on both sides of the House. It has been, I think, a useful debate—useful in its sifting of economic principles, and useful also in the changes which it has brought about in the Bill. One change—that which reduced the duty on maize—has been, I think, by common agreement on both sides of the House, a very great diminution of some of the evils which might have been expected to result from the measure in its original form. I should like to acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer always shows a mind which is accessible to argument, and even if he does not agree with an argument, he keeps his mind open to it and gives it fair consideration. I think we may also say that he endeavours to get to the solid substance of a question. Therefore, we owe to him our thanks for the very fair consideration which has been given to the arguments advanced from this side of the House, and to the improvements which have been introduced into the Bill.
  44
  But the greatest gain which the debate has produced has perhaps been the speech which the right hon. Gentleman delivered when we were discussing the Bill on Report, which largely removed some of the objections and apprehensions entertained by hon. Members on this side of the House. I will in a moment say a word or two about that speech, but meanwhile I must say that the objections which we have entertained to this measure from the first have practically not been diminished. Let me sum them up in the fewest possible words. We object to the corn tax above all parts of the Bill, because it presses most heavily upon those who are least able to bear taxation. I think if we reviewed our fiscal system, we should find that the luxuries—the unnecessary and superfluous luxuries—are far too lightly taxed; and when we come to the common articles of general consumption, and compare them with luxuries, we find that luxuries are relatively less taxed than necessaries. For instance, spirits, beer, public-house licences, and tobacco—which-may be called the luxuries of the masses—are all comparatively lightly taxed, and they would bear higher duties, and those-duties would do less harm than those which are imposed upon articles of general consumption.
  Take the case of maize. I came across an illustration which was new to me of the way in which the maize tax operates. I find that in Sussex the wives of farmers and labourers who keep poultry are complaining that the price of maize has been raised, and that their poultry industry is being interfered with. Now, if there is any industry which this House ought not to interfere with, it is that of poultry-keeping. There is far too large an importation of poultry into this country, considering what the capacities of this country are for producing poultry. Therefore anything which would make it more expensive to develop that industry is to be deprecated as much as a charge upon feeding stuffs. I am not an expert in these matters, but I am simply relating a fact which came to my knowledge, that the price of maize had been raised and that it had operated as a hardship in that part of the country. I hope the reduction which the right hon. Gentleman has made in the tax will bring down the price. The financial changes

  45
  which the right hon. Gentleman has made are very largely changes of a class which will fall upon those classes of the community who are least able to protect themselves. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has raised the tax upon sugar, which is especially the food of children; he has raised the tax on tea, which is especially the beverage of women; and he has imposed a tax on bread, which is especially the food of the poor. It has been admitted, in the course of this debate, that the lower down you go the more the pressure of the tax on broad is felt. It is a tax of practically nothing upon the rich, and I think we must all have observed, within our own memory, that the better-off class of the community consume very much less bread than formerly. I suppose it is because vegetables are more abundant and cheaper, but, certainly, we all eat a great deal loss bread than the people did fifty or sixty years ago. Bread is not, to any palpable extent, felt in the expenditure of a middle-class or upper-class household. It is not very heavy among the better-off section of the working class, but when you come down to the very poor it presses with extraordinary severity, for two reasons—in the first place, because their general margin which keeps them above want is much less; and, in the second place, because their food consists more exclusively of bread. The hardest case of all is that of the widow with children. She has to feed her children very largely on bread. She does not contribute anything on spirits and tobacco, but this tax hits her with unusual severity. That is a point which I will not press further, because I suppose it is generally admitted.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer began by recommending this tax to us as a war, tax. I quite understand that he should desire to bring home to the people of the country the undesirability of their embarking in war. I do not believe that peace has any more sincere friend in this House than the right hon. Gentleman, but I greatly doubt whether the result of this tax will be to make the people realise the evils of war, or make them feel those evils more fully than before. I wish I could think, with my right hon. friend the Member for Montrose, that the effect of taxation has been so far felt by those who have been very ready to shout in favour of war. I do not suppose that is a result which will follow unless the
  46
  imposition of this tax should happen to coincide with a period of trade depression, and I greatly doubt whether the result which the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires has already been produced. A further observation which is to be made is this. This tax upon bread is, of all taxes upon the necessaries of life, that which is least calculated to bring home the result of war to the people, because it is a tax which presses with undue proportion on those who arc not voters—those who either have not votes or, having votes, know least about politics. It presses most hardly upon that impoverished class of casual labourers—the class of people who live from day to day and who are. engaged in so severe a struggle for life that they have not time to think of their civic duties and their responsibilities at all. If they are not the class particularly hit by a tax of this kind, it is that class to whom, in the early debates on the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred, namely, those who would be reached by a poll tax. The right hon. Gentleman remarked with truth that it was impossible to impose a poll tax. A bread tax, coming upon everybody more or less comes in the nature of a poll tax, which brings home to every member of the community their responsibility.
  Now, what is the result of the bread tax considered in that light? There was once a poll tax which provoked a great; insurrection in the time of Richard II. It was imposed only upon persons above the age of fifteen. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, if I may venture to use a somewhat colloquial expression, has gone one better, because the bread tax tells upon the whole population, and upon children more severely than upon adult males. There is really no tax that, for the purpose of bringing home to the people their responsibility for war as the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires, is less fit to obtain that object than a tax of this kind, which presses on every member of the population, and not merely on those who enjoy the franchise. However, in the course of the debate the Chancellor of the Exchequer has practically departed from the theory that this is a war tax, and he represents it now as a permanent addition to the taxation of the country. Here we come to what many of us feel to be the greatest of all the objections to a tax upon food. A

  47
  tax of this kind is marking a new departure. It is a deliberate reversal of the principle of 1869, when we abolished all taxes upon the necessaries of life. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman says that the tax is not, in his view, a protective one. Of course there are three kinds of taxation. There are taxes which are imposed for revenue only, and which cannot act as protection at all; there are taxes which are imposed for protection only, or mainly at any rate, and whose chief object is to foster home industry; but there is a third class of taxes which, although primarily imposed for revenue, are incidentally protective; and I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer can deny that this tax, although imposed by him with the view to revenue, must, so far as it goes, operate as protection. A thing is not less real because it is small. Such a tax makes a difference, and every time the price is going up, the price will rise a little more; and every time the price is going to fall, the price will fall a little less. There will always be change, and that change will always be in the direction of protection; and although in the first instance the effect may not be so conspicuous, still the effect is there. However, I do not put the case so strongly upon the actual result as upon the fact that it marks a new departure. We are told that we must not rely upon the small-end-of-the wedge argument; but wedges are not equally wide at both ends. There is a beginning in everything, and if we begin to depart from our policy in one respect, it is impossible for anyone to say how far someone may better the instruction the right hon. Gentleman is giving. I will not enter into the argument—because the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not condescend to use it—that this tax will be paid by the foreigner. Of course we know that that is a favourite argument of the hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield; but I do not think it has ever been used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is not necessary for me to review it. It is certainly not the opinion of Protectionists, who desire to have protection in order that the price may rise and enable them to make a better profit. It is not the opinion of the hon. Member for the
  48
  Central Division of Sheffield, nor of those friends of his who, on the first introduction of this tax, received it with effusion and enthusiasm. Their transports have now been hushed into discreet silence.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Not at all.
  MR. BRYCE: Perhaps we may hare them repeated.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Yes.
  MR. BRYCE: And perhaps the hon. Member for Central Sheffield does, after all, welcome this as a step in the direction in which he would like to go. I agree that this tax is an argument for it. It is an argument equally for imposing taxes upon meat, cheese, poultry, eggs— upon practically every article of food and this is the gravity of the case. It is not so much that there will be any great present hardship inflicted on the people by a tax of this kind, as the fact that a principle once deserted you have lost the firm standing ground on, which you stood. Many of us can remember, though it is now about thirty years since, the fair trade agitation, begun chiefly by Lancashire. The generation which had seen the triumph of Free Trade was beginning to pass away, and the economic arguments were beginning to be forgotten; and Fair Trade raised its head in 1870. We have, from that time to now. successfully resisted the Fair Trade arguments. But how? By pointing out that if you once begin the policy of fair trade, you will inevitably be led on to impose taxation on the food of the people. You cannot tax manufacturers without giving an opening to agriculturists — a large and important class that has felt the pressure of foreign competition; and you have said that the ark of the covenant of Free Trade is cheap food, and if you are not prepared to make the food of the people dear, you must not touch a protective policy I at all. By using that argument we have continually succeeded in repelling I the assaults of the Fair Traders. Now that argument, I am afraid, is very much weakened, and today we have had from

  49
  the Member for another Division of Sheffield a full-blown Protectionist Motion—supported by all the usual orthodox Protectionist arguments.
  MR. JAMES HOPE: Retaliation.
  MR. BRYCE: I do not see that there is much difference. I think retaliation is one of the methods of Protection, and Protection is only one of the weapons of retaliation. I am rather tempted to follow my lion, friend into the discussion he has initiated. I did not know before that he was a Protectionist. I always wondered what it was in the air of Sheffield that breathed Protection. I always wondered whether the hon. and gallant Member for the Central Division of Sheffield had given Protection to Sheffield, or whether Sheffield had given Protection to him. Now I am inclined to believe, since I see the contagion caught by the hon. Member for the Brightside Division, that it is Sheffield that has something Protectionist in its air. I will not follow my hon. friend into his ingenious and lucid presentation of the case for Protection. You observe that his remedy would aggravate the very evils of which he complained, and what he invites us to do would be to raise the price of everything to the consumer, to raise our expenditure and our taxation, and to declare an industrial war all over the globe. Now, there is another quarter from which the ever-present danger of Protection has been threatening us for some years past—that is the proposals for various forms of colonial preferences. When we have been asked by the spokesmen of various interests in the Colonies—from Mr. Hofmeyr downwards—to enter upon a system of preferential tariffs to give advantages to the Colonies, we have always had the same ready answer. We have said we could not begin to give Protection to the Colonies without giving Protection all round to the Colonies. Every Colony in that case would have to have some form of protection, and you cannot protect colonial wine, or tobacco without also protecting colonial mutton from New Zealand and colonial wheat from Canada. That argument has always been found sufficient and satisfactory, and by means of that argument we have
  50
  been enabled to repell and resist the various attempts that have been made to lead us into a system of preferential colonial tariffs. But now what happened as soon as this tax was proposed1? The first sign was the awakening of activity in Canada. We had the members of the Empire League immediately demanding preferential treatment for Canadian produce, and Sir Wilfred Laurier, who had long desired an opening for a preferential tariff, made a speech, in which he said that the corn tax was the beginning of a Protective policy in this country.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Does my right hon. friend remember that Canada has already given us a preferential tariff for the last three years?
  MR. BRYCE: I remember that quite well. I am not afraid of that argument, but that does not make any difference to the interpretation which the Canadians gave to this corn tax. The Canadian Protectionists immediately pricked up their ears, and Sir Wilfred Laurier made his remarkable speech.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Sir Wilfred Laurier is a member of the Cobden Club, and received the gold medal of that Club.
  MR. BRYCE: Does that make any difference from the fact I have stated in regard to his speech?
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Is he a Protectionist?
  MR. BRYCE: I am not concerned to defend Sir Wilfred Laurier's Free Trade character. I am content to say that under the feeling produced in Canada by this proposed tax, he took advantage of it to propose preferential duties for Canadian wheat. That was an argument for Protection. But besides the singular and remarkable deliverance from Sir Wilfred Laurier, we had a speech from the Colonial Secretary in firm, clear, and explicit language, in which he said—
  "If in adherence to economic pedantry—(I suppose what we call orthodox Free Trade doctrines)—to old shibboleths—(I suppose Cobden's favourite maxim, 'Free Trade, Peace,

  51
  Goodwill among the nations')—we are to lose opportunities of closer union which are offered to us by our Colonies, if we don't take every chance in our power to keep British trade in British hands, we should deserve the disasters which would infallibly fall upon us."
  That, at any rate, indicates the desire to have a new departure in the direction which preferential duties with the Colonies would afford. These two speeches naturally excited considerable alarm in our minds. But we had, on the last occasion when the Bill was before the House, a remarkable speech from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He repudiated, in the clearest and most vigorous language, for himself and his colleagues, the doctrines which, on the faith of these two speeches, had been attributed to His Majesty's Government. And having seemed to toy for some time with the fatal draught of Protection, be flung the cup far away from him. I say, he seemed to toy with Protection, because I take his latest repudiation as being conclusive and definite. I do not believe that the syren voice of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield would ever wile away the Chancellor of the Exchequer from these principles. But the reasons for our vigilance still remain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is an admirable Chancellor of the Exchequer in the eyes of Free Traders, but he may not always hold that post which he now adorns. He reminds me of the strong man who, for some temporary convenience, breaks down the rampart at the part of the walls of the fortress placed under his guard, and in the very wantonness of his strength which makes him rely on his own force and prowess at that point. Defended it would be by him, so long as he stands by and wields and sweeps a two-edged sword, with which he is able to keep the part of the wall he guards; but when the right hon. Gentleman has left his post, what certainty have we that another person, holding the same principles, and able to give effect to them, with the same force of character, would come into his place? The breach has been made in the rampart by which we have defended ourselves against Protection, and another Chancellor of the Exchequer, meeting a pliant majority, may seek to raise or extend this tax to other fields, alleging that, in
  52
  passing this tax, we abandoned our old principles and reverted to the policy of Protection.
  There are forces at work that are trying to entangle us in a system of preferential tariffs. I will not go at all into the question of a Colonial Zollverein, but it is known to everybody that there are some of our Colonies which would like to have preferential treatment given to their food products. There are other Colonies which expect nothing from us in the way of a preference for their wool or mutton, but I am afraid that they do expect to have some pecuniary benefit in some other form which would practically be a subsidy, and would involve the principle of protection. In order that I may not divert into a general discussion, I will say three things shortly. First, any preferential tariff system which would raise taxation, either on the food of the people or on the raw material of manufactures, would not be a compensation to us for any preference which they would give us in the colonial markets. Anything which would put us in the position of being entangled in a network of complicated tariff arrangements and commercial treaties would destroy that political freedom which we prize, would prevent us from arranging our tariff and our system of taxation in the way essential to the welfare of this country; and anything which requires us to enter into a series of commercial bargains under which a system of vested interests would grow up—bargains from which we should not be enabled to recede without controversy and recrimination; bargains the receding from which would evoke a sense of irritation and annoyance between ourselves and our Colonies—any bargains of that kind would do much to embarrass our relations with the self-governing Colonies, and create friction from which we, happily, have hitherto been free. Do not let it be supposed for one moment that any of us on this side of the House who feel convinced of the value of the principles of Free Trade, are one whit less anxious for the closest and. most intimate relations with the Colonies than any other Members. I may say that from the very first foundation of the Imperial Federation League I was one of its members, and many other Liberals, and we have always been anxious to take every legitimate opportunity of

  53
  drawing closer the ties which unite us with the Colonies; but we are convinced that the direction in which we are asked to advance by venturing into such a series of complicated bargains would involve far more danger than profit. If a Zollverein were provided, if it were possible that there should be no Customs offices at all within the Empire, and the Empire should be absolutely free from all Customs tariffs, we might be compelled to undergo some fiscal disadvantages for the sake of obtaining those advantages, if that principle were possible. But on all hands it is admitted that it is impossible. By common agreement it is impossible, and the Colonial Minister has said so. At present we have the best possible relations with our Colonies. We read the other day a very interesting and lucid speech delivered by the Prime Minister of the Australian Commonwealth, in which he pointed to the fact that, under the present free and elastic system, the cordiality was greater than ever it had been before between the Colonies and the mother country. And he said, with wisdom and trust, that it would be exceedingly dangerous to take any step which would destroy that cordial relationship. Let us beware lest in seeking the better we imperil the good. I regret very much, when I look over the world at large, to see what a vicious weed Protection has proved to be when once it has got a lodgment. I regret very much we are taking the step we are doing by this Bill. Protection is a pernicious evil, because it tends to spread. When it is introduced to benefit one industry, other industries immediately demand its extension to them. If yon look at the United States you see that the longer it lasts the more powerful it becomes, and the more it spreads its net over every part of the country. In the United States the economic evils of Protection are not so great as might have been expected, because the country enjoys what is virtually a free trade over an enormous and populous area. Food is cheap, because the country can produce all the necessaries of life within its own limits, and the raw materials of manufacture are cheap. But, especially since the War of Secession, Protection has been a source of political evils in that country. It has led to inordinate taxation, and inordinate expenditure, and it is interfering at the present moment with the political interests of the country abroad in a way
  54
  that all wise Americans regret. It is an insidious evil because it appeals to selfish interests; it works upon the tendency of each man to push his own selfish interests in the first place, which eventually does greater harm than good to himself and the community. It is an evil hard to eradicate, because it fosters sets of private interest, which assert a power altogether out of proportion to their natural strength, and overbears the common interest. I regret this Bill. It is a step—a small step, no doubt, but still a step—towards a thoroughly mischievous retrograde policy—a policy which is fraught with evil to a country so largely dependent, as ours is, upon manufactures and commerce. Feeling that if this policy is carried any further it will tend to sap and weaken that very self-reliant energy which Free Trade has fostered, and by which and under Free Trade we have attained our unexampled prosperity, I am bound, even, at this, the latest stage of the Government Bill, to renew and repeat my emphatic protest against the measure.
  MR. HUNTER CRAIG: From time to time the public mind has been much exercised by the small amount of bread stuffs we hold in this country. The aspect of the grain trade has materially altered in late years; and now we have only five or six weeks' supply of grain to feed the people of this great country. The tax on grain is a vicious tax; it is one which the country will continue to be dissatisfied with; and although we have the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is to be a permanent tax, the Government may change their minds and withdraw it. What effect will that possibility have with the importers of grain? The cost of the tax will involve £50,000 per week, and the grain trade is carried on with such a slender margin of profit, that the fact that the imports have to be put into a warehouse and cannot be exposed for sale on arrival, practically takes away the cntire profit. Therefore importers will be very chary, when the time for the Budget comes round, in ordering more grain than is absolutely necessary. The consequence will be that, instead of a six weeks' supply of bread stuffs, the supply may be run down to six days. I do not wish to be an alarmist, but what an opportunity that would afford foreign

  55
  Powers if they felt they had to resort to war to keep our food supply from our shores and to starve this nation into surrender. It would be a bloodless war, and a bloodless victory. I think this aspect of the question, which has not yet been brought before the House, is worthy of very serious and very grave consideration. We have heard from the beginning of these debates that this tax is so small that it will not be felt by the community.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division read out, with great éclat, a telegram he received the week the corn tax was announced, stating that it was from one of the largest bakers in Scotland. It was to the effect that bread had not been advanced that week. I rose to correct the right hon. Gentleman, but he did not extend his usual courtesy to me. He has, however, since given me liberty to contradict that statement, and to say that the telegram was not from a baker at all, but from one of the largest millers in Glasgow. If the right hon. Gentleman had any knowledge of the conditions of the Glasgow flour trade, he would have known that this miller had himself advanced his flour 1s. a cwt. The difference in the price of grain will not only be the amount of the duty, but the amount of the duty plus the profit which will be necessarily added, and which will extend from the importer to the dealer, from the dealer to the baker, and from the baker to the consumer. I have read the extravagant statement that bakers ought not to put up the price of their bread, and that there ought to be a law to prevent them doing it. Was there ever a more monstrous statement. The duty on a cargo of 4,000 tons of flour will be £1,666, which will have to be paid in hard cash. The importer will have to give one or two months credit, and he must add his commisson; and the middleman and the baker must add their commissions; and, in all, three profits will have to be paid by the consumer before the bread is consumed. I represent a constituency of over 100,000 inhabitants. It is a working-class constituency, and a very large portion of the population are unskilled labourers who have to work hard to make both ends meet. It is not only this tax they complain of, but they also complain of the tax on coal and sugar, especially the tax on sugar which has
  56
  prevented its falling to the extent of the tax. In conclusion, I should like to refer to the debate which took place on the 18th June. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, referring to the duty on flour, said—
  "This duty on flour is a Protective duty to the extent of 20 per cent. in favour of the home producer as against the foreign producer. I say these are propositions which cannot be disputed."
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied "I dispute them." Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife said, "The right hon. Gentleman may have changed his mind," and the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied: "No, I deny that it is a Protective duty." I charitably venture to think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have misunderstood the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, or he would not have denied that the duty was Protective. The question is so simple. According to the figures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself 100 cwts. of wheat produced seventy-two cwts. of flour. The wheat is worth 25s. and the flour 30s. That is a difference of 5s. or a fifth of the duty on wheat, or 20 per cent.; and in addition the home miller has his bran free which, at 1½d. per cwt., comes 3s. 4d. Therefore, the home miller has the advantage over the foreign miller to the extent of 8s. 4d. or 34 per cent. This is a vicious tax, and I hope that, even at the eleventh hour, the Chancellor of the Exchequer may see his way to withdraw it.
  Sir HOWARD VINCENT: I have not come into the House with any speeches or observations on this Bill, because my views are pretty well-known to the public, and it might be thought that, if I intervened, it would be with a tendency to regard it as a Protectionist measure. It is not a Protectionist measure of any sort or kind. Why do I support it? I support it because it imposes on the foreigner a toll for the use of our markets for his own convenience; and because it will produce a very considerable addition to the revenue of this country. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken ought to have been really a Protectionist. He spoke of the diminution of the food supply of this country, and he drew a terrible picture as to

  57
  what would happen when our food supply, which was now limited to six or eight weeks, would, in certain contingencies, be reduced to six days. If that is his view, he certainly ought to do something to improve the agricultural condition of the country, and to develop the produce of food stuffs in the country, so as to give us a reserve in case of necessity. The hon. Member for West Islington, who moved the rejection of this Bill, described our present system as Free Trade. The system we have had for the last fifty years is not Free Trade at all. It is simply a system of free imports without reciprocity. I am sorry to have to join issue with my right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen on these questions. In 1895 we came into very serious but friendly collision on the question of the importation of foreign prison-made goods, He was strongly opposed to any restriction of the importation of goods made by foreign convicts and felons; but the sentiment of the country and of the House was strongly opposed to his view. One reason why it is not necessary for me to trouble the House with any observations in support of this Bill is that it is perfectly clear that there is no serious agitation in the country against it. The imposition of the registration duty on corn and meal, which was retained by Mr. Gladstone, is really a popular measure; and, therefore, it is not necessary to make any strong observations in support of it. The state of the benches opposite, almost all through the discussions on the Bill, shows how little heart there is in the opposition to this measure. I counted the members of the Opposition who were present when my right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen was speaking, and I found that there were only twenty-eight present. I find the same absence of agitation in my own constituency, and, so far as I have been able to ascertain from right hon. and hon. friends, and from the usual source of information, I cannot see that there is any serious opposition in any part of the country to this most excellent measure.
  The hon. Member for the Tyneside Division has put a Motion on the Paper advocating that the circumstances of the time demand a further extension of
  58
  this registration system to all our imports. A few years ago it would have been thought impossible that the country would have accepted, as it has undoubtedly accepted, the import duty on sugar, and the export duty on coal, and as it has undoubtedly accepted the toll or registration fee on corn and flour. Whether hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite like it or not, it is perfectly certain that the feeling of the country is paying more attention to commercial and trade restrictions, and the working man above everybody else is the least in favour of opening our markets to foreigners, unless we receive in return reciprocal treatment. It is a question first and foremost for the working men themselves, and they, or the great majority of them, see this question far more clearly than the average politician. They see that if they are to have constant work and good wages, the present system is detrimental to their interests and to their employment, and that it produces the competition by foreigners in their own market. One of the strongest arguments that Cobden used in support of Free Trade was that this country was and would remain the workshop of the world. That was an argument that, if Mr. Cobden lived today, he would not have been able to apply, and an argument that he would have been the last to have desired to apply. The hon. Member for West Islington, in the course of an interesting speech, said just now that Mr. Cobden never concealed that his desire was to advance his own business. That was the view of Mr. Cobden in those days, but we are surely entitled now, in the face of the falsification of all his prophecies, to adjust our fiscal system to the necessities of the year 1902. In 1854 the importation of foreign manufactured goods was £9,000,000 a year. Now the importation of foreign manufactured goods amounts to £100,000,000 a year. The importation of silk manufactured goods in 1900 was £40,000,000, wool and woollen manufactures £10,000,000, iron and steel manufactures, £70,000,000, paper manufactures £5,000,000. wood manufacturs £5,000,000 glass manufactures £3,000,000, leather manufactures £3,000,000, jute manufactures,

  59
  £2,000,000, and lace manufactures, £1,500,000. Those are only the principal lines of these foreign manufactured goods. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen said he could not understand why there was so much feeling upon this subject in Sheffield; he would see it very easily if he looked at the statistical record which has been laid upon the Table, because he would see that no less than £1,000,000 worth of steel and hardware and cutlery was imported last year into this country, where, a few years ago, the imports were infinitesimally small. My hon. friend the Member for Brightside was perfectly right when he said that in this enormously increasing importation of foreign manufactured goods there was very great scope for raising the income necessary from indirect taxation. The condition of affairs is rendered still more remarkable when we find that from South Africa there is an excess of imports over exports, that foreign countries import to nearly £170,000,000 a year, and that the export trade from the Empire, the Colonies, and British possessions, is very nearly balanced by the exports to those Colonies and possessions. In 1900, the imports from British possessions were £109,000,000, and the exports to British possessions were £102,000,000, so that they almost balanced; the difference of £7,000,000 on the imports from British possessions being clearly the amount of the freights collected on the value of those imports. The belief of the majority of the Members of this House, and of the great majority of the working men of the country, is that nothing whatever shall be wanting to draw closer the commercial ties which unite the Empire and those great Colonies which have helped us so well. It is quite evident from the remarks of the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen that he has not read the speeches made yesterday by Mr. Seddon, Mr. Barton, and others. The right hon. Member for South Aberdeen absolutely reproached Sir Wilfred Laurier for having given a preference of 25 per cent. to our goods.
  MR. BRYCE: I said nothing of the kind. I never expressed any opinion whatever on Sir Wilfred Laurier's action in Canada. If I had expressed one, I should have said that I thought he had done a great deal that was an improvement on the preceding system.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Well, I am very glad indeed to have given the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of expressing himself thus regarding Sir Wilfred Laurier, which gives quite a different impression to that which he gave before. But whatever may be the opinion of Sir Wilfred Laurier, there is a real belief in the people of this country that the welfare of trade lies in developing it within the Empire, and doing what we can to develop colonial trade. The words of Lord Salisbury "It is to the trade of the Empire that we look for the future," remain as true today as when they were uttered. I strongly support this tax, and I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having introduced it, and I hope, in years to come, the principle will be extended in the same beneficial direction.
  MR. ROBSON: The hon. and gallant Member in describing this as a popular measure is in happy forgetfulness of the Bury election. It is not often in these days that an hon. Member of this House gets up and laments the enormous increase of our foreign trade. The hon. Member spoke in terms of unaffected horror of the fact that in some branches of our trade imports had risen from £9,000,000 to £100,000,000, but how does he suppose that that is harmful to this country? Does he suppose that we get that £100,000,000 for nothing? If we did, the country is much to be congratulated in getting it. Or does he suppose we pay for it in gold? If he does, he has only to look at the statistics to find that some of it is gold. Does he not know that we pay for those imports in goods, and that we manufacture the price that we send out of the country in order to buy them? If the hon. Member wishes us to diminish those imports he is in exactly the same degree asking us to destroy or diminish the industry by which we pay for those goods. I wished, however, to direct my attention to another controversialist, who would not call himself a Protectionist, but who by his policy and his arguments is every bit as much a Protectionist as the hon. Member. I mean the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield was lamenting the growth of imports, I could not help thinking he had distinguished authority for his argument, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he

  61
  introduced the coal tax, defended it upon exactly identical arguments to those which the hon. Member has just used. It was pointed out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as it was in 1873, by the Commission appointed to consider the export of coal, that the effect of the export of coal was to cheapen imports. That is one of the great merits of any export from the Free Trader's point of view, but it was considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be its most serious detriment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has, in my opinion, lost all claim to call himself a Free Trader. International trade is exchange. It is our interest in parting with our goods to get as much for them as we can, and to get it as cheaply as possible. That is Free Trade. The Protectionist is the man who says: "Part with your goods if you like, but I will prevent you getting much in return, or getting it cheaply." That is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have listened with anything but pleasure to the way in which my right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen has accepted the Chancellor of the Exchequer's description of himself as a Free Trader. I do not believe in allowing statesmen to label themselves in economic questions. Torquemada called himself a Christian, but I very much doubt that everything that distinguished Inquisitor did to his theological opponents came strictly within the principles of Christ. The right hon. Gentleman may call himself a Free Trader, but as long as he imposes Protective taxes on the food of the people I should say he is a Free Trader very much as Torquemada was a Christian.
  At this, the last stage of the Bill, we who oppose it, are certainly able to approach the discussion with much more advantage than was the case in the earlier stages. The controversy has been immensely simplified, both by events and by admission on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with regard to the character of the Bill and the intentions of the Government. First of all, the tax was to be a war tax. Before it could be passed into law, peace was declared. Never was there a reactionary policy so quickly shorn of all its excuses. Then it was to be put on to meet increased expenditure. Before the right hon. Gentleman could get that excuse into print, he had to admit that next year he
  62
  would have to dispose of a large surplus. Then it was not to affect prices. Before a single week had elapsed, the price of bread was rising all over the country—["No!"]—out of all proportion to the amount of the tax. Hon. Members opposite deny that. Perhaps they have accepted the latest argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, when he found the bakers raising the price of bread, set his ingenious advisers to inquire into the prices charged by Cooperative Stores, and thereupon came down to the House with a collection of figures which he put before us as being the true prices of the honest trader. But the Co-operative Stores hastened to explain that, instead of putting up the price of the loaf, they thought that, as they were dealing with their own members, it would be more convenient for the present to charge the old price and deduct the loss from their dividends. Therefore, even the Co-operative Stores are witnesses against the right hon. Gentleman's point of view.
  It certainly is a remarkable thing that apparently nobody is to pay this tax. The consumer does not pay, and, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is addressing deputations of producers and distributors, the producer and distributor do not pay—as indeed they certainly ought not—because to make a tax fall upon a particular trade is a vicious and unjust principle. Who, then, is to pay? The Chancellor of the Exchequer is certainly going to get the money. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield gives the answer which I have always understood the Chancellor himself to adopt, viz., that the foreigner pays. That argument has frequently been used, and the right hon. Gentleman has never repudiated it, though I cannot give exact words to substantiate the statement that he has adopted it. When we have a Budget introduced by a Protectionist financier we are presented with a delightful choice of alternatives. If the foreigner persists in sending us his unwelcome goods, he has to pay the tax. If, however, the tax is too much for him, and he does not send us his goods, then we have the still better alternative that we get the trade. That is the principle upon which this tax is defended. Why, under these circumstances, does the Chancellor of the

  63
  Exchequer lament the heavy expenditure which has brought about the necessity for this taxation? He ought to rejoice over it—unless he is pained at the prospect of taxing the foreigner. England alone, of all the nations of the world, has refused to act upon the silly, foolish fallacy that it can collect its taxes from those who are not its citizens. England has boldly said, "We will tax our own people," and what is the result? This nation, which has the courage to tax itself, has incomparably the greatest International Trade of any country of the world. Those nations that tax us, according to the Protectionist view—where are they in the race for supremacy in International Trade?
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: America.
  MR. ROBSON: America cannot compare with England in the matter of International Trade. Undoubtedly her domestic trade stands higher, but as regards International Trade neither she nor any other nation is in the same class with England. Other nations, with greater populations and equal resources, and certainly not inferior in energy or education, do not come anywhere near this nation in the sphere of International Trade. That seems a somewhat singular result, when we not only pay our own taxes, but, according to the Protectionist argument, help to pay those of everybody else also.
  I have given one reason why I think the right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to the name of "Free Trader;" my hon. friend behind me reminds me of another. No answer has been given to the figures put forward with regard to the incidence of this duty on flour. It has been pointed out that on 100 cwt. of wheat the tax is 25s. On the flour and offals, which are the two manufactured products of that 100 cwt. of wheat, the tax is 8s. 6d. more. In other words, there is a difference of 34 per cent, on the amount of the tax against the manufactured article. The right hon. Gentleman has again and again stated that he does not accept that statement, but why does he not disprove it?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,). I did the other night.
  MR. ROBSON: I think not. What the right hon. Gentleman did was to suggest that we had confined our observations mainly to wheat, that he I was imposing a duty which applied not merely to wheat, but to other grains as well, and that if we took the correlative for barley, rye, and oats it would correct any tendency there might be to protection in wheat; in other words, that, if instead of confining our attention to one article, we took them all and struck an average, the average would not be protective. I understand that to be the argument which the right hon. Gentleman used. If so, what was easier for him than to give us a correlative in those other cases? If he gave us that correlative, I am informed—I cannot speak with authority on the point—that so far from diminishing the inequality which exists, it would rather aggravate it. But even if the right hon. Gentleman is correct, what does it amount to? That although, in the case of wheat the correlative duty on flour may be protective to the English miller, yet that is balanced by the fact that in the case of barley, rye, and oats the corresponding correlative is protective to the American miller; in other words, you have one grain on which the duty is protective to England, and you have others on which it is protective to foreigners, therefore, the duty is not protective at all. That does not seem to me to be a very adequate way of dealing with the question.
  Then another point was put to us as a dilemma. It was said: "Last year, when we were putting on an export duty, you declared that it would be paid by the producer; now when we are putting on an export duty, you say it will be paid by the consumer," the suggestion being that each duty ought to operate in the same way. That was a dilemma which applied to the argument of the other side as well as of ours, but let us see how it applies to ours. It is one of the most foolish and flimsy fallacies ever put forward by a responsible statesman in defence of a measure of this kind. When you put on a tax like the coal duty on exports you handicap a single exporter, say England, in the neutral market. Suppose, for instance, this corn tax were

  65
  imposed on Russian corn only: the consumer would escape the burden by buying American corn, so that the Russian exporter would be. left to pay the bulk of the tax. But when you come to put a duty on all exporters—because that is what an import duty is—every exporter is subjected to the same detriment, and then, of course, it is paid by the consumer. Tint is perfectly obvious, and yet it has been put forward by the First Lord of the Treasury, the Financial Secretary, and others, as a serious reason for not accepting the argument of this side of the House. Listening to arguments of this character, I cannot help reflecting that we ought to count among Imperial assets not merely wealth, territory, population, unity, or loyalty, but also knowledge applicable to the art of government. That is one of our most valuable Imperial assets. It was because we were economically better informed than other nations in 1846 that we secured the start we have kept ever since, and it is impossible to have listened to the speeches made in defence of this Bill without seeing that the standard of economical knowledge in England has fallen very low indeed, and that we are in danger of losing an Imperial asset which we may very soon come greatly to want.
  But do not let us confine our criticism of this tax merely to the question of Protection, important though that may be. A tax may be entirely non-protective and yet be extremely oppressive. A food tax is that, whether it be protective or not. There has been one remarkable omission from all the speeches on the other side. When the Budget was first introduced, the right hon. Gentleman was faced with figures of impressive and tragic importance, showing beyond possibility of dispute or cavil that we have in this country, even in the most prosperous times, a great under-fed class always with us—a class extending, even in prosperous cities like York, to 15 per cent, of the population, and in great industrial areas to as much as 35 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman has not ventured to say one word to controvert either those figures or the arguments founded upon them. The existence of this under fed class is known to the right hon. Gentleman and hon.
  66
  Gentlemen opposite as it is to us, and we are entitled to judge their arguments, motives, and sense of humanity by that knowledge. Judge them by that knowledge, what arc we to say of the statesman who, knowing that even in good times we have this class, and that in bad times they are put to the severest straits, nevertheless insists at a time of prospective surplus and in days of peace in putting burdens upon that class in order to relieve the propertied class of the country? That is a consideration of which we are entitled to ask the country to take note. There stands an unanswered argument—an argument ignored, but not one of which the Government are ignorant. There are three classes who ought to Le considered whenever new taxation is being suggested. Every tax falls on all classes in some measure, directly or indirectly, but, speaking roughly, and having regard to the main incidence rather than to the complete incidence of the tax, one may say that there are three classes to be considered. First of all, there is the labouring class, who are hit by indirect taxation; then there is the mercantile and professional class, who are, hit by direct taxation in the, form of income tax; and, thirdly, there is the propertied class, who undoubtedly share with the mercantile and professional class the burden of direct taxation, but who still are on a different footing, because income from property is not subject to the accidents of health or the risks which accompany income from professional or mercantile labour. Therefore, when you are seeking to impose a burden on the whole; community, an indirect tax will fall mainly on the labouring class. and the main burden of the Income. Tax will fall on the professional and middle classes, so that you ought also to put some burden specifically on property in order that it may not escape its share. In framing his taxation the right hon. Gentleman has not imposed a single tax of which the main burden falls on property alone. Not only that, but he has put this tax on labour in order to relieve property. ["Oh!"] If a tax is put on when there is a surplus it is not to meet a deficit or the existing expenditure, but to meet

  67
  contemplated expenditure. What is the contemplated expenditure? We know it by Bills which are running parri passu with this, and to which I need not limner allude, except to say that it is, at all events, to relieve that class of a burden they have hitherto borne, that this burden is being put on the working classes. That is done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who claims to be a Free Trader. We all remember the noble and pathetic words with which Sir Robert Peel closed his career as a statesman. He rose in this House and said that his name would sometimes be pronounced by those who earned their daily bread in the sweat of their brow; that when they came to renew their strength by an abundance of untaxed food they might remember what he had done for them, that they would remember his name with goodwill, and that their meals would no longer be embittered by a sense of injustice. What will be the record of the right hon. Gentleman when he comes to lay down his great trust? He will be able to boast that he has brought back the shadow of the tax-gatherer to the scanty table of the labouring poor; he may point with pride to the fact that ho has revived what I maintain to be the true traditions of his party, and that he has left scarcely a single article of the food of the labouring poor untouched or undiminished. As to the pitiful luxuries of the poor, he began by putting £8,500,000 on their tea and sugar, his colleagues, by the prohibition of store cattle, have managed to raise the price of meat, they have put on meat a burden as bad as that of the tax-gatherer, without the tax-gatherer's excuse; and now, in a time of peace and with a surplus in front of him, the right hon. Gentleman strikes at the bread of the poor, t venture to say that when the poor come to give their little ones that abundant food so necessary to healthful growth and life, they will remember the name of the right hon. Gentleman—but will it be with expressions of good-will or free from that sense of injustice which Sir Robert Peel thought he had abolished for ever?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: But he left this tax on.
  MR. ROBSON: Oh, no; this is a different tax; this is a higher tax; it is a protective tax; and it is one thing to leave on a tax when it is the last stage in the journey, but quite another thing to put it on as the first step in the return journey. The poor will remember the name of the right hon. Gentleman, but so far from uttering expressions of good-will, they will say that he put this needless burden on them and on their young in order as far he could to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
  SIR THOMAS WRIGHTSON: I noticed that under the whole of the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite there lay the fallacy of not recognising that exported corn is a surplus product which is not wanted in the exporting country. As a matter of fact, we import four-fifths of our corn from foreign countries, and the putting of a high and protective tax on those four-fifths would undoubtedly raise the price of the remaining one-fifth. But the question is, Who would pay the light tax of Is. on those four-fifths? This corn, being a surplus product, the foreign exporter, rather than lose his market, will, I contend, pay the tax, and that shilling, which otherwise the Chancellor of the Exchequer would require from the people of England, is paid by the foreigner, and without ultimately raising the price of the one-fifth grown in Great Britain. Being a surplus product—and that is my point—those who are exporting the corn would pay the 1s.; therefore, the nation, to the extent of four-fifths of its corn consumption, clearly benefits by the tax. It is upon this ground that I shall support the Bill. This question of surplus production wants to be considered. We are just now in this country a great nation of manufacturers. There was a time when we were a nation of shopkeepers and merchants. The creed of the merchant,—and it is a proper belief,—is that he must buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest. That is not strictly the case with a nation of manufacturers. A manufacturer might buy his goods from foreign countries, in consequence of their peculiar system of tariffs, at a lower rate than he could manufacture them in this country, but what would be the effect

  69
  even if he did save a small percentage What benefit would it be to the working classes of this country if they lose the labour which is being taken from us by the system of tariffs prevailing in o her countries? I am not a Protectionist myself, but I say with regard to the raising of revenue by moderate tariff of this kind that it is an absolutely sound policy, and therefore I support the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: I wish to say a few words to the House on a duty which forma part of the Budget, but has received little or no attention in the debates on the Bill. I mean the tobacco duty. I should like to see a higher duty imposed on expensive brands of cigars, and especially on t hat peculiar form of tobacco known as the cigarette. I have observed, with great regret, the growing habit of smoking cigarettes by very small children, and I think we can hardly exaggerate the evil to the British race if the indiscriminate smoking of cigarettes goes on. The Spaniards, who are inveterate cigarette smokers, had no chance in war against the Americans; the Germans, who smoked pipes, obtained a victory over the French. I believe that the war in South Africa, happily now at an end, would have been concluded a year earlier if we had not poisoned our soldiers by sending out exceedingly bad cigarettes; while the Boers all had their pipes, and grow the best tobacco in the world. I hope that the result of the entente cordiale will be that some efforts will be made to import Transvaal tobacco into England. We cannot expect to be always at peace. Supposing we have the misfortune to be at war fifteen or sixteen years hence, we shall have to depend on soldiers who have been brought up from the age of ten, eight, or six years upon those filthy cigarettes—men who have grown up effeminate, nerveless, and useless. I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer would look with favour on the suggestion that he should take the next opportunity of imposing an addition to the ordinary tobacco tax of a special 1d. stamp upon packets of ten cigarettes. I believe that would be a proposition acceptable to this
  70
  House, and I am quite sure it would be gratefully received by the country. I have never alluded to the subject at any political meeting without receiving vociferous applause. The only enemies of the proposal would be the children, and as they have not got votes we need not be afraid of them. I believe it might save the country from ruin and disgrace in the future. I cannot sit down without thanking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for not having reduced taxation. I wish very much that we had had an extra penny on the income tax instead of the bread tax, but if it comes to a bread tax or nothing, and if I am to be a. Protectionist or a fraudulent bankrupt, I would rather be a Protectionist. We have heard with much relief from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on behalf of himself and his colleagues that they I have no intention of making it the basis of a protective corn tax. I know that it would be an easy thing for him to come down to the House and say, "We will give you peace with one hand and plenty with the other," and to take off the corn tax and the proposed increase of the income tax, but that would be grossly immoral. I am sure that the additional expenses of peace will be at least as high, if not higher, for the first year, as if there had been a continuation of the war. If the nation goes to war it ought to pay its way, and I would support any tax the Chancellor of the Exchequer would impose for that purpose except a tax upon bread. Though I cannot entirely support all the sources from which ho derives the revenue. I am glad that he has not been tempted to reduce taxation on the plea that the war is ended.
  SIR. ELLIOTT LEES: I agree with much that fell from the hon. Member for South Shields, although I cannot agree with the remarkable peroration in which he denounced the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That peroration will no doubt be very effective on many a platform in the country, and I hope we shall find an equally effective platform reply. The hon. Member pointed out that our political knowledge and fiscal system had, during the last fifty years, been of very great ad vantage in promoting the material prosperity of the country. That may be, but there are things even more necessary to the

  71
  nation than sound political economy, great and important as that may be. I am not sure whether this be a war tax or not, but if it be, I welcome it, and I am glad that this House should see fit to bring home to the conscience of every man, woman and child in the country, the payment that must be exacted for war. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in a famous speech some years ago that there are worse things than war. There are worse things than war. But in this country we are not called upon for personal service, and unless the people are made to feel the effects of war in taxation, it is possible to let a democratic Government degenerate into the exponent of the jingo sentiment with respect to the glories of war. Our opponents in the late war called every able-bodied man into the ranks. They risked their whole occupation, as well as their lives. Their houses were desolated and their occupation is all gone. From this country we have sent 2 or 3 per cent, of the able-bodied men; our occupations in this country have not been disturbed; our trade has hardly suffered any shock; the avocations of the people have been continued, and unless some such tax as this upon the necessaries of life is imposed, what is to prevent the great mass of the electors of the country from thinking, that they may have the excitement and glory of war, without contributing to the cost? That might be one of the greatest calamities. It is important, I therefore, that there should be brought home to them the knowledge that they themselves would have to contribute to the cost of carrying it on.
  With regard to the economic aspect of the question, at the present moment men's minds are in a state of confusion. The old doctrines that we were taught twenty years ago—the doctrines of John Stuart Mill, Professor Jevons and Adam Smith—are questioned in many quarters now, and by some very responsible authorities. I would not venture for a moment to suggest that the old authorities were wrong in basing the material prosperity of this country on the Free Trade system, but I should like to suggest that it may be well for us, however convinced we may be of the truth of those doctrines, to look at things with a broader mind, and ascertain whether there may not be considerations which may outweigh the material
  72
  prosperity gained under a system of Free Trade. The nation does not live by a period of prosperity alone. We have seen during the last few years the feelings of the other nations of the earth towards this country. We have realised that we might be at any moment the butt of a gigantic conspiracy to overthrow us. We know that greater than material prosperity is national freedom, national character, national existence. Are we doing all we can to meet that crisis if it should arise? Three suggestions arc made with regard to this very question of the taxation of food, which ought to bear on the problem of national defence. There is the question of our food supply in this country in time of war, and on that am I bound to say that I agree with my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Treasury as to the importance of maintaining and relying on our supremacy at sea There is another important consideration which has been brought forward with some strength in recent years, and that is the change in the character of the population—the constant movement of the country population to the towns, and the deterioration in the character and the physique of the nation which may be caused thereby. In view of our experience, I am bound to say that men from the country make far more efficient soldiers, both in the matter of physique and in point of greater power of endurance, than townsmen, although they may not at first be so quick and intelligent. That, however, is remedied by a few months in the field. It is suggested that by a tax upon food we should retain more of the population in the country districts. That I venture to doubt very gravely myself. I do not think the farmer would get any additional profit as a result of a tax upon food in this country, and I doubt if the landlord would get any additional rent, except in cases where land out of cultivation was brought into cultivation. The whole increased profit would, I believe, be divided among the labourers. But we cannot suppose for a moment that the working men in the towns will allow their wages to be cut down when the price of their food has gone up. So the same thing we see now existing will continue to go on—the superior attractions of the town will still draw the population from the country to the town. The question has been raised several times in the course of the debate of the possibility of a great system of internal

  73
  trades within the Empire. It seems to me that to attain an Empire hound by ties of material self interest, as well as those which, now bind us would be be worth the sacrifice of a little portion of our present prosperity. Of course statesmen should consider whether they can carry out such a proposal within a reasonable time, and whether the country will reap hereafter the benefit of it. If one generation can make changes which would result in a system such as prevails in America, it might be worth the consideration of statesmen whether such a course would not be most conducive to national and Imperial interests. Now that the different constituent parts of the Empire have been federated on the battlefield, might we not try and look at all these fiscal questions, and questions of Imperial defence, from the point of view of the new partners in the firm—with the bright eyes of the young nations across the seas, and see whether our fiscal system might not be re-modelled to meet the needs of the younger communities? When I was a student of political economy I was taught that even a system of Protection was sometimes permissible for young national and I, and those who hold with me, want those who adhere strictly to the old doctrines to try and look at the new condition of affairs with a more open mind. I think it would be well worth the sacrifice of one or two principles of political economy, and perhaps of some little volume of prosperity, if we could add the ties of mutual self interest to those other ties which bind together all pars of the British Empire, the tics of patriotism, self sacrifice, a common language and a common loyalty.
  MR. CREMER: In the speech of the hon. Member for the Brightside Division, he stated that there was still some lingering feeling of admiration on the part of our countrymen towards the policy of Free Trade. My own experience goes to prove that it is not a lingering feeling which is entertained by our countrymen, but one which is strongly held by a large proportion of the people of this country. That feeling is not one of mere sentiment, but arises from far more material considerations than those referred to by hon. Members on the other side of the House.
  74
  I want to make myself clear, and to challenge the opinion, given utterance to by the last speaker and others, that the country is responsible for the late war. This is not the moment to do so, but if it was I could produce facts and figures which would, prove conclusively that so far from the country having endorsed the war, out of the millions of adults in the United Kingdom only a very small proportion, not more than two and a-half millions, gave their assent to the war. But, even if a small minority of our countrymen were cajoled and hoodwinked by false information into a support of the war, that would not justify the taxation of the food which has to be consumed by every man, woman, and child out of the forty millions in the United Kingdom. I am, unfortunately, old enough to remember the later stages of the. Protectionist period, and I have sometimes wondered, during these discussions, at the light heart displayed by hon. Members on the other side of the House, who spoke so loosely in regard to the proposal which has been made for a return to the system of Protection, and to tax the food of the people. Have they known anything practically as to the operation of Protection? It was my unfortunate lot to know a great deal about it, and the bitterness of the half-starved life of my boyhood has been so burnt into my memory that I shall never forget it. My mother was left with myself and two sisters. We had to subsist on 6s. a week. Our breakfast consisted of three slices of bread and butter, and a cup of weak tea without any milk or sugar. For dinner we had a few potatoes, which at that period were very dear, because the potato crop had failed on account of the potato disease, and there was a potato famine. With the potatoes one or two rid herrings, varied with "hard duff," a composition of flour and water, boiled in the shape of a pudding, an indigestible compound which filled our bellies but ruined our digestion. For tea we had another three slices of bread, and another cup of weak tea without any milk or sugar. And then my mother had to calculate whether it was possible to have anything in the shape of supper for my sisters and myself; but it generally ended in our

  75
  going to bed supper less. That was the miserable lot in which my life was cast; and but for the heroism of my mother, I who had the greatest possible dislike of getting into debt, there is no saying what might have happened to-my sisters arid myself. My lot was typical of the condition of thousands of people in our country. If it was a solitary case, I would not have referred to it; but it was characteristic of multitudes of people in this country, who even at the present day have to go to bed supper less. The result in my own case, has been not merely stunted growth, but a weak stomach and a lifetime of chronic dyspepsia. That also is the condition of millions at the present day. At the period to which I am referring—the winter of 1848–9 — bread was sold at 2s. 8d. per gallon — which was the term then used; and the 21b. loaf was sold at 8d. When the repeal of the Corn Laws was accomplished— probably hastened by the terrible distress which then prevailed — the price of a gallon of bread was reduced from 2s. 8d. to 1s., and that has been the average price ever since. Bread has therefore been brought within the reach of millions who had previously been unable to obtain it. That alone is sufficient to burn into the memories of the people the blessings of Free Trade.
  I am, therefore, exceedingly sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken the first step in a return to the old Protection policy. It will astonish some, hon. Members if I tell them what the kind of food was on which the people had then to exist. At the trying time to which I refer bread was at such a price that it was out of reach of the labouring classes of the country. The wages of artisans were 14s. or 15s. a week, and agricultural labourers did not get more than 8s. or 9s. But that year, in the place where I lived there was, fortunately, mi abundance of sprats, and the bulk of the people for several months that winter lived on sprats and swede turnips. Those who got through that terrible time have never forgotten what they had to endure in those severe months that immediately preceded the repeal of the Corn Laws. The hon. Member for South Shields said just now, that even now
  76
  there were a large number of people only just above the starvation line. Now, I have in the last few days been making purchases at the shops in the districts in which these people live. I have gone among these people. I know some of them in my own constituency, and many thousands can Le found in London, dragging out their miserable lives in hovels unfit for human dwellings. It is natural that Members who have been reared in the lap of luxury should not have so much sympathy as they would have if they knew the actual life of the poor. I have some articles here which, if hon. Members doubt my statement as to the kind of food on which these people live I shall be glad to show them. In the poorest parts of the Metropolis, before the Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed an extra duty on tea, two years ago, a farthing's worth of tea, a farthing's worth of sugar, a halfpennyworth of butler, and a halfpennyworth of bread could be purchased. Since that duty—although it was only 2d. on the lb. — and the tax on sugar has been imposed, you can only buy a halfpennyworth of tea or sugar, so that these poor people I who have to purchase their food in these I infinitesimal quantities have to pay double what they paid before. At the I present moment you can buy in these shops a halfpennyworth of tea, sugar, margarine, and bread, and a farthing's worth of milk, a commodity which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not yet taxed. That comes to 2¼d., and that provides a meal, very often the only one which many thousands of the poor subsist upon day after day. If they can afford a bloater or a rasher of bacon they regard the meal as almost a banquet. And that is the class which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is desirous of sweeping into his net by extending the basis of taxation. I should like to know how much more it is possible to squeeze out of these poor, miserable creatures. The hon. Member for Central Sheffield received with vociferous delight the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put a tax upon corn. I have sometimes thought I should like to make the experiment of making the hon. Member, and the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division of

  77
  Lincolnshire, and the right hon. Member for Thanet, who constitute the Protectionist Triumvirate in this House—
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: There are a great many others.
  MR. CREMER: And compel them for three or lour weeks to live upon the fare upon which these poor people have to subsist If that were done, the Protectionist craze would quickly be knocked out of them, and we should hear no more of putting this tax upon the people's food. It is not the small amount which is placed upon com by the Chancellor of the Exchequer: it is a question of what the people will have to pay when it reaches their table. I cannot better illustrate the mischief that is likely to arise than by stating that this tea which is sold by the halfpenny for a quarter of an ounce can be bought for 1s. 4d. a lb.; but the people who have to buy it in these small quantities have to pay double the price. 2s. 8d. a lb. And that is what is going to result from the imposition of this tax. It is just the same with sugar, cheese, and cveryothercornmodity; the priccis doable ivhat they would have to pay if they could afford to buy by the pound or half pound. The loaf which is cut up in slices will be cut into smaller slices on account of this tax. I admit it is a small tax which the right hon. Gentleman is imposing on corn, but I suppose there is no Member of this House who does not feel that this is the beginning of a very bad end. What is to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer, next year or the year, after, supposing a dole is required for the landlords or the clergy, coming down and proposing to increase the duty on corn by another Is.? It is because we feel it is the beginning of a bad end, because we feel we are on the return road to the state of things which I described just now which existed in my boyhood, that we arc determined to oppose this Bill, even at this final stage, and register our protest against it. I know it is said that the pro posed tax is so trifling that it will not affect the price of the people's food; arid that, therefore, the opposition we offer to this proposal is needless. But when we
  78
  consider the many small profits made—the profit of the grower, the corn merchant, the corn dealer, the miller, the baker, and the retailer of the, slices of biead—all those profits mount up considerably, and the poor consumer has to pay; so that it makes the difference to him between a half-filled and an empty stomach. I have endeavoured to learn from these debates who is going to pay, and have been unable to do so; but in my own mind I am convinced it is the consumer who will have to pay. I happen to have in my hand—and I commend this to the attention of the. hon. Member for Central Sheffield, because it is a faithful picture of things which existed in the old Protectionist days — a grocery bill, dated 14th of April, 1841: 61bs, of sugar at 8½d. per lb., 1 lb. of Souchong tea at 5s. 4d., 3 lbs. of soda at 2d., 1 lb. of loaf sugar at 11d., 4½lbs. of starch at 7d., and6½lbs. of soap at 7d.—total, 17s. ld. The accuracy of this bill I can vouch for, I knew the grocer who made it out. I made a calculation of what the same articles would cost after fifty years of Free Trade, and found that you could purchase the same kind of commodities for 5s. 8d. 11s. 7d., therefore, has been saved by the adoption of the Free Trade policy. Yet that is the state of things to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to return by the imposition of this corn tax, and the increased duty on tea and sugar. It is very easy for an hon. Member to get up as the hon. Member for Central Sheffield did just now, and say he is absolutely certain that this proposed tax is popular throughout the country. I can only say thatamong the people whom I represent, the majority of whom are working men, he could not find one, Liberal or Tory, who is in favour of this tax which it is proposed to put upon their food. We have been so accustomed to talk of millions, that we cannot understand and realise the difference that farthings make in the poor man's budget. I do not know what is the use of talking about broadening the basis of taxation, because it is quite clear that these poor creatures, who are to be found in millions throughout the United Kingdom, are quite unable to contribute anything more to the upkeep of the country.

  79
  If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken the means I am going to refer to to raise money, his proposal would have been as popular as this tax is unpopular. I think, however, ho might have rendered unnecessary any increase of taxation by a rigid economy in those department; over which he has control, instead of which we have been lavish and wasteful in our expenditure on the late war, which I always regarded as unnecessary and infamous. Not only so, but the right hon. Gentleman might have curtailed the expenditure of the country, and refused to grant the money which the House gave not long ago to the landlords and the clergy in the shape of doles. If we had saved that expenditure new taxes might have been avoided. Or he might have taxed the unearned increment. I suppose most Members have tried to estimate the amount that could be drawn into the purse of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if unearned increments were taxed. I can give one example, and the House will see the advantage that could be gained. The value of that portion of London extending from Charing Cross to Blackfriars Bridge Street, and back again to this building has been increased, since the Embankment has been constructed, by 50 or 60 per cent. There is a splendid opportunity for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is going on in every big town all over the country. The public make improvements, and the landlords pocket the profits. That is a source the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have tapped, and it would have been extremely popular. He might also have obtained sufficient for his purpose from a graduated income tax, or by taxing mining royalties; or doubling the public house licences. Although that would have been unpopular with the publicans and sinners, it would have been a great advantage to the country. But then the liquor Party supports the present Government, so the interest of that Party is considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer too sacred to be interfered with. He might also have increased the duty on spirits, which are not a necessity of life, or taxed ground rents, which would be very popular among the masses of the people. Instead of doing any of these things the Chancellor of the Exchequer, inspired, I am afraid, by some
  80
  evil genius has left the path of Free Trade which we believed he was treading, and has begun this return to the old Protection duties by imposing a tax on the staff of life. Even at this late stage, I feel it my duty, as representing a number of the poorest classes to register an emphatic protest against the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The debate has been rather discursive, and the hon. Member who has just sat down has provided me with various alternatives to the proposals in the Budget. It has been exceptional in another way, localise we have had from my hon. friend the Member for the Bright-side Division of Sheffield and from my hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Central Division of Sheffield an absolutely new commercial policy entirely at variance with the Budget of the present year. I still believe in Free Trade. I have been denounced somewhat in the style of a prosecuting counsel at the Old Bailey by the hon. and learned Member for South Shields on account of what he considers are my Protectionist principles; but I confess that I sympathise on questions of this kind with some words addressed to the House the other day by the right hon Member for Montrose. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was not a hardened arid convicted political economist, and that he would not lay down any proposition which would apply to all communities at all times and stages of their history. I think that was a wise view. I have never believed, for example, that the United States, or a country like Canada or Australasia, of almost illimitable extent and variety of resources and climate, might not prosper exceedingly wider the policy of protection. As a matter of fact, the United States has done so. But, when I coma to what is my chief concern and look at the circumstances of the country in which we live, I believe that the adoption of Protection in the United Kingdom would be the beginning of the gravest social and fiscal danger. When my hon. friend the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield so boldly and so ably put forward his views on that

  81
  subject, I think that he suggested them to the House rather in order to benefit our producers than as a means of raising revenue. My hon. friend boldly avowed that he desired to diminish our foreign imports. To him it is a. very sad thing that year by year there should be a great disparity between our exports and imports, and that the imports of this country should increase. He told us that our trade is diminishing, and he desires to initiate a policy of retaliation upon foreign countries to keep out their goods for the benefit of our own manufacturers. He considers that we are losing wealth year by year owing to the working of our present fiscal system. For an answer in a single sentence, I refer my hon. friend to the growth of the income tax returns to the growth of the deposits in the savings banks, to the proof we may see all around us of the improved condition of every class in the country. And when he asks me to change the policy of this country—seeing all I see in this matter—from Free Trade to Protection, I can only say that that is not the policy which to my mind this country ought to adopt. But my hon. friend did not deal with one of the practical objections to his own scheme. He wants to impose duties of considerable amount—because his idea is that they should be protective upon all foreign manufactured goods, but he did not suggest what manufactured goods are. If anybody looks through the list of our imports and exports and can draw the line between raw materials and manufactured goods he is a much cleverer man than I am. To taka one article alone—leather—we import about £9,000,000 worth a year of leather, and I should like to know whether leather is a raw material or a manufactured article. So you might go through all the list of imports, and you would find that almost every import, beginning with indisputably raw materials like cotton, wool, or iron ore, and going on to articles which are nearly finished, is the raw material of some industry in this country.
  But if my hon. friends the Members for Sheffield take a different view on this matter to the view which is entertained by the Government, I am bound to say we have had a considerable variety of opinion exhibited also on the other side
  82
  of the House between the back Benches and the Front Opposition Bench. I was much interested in certain passages of the speech of the hon. Member for West Islington, who opened the debate. The hon. Member speaks often on fiscal questions. I thought he was about to attack rue on the Budget, but for once in a way he changed his mind, and devoted I his attention to the right hon. Gentlemen below him. He denounced the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose for approving the cheque tax. He said the right hon. Gentleman was not a man of business, but was a mere literary person who had no right to interfere in this matter. Then he fell foul of the hon. Member for Poplar, who is the real author of the corn duty, because that hon. Member was good enough to support me in resisting the hon. Baronet the Member for South Somerset in attempting to abolish entirely the tax upon offals.
  But that was not all. I have boon denounced a good deal for continuing to impose taxation under this Budget in spite of the termination of the war. I was delighted to hear from the hon. Baronet the Member for North Norfolk that, in his opinion, it would have been a grossly immoral act to reduce taxation in present circumstances. I am obliged to the hon. Member for that candid expression of opinion, but I do not think it is quite reconcilable with some of the opinions which have been delivered from the Front Opposition Bench. This, however, I have noticed throughout this debate — that there is a feeling in the House very much of the kind which the hon. Member has expressed. I believe that the House is convinced that we ought to continue taxation under existing circumstances, and that the sole objection really to this Budget is to one particular tax which it imposes, viz., the corn duty. I will attempt to deal with that point in the spirit of the hon. Member for West Islington, who advised his leaders to avoid high principles in this matter, to go in for expediency, and not to argue upon a shifting foundation. I think some of the arguments which have been addressed to us today have, in spite of the advice of the hon. Member, been based on rather shifting foundations. The hon. Member who has just sat down favoured us with a very interesting description of the hardships of his child-

  83
  hood. Under this tax? Oh, no, Sir; under the old Corn Laws, when Protection was the law of the land, when not only corn but many other articles, which are now absolutely free from taxation, I were heavily taxed, and he brought all these things forward as if he really believed that by imposing this corn duty we were reverting to the old system. Then the hon. and learned Member for South Shields referred to the well-known words of Sir R Peel on quitting office, and contrasted what he thought would be my record as having imposed this tax with the blessings lavished on Sir R. Peel, by the poor whose food he had cheapened. But he forgot that, at the very moment when Sir E. Peel spoke those words, he had imposed the very tax I now propose; and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman accuses me of inhumanity in proposing it.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen thought it necessary again to reiterate the old arguments—how this corn duty would press on the poor, what a terrible thing it would be for the widow and the orphan, and how it was worse than the poll tax of Richard II., which provoked a revolution. I was impressed by these prophecies until I came to the termination of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, when he said the tax would inflict no great present hardship upon the people. And the hon. Member for Islington, whom I really begin to look upon as an authority, clinched this by reminding the House that, after all, poverty and starvation have largely diminished in this country in recent years, and practically admitted that there was no force whatever in all this talk about the hard ship on the poor and the return to Protection. For what did he say? He advised his leaders that the tax was not open to the same objections as the old Corn Laws, and that the loaf may be no smaller, and cannot be much smaller, under the tax than it was before. Sir, there is an end of the whole matter of the hardship on the poor.
  Now I come to the Protective part of the Question. There, again, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen admitted that if it was Protective it was infinitesimally Protective. But to the right hon. Gentleman even this is terrible, because it is the "first step" to
  84
  Protection. Well, a tax that does not practically protect is no Protective tax at all. If anybody could show for a moment that when this tax previously existed it was practically Protective, if anybody had shown that it had increased the price of corn, that it stimulated the production of corn in this country, and kept out foreign corn from the United Kingdom—if anybody could have shown one single tittle of these things, he would have adduced some argument against its imposition. But, throughout these debates, not a single attempt has been made on the other side of the House to I prove that anything of this kind occurred during the whole twenty years that the duty existed. I am told I have made a new departure, that this year we are taking a step that is to reverse our fiscal policy in the future, and to change the policy of the country from Free Trade to Protection. I cannot understand the alarm prevailing on the Benches opposite. If there was anything of the kind being done, do they suppose that the country would be in a quiescent state in regard to this duty? Do they suppose that during our debates those benches opposite would have been as thinly manned as they have been? Do they suppose there would have been the lack of interest in the whole matter which has been displayed by the Press of the country at large? No, Sir, not a bit of it. The fact is there has been an attempted agitation, -which has failed. [Opposition cries of "Bury," and Sir HOWARD VINCENT: "Woolwich."] I do not know if, or how far, this duty influenced the Bury election; but I do know this, that a very short time before that election my noble friend who sits behind me, professing himself to be a supporter of the corn duty, was returned by a greater working-class constituency than Bury—the constituency of Wool-wich—without a single opponent venturing to come against him. I think we may well put one against the other if you talk about the opinion of the electors. I put that aside altogether, and what I ask the House is this—whether there is any truth in this talk of "reaction" and "new departure"? There is no truth, I venture to say, in any suggestion that this Bill is a change to Protection from Free Trade. There has been a new departure, and I

  85
  took it last year. Why did I take it? I told the House plainly last year, and I have told them plainly again this year, that to my mind it was necessary to increase the heads of our indirect taxation, that the ordinary expenditure of the country, besides the cost of the war, had grown so enormously that it was impossible, with any fairness in our system of taxation, to limit the indirect taxes of the country to as few Reads as those which existed before last year. I took a new departure last year, when I added sugar and coal to the list of those articles from which we draw our indirect taxation. I have but continued this policy in the present year. I know that it is a policy which is not agreeable to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, many of whom, I suppose, would desire that no duties on articles of this kind should be levied at all. They talk about the effect which duties of this sort have on the poorest of the poor. Why, you cannot have any indirect tax which will be worth collecting which will not be paid even by the poorest of the poor; and this is true of every indirect tax, including those on tobacco or alcohol. I got a pamphlet only yesterday from the Financial Reform Association, which advocated the repeal of all Customs and Excise duties in the country. Well, that is a policy to which I am utterly opposed. I do not believe it is fair or just, and I believe if you attempted to persist in it, with our present expenditure, you would simply ruin the financial system of this country. Therefore it is that I have proposed the present duty on corn, which has been attacked as bitterly, and I think as unfairly, as the export duty on coal was attacked last year. But lam convinced of this, that the attack on it has failed, and I believe that as soon as Parliament has passed this duty into law the agitation will absolutely cease, and that no long time will pass before it will be generally recognised that this duty, easily collected, and yielding largely to the revenue, inflicts no injury whatever on the mass of the people.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not rise for the purpose of prolonging the debate on matters which have been
  86
  largely discussed during the last few weeks; I only desire to state the reasons why, at this final stage of the Bill, I for one enter my protest against it. The right hon. Gentleman has said quite truly that the main objection is to the corn duty, and I ventured at an earlier stage to submit to the House an amendment directly aimed at the tax. The right hon. Gentleman has said that this tax is only part of a plan for broadening the basis of taxation which has become necessary in consequence of the great expenditure of this country. But, in my opinion, that is not a correct description of this tax, which docs not resemble the export duty on coal or the tax upon sugar. Sugar is an article not produced in this country. Those two duties have nothing of a Protective character about them, and all the money produced by them goes to the Exchequer. In the present case it is perfectly certain that the rise in the price of corn necessarily followed from the imposition of the tax; you cannot add a shilling in this way without raising the price of the commodity, and that applies to the corn grown in this country as well as to that imported from abroad. It is this that distinguishes this tax from any other tax which at present exists in this country.
  It is perfectly idle to say that this tax is not Protective in its character and essence when it raises the price of the homegrown commodity as well as the imported. It may be Protective in a small degree or in a large degree, but it is Protective. How can the right hon. Gentlemen doubt it after the debates which he has heard in this House, in which the Protectionists have expressed their delight and the Free Traders their alarm? He must be aware that he has set the heather on fire. This tax re-opens a question which we all believed was closed, and ought to have been closed, in this country. There are persons, who are less ardent Free Traders than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, we believe and fear, will take advantage of this tax in order to promote the principle of which it contains the poisonous leaven. I have not yet arrived at the conclusion that in administering finance in this country you should not allow yourself to be governed by principles; I remember that those great reformers, Adam Smith and Mr. Cobden were actuated by principles.

  87
  I observed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer very carefully avoided matters that were raised by my right hon. friend the Member for South Aberdeen. This now departure raises a number of dangerous questions with regard to our foreign trade, and it has raised the very embarrassing question of preferential treatment with regard to the colonies, and with regard particularly to Canada, where the production of corn is so great. There are special reasons why this ought not to have been done at this particular time. You knew perfectly well that you were going to discuss your commercial relations with the Colonies, and you chose this moment for imposing a tax which places you in a very disadvantageous position in conducting your conference.
  As far as I am concerned, Sir, I condemn this Budget on the ground that in order to raise a comparatively small sum of money it has raised a number of collateral fiscal questions which are most I injurious to the commercial prosperity of the country. At this moment I confess, and I know that I shall be called a pessimist when I say it, that I believe that the financial position of this country is very grave. The liabilities that you have incurred in the war in South Africa are enormous, far greater than have over been incurred during similar periods in this country. The mere interest on the debt will correspond, I think, to something like 2d. on the income tax. You will have to discharge that burden duo to the debt, and that is a very serious item in our expenditure. But, Sir, there is a great deal more. There are the prospects of the immense taxation which the country is now bearing. What are these prospects? The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day expressed a sentiment to which I desire to give my entire accord. He said that the really formidable and vexing financial problem of the day is the spirit of levity with which the high taxation and the increasing expenditure of the country is generally regarded, a spirit of levity which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not, share. I am sorry to hear it said in very high quarters what does it signify whether you spend hundreds of millions and incur this enormous debt? It signifies very much, and I am perfectly certain that anybody who has studied this question and who knows the real condition of things as regards the resources of the country, knows
  88
  that there has been put upon them a very heavy strain; and I think we should be utterly unworthy of the example of those who have gone before us if, now that the era of peace has dawned, we did not make some effort to reduce the expenditure of the country. The disposition seems to be on the other side, and to increase it in every respect, arid it is that state of feeling which, to my mind, constitutes the real gravity of the situation. Again, it is not by taxes of this kind that you are likely to meet the position in which you find yourselves. You have had a vast expenditure on the war. You have before you, in South Africa, and perhaps elsewhere, the prospect of a great outlay in time of peace. The amount is at present very vague, but it is certain to be very large. You cannot measure what calls may be made upon you in the settlement of South Africa. These are things which, in my opinion, ought to be regarded in a far more serious spirit by the country and by the House than I see exhibited at this moment. I see demands from every quarter for additional expenditure not resisted or checked in this House. If that is to be the peace policy of this country, how are you ever to maintain under it that prosperity, and the content of the people founded upon that prosperity, which we now possess as the result of sound commercial and sound fiscal principles? I may be jeered at as one who is wearing ancient phylacteries and following outworn shibboleths; but I cannot forget that within my own life time these shibboleths have produced the present financial position of the country. They have also enabled you to raise the revenue necessary to carry you through the late war. Therefore I, for one, am not disposed to unlearn these shibboleths; and it is because I see in it the germs of a departure from the sound fiscal principles of the past that I must enter my final protest at this last stage of the Bill.
  MR. HARWOOD: I shall not attempt to do more than in a few words answer the challenge which the Chancellor of the Exchequer hag thrown out many times during the debates on the Budget. The right hon. Gentleman has asked whether there is any reason why a tax upon corn which was allowed to continue by Mr. Gladstone and Sir

  89
  Robert Peel should not be repeated now. That is a very fair question. The great difference now depends on the sources of our supply of corn. At the time when Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone allowed the tax to continue, three-fourths of our total supply of corn was grown in this country, but now only one-fourth is grown in this country. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow that that makes a considerable difference. The price of a commodity is chiefly determined by the source of its largest supply. Therefore the action of Sir Robert Peel arid Mr. Gladstone in allowing the tax to continue did not affect the price of corn because anyone thinking of sending corn to this country had to consider whether he could afford to pay the registration duty when it came here, and compete with the producers of the large amount of corn grown in this country. He had to pay that duty and bring his one-fourth into competition with the three-fourths grown in the country. Now the case is quite different and I hope hon. Members realise the extreme gravity of the change. Everyone has acknowledged during the debate that the farmers will get the advantage. They will get I he advantage because the price of their one-fourth will be determined by the price of the three-fourths imported from abroad.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: When the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward the Budget statement two months ago, this country was involved in a long and costly war which was seemingly interminable. Now that peace has been happily restored, it may be well to recall that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire has spoken in a dismal way of the prospect of securing revenue from the Transvaal, and of the enormous cost of maintaining a force there. I think the splendid way in which the terms of peace have been accepted by people who acknowledge that they have been beaten, may be taken as an indication that they will be good, peaceable, and law-abiding citizens. I came down to the House expecting when the news
  90
  of peace was announced that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would bring forward an amended Budget, but what is the case? The whole of the proposals have been maintained. I should like to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the coal tax. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to convince us that the coal tax would be paid by the foreigner. He now argues that the corn tax will be paid by the foreigner. He cannot be right in both arguments. I differed from him as to the coal tax having to be paid at home, and I should rather think that it would have been more appropriate if lie had taken the view that the corn tax would not be an infliction on the people of this country, and that the price of grain would not be added to. The coal tax has been put on in the most unjust way. Instead of being an ad valorem tax, which would affect all the exporting centres of the kingdom equally, it is at a fixed rate, and the consequence is that in Scotland we are paying exactly double the tax that the Welsh coal trade is paying. I think that is a question which the right hon. Gentleman promised to give his attention to last year, but we have no signs of any alteration of the coat; tax now. He has given relief to patent fuel in Wales, but he refuses to extend that privilege to Scotland. We produce from the mines in Scotland for export an article which we call "doubles" or "trebles." That article I which was formerly worthless is now treated by machinery which was erected at considerable cost. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would not consider the effect of the tax on that article. He would not receive a deputation so that the point might have been argued and threshed out. It is for these reasons that at this final stage of the Bill I protest against the proposed taxation, which I maintain ought to have been put on the Transvaal. It is proposed to put a paltry gold tax of 10 per cent, on the Transvaal, which will only yield £450,000 per annum. The best practical authorities in the Transvaal state that a saving of £5,000,000 will accrue annually to the capitalists who own the mines. Why is it that we do not hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer now in regard to his proposals for the taxation of the Transvaal? The right hon. Gentleman put them off before

  91
  because peace was not restored. Now that the war is at an end we ought to be told what taxation is to be put on the Transvaal. It is for the reasons given that I object to the taxes put upon the country and that I shall vote against them.
  MR. BATTY LANGLEY: I should not have interfered in this debate, but for the speeches delivered by the hon. Members for the Brightside and the Central Divisions of Sheffield. The hon. Member for the Brightside Division has appeared as a full blown Protectionist. I am sure that the hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield must have been exceedingly pleased with the admirable speech in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer demolished in such a clear and uncompromising manner, the fallacies of the hon. Member for Brightside. We have only had one large public meeting in Sheffield to protest against the corn tax, and it was hold in the largest public hall of the hon. Member's division. At that meeting the tax was condemned in the most emphatic manner by the working classes of Sheffield. I am exceedingly pleased that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave in such clear and unmistakable language, his own views and those of the Government on this question of Protection. I want the House to distinctly understand that the views promulgated by the hon. Members for the Central Division and the Brightside Division are not the views held by the intelligent merchants of Sheffield; and I protest against the good name of Sheffield being mixed up with such miserable trash as we have heard from these hon. Members. But I would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would get no gratitude from the working classes of Sheffield for the taxes he has imposed during the last four or five years—the tax on tobacco, on tea, on sugar, and coal, and now on the bread loaf. I know that is done in order to broaden the basis of taxation, but the voice of the working people of Sheffield will ultimately be heard in condemnation of a broadening of the basis of taxation which touches their interests and their daily life.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I do not think it is necessary for me to make any apology for addressing the House even at this late hour. My first
  92
  remark is that of astonishment at the manifestation of indifference as to discussion on this question, for if the corn tax presses hardly on any class, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer interferes with the interest and best welfare of any part of the community, it is the working class portion of it. The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me when I say—because it is exactly what I feel—that I was surprised at the apologies he made for the situation in which he finds himself. He commenced by saying that he is still, and always will be, a Free Trader; but the tongue is an instrument by which you can play any tune you please. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a very good player on that instrument. What single indication has he ever given, since he assumed the office he holds, that he is a Free Trader? As I understand it, the real essence of Free Trade is the Gladstonian policy of removing taxation from the necessaries of life that are imported into this country for the welfare of the industrial community. Wherein, therefore, I ask, has the Chancellor of the Exchequer shown that he is a Free Trader? Who is it who put on the tax on coal, who increased the price of sugar on the working classes? Who is it who has now pleased the red school of Protection—the hon. Member for Central Sheffield and the right hon. Members for Sleaford and Thanet? It is said that the people of this country are quiescent, and are receiving this attempt to introduce Protection in a very quiet spirit. Do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite desire that there should be riots? Do they want the people to march from the North to London in large masses—a huge deluge causing destruction? Do they want to see this House beseiged? [Cries of "No, no."] If that is what they require they can see it next week. [Cries of "Oh, oh."] I know what I am saying. [Cries of "Divide."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may cry "Divide" as long as they like, but when I get on my feet I stand until I have said my say.; When it is said that the people do not Complain of this tax, I would pit my experience against that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the hon. Member for the Central Division of Sheffield, and I maintain that there is in this country from the north to the south a demur, quiet it may be, but strong in its force

  93
  and volume, against this tax, I have attended many meetings at which resolutions have been passed against this corn tax, and only last Saturday I was at a very large gathering in Sunderland which emphatically condemned the tax. I know the people of the North of England. It may be that we are lese loyal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer than in some parts of the south; it may be that we are a crooked and stiff-necked generation, and that we require to be punished in a special sense; but I maintain that there is a general protest in the country against the imposition of this tax.
  I joined issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the debates last year in regard to the coal tax, and I do it again now. Additional experience has not altered my views. The Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed the coal tax without obtaining that knowledge of its probable effect, which he ought to have had, when the employment and the wages of the people were at stake. We were told that the miners were earning large wages, and that the coal owners were making large profits. As the secretary of one of the largest organisations in the country, I can say that since the coal tax was imposed, the men I represent have suffered to the extent of 20 per cent, in their wages. Is that a light matter? Is that something to be proud of? Is it the work of statesmen to bring about a reduction of wages? I tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the wages of the Durham miners would have been reduced still further by 1¼ per cent., had it not been that the employers and workmen agreed to refer the question as to who should bear the incidence of this tax for the next three months to an inquiry. Wages are not the most essential element in this discussion. It is the employment of the men. Wages may fall, and the men may suffer to a great certain extent, but if you put men out of employment altogether you deprive them and their families of the means of livelihood. I know many hundreds of men who are being paid 10s. a week by our organisation be cause they cannot get employment on account of the imposition of this tax. There has been a restriction in the
  94
  export of coal from Durham alone of a million tons, and that means that employment has been taken from 600 or 700 men. As to the corn tax, there are two ways of viewing it, the one right and the other wrong; the one looking up, and the other looking down. My hon. friend the Member for Haggerston gave the House this afternoon an object lesson by his graphic description of his own childhood, and of the effect of Protection in increasing the prices of the necessary food which had to be bought in small quantities for the support of the families of the working classes. He has placed before the Committee this fact—that to those people who buy by the halfpenny worth the price has gone up 100 per cent. There are two views which we can take of this tax. One is the view downward, and the other the view upward. I can remember when flour was 4s. 6d. a stone in this country, and I can remember the hard times in my own life, but I am going to say this to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In my opinion, even this tax, which ho touches in so light and airy a manner, he has made with more faith, if he be a Free Trader, than he otherwise would. But is it more difficult for him now to make an attack on other sources of revenue than it was before he placed this 5d. on corn? Of course it is, because he would have to return that before he started anything else. Therefore; his task would be very much heavier than it was. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich treated us to an expression of his views in this matter. He said that if the bread of the people was taxed they could drink whiskey. I quote from the Morning Post—
  "It was within the power of every taxpayer to throw the burden on taxation on that part of his expenditure which he valued least To a man who consumed both bread and spirits it did not matter which you taxed, but if spirits alone were taxed a man would save on bread and spend more on spirits, and vice versa."
  [Cries of "No, no!"] Is that what the noble Lord said? Am I right in my quotation? If I am not, I have another, because there has been some dispute as to what the noble Lord did say. Mr. Speaker, there is a school m which statesmen would do well to serve their apprenticeship. It is the

  95
  school of poverty, an experience of the darkened homes of many of our people; and I think a question like this might be very useful if candidates for high office had to pass an examination as to; their qualifications: "Do you know as much as you should about how the poor I live in this highly civilised country?" [Cries of "Divide."] I hope hon. Members will give me this credit. I have always treated this institution, and every member of it, with deference and courtesy, but I think many of us could sketch out a scientific frontier with greater ease than many of us could depict the real life of the people of this great city. The Secretary to the Treasury, speaking of indirect taxation, said—
  "It is, of course, easy to bring forward invidual cases of hardship."
  This would be a happy country if we had to depend on "individual cases," but there are whole classes affected Do hon. Gentlemen understand, do they know that 15s. a week would be a fabulous weekly wage to many and many a family? A noble Lord in another place said he knew there were thousands of agricultural labourers to whom 14s. a week would be a fortune. I Are those "individual cases"? Are they to have the price of their bread increased even by the shadow of an impingement? Does any hon. Gentleman know the anxiety of a working man and his wife to make both ends meet? I think the shadow of poverty and hunger should be kept from these people rather more than it is. And on behalf of these people I speak today, and I say there are other sources of revenue that should be taxed before the bread of these people. There is not a man on this side of the House who would not marshal himself behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the right hon. Gentleman would make the wealth of the country the real basis on which to place taxation, as he ought to do. The Secretary to the Treasury, when he made the remark I have read, said he was not in favour of taking off indirect taxation and placing it on direct taxation. I speak now with the voice of Birmingham. I have said that I, like others, come from a rude, unlettered school. We are the rude Othellos of debate, and we tell a "round, unvarnished tale." I will read my
  96
  authority on direct and indirect taxation and the Secretary to the Treasury will not question my authority—
  "He had the curiosity to take account of the total consumption and the taxation of the articles consumed by those people, and he found that the taxation payable on the articles they consumed amounted to 7½ per cent, of the total wages of the twenty-four families that formed the whole population of the village. I have been trying to make a contrast, and in order not to give offence to any body else I have taken my own ease. I find it rather difficult to estimate exactly what I pay, because a good deal of the taxation is skill fully hidden, and it is difficult to follow it out; but I have come to the conclusion that I certainly do not pay more than 6 per cent, of my total income, and I do not believe I pay as much. You see that I who, at all events, by comparison with those poor people, am a rich man, who have pot a, good deal more than the minimum of subsistence, who am able to indulge in luxuries, who, as the Tories are constantly telling yon, even wear a flower in my button-hole—I, who have all these advantages, pay 1½ per cent. less than is extracted from the scanty earning of those poor peasants of Northamptonshire, whose average earnings are only 16s. per week. I say that is unfair, and I say the sooner it is altered the better. If Parliament would only support the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if they would give him leave to equalise the duties payable on land and on personal property when those pass on death and by inheritance, and if in addition they would consent to impose a higher tax upon incomes exceeding a certain amount, I believe Mr. Childers would be able at once to remedy this injustice and to give a free breakfast table tomorrow, and to enable yon, perhaps, in addition, to double and treble the currants and raisins that you put in your Christmas puddings."
  I do not know whether the authority who uttered these wordsat Birmingham in 1885 still holds those views or not, but he has not expressed them here. I will conclude by a proposition I put before the House; one is that the taxation of the land should fall on those best able to bear it. I do not think a man with 16s. a week should bear taxation at all. The words uttered in Birmingham in 1885 that this comparatively rich man, the leader of the spoliation party, was paying 1½ per cent. less, are as true now as they wore when they were uttered.
  (7.26.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 286; Noes, 181. (Division List No. 247).

  AYES

  Acland Hood, Cap Sir Alex. F.

  Dorington, Sir John Edward

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Doughty, George

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Agnew. Sir Andrew Noel

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Yd n

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Darning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Bagot, Capt. Jose ine FitzRoy

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Keswick, William

  Bain Colonel James Robert

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lawrence, Joseph(Monmouth)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

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

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lawson, John Grant

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Horney)

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

  Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Finch, George H.

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants. Fareham

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor

  Fison, Frederick William

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Bartley, George C. T.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Flower, Ernest

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Forster, Henry William

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

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

  Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

  Beresford, Lord Chas. William

  Galloway, William Johnson

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

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bigwood, James

  Garfit, William

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bill, Charles

  Godson, Sir August us Frederick

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. James (Kent

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'mlets

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Bowles, Capt. H. F.(Middlesex)

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

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Brassey, Albert

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

  Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Maeonochie, A. W.

  Brown, Alexander H.(Shropsh.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Green, Walford D. (Wedn's bury

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

  Bullard, Sir Harry

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

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

  Butcher, John George

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Manners Lord Cecil

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gretton, John

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

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

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

  Cavendish, V.C. W. (Derbyshire

  Groves, James Grimble

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick (J.

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Chapman, Edward

  Hamilton, Marq. of(L'nd'nderry

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm,

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Mount, William Arthur

  Callings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Colston, Charles Edw. H. Athole

  Helder, Augustus

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Henderson, Alexander

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventer)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Murray, Col. Wyndham(Bath)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hermon, Sir Alfred

  Myers, William Henry

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Denny, Colonel

  Howard, John(Kent, Faversh'm

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)

  Plummer, Waller R.

  Disraeli. Coningsby Ralph

  Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  98

  99

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Purvis, Robert

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Pym, C Guy

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

  Randles, John S.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Rankin, Sir James

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside

  Williams, RtHnJ.Powell-(Birm.

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk

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

  Renwick, George

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Stock, James Henry

  Wilson-Todd Wm. H. (Yorks.)

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

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

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Stroyan, John

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wrightson, Sir Tnomas

  Rolleston, Sir. John F. L.

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

  Wylie, Alexander

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Round, James

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Rutherford, John

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Sadler. Col. Samuel Alexander

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Sir William Walrond and

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Vincent, Col. Sir CEH(Sheffield

  Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Elibank, Master of

  MacVeagh, Jeromiah

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Crae, George

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M'Govern, T.

  Allen, Charles P.(Glouc, Stroud

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Kean, John

  Ambrose, Robert

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Asher, Alexander

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

  Austin, Sir John

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Mooney, John J.

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Gilhooly, James

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

  Murnaghan, George

  Bell, Richard

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Murphy, John

  Black, Alexander William

  Grant. Corrie

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Boland, John

  Griffith, Ellis J.

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

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Brigg, John

  Harwood, George

  Norman, Henry

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Burns, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Burt, Thomas

  Holland, William Henry

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Caine, William Sproston

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, W.)

  O'Doherty, William

  Caldwell, James

  Horniman, Frederick John

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

  Cameron, Robert

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  O'Dowd, John

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Malley, William

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Jones, William (Carn'rvonshire

  Partington, Oswald

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Kinloch, Sir John George Smyth

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Kitson, Sir James

  Pease, Sir Joseph W.(Durham)

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Lambert, George

  Perks, Robert William

  Crean, Eugene

  Langley, Batty

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Cremer, William Randal

  Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.

  Pickard, Benjamin

  Crombie, John William

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Leamy, Edmund

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Price, Robert John

  Delany, William

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Rea, Russell

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Leng, Sir John

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Reddy, M.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lundon, W.

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Dunn, Sir William

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  100

  101

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E)

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Roche, John

  Thomas, Alfred(Glamorgan, E.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Russell, T. W.

  Thomas, JA (Glamorgan, Gower

  Williams. Osmond (Merioneth)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Thompson, Dr EC(Monagh'n, N

  Wilson, Fred. W.(Norfolk, Mid.

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

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

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Toulmin, George

  Wood, James

  Shipman, Dr. J. G.

  Tully, Jasper

  Young, Samuel

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Ure, Alexander

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Walton, John Lawson(Leeds S.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. K. (Northants

  Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES-

  Sullivan, Donal

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Mr. Lough and Mr. Rob-

  Tennant, Harold John

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  son.

  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  ILLNESS OF THK KING.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUK: It is irregular, but I think the House will forgive me if I read the bulletin which has just been conveyed to me—
  "The King has passed a comfortable day. He is free from pain. Progress satisfactory, and his symptoms occasion no special anxiety."
  The sitting was suspended at a quarter to eight o'clock.

EVENING SITTING.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment proposed [17th June] on consideration of the Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), which Amendment was: In page 4. line 21, to leave out Clause 9.—(Mr. Harwood.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words of the clause to the end of line 25 stand part of the Bill."
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he was prepared to relinquish his right to speak on this matter if the Home Secretary would take a reasonable view with regard to this Bill. He understood, however, that the right hon. Gentleman was determined to pursue his rash and foolish course of action, and he therefore desired to state his reasons for thinking that the Amendment was one deserving of the support of the majority of the House. No doubt his observations would prove equally distasteful to the two extreme
  102
  sections of the House—to those in favour of what he might call coercive temperance legislation and to those who were against any interference of any kind whatever with the drink traffic. The House was rather too much in the habit of taking the extreme views of political partisans as the basis of legislation, and such a policy was particularly dangerous in regard to legislation affecting the social habits of the people. He would like to utter one word of warning on this subject. The views of the teetotal party and the views of the drink trade—two extreme parties which sometimes joined in what he might without disrespect call a somewhat unholy alliances—were riot alone entitled to consideration. Not very long since, a Bill passed through all its stages in the House relating to his own country, for the purpose of preventing the grant of further licences for a period of five years. He did not oppose that Bill, because nearly all the Members of his Party were in favour of it, but still he held that it I was a measure entirely hostile to the public interest, because it further established an already existing monopoly to the detriment of the interests of the public. The clause they had now before them was another instance of that unholy alliance between the extreme partisans on both sides. It was too often imagined that only two interests were concerned in this question—the trade on the one side and the teetotal interest on the other. There was, however, a third party, and that was the public, whose interests ought to have greater weight with Members of the House than the interests of the extremists on the one side or the other. It was thought on the one side that the clause of the hon. Member for Bolton

  103
  was in the interest of the trade, and the temperance party also claimed it in their interest, but he believed that it was derogatory of the interests of the State and the public. Legislation proposing to diminish the supply of liquor attracted the support of the temperance party—though for his own part he thought it was necessary to diminish the demand rather than the supply—and at the same time it strengthened the vested interest in the drink trade by increasing monopoly. But temperance reformers in this respect were beginning at the wrong end. The evils of drink did not arise from good drink, but from bad drink. Bad liquor produced crime, and if only good liquor were sold the amount of crime would be less. The hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division dissented from that statement — [Mr. WHITTAKER: Hear, hear!]—and the hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall, with his robust presence, had entered the House be support that view, but as neither hon. Member knew the difference between Glenlivet, Jameson, Persee, and other kinds of whisky, they were at once placed out of court as judges in this matter. Whenever a proposal was brought before the House to diminish the supply, the temperance I party at once approved it. In that they were wrong.
  An HON. MEMBER: The supply creates the demand.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that was I not the language of the philosopher or student. The fact was that the demand created the supply, and he wished to point out the fallacy of the policy which led to the capture of the temperance party whenever any legislation was proposed which seemed calculated to diminish the supply. Such proposals, of course, exactly suited the purposes of the trade, for the more the supply was diminished the more was the monopoly increased and the stronger became the vested interests of the drink trade. That was how this clause came into existence. There were two parties on the Licensing Commission, with an intermediate body. But when sensible Englishmen found themselves between two extremes, they were racially
  104
  and traditionally compelled to agree to a compromise. Consequently, when they I found the temperance party on the one side and the trade on the other united on a certain point, they at once thought the proposition indisputably proved, and gave it their support. Thus the unholy alliance worked against temperance, in the supposed interest of the temperance party and in the real interests of the drink trade, to the disadvantage of the public, by increasing the monopoly. What was the position of grocers' licences? It was the one bit of free trade left in the traffic. Of course, that would not be regarded by some as an argument in its favour. But look at the case of Liverpool. The Home Secretary cheered that observation. There was no such fanaticism as that of a convert, and the Home Secretary was a powerful, and, no doubt, a very genuine convert. In Liverpool it was free trade in liquor supplied on the premises; it was free trade in public houses; and they had no right to apply the same testto grocers' licences, which forbade the consumption of liquor on the premises. The merit of the grocer's licence was that it allowed competition: if a customer got a bottle of bad liquor at one shop he would go to another, and that fact alone compelled the sale of the good liquor instead of the bad liquor. Bad liquor was very much the parent of vice and crime, and if they abolished this last remnant of free trade, what would happen? There would be no guarantee of the goodness of the liquor, and secondly grocers' shops would be in the same position as public houses, and another monopoly, another system of tied houses, would be created. Let them remember how grocers' licences came into existence. They were brought in by Mr. Gladstone, and certainly that right hon. Gentleman's forecast had been justified by events. The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Refreshment Houses and Wine Licences Bill, said that, although fiscal considerations formed the immediate necessity for the measure, it was not based solely on fiscal grounds. It was a wise and good measure, not only as regarded the comfort of the people, but also in respect of the promotion of temperance and sobriety as opposed to drunken and demoralised habits. It

  105
  was as a measure of temperance that Mr. Gladstone defended the institution of grocers' licences, and ho himself was defending it as such that day. As a matter of fact, the grocer's licence was created contemporaneously with the Commercial Treaty with France, which introduced cheap French wines for the first time into this country in large quantities. That he believed to he a good thing, for if they taught a large number of people to prefer light wines to the strong, poisonous whisky now too often sold, it would be a movement in the direction of temperance. The grocer's licence enabled the humblest man in the land to get at a reasonable price a good bottle of mild, pure, French wine. It enabled people to get it without going into a public house for it. He put it to hon. Members: if people wanted to get drink for home supply, was it better they should get it from the grocer's shop or from the public house? There could be only one answer to that question. In the grocer's shop there were none of the poisonous and demoralising surroundings which too often characterised the public house. This was the first time a great trade had been attacked in Parliament without cause shown. Mr. Gladstone, to his dying day, was in favour of grocers' licences. He regarded the introduction of cheap French wines into this country as a legislative act which had been justified by the good results, and yet so blind were the ultra-temperance party to the true interests of temperance that they proposed to separate the liquor traffic from the grocers' licences. Sir Algernon West, who was most intimately associated with Mr. Gladstone, was a member of the Royal Commission on the Licensing Laws, and ho had recently written an article in the Nineteenth Century, in which he said—
  "The first serious difference of opinion arose on Lord Peel's proposal for the separation of the trades, which was tantamount to the abolition of what are popularly known in this country as grocers' licences. Now, lam sorry to say that I was old enough to recollect the origin by Mr. Gladstone in 1860. His object in establishing them was in the interest of sobriety, to make it unnecessary for any one requiring a bottle of wine or spirits to enter a public house, and he had also in view the encouragement, in this country of the consumption of the light wines of "France, in the pace of spirits or the heavier and more in taxicating wines of other countries. These
  106
  licences have been an unqualified success, and no untainted evidence, I thought, had been produced to the contrary. Ever since their establishment thirty-nine years ago, there had not been single complaint made of them to the Hoard of Inland Revenue, and, consequently, not a single prosecution had been taken against the so-called grocers for any infringement of the Excise Laws."
  Here they had a respectable body of I traders against whom no complaint had been made for thirty-nine years: and I without any case having been made out I against them, or any complaint from the Revenue, tin; Home Secretary, who had all the fanaticism of a convert, was, without the slightest warning, going to disorganise and imperil the whole trade. Sometimes a woman inclined to drink was able to supply her wants at the-grocer's shop, but from isolated cases of this kind they had no right to interfere, as they desired to do, with the grocers' licences. A drunken woman was a very strange horrible phenomenon in our social life. It was very hard to discover how she got her drink. It might be at the confectioner's, or even at the chemist? where she obtained some form of unholy narcotic. She might even get it by a subterfuge at the grocer's shop, but still the whole trade should not be imperilled because of such cases. It could not be said that any increase of intemperance could be attributed to the system of grocers' licences. Sir Harry Poland, one of the highest of licensing authorities, had expressed himself strongly against any interference with grocers' licences, while the late Sir John Bridge declared he did not believe the statement that women had a facility for getting drink connected with the purchase of food and other articles purchased otherwise than at a public house.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTONasked what the hon. Member was quoting from.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that his hon. friend the Member for South Belfast had the irrelevant mind of all fanatics on this question. If he was quoting, in the handy form of the pamphlet, evidence given before the Royal Commission, the question was not what he was quoting from, but whether the evidence was given or not. He might observe that Sir Algernon West was as good a Liberal as any man in the House, and he himself claimed

  107
  to be as liberal as any hon. Member. Then there was the evidence" Of Mr. G. Crispe Whiteley, Clerk to the Justices of the Newington Division of London, a personal friend of his own, and a sound, honest, upright, energetic Liberal. There were 441 "off" licenses in that district, and Mr. Whiteley was asked—
  "Can you tell us whether they have been a cause of disatisfaction in any way, or whether any particular complaint has come to your knowledge, arising out of that system of trading?"
  The answer was—
  "No, none whatever; complaints against 'off' licenses are extremely rare."
  Then Dr. Lawson Tait was asked a similar question, and his answer was—
  "I know nothing of the kind."
  He believed that there was no exception to the evidence that the grocers' licences had acted well; and that no complaint had been made against them. He would now refer to the evidence of the police officials. Mr. Malcolm Wood, Chief Constable of Manchester, was asked—
  "Have the police had any difficulty with those 551 "off" licences?"
  The answer was—
  "No, we have had no difficulty whatever with them."
  His hon. friend said that Mr. Wood was sacked; but was it because of anything that was incorrect in his evidence? because that was the only relevant question. Next, there was the evidence of Captain Nott-Bower, who, his hon. friend informed him, had been promoted. He was asked—
  "As far as you can form an opinion, have the police any idea if the trade done under those licences has in any way conduced to drunkenness?"
  The answer was—
  "No, I do not think it has. I have made many inquiries about it and I have found that the police almost universally consider that it has not."
  Then the question was put—
  "I am told that during twenty-five years—this comes from the resident 'off' licence holders—they have only known three cases of wine and spirit-selling grocers being summoned, and these were for keeping open late on Saturday night and Christmas Eve. Do you think that that would be a fair statement of the case?"
  Captain Nott-Bower answered—
  "I should think it probably would be."
  He would not weary the House with further quotations, but be could quote from Lord Kimberley, the late Archbishop of York, and The Times newspaper.
  108
  The last quotation he would give was from the Dally News. [An HON. MEMBER: Oh!] He did not see why hon. Members should protest against the Daily News. It was a very admirable and able organ of the Liberal Party, and it took up the Liberal view in regard to this question. It said:—
  "For moderate, self restraining, respectable people, the grocer's supply of drink is just the ideal thing. It is an economical system of distribution, and it is very convenient; and—what is a very important consideration—it involves no monopoly."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: What is the date?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that the curiosity of his hon. friend was extraordinary. The date was the 16th of January, 1902; which he thought was within the period in which the Daily News had the advantage of the political assistance of his hon. friend. The change of managership and ownership which had occurred since had not been in the direction of any diminution of regard for the temperance cause, for the present proprietor of the Daily News was one of the greatest advocates of temperance reform in the country. He begged the House to abstain from creating a further monopoly, and further tied houses. Already coming events were casting their shadows before, and if the clause were passed every grocer would hold his licence at the discretion of the justices. Tha meant uncertainity.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Hear, hear!
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid his hon. friend the Member for South Tyrone thought that uncertainty was desirable, but he thought it was very undesirable, because it struck at free trade and free competition, which were absolutely essential in the interests of the public. Some justices were just and reasonable, but did any one suppose that, if his hon. friend the Member for the Spen Valley, or men like him, were on the Bench, they would not use every power at their disposal to diminish grocers' licences? He did not blame them, but he thought they were misguided. He said nothing about the inconvenience to the

  109
  public; but if the Clause wore passed it would give grocers' licence a monopoly value they did not now possess. At present a grocer's licence had no particular value. But what would be the effect of the clause if passed? He had heard of a landlord who had already refused to renew a lease unless he got an increase if rout, on the ground that a monopoly value was to he given to the house. He appealed to the moderate section of the House to way that free competition and freedom from monopoly should be pre served, and that one more vested interest should not be added to existing monopolies.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid that when he Bill was before the Standing Committee he moved the rejection of the clause, but was fairly beaten on that occasion. He felt however, that the clause ought not to be in the Hill, but, in supporting the Amendment, be was not in the least opposed to the Bill as a whole, or to temperance reform. He was sun that his right hon. friend would admit that lie had done all he could in Committee to strengthen the Bill in the direction of temperance. He felt, however, that the clause now under discussion was not in the least calculated to promote temperance: and he believed that it would work, great deal of injustice, on which no adequate reason had been given to the House. The hon. Member who moved the omission of the clause and the hon. Member who had just Spoken, objected to it mainly on the ground that it would create another monopoly. He quite agreed with that, and would regret that another monopoly should be added to the existing monopolies, which were one to the worst features of she drink traffic. He opposed the clause also because it would inflict great injustice on the existing licence holders. It might be said that I he two positions were inconsistent but he ventured to say they were not it might be said that grocers whose licences were preserved would gain by the clause but grocers who had their licences taken away for no just reason and without compensation would suffer very great injustice. They would increase the value of one set of licences at the expense of another set and that he could not regard as just. What was the reason put forward by the Home Secretary in
  110
  support of the clause? He said that they should place all the various licences under one system; and he attacked a trade which had been carried on for thirty years without any evidence being produced that is had been attended with the slightest harm. There were pienty of old women's stories about the harm done by grocers' licences but he asked hon. Members who supported the clause to point to any evidence given before the Royal Commission, showing that any damage resulted from them. Why, therefore, was such a great change proposed in the conditions under which the trade has been carried on? His right hon. friend said that there was little fear that the existing licences would be taken away if the clause were passed He was not so sure of that. There were, as his hon. friend had said, justices and justices. There were justices who administered the law fairly and properly and who would not wish to interfere with the trade unless there were some real cause; but there were, other justices who, with the best motives, were influenced by preconceived opinions, and who would take every opportunity of interfering with the trade. He would ask his right hon. friend whether his attention had been called to a remarkable statement which had recently been made by a Southport magistrate, who said that when the Licensing Bill was passed no more grocers' licences would be granted in Southport and that a great number of the existing licences would be taken away. That was the spirit in which some justices would approach the matter if the clause were passed. He asked what guarantee was there that people who had been carrying on a perfectly legitimate trade from which no abuse was shown to result, would not lose their business without any compensation, simply and solely through the action of the House of Commons in foreign this clause through. Then his right hon. friend said that unless the clause were passed there would be an undue multiplication of grocers' licences. Was the Home Secretary aware how much it cost to take out. a grocer s licences? The smallest sum was £16, and generally it was £24; and it was most improbable that these licences would be increased to any very large extent, because the cost was prohibitive; and

  111
  certainly they would not increase beyond the point at which the trade was remunerative. If the Home Secretary would look at the figures he would find that these licences had not outstepped the increase of population during the thirty years they had been in existence. His right hon. friend relied largely on the fact that the one representative of the "off" licence holders on the Royal Commission, Mr. Grenling, voted for the recommendation which placed grocers' licences under the same control as other licences. But Mr. Grenling voted for that as part of the whole of the majority Report; and he voted on the clear understanding that if a grocer's licence were taken away for any cause except misconduct, there should be compensation. On page 52 of the Report it was stated:—
  "The scheme to be described presently includes in the scope of its operations all retail licences, i.e., 'off as well as 'on,' as contributories to the compensation fund and as liable to suppression under this scheme. This appears to be both desirable in itself and necessary to the satisfactory working of the reduction proposals."
  Why should those licences contribute to the compensation fund, if they were to be taken away without any compensation? The intention of the Commission was that those licences should share in the compensation fund; but the Home Secretary now proposed to change the whole character under which the trade was carried on, and to make grocers liable to the loss of their licences without any misconduct on their part, and without any compensation. Although he was a loyal supporter of the Government, he could not vote for the clause, because he thought it was quite uncalled for and inequitable, and that it would do injustice to a class of people who had carried on a perfectly legal business in a perfectly proper manner.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he had listened with great interest to the speech of his hon. friend the Member for the Scotland Division, but he wished to call his attention to a place called Ireland, and would give his actual experiences in the matter. He spoke for the benefit of his Irish friends on the other side of the House, who might be temporarily misled by
  112
  his hon. friend. Twenty years ago a grocer's licence in Ireland was exactly in the same position as such a licence was in England today. It was a purely Excise licence, and anyone could get it by paying a certain amount of money at the Custom House. The results became perfectly intolerable, and in 1900 a Bill was passed through both Houses of Parliament, with the full assent of the Irish representation in this House, and the Irish peers in the House of Lords, placing these "off" licences entirely under the control of the magistrates. That legislation cured a monstrous evil, and no one in Ireland had anything but good to say of it. No Irish Member would dream of proposing that that measure should be repealed. He merely rose in order to prevent his Irish friends from being misled by the eloquence of his hon. friend the Member for the Scotland Division, who, in the absence of the Irish Leader, was leading the Irish party. [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR dissented.] He hoped the Home Secretary would stand firm to the clause.
  MR. WHITTAKERsaid the clause was inserted in the Bill upon the unanimous recommendation of a Commission comprising all classes of the community. The position of the law with regard to the discretion of magistrates in relation to off-licences was at present in a state of confusion. Retail beer dealers holding off-licences were subject to the full discretion of the justices; spirit dealers with retail off-licences, if no other trade were carried on on the premises, were subject to no discretion, but if dealing in anything else were subject to a limited discretion; wine dealers retailing under an off-licence were not under any discretion, whilst beer retailers with an ordinary off-licence were under the full discretion of the magistrates, and, again, the justices had a limited discretion over spirit and wine retailers with an ordinary off-licence. It would thus be seen that an extremely inconsistent and illogical state of things prevailed with regard to off-licences. The Commission recommended that they should all be put on the same footing. The exemption of grocers' licences was not a specially-made exemption: it was a relic of a general rule. The practice of the House for the

  113
  last thirty years had been gradually to abolish the exemption of off-licences from the discretion of the justices. Prior to 1869 every off-licence was free so far as the justices' discretion was concerned. In that year the House gave the magistrates a certain limited discretion over wine and other licences, and in 1872 that discretion was extended to spirits and sweets. In 1880 they were given full discretion over beer dealers' retail licences, and in 1882, under the inspiration of the present Home Secretary, the justices were given full discretion over beer retailers' ordinary off-licences. The suggestion of this Bill was practically to put the remaining off-licences under the control of the justices. That was the unanimous recommendation of the Commission. The hon. Member for Tunbridge had suggested that this was part of a complete scheme with a re-constituted licensing authority, and was signed by the representative of the off-licence trade as such. But that gentleman made no such reservation, although it would have been quite easy for him to have affixed a foot-note to that effect. But even if it had been so, the re-constituted licensing authority would in all probability be a much more vigorous authority than the present, and be far more likely to deal strictly with these licences. This clause was carried upstairs by a majority of three to one. Reference had been made to the Report of the House of Lords Committee, which was 23 years old. Why go behind the Report of the Royal Commission on Licensing, which was unanimous in this matter and was a much more recent and important body? He admitted that the present system of licensing was unsatisfactory, but it was better than free trade. Liverpool tried free trade and found it disastrous. But in Liverpool of recent years there had been a substantial reduction in the number of licensed-houses, with the most satisfactory results. No really responsible person who understood the question was prepared to advocate free trade. Then it should be remembered that a large number of Benches of magistrates had passed resolutions asking that they should have this power conferred upon them, and he was surprised at the suspicion which was entertained of them in these matters. If they were of the character indicated they ought not to have control over any licences at all. Was it to be understood that only unsatisfactory licences
  114
  were to be under the control of the justices? That was a dangerous argument and would be a reflection on those licences which were already under their full discretion. The legislation of Mr. Gladstone had failed to accomplish what Mr. Gladstone desired, for the result had been that not only had the consumption of wine increased, but that of spirits had done so enormously. They had not diminished the consumption of spirits or beer by increasing the consumption of wine. They were told that it would give a monopoly value to these licences. That was inseparable from our policy of restriction. He admitted that the present system of licensing was not good, but these restrictions were better than no restrictions at all. Control involved monopoly. It was a choice of evils, but the position was clear that they must either have free trade or control, and if they had control they could not get rid of monopoly. The hon. Member for Tunbridge suggested that the majority Report of the Royal Commission recommended that discretion should not be given with regard to these off-licences unless compensation was arranged for. The hon. Member evidently had misunderstood the Report. That was a recommendation with regard to a special reduction scheme, by which they would buy these additional licences out, but it had nothing to do with the ordinary action of the magistrate. The Royal Commission recommended that these licences should be in the full discretion of the justices, and there was no reference to compensation except in regard to the special reduction scheme, and the hon. Member must have misunderstood the recommendation. This was not a question whether they would have these licences or public-houses, but whether they would have these licences as well as public-houses. He would also remind the House that putting these off-licences under the control of the justices did not necessarily mean abolishing them.
  If it were true that these grocers licences were so exceptionally convenient and desirable, and were so exceptionally respectable, surely the House could have sufficient confidence to allow the magistrates to control them, seeing that hon. Members believed that so little evil resulted from them. Surely such arguments as those would have weight with

  115
  any licensing Bench, and the magistrates would not be likely under those circumstances to abolish such licences. If there were licences which the licensing justices desired to do away with, they were now asked to prevent the justices from having power to get rid of licences which they thought were undesirable and injurious. In his opinion if there were any licences which the magistrates thought were undesirable they ought to have the power to get rid of them. He would remind hon. members that these grocers' licences enabled them to sell spirits as well as wine. While riding down to the City upon the "Twopenny Tube" he had been particularly struck with one advertisement of Gilbey's, announcing that they had no less than 3,000 agents selling a particular brand of Scotch whisky, and that would give them an idea of the nature of this trade.
  The off-beer licences were under the full control of the justices, and as they were given control over the sale of beer in this way, they should have the same control over spirits and wines. No inconvenience had resulted from the justices having control of the beer licences, and this proposal was to give them the same control over spirits and wine as they had over beer. He contended that additional facilities for the sale of intoxicating liquors were undoubtedly a temptation, and the real danger of these grocers' licences was that they placed the temptation to buy liquor in the way of a great number of women who would not go to public-houses to buy liquor. It had been said that no case had been made out against grocers' licences, but in his opinion the case made out against them was an extremely strong one. It had been said that there had been no complaints at the Inland Revenue about these licences, but they did not expect to find complaints in that quarter. They had also been told that no evidence against them had been given in the police courts, and that the evidence given by magistrates and constables was not against these licences. In his opinion these were not the people who saw the evil of these licences. The drinking did not take place in grocers' shops, but it took place in the home, and that was where the real injury was done. The
  116
  great increase of drunkenness in women had been caused by grocers' licences, and this statement was borne out by the evidence of clergymen and ministers and medical men who went into the homes of the people. It was mostly among the middle and upper classes that this evil existed.
  MR. DISRAELI: Why was this evidence not given before the Commission?
  Mr. WHITTAKERsaid that it was given by solicitors, keepers of inebriate homes and others, but of course it was difficult to get people to come forward to give detailed evidence of this kind, because it was too confidential. Could they expect a clergyman to go into the chair and expose what he had heard in private homes; or could they expect a medical man to tell what he had seen in those homes? Facilities for ordering drink exsited in regard to these licences which did not exist in connection with public-houses. The increase in the death-rate of women from intemperance was a very serious thing indeed. During the last twenty-five years the Registrar - General had given the death-rate from intemperance, and the figures were very remarkable, for they showed that the death-rate from intemperance had increased amongst all classes of the community. It might be said that this was largely due to improved diagnosis, but that would apply to the death-rate of both men and women, whereas there had been an enormous increase in the number of deaths from intemperance amongst women as compared with men. In the five years from 1875 to 1879 the death-rate amongst men from intemperance was 65 per million, and in 1895 to 1899 the average was 96 per 1,000,000, or an increase of 48 per cent. Amongst women the increase was from 24 per 1,000,000 in 1875–79 to 58 per 1,000.000, in the period between 1895 and 1899. That was an increase in the death rate from intemperance amongst women of 141 per cent., as compared with an increase of 48 per cent. in the death rate among men. That was a proof that there had been a great increase of drunkenness amongst women, and he should like hon. Members opposite

  117
  to account for that increase in any other way than by the facilities which had been afforded for drinking by means of grocers' licences. Those were terrible facts, borne out by hetestimony of medical men and keepers of inebriate homes. This Licensing Commission said there was a gigantic evil existing in their midst, which was a national degradation, and they declared that scarcely any sacrifice would be too great in order to cope with this evil. One unanimous recommendation of that Commission was that the justices should be given the control of these licences, and, therefore, he asked the House to support the most recent Commission in one of the most important recommendations they had made.
  Mr. DISRAELIsaid he had before followed the Member for Spen Valley in this Debate, and he hoped the hon. Member would not think him presumptuous when he said that he should always like to follow him when he used the same arguments. The Commission he had referred to took no evidence upon the points upon which the hon. Member had based his speech. Over and over again he had said that grocers' licences were responsible for the increased drinking amongst men and women. The hon. Member had not given them the slightest reason for that statement, and they would look in vain in the Report of the Royal Commission for evidence to bear out such a statement. He did not want to found his speech upon evidence concocted from the hearsay of different people.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Order, order! "Concocted" is not Parliamentary.
  Mr. DISRAELIsaid he could not take his Parliamentary manners from the hon. Member for East Clare. The hon. Member for Spen Valley had ignored the Report of the House of Lords Committee of 1879. That Committee examined many witnesses, and the conclusion they came to was that, on the whole, there was no sufficient ground for specially connecting intemperance with the retailing of spirits in shops, as contrasted with their retailing on other licensed premises. It
  118
  was perfectly true that this conclusion was come to 23 years ago, but there had been no change in the condition of things since that time which at all vitiated the force of that declaration. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had indulged in a few remarks which, in his opinion, might have been omitted, because this Bill did not deal at all with Ireland. The whole case for putting these licences under the justices must depend on one of two things—either that the licences had been abused, or that there was a great public demand that the change should be made. Report after report from chief constables and clergymen showed that these licences had not brought about drunkenness amongst the people of this country, and he looked with dread upon creating another monopoly. He hoped a Licensing Bill would be brought in which would be worthy of the Government; for this omnibus Bill, which dealt simply with clubs and other licensing matters, was not a Bill which was worthy of the Government at the present moment. When a new Government Bill was brought forward he hoped the great question of the licensing authority would be considered, for upon that everything depended and must hang. When the licensing authority was altered, then he thought that every kind of licence holder would willingly and readily come under that authority. He should vote against this proposal, because he felt that by adopting it they would be doing a great injustice, and the cause of temperance would be going back instead of forward, and they would be creating another Frankenstein for the Home Secretary to deal with, in the shape of another great monopoly, in the drink traffic which he would find it very difficult indeed to cope with.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that perhaps the hon. Member who had just sat down would pardon him for saying that the first part of his speech was contradicted by the latter part. He said that if this had been a comprehensive Measure and a good licensing Bill containing a proposal that all licences should be included, then, probably, he would have supported the Government.
  MR. DISRAELI: Yes, under a new authority.
  Mr. JOHN BURNSsaid the House of Commons had so few opportunities of dealing with the question of licensing and controlling a large trade, and supervising what many people had begun to believe was causing a deterioration of their national physique, and the embarrassment of our industrial supremacy which was threatening our commercial capacity, that they could not help seizing upon opportunities like this to vote for an instalment of temperance reform, even though they regarded it as a small stepping-stone. He ventured to submit that in trying to exclude grocers' licences from the purview of this Bill they were not acting as the friends of the publican. He contended that the man who sold liquor in a sealed bottle, probably to a young woman who went into the shop for tea and came out with whisky, should be subjected to exactly the same treatment in regard to control and supervision as the man who sold beer openly across a public-house bar and in an open quart pot. On the ground of equality of treatment, he protested against grocers' licences being exempted from the purview of this Bill.
  The hon. Member opposite had said that there was a wonderful lack of evidence in support of the evils which had been alleged against grocers' licences. He wished to remind the House that both the majority and the minority of the Royal Commission, although they did not have much evidence before them upon this point, certainly came to the decision that all licences, both publicans' and grocers', ought to come within the purview of some licensing authority. That decision was enough for him. He did not care much about the evidence, providing they could get a fair consensus of opinion that a grocer's licence ought to toe the same line as a public house licence. He respected that view himself, when it was not the view of nontemperance men, but the balanced judgment of a Royal Commission. It seemed to him that they ought to go a bit further than the hon. Member's statement as to the lack of evidence of this point. What did this Bill do? It provided that all clubs, whether they were the rich men's
  120
  clubs in Belgravia or the poor men's clubs in Battersea or Bermondsey, should receive equality of treatment. He thought it was very creditable to those clubs that many of them had willingly consented to be included in this Clause, and to come within the purview of this licensing authority for the purpose of checking abuses, in some clubs which were started for genuine purposes but had since become mere "boozing" shops. If they put the rich man's club and the poor man's club on the same level, and brought them within the purview of this Bill, he contended that they ought to bring the grocers' licences under the same authority. His point was that there had been no differentiation between the clubs for the rich and the poor, who would all have to toe the same line under this Bill.
  MR. DISRAELI: And the rich man's wine merchant should be in exactly the same position as the poor man's wine merchant.
  Mr. JOHN BURNSsaid that if the hon. Member moved that he should support him. He could not agree with the argument that there should be free trade in liquor advanced by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool. If there was a drink-cursed district in the whole Empire resulting from the remnants which prevailed of free trade in liquor, that place was Liverpool between 1856 and 1871. In this he thought the hon. Member for the Scotland Division was both inconsistent and illogical. If free trade in liquor did some good, why was the hon. Member not consistent, and why did he not vote for free trade in liquor to be made universal and apply to London as well as Liverpool. The hon. Member did not dare to advocate that, because past experience proved and demonstrated conclusively that control of the drink traffic had diminished drunkenness. The point made by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division was that demand created supply, and not that supply created demand in liquor. He had the honour of representing a working class constituency, which afforded many illustrations in regard to the temperance question. In one area within his constituency

  121
  there were 1,200 houses with a population of 11,000 men, women, and children. He was glad to say that on that estate, thanks to the prescience and moral courage of Lord Shaftesbury, there was not a single public house or beer shop and there was not a pawnbroker's shop, and poverty there was relatively unknown. But if they crossed the line from this estate there they would find public houses far too frequent, and he thought he deserved some credit for having pointed out the difference between these two districts in his own constituency. The difference was most remarkable. Whether they went to the doctors or the clergymen—most of whom were Tories—or to the relieving officers, the sick visitors, or the nurses, the universal testimony was that where they had an extraordinary supply of public houses and beer shops there was stimulated an unreasonable and unhealthy demand for liquor, which spread the disease to an extent which every man could see if he would have the honesty to be a fair observer. Let them go to the constituency of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division for an example. Liverpool since 1889 had added 78,000 to its population, reduced its cases of drunkenness from 16,000 to 4,180, and crime from 926 to 522 per 100,000 of the population. During that period Liverpool had reduced its number of policemen by 100, and this improvement had effected a saving of £8,000 per annum to the rates, simply by having got rid of 345 licensed premises in eleven years.
  Mr. T. P O'CONNOR: May I ask how many of these licences were grocers' licences?
  Mr. JOHN BURNSsaid his reply to that argument was that, if the same authority had had the power to reduce grocers' licences as the magistrates had had to reduce the number of public houses and beer houses, the reduction would have been considerably more.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is going a little too far in discussing the effect of ree rade in licences in Liverpool. The discussion must be confined to what arc called grocers' licences.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he had in his hand the statistics for the City of Glasgow. The Scotch were supposed to be the best educated people in the world. [Cries of "Hear, hear," and "Agreed."] He thought that was quite true. In Glasgow the convictions for drunkenness, as given by an hon. Member of this House, were 7,117 males and 5,122 females. What was the connection of those figures with grocers' licences? He himself had been a life-long temperance man, and to that extent he might be regarded as prejudiced, but he was asking for the inclusion of grocers' licences in this Bill, because the best of the wives and daughters of the working classes and the lower middle classes, who had hitherto possessed too much self-respect to be seen in a beer shop or a low-class public house, did not hesitate to purchase liquors at grocers' shops. Public opinion exercised upon these women in regard to frequenting public houses some restraint, and they were afraid to enter them because their relatives might be told about it. The result was that a class which had hitherto been exempt from the temptations of drunkenness were enabled, when the craving for drink seized them, to satisfy that craving by purchasing liquors at the grocer's shop. These women brought the drink home, and quietly and steadily degraded themselves with it in the privacy of their own homes, until the husband discovered it, when it was invariably too late, and at a period when personal restraint was impossible and moral suasion of no use, and when she was on the point of qualifying for an inebriates' home. As one who lived three doors from a public house and five doors from an establishment with a grocers' licence, he was convinced that, from the point of view of sapping the moral fibre of the lower middle class, and the best of middle-class women, he feared more the deadly influence of the drink obtained at the grocers' than the drink purchased by the women who honestly and above board went into a public house, purchased a glass of bitter or stout, and came out again. The publican was restrained from soiling women too much, but there was no such restraint in the case of purchases at the grocer's shop. He had just been reading a paragraph in the Pall Mall Gazette, although as a rule he did not

  123
  quote that journal as an authority. In this case, however, the Pall Mall Gazette was quoting a better informed paper, and it said—
  "In October, 1901, a doctor in great practice in the West End once said to me that where the public house slays its thousands the grocers' licence slays its tens of thousands."
  He believed that to be true. [An HON. MEMBER: What is the authority?] The extract he had read was from the Manchester Guardian, a paper which was better informed than the Globe and not so vulgar as the Pall Mall Gazette. He believed that the opinion of that doctor indicated the true state of things, and accounted for the great increase of drunkenness among women in Glasgow, Liverpool, London and elsewhere. He wished to point out how much more dangerous it was to have an increase of drunkenness amongst women than men.
  Anyone who read the report of the Adjutant General on recruiting or the Army Medical Report would be almost shocked at the way in which the physique of our town population was deteriorating. He believed that, apart from bad homes and bad food, apart from the slow arsenical poisoning from beer houses and public houses, much of the deterioration which these reports indicated arose from the fact that among the working class and the lower class drunkenness on the part of women was considerably on the increase. It was remarkable that this deterioration synchronised with the growth of grocers' licences. Grocers in this matter ought, therefore, to be placed under the same supervision as the licensed victualler, who was subject to penalties from which the grocer was now altogether exempt. He hoped, therefore, that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, now that a Conservative Government had had the courage to deal with this subject, would support them in making the grocers toe the same line with regard to licensing supervision as publicans, who, with all their faults, conducted their trade open and above board.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,): I do not propose, in the remarks I will address to the House, to enter into the larger questions which some hon. Members have touched
  124
  upon, because the mover and seconder of the Amendment have both frankly acknowledged that if they had their way they would have complete Free Trade in liquor all round.
  Mr. HARWOOD: I beg your pardon. I objected to this portion of the licensing trade passing into a monopoly.
  MR. RITCHIE: Both on the Second Reading of the Bill and the other night when the hon. Member spoke I gathered from him that he objected to restrictions of any kind. He thought that the best way in dealing with the liquor traffic was to make it free and open.
  Mr. HARWOOD: What I said was this. I objected to this remaining portion of the licensing field being a monopoly, at any rate until you have reformed the licensing authority in the way recommended by the majority and the minority of the Commission.
  Mr. RITCHIE: Well, I merely mention the impression made on my mind by the speech of the hon. Member on this Bill. But that does not really affect my point at all. The object which the Government have in view in proposing the moderate temperance reform which is embodied in the Bill was an object which I understood commended itself to all those who desire some advance in temperance legislation. This has not proceeded from what I shall call the extreme temperance party at all. [An HON. MEMBER: It is supported by them.] I suppose the extreme temperance party would gladly support anything moderate if they were sensible, in the way of temperance reform, and the object of the Government was to give effect where possible to those portions of the recommendations which were jointly made by both sections of the Royal Commission. The House will remember that the Royal Commission appointed some years ago made two Reports—a majority Report and a minority Report. The Government have been pressed from many quarters to legislate on the lines of the minority Report. That in my opinion was a demand which could not be in any way justified. It is not usual I think in legislation to deal with the recommendations of a Commission in that way. It is rather the

  125
  practice, if the recommendations are adopted at all, to deal with the majority rather than the minority Report. We endeavoured to take out of the majority and the minority Reports those matters which I might almost say were the common recommendation of both sections of the Commission, but we did that with some modifications. For instance, the minority Report dealing with grocers' licences proposed that at the end of a period of five years it should be no longer possible to give so called grocers' licences, that is to say, "mixed trade" licences. That was a recommendation which the Government could not feel that they were able to adopt, and certainly I should not be disposed to do so, because I do not join with those who utterly condemn grocers' licences. We do not ground our proposal on any argument of that kind as I shall endeavour to show in the few remarks I have to make. The majority Report, on the other hand, unanimously recommended that those licences should be put under precisely the same conditions as off beer licences were put under in 1882; that is to say, instead of its being practically obligatory on the part of the magistrates to grant those licences, they should have their full and free control in regard to the matter. That was the portion of the Report, therefore, which we proposed to follow, and we have dealt with the matter in precisely the way recommended by the majority of the Commission.
  Mr. HARWOOD:: May I ask whether the majority and the minority did not both recommend a revision of the licensing authority, and whether they did not recommend the dealing with the 30,000 off-beer licenses?
  MR. RITCHIE: They certainly recommended a revision of the licensing authority, but I am astonished that the hon. Gentlemen who are opposed to this Bill should think for a moment that that portion of the recommendation would have been advantageous to the interests they are endeavouring to promote. Moreover, if the hon. Gentlemen will be good enough to look at the majority Report of the Royal Commission, they will find that this portion of the recommendation was in no respect contingent upon a reform m the licensing
  126
  authority. The Commission recommended, with reference to grocers' licences that in all of them "full magisterial control and discretion should apply." Where is there anything said about changing the authority there? The Commission recommend not that they should be put under a new authority, but under full magisterial authority, and therefore when the hon. Gentleman argues that this should be taken together with a reform of the licensing authority he is arguing something which he is not justified in arguing from the report of the Commission. Let us see what was the composition of the majority who made this Report. I understand that our proposal is supposed to be objectionable both to grocers and to the trade generally. Sixteen members signed the majority Report on this point: eight of these were trade representatives; seven were neutral; and one temperance. The trade members consisted of three brewers for England and Wales, one brewer for Scotland, two licensed victuallers, one off licence holder, and one distiller from Ireland. That was the composition of that portion of the Commission which recommended the plan we are now proposing to the House. It was unanimous. Although some members of the Commission made reservations with regard to some of the points with respect to which they signed the Report, there was not one of the members who made the smallest reservation to what they proposed in this matter. It is a very striking fact that there was one member who was put on for the express purpose of representing those grocers' licences, and he was the member of the firm that has been instrumental in organising opposition to the Clause. He signed the Report of the Commission which recommended the very plan we are now proposing to the House.
  Mr. GRETTON: The majority recommended a revision of the licensing authority.
  MR. RITCHIE: He signed the Report I am quoting, and the recommendation was that those licences should be dealt with in the way we propose, and there was no question whatever of a change of the licensing authority involved in that portion of the Report which I am now dealing with. I have

  127
  shown that you have the unanimous recommendation of the majority, upon which the trade was fully represented, and that the representative of the off-licence holders signed the Report without qualification. Our proposal has also been supported by a large number of County Councils, a large number of standing joint committees; and forty towns in England desire to be represented on a deputation urging me to proceed with the proposal in the Bill. I need hardly say that hundreds of public meetings, and all the temperance societies throughout the country are also in favour of the proposal. May I say also that a very remarkable report was made by the Justices of Manchester? In their annual report for 1901 they strongly urge that we should adopt the plan we are now proposing. I have said that we do not base this proposal upon the allegation which has been made with regard to the conduct of the houses which are dealt with. I may, say with regard to what has been said by the hon. Gentleman opposite as to there being no police complaints against them that that is easily accounted for. It is because police supervision is engaged mainly with disorderly conduct. Clearly there cannot be that kind of disorder which would attract the attention of the police in cases where licences are simply off-licences. I say, when it is pleaded that this Act should not apply to grocers' licences because there are no complaints against the houses, that we do not base our argument upon that at all. With regard to the intemperance of women, it cannot be gainsaid that it has grown with great rapidity during the last twenty years or so, and in that period grocers' licences have just about exactly doubled. How has the mortality from intemperance gone on both in men and women during the last twenty years? According to the Registrar General's Returns for the twenty years ended in 1896 it increased by 104 per cent. on the part of women, and only 43 per cent. on the part of men. During that time grocers' licences grew from about 5,000 to over 10,000. It is a very curious fact that grocers' licences have grown in almost exact proportion to the intemperance in women. As has been stated more than once in the House, there is no doubt that medical opinion is strongly in favour of some legislation on this matter. It
  128
  has been stated by an able medical journal, the Lancet, that there ha; been a great growth of intemperance among women in consequence of grocers' licences sowing the seeds of intemperance among them, which have led to very disastrous results. Surely my hon. friend will not think it unfair on my part that I should quote the increase with reference to women if it be the case at all that there is any connection between the two. Surely, it is a strong argument that some attempt should be made to stop the increase of those licences which may lead to very serious results in regard to intemperance among women. The House of Lords Committee's Report of 1879 has been quoted. It has been said that the House of Lords Committee in their Report did not recommend that there should be any change made in the matter, but they go on to say something which is very rarely quoted. That Committee said—
  "Should the evils, however, apprehended by some witnesses from the multiplication or abuse of these licences, eventually occur, it may become the duty of the legislature to consider what further restrictions should be imposed on their issue."
  I contend that, these licences having doubled since the Lords Committee of 1879 reported, it is high time that the House should be asked to put some check on the increase which may take place, unless some steps, such as are proposed, are adopted by the House. Where is it that the opposition to these proposals proceeds from, mainly? It is assumed, in discussing the question of grocers' licences, that every grocer conducts his own business on his own foot, and that he has invested large capital in this business, which is now to be interfered with. As a matter of fact, it is perfectly notorious that an immense number of these licence holders are mere agents for a large wine and spirit house. It is well known to every Member of this House. [An hon. Member: "Why not?"] I am stating a fact, and it is no answer to the reasons which I have brought forward for the Clause that if these licences are interfered with, it will be a great hardship to those who are conducting their business on their own account.
  Mr. HARWOOD: That is not my case. I care not two straws about that.
  MR. RITCHIE: I am alluding to a notorious fact that this opposition, which is supposed to come from many quarters, really comes from one centre. An hon. friend of mine in this House told me the other day that he had four telegrams from his constituency asking him to vote against this proposal with regard to grocers' licences. He told me he sent down to his agent in the country asking him to find out who these men were. He wrote to him that every one of these men were the agents of the firm to which he alluded. I believe that is the general experience of those who have received representations on this matter, namely, that they proceed from one centre, and that they proceed from those persons who placard every tramcar in the Metropolis that they have no fewer than 3,000 agents among grocers. I am merely stating a fact, and I am arguing from that that it is not the case that in dealing with these licences we are dealing with a vast number of persons who have embarked their capital in this business. In many cases the stock which the grocers have is not their own, and the firm for whom they are agents pay the licence duty and practically conduct the business. It is said that these licences are to be abolished. That is not the case at all. The Act of 1882 places "off" beer licences under the control of the magistrates. The number of these licences in 1882 was about 19,000, and the number which existed in 1901 was 18,865, so that the Act did not, as it was said it would, sweep them all away, What the Act did do was to stop the increase of these licences, which had been going on with great rapidity, and they were not dealt with in the rough and ready way which the hon. Gentleman said they were. A question has been asked as to whether a grocer whose present licence is taken away by the local bench would have a right of appeal. The Government have inserted a sub-Clause granting an adequate appeal. Not one single complaint has ever been made against the Act of 1882, and all that we propose is to deal with the grocers' licences in precisely the same way, and place them under the same control, as the beer licences. The question which the House has got to
  130
  decide is whether they should ignore the joint Report of the two sections of the Royal Commission on this particular point, and practically to say that these licences should go on increasing indefinitely. The result of such an increase has been pointed out by many benches of magistrates who are endeavouring to meet the evils due to such a large extent to an excess of licensed houses in their district. By arrangement a great diminution has been effected in the number of these licences in various parts of the country, and this with the perfect good-will of the brewers, who have found their ex penses greatly diminished thereby. Yet these efforts are largely neutralised by the fact that "off" licences can multiply almost without check. Having regard to the fact that this Clause is based on the Report of the Royal Commission, that it is in strict accord with previous legislation, and that it is demanded by all classes of people in the country — by county councils, magistrates, joint committees of county councils, and by temperance associations of all kinds — I have no hesitation in asking the House to pass this moderate measure of temperance legislation, which will inflict no hard-ship on any one, and will be a very considerable step in the direction of temperance.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid he regarded this Clause as an endeavour to cripple a most respectable trade by means of fresh legislation. The Home Secretary had made an attack upon the firm of Messrs. Gilbey because they had organised an opposition to this Clause in the belief that it would injure their trade. The right hon. Gentleman said that certain Members of the House had received four telegrams from Messrs. Gilbey urging them to vote against the Bill. But he maintained that that respectable firm, in so doing, were only exercising their undoubted right and privilege in endeavouring to place the views of the trade fairly before the House. He was not going to take any notice of the right hon. Gentle-

  131
  man's taunt, and would vote according to his conviction. They had heard from the outspoken Member for Battersea that drink was the curse of the English nation; but that was a fault which all of them hoped would be cured in time. Another hon. Member had enlarged on the evils of drink, and said that the present licensing system was illogical and confusing, and that what was wanting was uniformity. That was true, but why should they fall on the grocers' licences in order to obtain uniformity? The hon. Gentleman had said that there was no evidence before the Royal Commission in regard to the habit of drinking by women, but that if the doctors or the heads of inebriate homes were consulted it would be found that women and children were the principal sufferers from the grocers' licences. If that were so, why did not he and his friends go before the Royal Commission and have that evidence inserted in the Blue-book? If there was a direct connection, as the Home Secretary had alleged, between female drunkenness and female mortality and grocers' licences, they ought not to adopt the medium course proposed by the Bill but to abolish them altogether. He regretted very much having to vote, against his colleague, but he would certainly do so, in the belief that they were not acting very fairly by this Clause to this particular trade.
  Mr. LAWSON WALTONsaid he should like to say a few words in reference to this question from an entirely neutral point of view. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Battersea that while the publicans had made their hundreds off drunkards, the grocers had made their thousands. He did not intend to vote for this Clause on the
  132
  ground that he thought it would involve the complete extinction of all those grocers who were carrying on an extremely important trade. He was actuated by no such reason. He agreed that this question should be logically dealt with. The alternative to the proposition in the Clause had been admirably stated by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division and the hon. Member for Bolton. The Amendment raised the old controversial issue between free and regulated trade, and they had in a new form to discuss over again a question which had agitated Parliament for over 300 years, viz., whether the liquor trade in the various developments which it had exhibited as society changed its form should, or should not, be subjected to some measure of regulation. Let him ask the House what were the reasons by which Parliament had been guided in regulating the trade in liquors, and vesting the control of the trade in justices of the peace. If any one looked at the Acts of Parliament passed under the Stuarts, it would be found that the object with which this control was given to the magistrates was to check drunkenness, and to prevent "the haunting of inns and tippling houses." They were now dealing with the sale of intoxicating beverages in depots which were not places of public resort, but places where ordinary retail trade was carried on. If it had been demonstrated in fact that the trade conducted at the places in question tended to promote drunkenness, there was a case within principles which had been consistently applied for supporting this Clause, In 1882 Parliament passed a Statute which gave the justices absolute discretion in regard to off-licences dealing with the trade in beer. Was there any opponent of this Clause ingenious enough to suggest a logical distinction, that could

  133
  be expressed in intelligible terms, by which beer could be placed in one category and spirits in another? By the Statute passed in 1882 the justices had absolute discretion with regard to all off-licences relating to the trade in beer, and, therefore, before the grocer could sell his bottled beer he had to submit the conduct of that trade to the discretion of a bench of magistrates. If it was right in 1882 to give the justices absolute discretion in regard to the sale of beer, it might well be said that twenty years afterwards the same necessity had arisen to regulate the trade in spirits, which was probably more injurious than the trade in beer. No doubt beer was formerly more likely to encourage drunkenness than spirits were, but it did not follow that that was the case today. He submitted that the recommendations of the Royal Commission, coupled with the fact that the legislation of 1882 created a precedent, logically committed the House to extend the provisions of that Act, and to leave the control of grocers' licences to the judicial discretion of the magistrates. They could not leave the law as it now stood. It was illogical and inconsistent, and led to the growth of an evil which could not be checked, and therefore when the Government came forward in courageous opposition to a large body of feeling among their own supporters, he trusted that they would receive the support of every Member on the Liberal benches.
  Mr. CRIPPSsaid he should like to take the same attitude as the Home Secretary in limiting the discussion to the Amendment before the House, because if they followed his hon. and learned friend opposite they would open a very large field of inquiry.
  134
  He thought it was extremely important to see on what grounds the Home Secretary justified the proposals contained in the present Bill, and also to see how far he had dealt with the objection legitimately raised to his proposed means of treating grocers' licences. There were only two arguments used in favour of the Home Secretary's proposals, and neither of them was sound, or would justify the proposal in the Bill. The Home Secretary imagined that those Members who were opposed to the particular method of dealing with grocers' licences were influenced by one or two telegrams which they had received from their constituents. It was a paltry suggestion that they could be influenced one iota by these telegrams.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid that what he had stated was that the organisation against the Bill had been got up by Messrs Gilbey. He did not mean to imply for a moment that hon. Members took up an attitude contrary to their convictions.
  MR. CRIPPS: He accepted at once what had been said by the Home Secretary that no hon. Member was in the least likely to be influenced by those telegrams; and he did not know why they had been referred to at all. The other argument used by the Home Secretary was based on the recommendations of the majority Report of the Royal Commission. He would, first of all, point out that what was proposed in the Bill was nothing like the recommendations of the majority Report. But apart from the Royal Commission altogether, they had perfect liberty in questions of that kind to argue the matter out, and discover what the truth was. Did the majority Report really recommend what was in the Bill? He said certainly not.

  135
  The proposal in the Bill was simply to put grocers' licences on the same footing as ordinary licences. That differed in three very important respects from the proposal in the majority Report. First of all, the Report proposed an alteration in the tribunal. He was not saying a word against the magistrates, but it was the manner in which the law was administered, especially in licensing cases, that was important, as there were no fixed rules for the guidance of the tribunal. It was of importance in giving new control to consider the character of the body to whom it was given, and it seemed to him absurd, if he might say so, to call in the aid of the majority Report of the Royal Commission when an essential part of that Report was to alter the controlling authority, which it was not proposed to alter in the Bill.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid that surely his hon. friend had not the words of the Report in his mind. It distinctly said "magisterial."
  MR. CRIPPSsaid it was a question of the conditions under which the control was exercised. The Royal Commission very rightly reported a suggestion by which the vast amount of prejudice so often introduced into licensing cases might be minimised. Magistrates did not always act in what he might call a judicial spirit; and the conditions oftentimes did not permit of judicial test. He maintained that it would be an immense alteration if the majority Report were brought into force, as regarded the body by which the so-called control was to be exercised. The grocers' licences were selected because they were the least able to protect themselves between the trade on the one side, and the teetotal
  136
  party on the other. The Home Secretary had taken the line of least resistance, when he omitted to deal with the ante-1869 beer houses from which the real evil arose. The Royal Commission stated in the strongest terms that where the conditions of a trade were altered to its detriment, that ought to be coupled with a measure of compensation. From a Conservative point of view, that was an extremely important consideration. He did not want to give up the principle which was the essence of Conservative feeling on the subject, and where there were recommendations detrimental to a particular trade, there ought to be compensation. The opposite was in his opinion a gross interference with the rights of a minority, because a particular trade was always in a minority. Therefore, it seemed to him absurd, when they found a proposal in a Bill based on the majority Report, that the substantial recommendations of that Report, which differentiated it from the minority Report, should have been omitted altogether. Anyone reading the two Reports would come to the conclusion that the proposals in the Bill were based on the minority Report, and substantially on the minority Report only. The majority Report was in favour of control with compensation.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid he denied that the majority Report contained, with reference to the point now under discussion, any proposal for compensation as regarded grocers' licences. When dealing with full licences they said there should be full compensation. When dealing with ante-1869 beer houses, they said there ought to be compensation; but when they dealt with the question of putting grocers' licences under full magisterial control, there was not a single word about compensation.
  MR. CRIPPSsaid he could only differ with the Home Secretary on the point, as in his opinion no one could read the majority Report without seeing that it said a great deal about compensation for grocers' licences. They had dealt with it in a double form. They said that grocers' licences were to be contributories to the compensation fund, and were to have the benefit of that fund if their just interests were interfered with. He agreed that they ought not to benefit remaining licences, and that, therefore, the remaining licences ought to provide the compensation fund themselves. Nothing could be more just than that principle; it was the principle adopted in the majority Report and applied specifically to grocers' licences. What was the nature of the business carried on under grocers' licences? It was a business of the most harmless kind, and nothing had been proved as regarded its general conduct. It enabled people to be more temperate and more moderate, by escaping the temptations of the public-house, and by providing them with drink which they could enjoy at home. No harm had been proved against that class of licence, and not a word in the majority Report suggested that they had not been properly carried on. He begged the Home Secretary to read the majority Report again. From beginning to end of it there was no allegation of any sort or kind against grocers' licences. He need not go into sententious platitudes as to how they all abominated drunkenness as a crime in itself, and the mother of still worse crimes. They were all agreed as to that. But where they had a trade harmlessly conducted, were they going to interfere with it because of isolated cases of individual misconduct. If that principle were adopted, every free trade in the country
  138
  would disappear. Were they going to stop the butcher or the baker? No more had been proved against grocers licences than against any other legitimate trade in the country. Let them punish any licencee heavily who misconducted himself, but it was the worst possible principle of legislation to attack a whole trade or trade interest, merely because of individual cases of misconduct. As to the question of one control, there was, as a matter of fact, one control up to a certain point. No grocers' licence could be obtained unless the magistrates were satisfied both as to the character of the individual and the character of the premises in which the trade was to be carried on. Those were the two guarantees that were required. If greater protection against misconduct were required, no one would object to it. But that was not what was proposed in the Bill. They proposed to interfere with a legitimate trade against which no general case had been established, either with reference to its conduct or to its effect on the public. He appealed to Conservative feeling in the House not to attack a particular trade which was conducting a harmless business in a moderate manner. A trade of that kind should not be interfered with, unless some substantial case was made out against it. It certainly should not be interfered with on the flimsy pretence of individual cases of misconduct, which proved nothing at all, except as against the individuals concerned.
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid he thought many hon. Members and the public at large were very much indebted to the Government for taking

  139
  up what had always been a thorny question; and he felt that they ought to give the Government their support in the very moderate scheme of temperance reform they had put before the House. His hon. and learned friend who had just spoken prefaced his observations by saying that he did not think it was a case in which they ought to apply the principles of logic, and he certainly has carried that out. His hon. and learned friend asked why should they interfere with a trade properly carried on, and if they did interfere with it, why should they not also interfere with the butcher and the baker? That was to say that his hon. and learned friend desired to re-open the settled policy of the country in regard to intoxicating liquor. His hon. and learned friend's argument really
  re-opened the whole question, and if carried to its logical conclusion, it would mean Free Trade all round. Parliament had decided, however, that that trade should he kept under magisterial control. He asked, Would any hon. Member attempt to show why in that matter beer and spirits should be dealt with differently, and why one should be under control and the other should not? He ventured to think that no reason whatever had been shown why they should not support the Government in this very useful legislation with reference to temperance.
  (11.55.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 298; Noes, 68, (Division List No. 248.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Bull, William James

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Burns, John

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Allan, William (Gate-head)

  Butcher, John George

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Allen, Charles P.(Glouc., Stroud

  Caine, William Sproston

  Doogan, P. C.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Caldwell, James

  Doughty, George

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

  Cameron, Robert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Carson. Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

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

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

  Ellis, John Edward

  Balfour, RtHnGerald W.(Leeds

  Chamberlain, J. Austen(Worc'r

  Emmott, Alfred

  Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christen.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Chapman, Edward

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Beach, RtHn. SirMichael Hicks

  Charrington, Spencer

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C.B.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Beresford, Lord Chas. William

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

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

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

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

  Ffrench, Peter

  Bigwood, James

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Finch, George H.

  Bill, Charles

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Black, Alexander William

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Blundell, Colonel Heney

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  FitzGerald, Sir RobertPenrose-

  Boland, John

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  Flower, Ernest

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W

  Brassey, Albert

  Crean, Eugene

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

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Crossley,. Sir Savile

  Gilhooly, James

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Runciman, Walter

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Russell, T. W.

  Grant, Corrie

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stop ford-

  Green, Walford D(Wednesbury

  M' Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Greene, Sir EW(BryS Edm'nds

  M'Govern, T.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Sehwann, Charles E.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Scott, Chap. Prestwich (Leigh

  Hain, Edward

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G.(Mid'x

  Maxwell. W.J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Sinclair, Louis (Rom ford)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

  Harris Frederick Leverton

  Morgan. David J(Walth'mstow

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Spear, John Ward

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R.(Northants

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.

  Murnaghan, George

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Helder, Augustus

  Murray, John

  Stock, James Henry

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

  Stroyan, John

  Henderson, Alexander

  Murray. Charles J. (Coventry)

  Strutt, Hon. Chas. Hedley

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Sullivan, Donal

  Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hope, J.F. (Sheffied, Brightside, E

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid

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

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan. E.

  Hormman, Frederick John

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

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastings

  Howard, Jno.(Kent Faversham

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Thompson, DrEC(Monagh'n, N

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

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

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Parker, Gilbert

  Tomkinson, James

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Partington, Oswald

  Toulmin, George

  Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Joyce, Michael

  Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley

  Walton, John Lawson(Leeds, S.

  Lambert, George

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Langley, Batty

  Pilkington, Lieut. -Col. Richard

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Laurie, Lieut. -General

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Plummer, Walter R.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Whitley, George (York, W. R.

  Lawson, John Grant

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Whiteley, H (Ashton-und. Lyne

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Randles, John S.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Leamy, Edmund

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Farcham

  Rea, Russell

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Reckitt, Harold James

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

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Wilson, Fred, W.(Norfolk, Mid.

  Leng, Sir John

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

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

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Renwick, George

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

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Rickett, J. Compton

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

  Lloyd-George, David

  Ridley. Hn. M. W.(Staly bridge

  Wood, James

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

  Rigg, Richard

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Lough, Thomas

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wyndham, Rt, Hon. George

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Lundon, W.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES,

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Ropner, Colonel Robert

  Sir William Walrond and

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Mr. Anstruther

  NOES.

  Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bond, Edward

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Austin, Sir Joha

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  142

  143

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Purvis, Robert

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  John stone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Cremer, William Randal

  Leigh, Bennett, Henry Currie

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Reddy, M.

  Delany, William

  Lowe, Francis William

  Robinson, Brooke

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Roche, John

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Kean, John

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L..

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Rutherford, John

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'r H'ml 'ts

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

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

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Thornton, Percy N.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Tully, Jasper

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

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

  Ure, Alexander

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

  O'Cornor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Grenfell, William Henry

  O'Dowd, John

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

  Gretton, John

  O'Malley, William

  Groves, James Grimble

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Mr. Harwood and Mr.

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Disraeli.

  It being after Midnight, Further Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), stood adjourned till Friday.

  FOOD AND DRUGS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. JOYCEsaid that certain assurances had been given to the Irish Members in connection with the Bill. He wished to know if they were carried out.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HANBURY,)said he had promised that the Irish salt firkin butter trade should not be dealt with in the Bill.
  Mr. JOYCEasked if that promise had been carried out.
  Mr. HANBURY: Certainly.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday.

  TRAINING COLLEGES (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "giving (1) the names of the Training Colleges in Ireland,
  144
  whether under the management of the National Board or under local management, on behalf of which application was made to the Commissioners of National Education within the last three years to sanction an increase in the number of King's scholars which each such College was authorised to admit to training; (2) the number of King's scholars in each such case which each such College was authorised to admit at the time of the above application; (3) the increased number of King's scholars asked to be authorised for admission in each case; (4) the decisions of the Commissioners of National Education in each case, giving if the decision was favourable, the increase authorised in each case."—(Mr. Boland.)

  ILLNESS OF THE KING.
  On the Motion for adjournment—
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have just received the following satisfactory information:—" The King continues to make satisfactory progress."
  Adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.