Sitting of 22 June 1903

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

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, viz.: Maryport Harbour Bill [Lords]; Chatham and District Light Railways Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  PRIVATE BILL PETITIONS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of
  38
  Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz., North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.: Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
  Harrow and Stanmore Gas Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  South Shields Corporation Bill; Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Sewerage Board Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Wirral Railway Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Exeter Corporation Bill [Lords], read a second time, and committed.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 18) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Castleblaney, Keady, and Armagh Railway (Extension of Time) Bill. Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill. Ordered, That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee on the North Eastern Railway Bill, 1897, be referred to the Committee on the Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill of this Session.—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  Erith Tramways and Improvement Bill. Reported from the Police and Sanitary Committee, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill, without Amendment.
  Coal Mines (Certificates) Bill, with an Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to Musical Copyright." [Musical Copyright Bill (Lords).]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to Justices of the Peace with respect to residence, to qualification of Solicitors, and to the removal of ex-officio Justices." [Justices of the Peace Bill (Lords).]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Bolsover and District Water, Goring and Streatley District Water, Leatherhead and District Water, Ludgershall Water, and Mid-Kent Water." [Water Orders Confirmation Bill (Lords).]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Bournemouth Gas and Water Company to acquire additional lands, to construct works, and for other purposes." [Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill (Lords).]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the city of Bristol to construct additional dock railways and works; and for other purposes." [Bristol Corporation Bill (Lords).]
  And also, a Bill intituled, "An Act to enable the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Salford to construct an additional tramway, and to adapt and use portions of tramway outside the borough, and to make street improvements, to provide for transfer to the Corporation of certain powers of
  40
  electric lighting, and to raise additional moneys by mortgage and by the creation and issue of stock, and for other purposes." [Salford Corporation Bill (Lords).]
  Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill [Lords]; Bristol Corporation Bill [Lords]; Salford Corporation Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 253.]

PETITIONS.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.
  Petitions against: from Stafford; Broadstairs; and Westminster; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL, AND LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL.
  Petitions against: from Heywood; and Preston; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against: from Basingstoke; and Sydmonton; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
  Petition from Cowdenheath, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
  Copy presented, of List of all Pensions granted during the year ended 31st March, 1903, and payable under the provisions of Section 9 (1) of the Civil List Act, 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 213.]
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 16th June, 1903, granting to Henry Upton, Sorter, Post Office, London, a retiring allowance under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (DANGEROUS AND UNHEALTHY INDUSTRIES).
  Copy presented, of Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by Chester Jones, Esquire, Barrister-at-Law, on the Draft Regulations (October, 1902) proposed to be made for Factories and Workshops in which the process of file-cutting by hand is carried on [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (DANGEROUS AND UNHEALTHY INDUSTRIES).
  Copy presented, of Regulations, dated 19th June, 1903, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in pursuance of Section 79 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, for the process of file-cutting by hand [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (SPECIAL EXCEPTION—OVERTIME, CHRISTMAS CARD MAKING).
  Copy presented, of Order, dated 18th June, 1903, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department with regard to the overtime employment of women in the making of Christmas and New Year Cards [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 17th June—Mr. Lambert]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 214.]
  DOGS REGULATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1865.
  Account presented, of the Receipts and Expenditure under the Act for the year 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 215.]
  FINES, ETC. (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Abstract of Accounts of Fines accounted for by the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks for 1901 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 216.]

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos.
  42
  3001 to 3005 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House.

  CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (LONDON).
  Further Return relative thereto [ordered 2nd August, 1894—Mr. Francis Stevenson]; to be printed. [No. 217.]
  PUBLIC RECORDS (DISPOSAL OF DOCUMENTS).
  Copy of Additional Rule under the Public Record Office Acts, 1877 and 1898, for the disposal of certain Documents [by Act].
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Cliffe Creek Coastguard Vessel.
  MR. STEVENSON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, seeing that the Cliffe Creek watch vessel contains, in addition to seven coastguardsmen, six wives and eleven children, and that it lies about twenty yards from the shore and several miles from any school and from any doctor, he will state whether its presence where it is now, is necessary in the interests of the public service; and whether some method can be devised by which more comfortable conditions for the men's families might be secured.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The presence of the coastguard at Cliffe Creek is necessary in the interests of the public service. It has for some time been recognised that the accommodation in the watch vessel is not very suitable for families, and it has therefore been decided to abolish it, and to substitute coastguard buildings on shore. The matter has to be considered with other urgent items, and it is intended to erect the new station when funds are available for the purpose.

  Importation of Argentine Cattle—Foot and-mouth Disease.
  MAJOR RASCH: To ask the hon. Member for North

  43
  Hunts, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the landing of cargoes of Argentine animals, at sea when the recent prohibition order was issued, is now complete; how many cargoes have been landed; in how many cases animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease have been detected; and what precautions were taken to prevent the spreading of infection.

  Name of Vessel.

  Date of Arrival.

  Place of Landing.

  Animals carried.

  Animals certified as diseased.

  Cattle.

  Sheep.

  Cattle.

  Sheep.

  SS. "Heathglen"

  7 June

  Deptford

  300

  1388

  75

  54

  SS. "Normandy"

  10 June

  Birkenhead

  112

  920

  —

  73

  SS. "Virgil"

  29 May

  Deptford

  260

  1041

  —

  32

  All the vessels were boarded at the earliest possible moment by a veterinary inspector, by whom a preliminary examination of the animals was made, a detailed examination being carried out on the arrival of the vessel at the wharf. Healthy cargoes were dealt with in the usual manner, the animals being slaughtered within ten days and without leaving the wharf, the manure, broken fodder, etc., being mixed with quicklime. Diseased cargoes were subjected to special precautions. The animals were placed in a part of the wharf specially reserved for the purpose, and slaughter was proceeded with continuously until finished. Slaughtermen and all employed about the infected cargoes were provided with overall clothing, and each man, on leaving the infected portion of the wharf, was thoroughly fumigated, his boots and implements being washed in a solution of carbolic acid. The hides and skins of the animals were disinfected in a similar manner and removed to the tanyards under supervision. The offals, heads, and feet were either destroyed by fire, or immersed in a strong disinfecting solution. Dung, litter, broken fodder, and the sweepings from the lairs and slaughterhouses were disinfected with carbolic acid, well mixed with quicklime, and afterwards discharged into the sea beyond the three-mile limit. Those portions of the wharf
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) Thirty-one vessels carrying Argentine cattle, destined for ports in Great Britain, were at sea when the order of the Board of Agriculture prohibiting such importation came into force. All of these have now arrived. Lesions of foot-and-mouth disease in more or less active stages were found in the case of three cargoes, particulars of which are shown in the following schedule:—
  with which infected cargoes came into contact were thoroughly disinfected with carbolic acid and quicklime. Two of the ships after discharging their cattle, left for Antwerp and Dunkirk, the authorities there being warned by cable that animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease had been carried. The third vessel, before going into dock, was taken seven miles out to sea, where her temporary fittings were destroyed by fire, the manure thrown overboard, and such portions of the ship as had been in contact with animals thoroughly disinfected under the supervision of one of the Board's inspectors. Everyone on board, before being allowed ashore, was thoroughly fumigated and his boots washed with a carbolic solution.

  Wheat Cultivation in India.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state the approximate acreage of the land suitable for wheat-growing in the Empire of India; how much of it is under wheat cultivation at the present time; and how much wheat was exported from India in 1846 and in 1902.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The area under wheat in British India averages about 20,000,000 acres, and in Native States about

  45
  2,500,000 acres. It is not possible to say to what extent this area could be increased by substituting wheat for other crops. This would only be practicable in wheat-growing districts, and in them only on lands of the best class where the soil, rainfall, and facilities for irrigation were suitable. Such lands are already occupied by valuable crops. In 1846 there was no export of wheat from India. In 1901–2 10,296,000 cwts. of wheat and 720,000 cwts. of flour were exported.

  Licensed Premises in Bombay.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the statement made in the Administration Report of the Bombay Abkari Department for 1901–2, to the effect that the number of shops licensed for the sale, of intoxicating drugs in the Presidency of Bombay was considerably reduced during the year under review; and whether, seeing that there has been during the same period an increase of eight such shops in the city of Bombay, he will state the reasons for the provision of such increased facilities in Bombay.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I am aware of the statement referred to. I presume that the reason of the increase in the number of shops in Bombay city is that they were actually required in order to prevent illicit consumption. The policy of the Bombay Government in this matter is stated in paragraph 53 of the Report.

  Seizure of Illicit Plant at Buncrana and Moville.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury the nature of the seizures of illicit plant, materials, etc., as set out in Return dated 31st March, 1903, in the districts of Buncrana and Moville, in the county of Donegal; how many of the seizures therein set out in the respective years consisted of stills, still-heads, how many of worms, how many merely of staves of barrels alleged to have contained illicit wash or spirits, and the amount of rewards paid to the constabulary officers of each district in each year.
  46
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) At my hon. friend's request I will reply to this Question. Seizures are not classified in any existing official Return, and to segregate them in the manner suggested would involve an examination of all reports of seizures in Donegal during the past three years. No useful public purpose would be served by such a scrutiny, and I am unable, therefore, to ask the Inspector-General to undertake it. The information desired at the conclusion of the Question has been called for, and will be communicated to the hon. Member.

  Importation of Tin Plate Bars.
  SIR THOMAS WRIGHTSON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what is the total weight and value of tin plate bars which have been delivered this year into this country for conversion into steel or iron sheets; from which country are they shipped; and to which ports have they been delivered.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The quantity of tin plate bars imported under that description during the current year to the 16th instant was 8,155 tons, valued at £36,591. Of this quantity 8,033 tons, valued at £36,067, were shipped to this country from ports in Holland, and 122 tons, valued at £524, from ports in Belgium. The ports at which these quantities were imported, and the extent of the importations at each, were—Llanelly, 4,508 tons; Newport, 2,356 tons; Swansea, 1,291 tons. There is, however, no separate heading in the Import List for tin plate bars, and a considerable quantity of these goods is believed to be included under such headings as "Steel Bars," and "Steel unwrought or partly wrought."

  Commercial Treaties—Most-Favoured-Nation Clause.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government have ever accepted the United States contention that concessions granted conditionally and for a consideration cannot be claimed by us under the most-favoured-nation clause; and whether the Government still act on

  47
  the view of most-favoured-nation clauses laid down in the despatch of Lord Granville of the 12th February, 1885, on the advice of the Board of Trade.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The answer to the first Question is in the negative; to the second, in the affirmative.

  London School Children—Physical and Mental Condition.
  SIR JOHN GORST: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the Board of Education will institute an examination into the physical and mental condition of samples of children taken from London schools, similar to that instituted in Edinburgh and Aberdeen by the Royal Commission on Physical Training (Scotland).
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) I have conferred with the President of the Board on the subject of the proposed examination. He and I are both fully sensible of the importance of such an inquiry; but the mode in which it should be conducted, and the extent of the

  Year.

  Sums received.

  Amount expendefd.

  Local Government Act, 1889.

  Local Taxation Act, 1890.

  Section ii (6) of The Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1892.

  Total received.

  £

  s.

  £

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1889–90

  169,000

  0

  —

  —

  169,000

  0

  0

  129,886

  15

  0

  1890–91

  247,000

  0

  40,000

  —

  287,000

  0

  0

  257,644

  19

  9

  1891–92

  318,200

  0

  40,000

  —

  358,200

  0

  0

  344,082

  17

  3

  1892–93

  53,387

  18

  40,000

  —

  93,387

  18

  0

  76,046

  2

  6

  1893–94

  —

  40,000

  18,017

  15

  7

  58,017

  15

  7

  68,394

  2

  0

  1894–95

  —

  40,000

  10,357

  2

  8

  50,357

  2

  8

  65,832

  11

  6

  1895–96

  —

  40,000

  3,667

  10

  1

  43,667

  10

  1

  52,777

  19

  0

  1896–97

  —

  40,000

  —

  40,000

  0

  0

  57,308

  12

  0

  1897–98

  —

  40,000

  16,202

  0

  11

  56,202

  0

  11

  69,684

  1

  5

  1898–99

  —

  40,000

  5,379

  12

  2

  45,379

  12

  2

  22,084

  19

  0

  1899–1900

  —

  40,000

  64,036

  15

  5

  104,036

  15

  5

  57,547

  4

  0

  1900–1

  —

  40,000

  45,191

  4

  1

  85,191

  4

  1

  41,269

  15

  0

  1901–2

  —

  40,000

  49,277

  18

  3

  89,277

  18

  3

  68,182

  19

  0

  1902–3

  —

  Not yet received

  —

  80,294

  12

  0

  The balance at present standing to the credit of the fund is £88,680 7s. 9d.

  inquiry, must be matters for consideration. I hope to be able to make a statement on the subject when the Education Estimates come on for discussion.

  Scotch Education—Relief of School Fees.
  MR. CALDWELL: To ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the amount paid for the relief of school fees for the financial year ending in 1890, and each subsequent year, from each of the following sources: The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, The Local Taxation Act, 1890, and Section 2 (b) of The Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1892; and also what sum, if any, stands to the credit of the fund.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The amounts received from the sources named are paid into one common fund, consequently it is not possible to say how much was spent each year out of each source of supply. The table below shows for each year the amount received under each Act, and the total amount spent per year out of the fund so formed, and the balance at present standing to the credit of the fund.

  Bristol Post Office Staff.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the revisions of the outdoor and indoor staff at the Post Office, Bristol, are yet completed.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The revision of the outdoor staff at Bristol has been approved, and is being carried out by the postmaster. The revision of indoor staff is not quite completed.

  Postal Services Committee—Representation of Employees.
  MR. TANKERVILLE CHAMBER LAYNE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the advisability of allowing the postal employees and the postal telegraph employees each to nominate one member of the Committee he proposes to appoint for the consideration of their requirements and grievances.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I have already considered this suggestion, but for the reasons stated by me in the House I am not prepared to adopt it.

  Waima Arbitration—Payments of Compensation.
  MR. BILL: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the compensation money awarded by the arbitrator in the Waima case has been received from the French Government.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborn.) The money has been received from the French Government and is now in course of distribution to the various claimants.

  Conduct of Police at Raphoe.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what was the nature of the investigation held by the authorities into the complaints made by P. F. M'Glinehay, Raphoe, County Donegal, with reference to the conduct of certain policemen stationed at Raphoe; and by whom was the investigation held.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham) The complaints were investigated by the
  50
  county inspector, and the report of his investigation was carefully considered by the inspector-general and by Government.

  Motor-Car Service between Westport and Louisburgh.
  DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a memorial from the inhabitants of the Louisburgh, County Mayo, district asking that a motor-car service may be established between Westport and Louisburgh; and, if so, whether, considering that there is no railway communication between Westport and Louisburgh, he will use, in the interests of the district, his influence to have such a service established.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The memorial has been received, and will receive due consideration.

  Damage by Storms to Teachers' Residences in Ireland.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what Board is bound to repair injuries caused by storms to national teachers' residences in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Residences for teachers which are vested in the Commissioners are kept in repair by the Board of Works. Other residences, even though connected with vested schools, are not kept in repair by the Board of Works. This must be done by the local parties interested in the residences. The teachers are not bound to carry out repairs rendered necessary by storms.

  Land Commission Sittings at Cavan.
  MR. SAMUEL YOUNG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Land Commissioners have not sat in Cavan for many years, although there are a number of cases pending, some of them over three years; and will he take steps to remedy this state of things.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Commissioners sat in Cavan to hear appeals

  51
  in June, 1902. A further sitting will be arranged at as early a date as possible.

  Dingle Harbour Pier.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has yet acceded to the request of the Dingle Harbour Commissioners for a grant for the extension of their pier.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No, Sir.

  Irish National Schools—Delay in Passing of Plans.
  MR. M'FADDEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay on the part of the Treasury in approving of the new plans for national schools in Ireland; and whether, seeing that numerous complaints have been lodged with the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland as to the inconvenience caused to managers purposing to erect schools, steps will be taken to expedite the approval of the plans by the Treasury, and the lodgment of them with the Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I would refer to my reply to the similar Question of 1st April † by the hon. Member for South Down, and to the reply given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the 21st May ‡ to the Question of the hon. Member for South Monaghan.

  Irish Ancient Monuments—Greenan Hill.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what has been the result of the correspondence between the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland and the proprietor of Greenan Hill with reference to the vesting of this ancient monument in the Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The owner of the monument has not yet decided to vest the guardianship in the Commissioners.
  † See (4) Debates, cxx., 781.
  ‡ See (4) Debates, cxxii., 1352.

  Irish Loan Fund Debentures.
  MR. HEMPHILL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutentant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the far reaching effect upon the security of loan fund debentures in Ireland by reason of its having been recently decided that all remedy on loan fund notes, which were then current and unpaid and rendered valid by The Charitable Loans Society Act, 1900, are barred by the six months limitation imposed by The Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, Section 10, Subsection 4; and whether it is his intention to introduce a Bill this session to remedy this omission in the Charitable Loans Society Act of 1900.
  (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) An amending Bill with the object stated in the Question has been drafted, and I should be prepared to introduce it upon receiving an assurance from hon. Members that it will be treated as a non-contentious measure.

  Repair of Roads leading to Camp at Shankill, Co. Wicklow.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that, according to the estimate of the county surveyor of Wicklow, the cost of maintaining the roads from Ballyfolan leading to the military camp at Shankill will be £88 16s. per year as compared with £7 8s., the annual cost of maintaining the roads previous to the establishment of the camp; and whether, seeing the amount received by the local council in lieu of rates upon War Department property for the last four years was—in 1900, £9 16s. 8d., in 1901, £17 4s. 2d., in 1902, £11 14s. 3d., and in 1903, £9 8s. 7d.; and that under The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, Section 27 (2), the expenditure on these roads is limited to sixpence per perch, being the former average cost thereof, the War Department will increase their contribution to meet the increased expenditure for the maintenance of the roads leading to the military camp.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Payments in lieu of rates are made by the Treasury, to which Department the hon. Member should address any communications he may wish to make.

  Wheat Cultivation in Canada, Australia and South Africa.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give an approximate estimate of the acreage of the land suitable to wheat growing in the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the States of South Africa, and the average yield of bushels per acre.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) It is impossible to give any such estimate as the hon. Member asks for. From the statistical year book of Canada for 1902, it appears that the total acreage actually under wheat in that year was 3,740,007 acres, and the yield 93,569,450 bushels, or twenty-five bushels per acre. From the table printed on page 244 of the Return [Cd. 1616], recently issued by the Board of Agriculture it will be seen that the area under wheat in Australia in 1902 was 5,113,328 acres, the yield 4,817,372 quarters, or 7·54 bushels per acre. For South Africa there are no reliable figures available.

  Tristan da Cunha—Removal of Inhabitants.
  MR. FULLER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, considering the conditions which at present obtain in the Island of Tristan da Cunha, he will consider the advisability of removing the inhabitants of the island and their stock to South Africa; and, if so, whether he will ask for a special grant from the Treasury for that purpose.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The matter is under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.

  Average Cost of Prisoners.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the average cost per week per prisoner undergoing a sentence of imprisonment or penal servitude, for food, clothing, heating, medical attendance, supervision, instruction, housing, and other expenses of maintenance.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) This information can be found in
  54
  Appendix 12D, page 119, of the last Report of the Commissioners of Prisons. The total cost per week for 1901–2, as given in those Tables, is—Gross (exclusive of cost of new buildings), 11s. 4¼d. in Local Prisons—i.e., for prisoners sentenced to imprisonment; 18s. 1½d. in Convict Prisons—i.e., for prisoners sentenced to penal servitude. Net, after deducting value of prisoner's labour, 2s. 7¼d., and incidental receipts (sale of old stores), ¾d., 8s. 8¼d. in Local Prisons. Net, after deducting value of prisoner's labour, 7s. 2½d., and incidental receipts (sale of old stores), 1½d., 10s. 9½d. in Convict Prisons.

  Encroachment of Sea on East Coast.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the attention of the hydrographer of the Admiralty is directed to the erosion of different parts of the East Coast of England, more particularly that of Holderness; and whether there are any reports in the Hydrographer's Department of the extent of formerly occupied land between Flamborough Head and Spurn Point, which has now disappeared into the North Sea.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The duties of the hydrographer do not include that of watching the erosion of the coast. Any changes in a coast which are of sufficient extent to be shown on the various Admiralty surveys made at different times can be ascertained from those surveys when they are made on a sufficiently large scale, but in the case of the coast mentioned there is no information that will be of use to the hon. Member. It is suggested that such information could more readily be obtained from Estate and Ordnance surveys.

  Portsmouth Dockyard—Dismissal of Employees.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that a number of employees in His Majesty's Dockyard at Portsmouth have been dismissed; and in view of his answer to a Question on 22nd April, 1902,† it may be assumed that such dismissals will not be extensive and continuous.
  † See (4) Debates, cxxi., 109.

  55
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) Owing to causes which were unforeseen at the time of the previous reply referred to, a slight reduction in the numbers at Portsmouth Dockyard has become necessary. The dismissals are being confined to the less efficient workmen, and are not expected to be extensive or continuous.

  Cost of Importation of Indian Coolies into British Guiana.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proportion of the charges for importing Indian coolies, their repatriation, their medical service, the Immigration Department in the colony and in Calcutta, and pensions accruing to officers of the Immigration Department and medical service is now borne by the Government of British Guiana or by the taxpayers of the colony, and what is the estimated total amount of such charges for the financial year 1902–3; and have the laws, orders, and regulations now existent in British Guiana and statistical information with reference to coolie immigration been communicated in accordance with Article 7 of the Sugar Convention to the Belgian Government to be forwarded to the Permanent Commission, in order that the Commission may pronounce as to the existence in this Crown Colony of a direct or indirect bounty on the production or exportation of sugar; if so, have the Commission yet pronounced whether the system pursued amounts to the granting of a direct or indirect bounty.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) Under a new arrangement recently adopted, and which was not in force in 1902–3, the sources of the expense or liability incurred in respect of coolie immigration in British Guiana are the following:—1. The expenditure on recruiters in India, paid by fees and recovered in full from the employers. 2. The cost of supervision of the Department in India by a colonial officer, salary paid by the Government of British Guiana and not recovered from the employers of labour. The Colonial Government conceives it to be necessary to secure the complete independence of this important officer by
  56
  making him an officer of its permanent establishment, and paying him from its own funds. 3. Medical inspection of immigrants charged to employers of labour in full. 4. Supervising Department of the Government of India, salaries paid by the Government of India and recouped by fees charged on the embarkation of immigrants. These fees are paid by the employers of labour. 5. Cost of transporting immigrants by sea to British Guiana, and medical supervision on the voyage. Paid by employers of labour. 6. Cost of repatriation, the same, except where a portion is paid by the labourers themselves. 7. Cost of supervision of immigrants (by Immigration Department) to secure that the law enacted for their protection is fully carried out, and the terms of their agreement fulfilled. Borne by the Colonial Revenue and not recovered from the employers of labour. The Government assumes this charge for the following reasons. It feels that it is the duty of Government to secure the due fulfiment of the law at its own cost. It considers that the independence of the supervising Department is better secured if the charge falls on the general revenue than if it falls, even ultimately and remotely, on the party of whose action it is to be the judge. It is aware that, as already indicated, no small portion of the Department's duties is concerned with persons who, though of Asiatic extraction, are not immigrants under indenture, and frequently not immigrants at all (the indentured are to the free as 15,000 to 115,000, of whom a large percentage is native born). An addition to the number of its in habitants is necessary to the progress and prosperity of the colony, which had within an area of 90,000 square miles a population of not more than 300,000 persons. Its aboriginal population is slowly dwindling, its Creole negro population is constitute the only class which shows signs of naturally increasing its numbers, and is able to develop the agricultural wealth of the country. In these circumstances the Government considers that the maintenance at its own cost of a Department which safeguards by its supervision and direction the interests of the immigrants on their first arrival, and enables them to establish themselves

  57
  as healthy and successful colonists is a fair charge on the general revenue of the State. 8. Gratuitous medical aid by Government medical officers to the indentured immigrant. The Medical Department of the Government being for the benefit of all inhabitants, a charge is ordinarily made for the services of Government medical officers to persons who can afford to pay, but their services are rendered free to paupers and those unable to pay, and it is felt may on like terms be rendered to the indentured immigrants. It must be remembered that special charges, such as estate hospitals and their maintenance, are provided by the employers. The maintenance in health during the period of acclimatisation of the immigrant population is likewise an important aid to colonisation. The total estimated charges on account of the Immigration Department and of the Colonial Medical Service amount approximately to $106,000 for the current year 1903–4, excluding pension charges which are not provided for separately but are in any case inconsiderable. It will be seen from the above that no question of a bounty can possibly arise in connection with coolie immigration into British Guiana, and there has accordingly been no occasion to communicate the laws and regulations on the subject to the Brussels Commission.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Somaliland.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is in contemplation to build a railroad from the Somaliland coast to Bohotle; whether, if so, he can state how long it will take to build this railroad, and what will be the approximate cost; whether His Majesty's Government is at present in telegraphic communication with General Manning; and, if not, how long it takes to communicate with him from this country; and whether he can say what was the precise period for which the force from the Transvaal engaged to serve in Somaliland.
  The following Questions also appeared on the Paper.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the most recent Military intelligence received by the Government with respect to the military situation in Somaliland; has Colonel Cobbe retired from Galadi successfully and reached Bohotle; and has he any official information to the effect that the Mullah is raiding the communications between Bohotle and Burao.
  MR. LAMBERT: To ask the Secretary of State for War what was the date of his last communication from General Manning; what is the position and composition of his force; and whether uninterrupted communication exists between General Manning and the War Office.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (MR. BRODRICK,): The latest telegram received, which has been communicated to the Press, is from Colonel Swann forwarding a communication from General Manning, dated 15th June, to the effect that his force and that of Colonel Cobbe were to leave Badwein on the 18th, and expected to reach Damot on the 21st. I do not think it desirable to give the exact composition or strength of the force at various points. Communication between Badwein and Damot is maintained by runners, and from that point by telegraph. No official intimation has been received that the Mullah is raiding the line of communication between Bohotle and Burao. As regards a light railway I have nothing further to add to what I said on Thursday last.† The Burgher contingent was engaged for six months and served accordingly.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Are the Government sending any reinforcements out?
  MR. BRODRICK: The reinforcements I mentioned on Thursday ‡ are already on their way to Berbera. In addition to the
  † See (4) Debates, cxxiii., 1305.
  ‡ See (4) Debates, cxxiii., 1304.

  59
  600 men from Aden there are one battalion of native troops from India and 500 mounted troops also on the way.

  Army Canteens.
  MR. BULL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether it is proposed in the forthcoming Army Regulations to recommend canteens to deal with the Co-operative Union Stores.
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir. No recommendation is given. The Committee made representations strongly in the direction of Co-operative Union for Army Canteens. I could not accept their proposal, but have left it to the general officers commanding in concert with the commanders of different units under them to decide what system—tenant or regimental—is best for the soldier, and permit them to buy in the open market or register themselves as a Co-operative Society, as they think best.
  MR. BULL: Then is there no truth in the statement which has been published?
  MR. BRODRICK: None whatever.
  MR. KILBRIDE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that the local traders in the neighbourhood of the Curragh are not boycotted?
  MR. BRODRICK: The War Office has no control over the matter.

  Woolwich Arsenal Disaster.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether the wives and families of the men killed and injured in the recent explosion at Woolwich Arsenal are entitled to any benefits from public funds; and, if not, whether, seeing that these men received no extra or special pay on account of the nature of their occupation and were moreover working for less than the current rate of wages in the locality for unskilled labour, he will consider the advisability of granting special pensions to their wives and families while providing immediate succour for them.
  MR. BRODRICK: Under the scheme of compensation drawn up in accordance
  60
  with the Workmen's Compensation Act, the wives and families of the men killed are entitled to gratuities equal to three years' earnings, with a minimum of £150 and a maximum of £300. This gratuity may, under certain conditions be converted into a pension of not less than £10 per annum. Injured men are entitled to injury pay equal to half their average earnings. The rate of wages is under consideration in connection with the rates paid in similar undertakings.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that in this case pensions and not bulk sums are given?
  MR. BRODRICK: I will give my best attention to the matter.

  H.M.S "Majestic."
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has any official report to the effect that the Vice-Admiral commanding the Channel Fleet ordered beer to be served out to the men on duty in the engine room of H.M.S. "Majestic" during the late quarterly trial.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): No unusual rewards whatever were given on the occasion referred to, and there is no foundation for the statements that have appeared in the Press to this effect.

  Northern Nigeria—Military Operations.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the extent of the check to the British Forces in North Nigeria, and what is the latest military report from that district of West Africa, especially with regard to isolated British posts, have they been reinforced, and to what extent.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The situation is as follows: After the occupation of Sokoto in March, the ex-Sultan fled in an easterly and south-easterly direction across Northern Nigeria, and at the

  61
  date of the latest reports (the middle of May) was in a district more than 400 miles from Sokoto, and some 200 miles from Kano in a direct line, where there are no British posts. He had been joined by many of the inhabitants of the towns in this remote district. He was pursued by a small force of the West African Frontier Force, under Captain Sword, who reported (on the 16th of May) that he had attacked the ex-Sultan's forces in a walled town called Durmi. The attack was unsuccessful, Captain Sword being without artillery. The casualties on his side were: Captain Plummer slightly wounded, one British non-commissioned officer severely wounded, four native soldiers killed, and sixty slightly wounded. The enemy's loss was estimated at 300 killed and wounded. Captain Sword's force consisted of only 130 rank and file, and he stated that he was retiring to Bautshi (the nearest British post) without opposition. Reinforcements from other parts of Northern Nigeria are being sent to Bautshi, where 500 men with artillery will shortly be concentrated. There is no disquieting news from other parts of the Protectorate, and the acting High Commissioner considers that the precautions taken are sufficient. In order, however, to provide for any possible emergency, contingents of the West African Frontier Force are being held in readiness in the neighbouring West African Colonies, who will proceed at once to Northern Nigeria on the demand of the acting High Commissioner.

  Lord Tennyson's Term of Office.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Lord Tennyson's term of office in Australia is to be extended; and, if so, for what period.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; there is no truth in the telegram which has appeared in the newspapers on this subject; and Lord Tennyson informs me that he must adhere to the arrangement already made, and will leave at the beginning of December.

  Transvaal Dynamite Duty.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether,
  62
  under the new laws of the Transvaal, dynamite manufactured by the De Beers Company in Cape Colony can be sent free of duty into the Transvaal; and whether British dynamite manufacturers have to pay a duty of £14 per ton on dynamite sent to the Transvaal.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The position at the present moment, and subject to the ratification of the Customs Convention by the Cape Parliament, is, so far as my information goes, as stated; but I have already explained that the question of equalising the duties on De Beers and British dynamite is under consideration.†
  MR. MARKHAM: I take that to be an answer in the affirmative. Will the right hon. Gentleman say if it is not an infringement of the London Convention on which he has so much insisted in the past.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not admit that. If the hon. Member wishes further information he must put down a Question.

  Transvaal Diamond Ordinance.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the new Diamond Ordinance introduced into the Transvaal Council last week, and which has already passed through Committee stage, provides that any person accused by a detective of being in the possession of a diamond without a licence is presumed in law to be guilty, the punishment being penal servitude for twenty years, and whether, seeing that this special legislation is opposed to the principles of the ordinary criminal law, he will at once inform Lord Milner that His Majesty's Government cannot sanction legislation of this character.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Draft Ordinance referred to follows the Cape Act of 1882. I have not yet received Lord Milner's report on this Ordinance, and, in the meantime, I do not consider it desirable to express any opinion as to its provisions.
  † See (4) Debates, cxxiii., 943.

  Colonial Conference.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to the statement in the Report of the Colonial Conference that some of the members had objected to a full publication of the proceedings, whether he will endeavour to obtain the consent of these members to such publication in order that the House may be informed as to the reasons on which the reported resolutions of the Conference were based.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The matter was fully considered at the time, and I am not aware of any circumstances which have arisen likely to induce the members who objected to publication to modify their views.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Is it not the fact that the proceedings have been published by one of the colonies?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

  Diamond Finds in the Transvaal.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, during his visit to South Africa, he was informed that a, valuable diamond mine had been discovered in the Transvaal; whether, seeing that Sir Arthur Lawley stated on 20th May, at the Legislative Council, that the Transvaal possessed a diamond field which bids fair to rival in richness, if not excel, any field hitherto discovered, he will say if, under the new Diamond Ordinance promulgated last Monday, half of this mine will be given to a monopolist diamond syndicate, the prospectors and owners of the surface land; and if the Governor has the power to let out the remaining half of the mine to the same syndicate on tribute; and why the general public has been excluded, in view of the fact that under the old law the right of mining for all gold and precious stones belongs to the Government.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that valuable finds of diamonds have been made in the Transvaal. I have not vet received the text of the Bill and
  64
  I am therefore not at present prepared to make any statement on the subject.

  British Treaty Rights with Foreign Countries.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the names of those foreign countries which allow England most-favoured-nation treatment and of those which do not, and the foreign countries which allow British colonies most-favoured-nation treatment and those which do not.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): I assume that the Question refers to Treaty rights. A Paper is about to be presented giving this information.

  Servia—Attitude of the British Government.
  MR. MALCOLM: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sir George Bonham, late British Minister at Belgrade, remains at the Servian capital in a representative or a private capacity; whether the British Legation and Consulates in Servia retain their extra-territorial privileges; and to whom for the time being the protection of British subjects resident in Servia is entrusted.
  LORD CRANBORNE: The formal official functions of Sir George Bonham as His Majesty's Representative at the Servian Court are suspended. He remains for the present at Belgrade as the unofficial Agent of His Majesty's Government. It has been usual to recognise the right of a Legation to retain the customary extra-territorial and diplomatic privileges in spite of a temporary suspension of the Minister's official functions. British Consular officers in Servia do not enjoy extra-territorial privileges, but in accordance with usage the only British Consular Officer in the country will continue to exercise his Consular functions. The protection of British subjects continues to be entrusted to His Majesty's Legation which is authorised to make such unofficial communications to the de facto authorities as may be necessary for that purpose.
  MR. MALCOLM: May I ask whether there is at the present time a Servian Minister accredited to the Court of St. James in London?
  LORD CRANBORNE: No, Sir. His functions lapsed with the death of King Alexander, just as Sir G. Bonham's lapsed at the same time.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can undertake that before diplomatic relations are formally renewed with Servia His Majesty's Government will convey to the Servian Government an expression of the feeling of this country at the recent murders, and a demand that those guilty should be brought to justice.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): It would evidently be impossible to make any remonstrance or representation to the Servian Government until diplomatic relations are renewed. There appears to be a fundamental contradiction inherent in the suggestion of the hon. Member. As was stated by the Foreign Secretary, I may remind him that Sir G. Bonham will not be at Belgrade at the time when the new Government is inaugurated.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether His Majesty's Government is in agreement with the attitude of Russia in this matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think anything is gained by putting or answering such a question. We have taken up our own line in the matter.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can say whether His Majesty's Government have intimated in any way that they consider that the people guilty of these murders should be punished?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is the precise Question on the Paper which has been answered.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: A very proper question!
  MR. BRYCE: Will His Majesty's Consul be at Belgrade in order to protect British subjects if any occasion should arise?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Vice-Consul will be there.

  British Treaties of Commerce and Navigation.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table a Return of most-favoured-nation clauses in existing treaties of commerce and navigation between Great Britain and foreign powers, stating the period when terminable and showing whether they apply to the British colonies, in force on the 1st day of May, 1903. Further, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will grant a Return showing the nations which, although not bound by treaty, as a matter of courtesy give us most-favoured-nation treatment?
  LORD CRANBORNE: The answer to the Question on the Paper is in the affirmative. As to the supplementary Question I am discussing that point with my advisers. Such a Return would take a good deal longer to prepare.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Perhaps the noble Lord will let me put down the first Return and deal with the supplementary matter in another Return.
  LORD CRANBORNE: Yes, put the first Return down and I will see to the other.

  Brussels Sugar Commission.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has the Permanent Sugar Commission at Brussels pronounced that the Austro-Hungarian contingent system, whereby a certain quantity of sugar manufacture for the home market of those countries is fixed and a fixed proportion thereof allotted to each manufacturer therein,

  67
  constitutes an indirect bounty on the production or export of sugar; if so, is this pronouncement final and binding on the signatory States, or will it, since Austria and Hungary are separate contracting parties to the Brussels Sugar Convention, require to be submitted to a conference of the signatory Powers for the decision of that conference under Article VII. of that Convention; and have His Majesty's Government any information that Hungary contemplates seceding from the Convention in order to retain her contingent system, or that Austria contemplates similar or other action in this respect.
  LORD CRANBORNE: I am unable to give my hon. friend any information in reply to his first Question. The second Question, therefore, must be treated as hypothetical and cannot be answered. The answer to the last Question is in the negative.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the noble Lord aware that the answer to the first part of my Question appears in all the journals here based on information derived from the Permanent Commission?
  LORD CRANBORNE: It is no part of my official duty to inquire as to that.

  Commercial Treaty with Germany.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the promised Papers relating to the denunciation of the Commercial Treaty with Germany will be circulated?
  LORD CRANBORNE: The Papers are now being prepared and will be presented as soon as possible.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: How soon?
  LORD CRANBORNE: In the course of a very few days I hope.

  The English Benedictines.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the property of any English subjects has lately been
  68
  seized at Douai by the French Government; and if our Ambassador at Paris has directions to protect the property of all English subjects expelled from France for non-compliance with the new religious laws.
  LORD CRANBORNE: So far as I am aware, no personal property belonging to individual British subjects has been seized at Douai. Questions have arisen with regard to the corporate property of the English Benedictines established there, but His Majesty's Government are advised that the corporate property of a community which has voluntarily settled in France, is subject to French law, and that His Majesty's Government have no locus standi to intervene on its behalf. His Majesty's Ambassador at Paris is fully cognisant of the circumstances of the case, and has done what was possible to obtain considerate treatment for the English Benedictines.

  British Interests at Cape Juby.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the facts that a British company, formerly carrying on trade at Cape Juby, was constantly warned by His Majesty's Government that the territory formed portion of Morocco, that the factory of a company formed by Lee Brothers of Manchester was ultimately sold, and is now occupied by troops of the Sultan of Morocco, and that a subsequent British private expedition to the same district was treated as unlawful; and, if so, will he say whether he has any official information showing that a private French armed expedition, supported by private ships, has occupied the district of Cape Juby; and, further, which of the Powers have recognised the title to the district of the Sultan; and what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to settle the boundaries of Morocco.
  LORD CRANBORNE: His Majesty's Government addressed no warning of the kind mentioned to the North-West African Company to which the right hon. Baronet refers. But at the time of the occupation by them of Cape Juby, we declined to promise them material

  69
  support against the tribes. The company evacuated their station in 1895 upon the following conditions amongst others: that the Moorish Government should pay them £50,000, and that His Majesty's Government should recognise the Sultan's jurisdiction over the territory in question as far as Cape Bojador. I am not aware of any subsequent British expedition to the same district, nor have I any information as to the alleged French expedition, nor as to what Powers have recognised the Sultan's jurisdiction over the coast in question. The present is not a favourable moment for taking action in the direction suggested in the last Question.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: Are any inquiries being made, say from Spain?
  LORD CRANBORNE: I cannot say straight off, but if the right hon. Baronet wishes to know, I will inquire.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I will put down a further Question.

  Customs Duties.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state on what items the increase of £2,207,000 on Customs duties, shown in his Budget statement, arises; and the increase applicable to each.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): This is a Question which might very properly be unstarred, because there is a vast amount of figures involved, and it does not seem reasonable to ask me to read them out. If the hon. Member will consent, I will supply him with a copy.
  MR. BLACK: To-day?
  *MR. RITCHIE: Yes, at once.

  Statistical Abstract.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: On behalf of the hon. Member for South-West Manchester I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Statistical Abstract for 1902 is out of print; and whether it is intended to reprint it; and,
  70
  if so, how soon it will be in the hands of Members.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. ELLIOT,): Owing to an unusual demand for the Statistical Abstract of the United Kingdom (published in 1902), the Paper is now out of print. I am informed that a reprint has been ordered, and that a further supply, available on application by Members who have not already received copies, will be printed and ready for issue not later than Thursday next.

  Alien Immigration.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the fact that in the month of May, 8,171 alien immigrants, inclusive of 1,308 sailors, arrived as deck or third class passengers in the United Kingdom, not en route to places out of the United Kingdom, and that of these, 3,350 arrived at the Port of London; and whether, having regard to the presentment of the grand jury and the Chairman of the London Sessions, that the calendar for the present month shows that 20 per cent. of the prisoners are alien criminals, and of the fact that on a certain day no English was heard in the sessions court, he will take steps to expedite legislation on the subject.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,): The figures given in the Question are not quite correctly stated. I have nothing to add, as regards legislation, to the reply given by me to the hon. Member on the 15th instant.†
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: In what respect are the figures not accurate? They are founded on the Returns of the Board of Trade.
  MR. BONAR LAW: They are approximately correct but not quite accurate.

  Average Duties on British Exports.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the average duties
  † See (4) Debates, cxxiii, 948.

  71
  calculated on an ad valorem basis levied in the different foreign countries and in our colonies on the larger classes of British exports; and, if the information is not at his disposal, whether he will obtain it.
  MR. BONAR LAW: The information asked for is not at present available, and its preparation presents great difficulties owing to the different classifications adopted in the tariffs of different countries. The matter, however, is being looked into.

  Canadian and American Mails.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the use of Galway Bay by Allan Line and other ocean steamers, and by large war vessels, and to the position offered by this harbour for an expeditious mail service between this country and America; and whether, in future contracts for the carrying of mails between Great Britain and Ireland and Canada and the United States of America, he will favourably consider the representations made to him for the selection of Galway Harbour for these mail services.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): Due consideration will be given to the question of making Galway the terminal port for the Atlantic Mail services when any new contract is about to be concluded. But at present I see no prospect of a change in the existing arrangements for the American mails. The mail service to and from Canada is under a contract made by the Dominion Government.

  Treatment of Lunatics—Case of C. J. Smart.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the death of Charles Joseph Smart in the Middlesex County Asylum; and, if so, will he state whether this man was just before his death placed in a strait-jacket without the doctor's orders, and whether inquiries will be made into the whole matter.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): My attention has been drawn to this case and I am in communication with the guardians of the Brentford Union on the subject. It appears that the man was removed to the workhouse on the 27th of last month as an alleged lunatic, and that on the 30th he was taken to the asylum, where he died on the following day. The medical officer of the workhouse states that on arrival at the workhouse the man was extremely violent, and the assistant medical officer deemed it advisable to order that a restraint jacket should be used. The medical officer saw the patient early next day and kept him under constant observation until his removal to the asylum. It was by the express direction of the medical officer that the patient was removed in the restraint jacket. I understand that the case will come before the guardians at their next meeting. Meanwhile I have applied to the coroner for a copy of the depositions taken at the inquest, and on the receipt of this I will consider whether it is necessary for me to take any further action in the matter.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Do I understand that this man was put into a strait-waistcoat by the express order of the medical officer?
  MR. WALTER LONG: Yes.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: That was contradicted at the inquest.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I propose to ask for a copy of the evidence as I have already stated.

  Traction Traffic in the Metropolis.
  MR. HORNER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience caused to traffic and the injury done to the wood pavements by trains of heavily-loaded wagons drawn by traction engines through the streets of the Metropolis; and, if so, whether he will initiate legislation upon the subject.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am aware that complaints have been made in connection with the use of traction engines in the streets of London. The County Council are empowered by Section 6 of the Locomotives Act, 1898, to make by-laws dealing with this matter, and I understand that they are preparing some by-laws on the subject.

  Victoria and Albert Museum.
  *SIR FRANCIS POWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether any change has been made in the plans for the Victoria and Albert Museum which will increase the accommodation for the teaching of art to the prejudice of the arrangements for the purposes of the exhibition of the collections.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): A change was made in 1900 in the original plans for the Victoria and Albert Museum. The result of this change would be to increase the accommodation for the Royal College of Art, and might be regarded as prejudicial to the exhibition of the collections. I am in communication with the Office of Works on the subject.

  Sanitation in the West Fife Coalfield.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the lack of sufficient provision for sanitation in the West Fife coalfield, coupled with the stream pollution there, has attracted the attention of the Scottish Office; whether the Secretary for Scotland is satisfied that the Scottish Local Government Board exercises adequate supervision in such cases over the action of the local authorities, or whether he proposes to render the Edinburgh Board effective to deal with the lack of sanitation in such growing districts.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): The question of the pollution of the streams in the West of Fife has been under consideration by the Local Government Board. An inquiry has been ordered and will be undertaken at the earliest possible time. In reply to
  74
  the second Question the answer is in the affirmative, having regard to the extent of the powers conferred upon that Board by statute. Any additional powers can only be given by legislation, and the Secretary for Scotland cannot at present undertake any obligation in regard to it.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: Perhaps the Solicitor-General will inquire as to the powers exercised by the English Local Government Board in this direction.
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: Yes, I will make that inquiry.

  Irish Education Grants.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his sanction has been given to the notice issued by the Commissioners of National Education to managers neutralising the effect of Rule 82 (b) dealing with grants in aid of local contributions to existing vested schools, whether vested in the Commissioners or in trustees, for adding to or enlarging them, for enclosing sites, for other desirable or necessary structural changes or improvements, or for repairs rendered necessary by storms; and, if not, will the Commissioners be asked to carry out this rule as printed in their authorised edition, by aiding in repairing all schools injured by the late storm.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): No, Sir. Such notices or circulars are issued by the Commissioners and do not require the approval of the Executive. In the present case, I understand that it became necessary to point out to school managers that some misconception had arisen with respect to the application of the rule referred to. The Commissioners explained that they cannot make grants in aid of ordinary repairs to schools vested in trustees, even though the need for such may be at ributable directly or indirectly to storms. The rule was only intended to provide for repairs of a pressing nature and where it is essential to prevent the school-house being closed altogether owing to serious and exceptional damage done to the structure by storms.

  Birr and Portumna Line.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the amount expended on the Birr and Portumna line of railway; also whose property it is at present; whether he is aware that a portion of the line has been stolen or taken away; that this stealing of the line is continued up to the present; and, if so, whether he will give instructions to prevent this.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The cost of construction of this line was about £80,000. The Great Southern and Western Company worked the line for ten years, and when their lease expired in 1878 they surrendered the line, winch then fell into the hands of the Public Works Loans Commissioners as first mortgagees. The rails, etc., were carried away by irresponsible persons.
  MR. ROCHE: I saw the material being carted away. Cannot the looting be stopped?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am told there is nothing left worth stealing.

  Roscommon Rate Collections.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Local Government Board of Ireland has refused the request of the Roscommon County Council to sanction the payment of their poundage fees to certain rate collectors who had exceeded the prescribed period for making lodgments, but who had completed their collections; and whether, in view of the further representations of the County Council as to the difficulty of collection, the congestion of the districts, and the poverty of many of the ratepayers, he will advise the Local Government Board to reconsider its decision.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. No satisfactory explanation has been given of the negligence of these collectors to complete their collections within the prescribed period. The Board is unable to allow these men to receive the same consideration as has been shown to the larger number of collectors who completed their work promptly and well.

  Lismore Garrotting Case.
  *MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what steps have been taken by the police to secure the arrest of the persons implicated in the recent case of garrotting near Lismore.
  MR. WYNDHAM: One of the two persons implicated is in custody, on remand. The police are making every effort to capture the second.
  *MR. O'SHEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman direct some of the extra police in Tallow, the nearest police station, to be detailed for the duty of capturing this garrotter, as no crime exists in Tallow?

  Tallow Meeting Prohibited.
  *MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state on what grounds and by whose directions the public meeting called for the town of Tallow on the 7th instant was prohibited without proclamation by the Lord Lieutenant, and then permitted to take place less than half-a-mile from the place where a field had been hired and a platform erected; how many police were drafted into Tallow and Lismore on the occasion; what was the object of drafting them into Lismore, which is four miles from Tallow, and holding them in the Lismore courthouse under arms during the day; what is the cost of the extra police and what proportion, if any, of this cost will be borne by the county rates.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A meeting was held without interference at a place one and a half miles distant from Tallow. A police force consisting of four officers and 133 men was drafted in and so disposed at Tallow, with a reserve at Lismore, as to give any protection that might have been needed to Mr. O'Keefe and any others concerned in recent litigation. The cost of the force amounts to about £70, of which £11 16s. will be charged to local rates.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the meeting was advertised some weeks previously, and yet neither the Committee

  77
  nor the Members of Parliament announced to speak were warned that it would be prohibited.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am not aware that it was advertised.
  *MR. O'SHEE: It was announced some weeks beforehand.

  Tullamore Gaol.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the floors of nearly all the cells in His Majesty's Prison at Tullamore are flagged with a kind of stone known as sweating stone, he will advise the General Prisons Board to have boarded flooring put in cells which have no fires, in the interest of the health of the prisoners.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am advised that the stone flags are very dry in all seasons, and that they are in no way detrimental to health. Fires are not placed in prison cells which are heated otherwise.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: Well, I am in a position to say that the right hon. Gentlemen's information is not correct.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am told the cells are paved with red sandstone flags which do not sweat.
  MR. ROCHE: From personal experience I can corroborate the statement of the hon. Member for South Mayo.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: So can I, and I have had very considerable experience.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The question cannot be argued now.
  MR. DELANY: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever been an inmate of Tullamore Gaol?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Irish Evicted Tenants.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland
  78
  whether tenants who gave up their holdings because they were unable to pay their rents and have since offered reduced rents will be regarded as evicted tenants in the Land Bill.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The words "evicted tenants" are not used in the Bill. The class of persons referred to is covered by the provisions of Clause 2 (1) (d).

  Smerwick Harbour.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the applications made to the Congested Districts Board by the fishermen of Smerwick Harbour for the erection of a pier and of the number of families in the district who depend solely on the fishing industry, he will urge the Board to take immediate steps for the construction of this pier.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Board, three years ago, offered to contribute towards the cost of extending the existing slip. No action has since been taken by the County or Rural District Council.

  Limerick and Cork Mail Trains.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the London and North-Western Railway Company's express boat, at present leaving Dublin at 10.15 a.m., is to be changed on 1st July to 11 a.m., thus enabling passengers from the north and west of Ireland to avail themselves of the accelerated service; and, if so, will the attention of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland be called to the fact with the view of having an early train from Limerick and Cork run in the same connection.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The proposed alteration has been notified in the public Press. Further publicity will attach to the hon. Member's Question, and the matter can scarcely escape the attention of the chairman and directors of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company.

  Mortgages on Irish Land.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the

  79
  Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what, approximately, is the amount of money charged by way of mortgage on Irish landed estates.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am not in a position to give this information. There is no material officially available from which to ascertain it, but it is a matter of common knowledge that many properties are very heavily mortgaged.

  Vandeleur Estate.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the settlement created by the late Lord Russell on the Vandeleur estate, in County Clare, is still in force between landlord and tenant; and whether these tenants will be at liberty to avail themselves of the Land Bill should it become law this year.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The award recited that the evicted tenants had been reinstated in their holdings as tenants, that some of them had had, and others had not had, judicial rents fixed, and that the landlord had agreed to accept arrears of rent at a certain rate in the case of "judicial tenants," and at a different rate from non-judicial tenants. I cannot say whether the landlord re-instated the evicted judicial tenants with the intention that their status as such should be continued. I understand that it was subsequently held in a Court of law that the award was not legally binding.
  MR. DILLON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a circular has been issued directing that all the tenants must pay the hanging gale? Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations so that this may not be persisted in?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am not aware of that. I know that the award was held not to be legally binding. I cannot prevent anyone exercising his private rights.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: But under the peculiar circumstances of the day the Government might take some steps to prevent these people being treated as they are threatened by circular.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: You can refuse to lend the forces of the Crown.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Galway and the Marine Works Act Grant.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how much of the Marine Works Act Grant has already been expended within the limits of the Parliamentary Borough of Galway; how much has been granted for works in the same area; and how much it is proposed shall be expended.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It is not proposed to expend any portion of the grant in this area. The Government is in communication with the County Council with respect to the carrying out of Marine Works at other points in the county.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: Then I may take it that nothing is to be expended in this area.
  MR. WYNDHAM: That was the tenor of my reply.

  Ashbourne Act Purchasers.
  MR. POWER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the Resolution adopted by the Kilmacthomas, Carrick-on-Suir, and other Boards of Guardians in Ireland, declaring that, owing to the reduction of the interest on the British National Debt from 3 per cent. at time of purchase to 2½ per cent., the tenant purchasers under the Ashbourne Acts are now paying 10s. per cent. more than they equitably should; and whether he will accept or insert a Clause in the Land Bill to deal with this matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Advances under the Ashbourne Acts were made by the issue of Local Loans Stock which carried, and still carries, a 3 per cent. dividend. This is not affected by fluctuations in the dividends on Consols.
  MR. DILLON: When will the stock be redeemable?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I think in 1912.

  Irish Local Govermment Board Staff.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why the practice of the Local Government Board to appoint to vacancies on the permanent staff temporary inspectors who have satisfactorily discharged their duties has been departed from within the past few days in the transfer of Mr. Charles O'Connor from the position of auditor to that of inspector, and state the special circumstances which necessitated the transfer of Mr. O'Connor; and whether, seeing that Mr. Wilson Lynch has been for several years a temporary inspector and has discharged his duties to the satisfaction of the Local Government Board, he will before the post of auditor is filled, consider the desirability of again attaching Mr. O'Connor to the Audit Department.
  MR. WYNDHAM: In filling vacancies on the Staff of Inspectors the Local Government Board invariably proceeds upon the principle of selecting persons who, in the Board's opinion, are the most competent and best qualified. That principle was followed in the case of the vacancy mentioned.

  Irish Land Purchase
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the effect of the abolition of the quit rent on the instalments to be paid by the tenant under the Irish Land Bill on £100 rental, and will he also lay a Paper showing the comparative effect on the tenant's instalments under the present Bill and previous Purchase Acts.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The effect of the abolition of the perpetual rent charge will best be illustrated by a re-issue of the Return, No. 183 of this session, with an additional column showing figures under the altered conditions. With respect to instalments under
  82
  previous Purchase Acts I would refer the hon. Member to Return No. 186 of 1902.

  Ireland—Mayors and the Judicial Oath.
  MR. CONDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the fact that in the majority of the boroughs in Ireland, since the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act of 1840, the mayors have been acting as Justices of the Peace without being required to take the judicial oath, and that the mayor of Clonmel upon the accession of his present Majesty declined to take the judicial oath, a course followed by the present mayor, which was legal in accordance with the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, which has, however, subsequently been changed, and in view of the inconvenience caused by the action of the Irish Executive in this matter, the Government will take steps to obtain a decision of a competent Court of Law upon the point in question, as requested by a resolution of the Clonmel Corporation communicated to him in April last.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): At my right hon. friend's request I will reply to this Question. I do not think that the hon. Member's statement is quite accurate in its details, but I concur with him in thinking that it is desirable to have the question of law mentioned raised and determined in a Court of Law, if a convenient opportunity should present itself.
  MR. CONDON: I acted as mayor for six years. Why was not action taken in my case?
  MR. ATKINSON: The point was not raised until recently.
  MR. CONDON: I raised it myself last year by refusing to take the oath.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.
  MR. CONDON: The right hon. Gentleman contradicted my statement.

  The Irish Gold Ornaments.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the decision which has been given in the case of the Irish gold ornaments, he will suggest to His Majesty that they should be handed over to Ireland.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: A good many matters of some complexity arise in connection with this matter. I shall be glad if the hon. Baronet will put down a Question for a later day, and I hope I shall then be in a position to give a complete answer.

  Irish Butter Trade—Railway Delays in England.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to complaints as to the delay in delivery of saltless Irish butter coming from Limerick and consigned to the Mapleton Dairy Company, Edenbridge, Kent, and as to the non-delivery of two boxes of the same class butter consigned to the Cash Stores, High Street, Dovercourt, sent from Limerick on the 11th inst. and not delivered on the 16th inst., and, if so, whether he will inquire into these complaints and take steps to make the railway companies responsible for the delay in fulfilling their obligations to the public.
  MR. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir; the Board of Trade have received, through the hon. Member, a letter containing the complaints in question. Inquiry is being made of the railway companies concerned, and I shall be happy to inform the hon. Member of the result.

  Germany and Canada.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the proceedings of the Colonial Conference 1902, or in any other Papers presented to Parliament, there is any statement of the views of the British Government or the Canadian Government on the conduct of Germany in placing Canada on the general tariff.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no such statement in any Papers which have been presented to Parliament. A general reference to the matter will be found on page 39 of the Colonial Conference Blue-book Cd. 1299 of 1902.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Was it not a matter of special complaint at the Colonial Conference?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I would not say that. It was not specially discussed by the Conference.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman himself did not allude to it in his speech to the Conference?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The report of my speech is before the House.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if any correspondence has ensued between the British and German Governments relating to the higher duties levied on Canadian products; if so, will he lay it upon the Table; if not, is it the intention of the Government to make effective protest against the action of the German Government.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The correspondence on this subject will be very shortly laid on the Table. I think, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman had better wait till he sees the correspondence before putting a Question as to its character.
  MR. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the Question?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman had better wait and see the correspondence.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he has taken or is taking to induce Germany to cease differentiation against Canada other than inviting discussion in this country upon retaliation duties.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The Question should be addressed to the Foreign Office, but I am not aware of any effective steps that can be taken under our present fiscal system.
  MR. BLACK: May I ask whether the attention of Germany has been called to the hospitality which she enjoys from us at our coaling stations?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not a Question which ought to be addressed to me.

  Canadian Duties.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, are the Canadian rates of import duty as given in Cd. 1299 of 1902, pp. 115, 116, and 117, still in force, or have they been varied; are the Canadian duties on British cotton-woven manufactures from 16⅔ to 23⅓ per cent. ad valorem, on iron and steel manufactures principally 20 per cent., on iron and steel machinery, except mining, 16⅔ per cent., on iron and woollen-woven manufactures from 20 to 23⅓ per cent.; and will he lay upon the Table a Return showing for each of the following colonies and possessions, viz., Australia, New Zealand, Cape Colony, Natal, Canada, West Indies, British Guiana, and India the present rates, or approximate rates, ad valorem of the import duties levied on British cotton manufactures, iron and steel manufactures, machinery, and woollen manufactures, respectively, as well as the extra duties, if any, levied on similar imports of other than British origin.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The rates of duty given on goods imported into Canada in Cd. 1299 of 1902, pp. 115–7, are still in force, with the exception that the rates given in the column headed "Rates under the General Tariff" are subject to a surtax of one-third of the duty if the goods are the growth, produce, or manufacture of Germany. The rates of duty on the British textile and iron and steel manufactures are as stated in the Question, but the rates given for cotton-woven manufactures and machinery are for principal articles only. As regards the latter part of the Question the hon. Member will find the information in the Return published in November last, Command 1356.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: Have the Canadian Government recently approached His Majesty's Government asking for intervention in regard to the dispute with Germany?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I must ask for notice of that.

  Fiscal Inquiry.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has examined the precedent for an inquiry into proposals for fiscal changes in this country afforded by the Select Committee on Import Duties, 1840, which took evidence in public and published its Report, and upon which the Government were represented by two Ministers, one of Cabinet rank; and whether he will consider the advantages of this method of inquiry over the proposed method.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I certainly do not lay down the dogmatic proposition that an inquiry by a Committee of this House would be necessarily an improper way of approaching this subject, or parts of this subject; but I do not think anything would be gained by appointing a Committee in the course of the present session.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will from time to time issue in Blue-book form, the statistical information obtained by the Cabinet in their inquiry into the Colonial Secretary's proposal for a revision of the fiscal arrangements of this country.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: At the same time may I ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether some public notice will be given of the time when oral evidence is to be received upon the fiscal inquiry, in order that those connected with the working classes may have an opportunity to tender their evidence; whether such oral evidence is to be submitted to the Cabinet, or to any person or persons appointed to receive it; and whether all materials used and all evidence taken, either orally or in writing, will be made public as early as possible, and at such a time is to ensure that the question of a

  87
  fundamental change in our present fiscal arrangements will not be submitted to an unprepared Party and the unprepared constituencies.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not contemplate giving any undertaking with regard to this inquiry.
  MR. BLACK: Do I understand that the Government will only give such information as suits themselves?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, the hon. Gentleman is to understand what I said, which is that I would not give any undertaking on the subject.

  Bimetallism and the Fiscal Inquiry.
  MR. DUNCAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the desirability of adopting a bi-metallic currency will form part of the inquiry which is being held into our fiscal relations with the colonies and foreign countries.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I see no connection between the currency problem suggested by the hon. Gentleman and the fiscal problem to which I understand him to refer.

  Naval Works Bill.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can say when the Naval Works Bill will be introduced.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that the Bill is ready, but I cannot as yet definitely fix a day for its introduction.

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Law, etc Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 218]. Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 218.] Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 252.]

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent the Lords to request that their Lordships
  88
  will be pleased to give leave to Sir Henry Graham, the Clerk of the Parliaments, to attend to be examined as a Witness before the Committee of Public Accounts.—(Sir Arthur Hayter.)

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. J. W. LOWTHERin the Chair.
  Clause 1:—
  MR. HARDYmoved the postponement of Clause 1 (duty on grain, etc., to cease.) He said that hon. Members in bringing forward particular questions were often much hampered by the rules of debate, and of that they had a conspicuous illustration on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, when every speaker, except perhaps the Prime Minister, dealt with a subject which was not immediately before the House. That day he was hampered in very much the same way. In moving the postponement of the clause he would have to tread very warily, for he could not go in detail into the considerations which had induced him to bring forward the Motion. What he did desire to obtain on general grounds by this step was that the Committee should decide for themselves from what particular source of indirect taxation that relief should be given, which it had been decided by reading the Bill a second time should be given, to the taxpayer this year. If they passed the clause as it stood they would have eaten their cake, and those who were anxious for the relief of the tea or coal duties, or other sources of indirect taxation, would only be able to discuss the matter academically, because the whole of the relief available would have been given away. In parting with this clause they would be parting with an actual source of revenue, whereas in dealing with other taxes they would deal with reductions, the taxes remaining part of the fiscal system to be reduced or extended as might be deemed expedient in the to future. He also thought the House might fairly ask to be given the same

  89
  selective power as the Chancellor of the Exchequer used when he introduced the Budget. They ought in fact to be allowed to decide between two alternatives. At the time the Budget was introduced they supposed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke for the Cabinet as a whole, but since then the situation had materially altered, and they might well ask if the right hon. Gentleman spoke only for himself. Without desiring to dwell in detail upon this question, he thought it was desirable, now that they had actually got to the discussion of the corn duty itself, that they should bring forward this Motion in order to give the House free liberty of deciding from which source it would take this indirect taxation, and also to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer a further opportunity of saying whether he would not meet the objections of those who desired to retain this tax and reconsider the matter at the last moment. He begged to move.
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "In page 1 to postpone Clause 1."—(Mr. Hardy.)
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): My hon. friend has asked the Government to consent to the postponement of this clause in order that the Committee may have an opportunity to decide what form of relief shall be given to indirect taxation, and he argued that unless the corn tax be postponed and the tea tax comes on first the Committee will not have that opportunity. So far as the form is concerned, the question as between corn and tea was distinctly raised by the Amendment of my right hon. friend the Member for Sleaford when he moved his Amendment to the Second Reading; and certainly the support which my right hon. friend got was hardly sufficient to justify the hon. Member in now asking for a postponement of this clause. I cannot see that the postponement of this clause would effect the purpose he desires. The hon. Member says he desires the Committee to have a free hand and full liberty to decide between the corn tax and the tea duty, or any of the other duties involved. Surely my hon. friend must see that
  90
  some one tax must come first, and assuming that there is a certain amount to be given away, and no more, where does the liberty of the Committee come in? Whatever tax comes first the decision which the Committee comes to on that particular tax settles the matter. Our view—and it is very much strengthened by what took place on the Second Reading—is that by far the most proper and most important tax to remit is the corn tax. My hon. friend differs from me in that respect, but he can hardly expect me to postpone a tax which we think ought to be taken off in order to give him an opportunity of inducing the House to take off a tax which we do not think ought to be taken off. Under these circumstances I am afraid I cannot consent to the proposal made by my hon. friend.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he was sorry to hear the decision of the right hon. Gentleman, because he thought the appeal of his hon. friend who had moved this Amendment was not at all an unreasonable one. The Government was asked to take a course which they had frequently adopted on other measures of much less importance, and that was to leave it an open question to their supporters on this side of the House and give them a fair opportunity of coming to a decision as to whether the remission of indirect taxation should be made upon one or the other of these two articles—tea on the one hand, and corn on the other. When he placed his Amendment on the Paper, his object was to substitute tea, or some other subject of indirect taxation, for a remission of taxation instead of corn, and he did so because he was aware that a very large number of hon. Members thoroughly shared his opinion on the point. With that view he had placed upon the Paper a series of Amendments, and if this clause had been postponed, he should have moved them in turn. After the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, he recognised that this would not be possible, and the only result of moving his series of Amendments would be that his opposition would degenerate into pure obstruction, and he never had and never would adopt that course. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer had

  91
  refused to make this concession, he should not persevere in his intention of moving his Amendments. At the same time, he must state that there was one question upon which he was absolutely pledged to a vast number of supporters outside, and that was to support the omission of this clause and to endeavour to substitute a remission of the tea duty. He saw no possibility of succeeding with regard to this Amendment, and probably it would be best for them to make their fight when they came to the omission of Clause 1.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid he had not hesitated to declare that the abandonment of the corn duty was a cowardly and disgraceful act on the part of the Government, and the blame must not be attributed to one Minister, because all members of the Cabinet must share the responsibility of an act which would be very much to their disgrace in time to come. Nobody felt the burden of this tax, and the foreigner paid it.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to discuss the character of the clause now, we shall reach that question by and by.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid he hoped his hon. friend would not press this matter to a division, for they would shortly have a legitimate opportunity of showing how many dissentients there were from what he considered was a highly discreditable course.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid his right hon. friend had explained that he was not going to move a certain number of Amendments which were on the Paper in his name. It occurred to him as a relevant reason for postponement that perhaps some hon. Members who had not put down Amendments on the Paper might do so if the clause were postponed. He did not know that that would convince him of the propriety of voting for this proposal. Not only in the breast of his right hon. friend but in other protectionist hearts there was a singular trembling, and they seemed to be apprehensive of discussion.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: We were not allowed to discuss it.
  LORD HUGH CECILsaid his right hon. friend had perhaps not noticed an Amendment on the Paper which the hon. Member for Liverpool had not persisted in, and which he had not had the courage to move. No doubt he acted discreetly, because the discussion would not have served his purpose, or the purpose of those who had equally at heart the objects he had in view. He thought the position was a little singular in view of the revolution in their fiscal policy which had been recommended. They had no opportunity of discussing that policy except such an opportunity as necessarily raised a wholly false and different issue to the merits of the question.
  MR. HARDYasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PHILIP FOSTERsaid he desired to move the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper to leave out of line 11 in page 2, "twenty-five" and insert "fifteen." He had hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have seen his way to reduce this figure, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman some time ago if he could possibly do so. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would favourably consider his proposal.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 11, to leave out the word 'twenty-five' and insert the word 'fifteen.'"—(Mr. Philip Foster.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'twenty-five' stand part of the clause."
  *MR. HERBERT SAMUELtrusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to accept the Amendment. The point raised was a comparatively small one, but one of considerable importance to a body of traders in this country. Those who had corn in stock above 500 quarters were to receive back the duty paid on that corn, but those traders who had stock

  93
  somewhat less than that felt that they were being unfairly treated. This Amendment was proposed to safeguard the interests of the small traders, and to enable them to secure the same advantages which were to be given to the large traders. He was informed by the President of the London Grain Trade Association that there were probably 400 or 500 persons affected by the change as proposed. It did seem hard on those small traders that, because they were small traders, they should not receive the same advantages as were to be given to the large traders. If there were two millers or dealers in a town, and one had a stock of 500 quarters, he would get back from the Exchequer £25, but the small man who had only 400 quarters, would not get back the £200 to which he would in any fair principle of equity be entitled. The trade had already suffered much inconvenience through the vacillating policy of the Government by their first imposing, then taking off, and then suggesting that they were going to re-impose the corn duty. He hoped that in view of this inconvenience the right hon. Gentleman would be able to be generous in the matter and accept the Amendment.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid that adequate notice of the remission of the tax was given so that stocks might be reduced. The Government at first thought that the notice from the time the Budget was introduced to 30th June was ample to enable holders to reduce their stocks, but it was pointed out to them in some quarters that, so far as the larger dealers were concerned, that notice might lead to a great dearth of grain and flour, because millers would not renew their stocks, nor would the market be able to make contracts for the importation of grain to proceed in the ordinary way. The Government saw that just before the date when the tax was to be remitted there might be something in the nature of a famine of grain in our market with a corresponding rise in price. The present proposal involved a considerable sacrifice, but they felt that it was better that there should be a sacrifice, so far as revenue was concerned, rather than run the risk of the unfortunate condition of things he had described, and
  94
  so, in order to enable the trade to be carried on continuously and without any break at all, they agreed to pay a rebate up to 30th June on stocks of over 500 quarters which were proved to have paid duty. It was necessary that some limit should be placed on the quantity of stock on which a return of duty should be given. It would be, otherwise, absolutely impossible to prevent considerable loss to the revenue. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment and the Committee would understand that in order to prevent fraud on the revenue there must be a great deal of care, inquiry, and examination, and it was represented to him by the Customs that if they were to go below the proposed limit their difficulty would be enormously increased, and probably fraud would also be increased. After all, the Committee must see that the small men could do that which could not be done by members of the trade who dealt in large quantities. It was perfectly easy for the smaller dealers to reduce their stocks between April and 30th June so as not to involve loss at all. He was informed that it was easy for them in their transactions with the large dealers to arrange to have such quantities up to 30th June as would enable them to carry on business without inconvenience. Under these circumstances he was sorry that he could not agree to the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  *MR. CHAPLINsaid that in rising to move the omission of the Clause he knew perfectly well that the whole question was merged in the much larger subject which had recently been introduced by the proposals made by the Colonial Secretary. He was also equally well aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in perfect accord—he did not know that he would be right in saying that he was in league—with the whole Opposition against the views which almost universally were professed by his supporters on this side of the House Until last year. Therefore his chance of any success on a division in reversing the decision of the Government at the present moment, with the two

  95
  sides of the House united in a most unnatural alliance, and one which he ventured to think was destined at no distant time to be fatal to the continued union of one of those Parties, namely, that on this side of the House, was of course perfectly hopeless. Those, however, were considerations which would not deter him this afternoon from doing his best to support the cause which he believed, and indeed knew, to be right, and which, he suspected, were shared, probably by a considerable majority of Gentlemen on this side of the House. He must be content to leave it to the verdict of the constituencies—a verdict which he for one was profoundly convinced could not be deferred for any great length of time—to decide between him and those who would be his opponents to-day. He was happy, however, in one thing, viz., that they had had a very considerable discussion of this question on the Second Reading of the Bill, and it would be needless, therefore, for him to detain the Committee at any great length now. He intended, as far as possible, to confine himself to those points of the controversy which had arisen out of the clause between the Government and himself, and which the Government had either evaded or been unable to meet.
  But, before he did this, there was one thing he desired to say for himself, and that was to repeat—he was afraid it would be for the fiftieth or the hundredth time—the stereotyped statements which, he observed, were so constantly made in some portions of the Press, and which had been referred to by his noble friend the Member for Greenwich, as to his supposed protectionist's views and proclivities, that neither now or at any time had he been influenced by motives of protection in any way, and he was at a loss to imagine why these proclivities were attributed to him, for, to the very best of his recollection, he did not believe that he had ever made a protectionist speech, or given a protectionist vote, in the whole course of his political career, unless, it might be said that by speaking and voting for the shilling duty on corn last year, and in opposing its remission this year, he was to be dubbed a protectionist, in
  96
  which case he was a protectionist last year in company with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As a matter of fact, if he ever entertained those views he abandoned them, God knew how many years ago, and for this reason. He had always been greatly interested in the agricultural industry of this kingdom, but he did not believe that by any conceivable duty on corn it was possible to imagine they could ever restore the corn-growing industry to the position it occupied many years ago. It seemed to him only the other day that two gentlemen, well known to Members of the House — noted agriculturists, Mr. Clare Sewell Read and Mr. Albert Pell, whose names were household words in everything connected with agriculture—had been sent by the Royal Commission then sitting on the Depression of Agriculture, known as the Duke of Richmond's Commission, to America to inquire into the Agricultural portions of the United States, and as to the kind of price at which wheat could be sent from that country to England; and they came back with the report that it could probably never be sent over under 40s. a quarter. Now, he had seen wheat quoted at 17s. a quarter since then, and the average price was immeasurably less than 40s. per quarter. If the object of protection were to restore the agricultural interest to its former condition it was not a duty of 1s., 2s., or 5s. that would be required. It would require a duty of 20s. or 25s. to put the corn industry in England on its legs again; and that, of course, was inconceivable and entirely out of the question. While he gladly welcomed any encouragement or help that was given to agriculture, from whatever direction it came, and however small in amount, it had always been on the ground of revenue and revenue alone, upon financial grounds and these alone, that, for twenty years, in and out of office, and in or out of Parliament, he had advocated the restoration of the 1s. duty on grain which, unfortunately, in his opinion, the Government were so foolish as to try and repeal. Having said that, he would pass to the consideration of the clause itself which was now immediately before

  97
  the Committee, and for which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was primarily responsible.
  Now, one of the main objections which he had always urged to the repeal of the duty from the very outset was that it was introduced for permanent purposes. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Second Reading of the Bill denied that; he said that—
  "It was imposed mainly for the purposes of the war,"
  a statement which he might remind him was greeted with loud shouts of "No, no," from all parts of that side of the House. And then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
  "Although it was quite true the right hon. Member for Bristol had expressed the hope that it might be permanent as a means of broadening the basis of taxation, …… it could not be considered as permanent, and that there was no inconsistency on his part in repealing it now."
  Now the best answer he could give to that statement of the right hon. Gentleman was to quote the very words of his right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol, which he had not quoted before to the House, and the Committee could then judge for themselves how much or how little his statement was justified. On 9th June last year the right hon. Gentleman said this:—
  "In my belief such has been the growth of our expenditure during the past few years, and such is likely to be its continued growth under any Administration, that it was absolutely necessary to increase the heads of indirect taxation. The Leader of the Opposition said the other day that it was mainly due to increased armaments, and he intimated pretty clearly his own opinion that we had gone too far in that direction… I do not believe,"
  continued the right hon. Gentleman,
  "that the country is likely to take that view either with regard to the Navy or with regard to the ordinary peace establishment of the Army, and if I wanted confirmation of that view I might quote some words Lord Rosebery recently used in a speech delivered at Leeds."
  And then he went on:—
  "Did Lord Rosebery condemn it? No, Sir, not a word. All he said was that it might possibly be necessary, … and for all he knew was necessary that ordinary expenditure should have gone up £32,000,000."
  He asked how it was possible, in the face of a statement like that on the part of his right hon. friend the Member for
  98
  Bristol, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could come forward and tell the House that the tax last year was imposed mainly for the purposes of the war, and that it was not intended to be, and could not be, a permanent tax.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid he begged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. He had made some reference to a remark which had fallen from his right hon. friend on an Amendment which had been moved to make the tax for one year only; and he had given some strong arguments why it was not possible for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to impose a tax for one year only. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol confirmed the view he took.
  *MR. CHAPLINsaid he was perfectly well aware of what the right hon. Gentleman said as to putting on a tax for one year only; but he had got the report of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in which he said that the corn tax could not be permanent, and that he was perfectly consistent in proposing its repeal. He would quote it if he desired it. Very well then! The right hon. Gentleman has at last made the admission, beyond all question or doubt, that the tax was brought in with the intention and for the purpose of being a permanent tax.
  Now, that being so, with the permission of the House he would turn to another point. He had complained in the course of his speech that on the faith of that statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Bristol, capital had been invested, mills had been re-opened, industries had been restarted, and that all this would now be lost. And what was the answer of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He said—
  "He thought the millers were very rash people, if, because of 1s. duty being imposed upon corn they had largely increased their plant."
  But it was not the 1s. duty on corn—or to be strictly accurate, the 3d. duty per cwt. on corn—that induced the millers to increase their plant; it was the duty of 5d. per cwt. imposed on flour. What was the rashness in that. As a matter

  99
  of business, they thought the investment was good, and their opinion was thoroughly justified by the result. Did his right hon. friend mean to say that these millers were rash in believing the statement of the right hon. Member for Bristol that the tax was going to be permanent? If not, he asked him again where was the rashness? If he did, then he took the liberty of entirely disagreeing with his right hon. friend. The right hon. Member for Bristol was the last man in the world to mislead any man in business or connected with trade with whom he had come into any relations in connection with the office he filled when he occupied the position of his right hon. friend. After the explanation given the other night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was sorry to say his opinion had been only strengthened and confirmed in regard to the right hon. Gentleman's present proceedings. They had several indirect taxes before them which were imposed expressly for the purposes of the war. They had one indirect tax—partly for the expenses of one year of the war, and afterwards avowedly for permanent purposes. Among the war taxes was the increased duty on tea. In making his remission of indirect taxation the Chancellor told us that his choice lay between tea and corn; but he had deliberately elected to retain the tax which was specifically imposed for the purposes of the war, and repealed the duty which was avowedly introduced as a permanent tax. He therefore adhered most strongly to the opinion that in the face of the most explicit statements made by his predecessor, his right hon. friend was wholly without justification for the course he had taken, and that those who suffered by that course had the strongest, gravest, and most legitimate ground of complaint. That was his answer also to what the Prime Minister said on this branch of the subject the other night.
  But there was another class which suffered in precisely the same manner as the millers—a class which appeared to have escaped the recollection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer altogether, but to whom, in their small way, it was of even greater importance than to the farmers them-
  100
  selves to be able to get a cheap and abundant supply of offals. That was the class of agricultural labourers. In almost every county with which he was acquainted the agricultural labourer who was at all decently well-off kept a pig. How was it fed? Very largely on offals, when they could be obtained. During recent years, as everybody knew, a vast number of local mills had been closed owing to American competition in flour. Under the duty imposed last year, these local mills had, by degrees, been re-opened and offals had again become cheap, abundant, and easily obtainable by these poor people; and they would have been cheaper and still more abundant in the future had the duty been retained. That meant the labourer would have been able to keep two pigs instead of one—which to him would have been a matter of the greatest importance. That might account for an observation by an agricultural labourer, reported to him by the gentleman to whom it was made, and who repeated it to him. His informant was in daily intercourse with agricultural labourers—nobody saw more of them—and what he told him was this: They were all of them getting their loaves at the same price, of the same quality and same size as before the shilling duty was put on, and that never a word had he heard against it. But one of them talking to him did use an expression which he commended to the consideration of his right hon. friend. He said—and he hoped the Committee would pardon him quoting the words—"It is a damned shame for the Government to take it off." Of course he did not approve of that language, nor did he think for a moment of endorsing it, but at the same time it most forcibly expressed his own sentiments on the subject, and he entirely agreed with the condemnation of the Government so emphatically pronounced. And whenever they went to the country—and that time would come sooner or later—a great many Members who, like himself, represented agricultural constituencies would hear a great deal more of this subject and of the Government of which they had formerly been the strong supporters. On the other hand, he expressed the

  101
  strongest opinion that if the right hon. Gentleman had proposed to remit the tea duty and keep the duty on corn he would have done something not only for every cottager in the country, and still more for cottagers and labourers in rural districts, which would not be easily forgotten. Now he had given them one of the results of repealing the duty on flour, and to the Government, he fancied, a rather unexpected result too. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer had got his answer ready, in fact he had given his answer on a previous occasion, and he would like to examine it. The right hon. Gentleman could not understand how £2,500,000 could be collected on bread and flour without the consumer feeling it. Most of the Committee could understand that; at all events he could. But whatever might have been the case last year, he could quite see the position of the right hon. Gentleman this year. It would not suit the right hon. Gentleman to understand it in face of the repeal he was proposing to make. So much for the £2,500,000 collectively. But said the right hon. Gentleman—
  "There is one thing I do know. Whatever may be the case with regard to wheat, flour has risen, and that to a large extent.… I am thankful to say that home baking is not an extinct art in this country. I am told in many parts of Lancashire and Yorkshire, and in other districts, home baking exists, both among the agricultural labourers and the mining population."
  That was true and he was glad to know it was so, and then he went on—
  "And it cannot be alleged that they do not pay on account of the duty. So in regard to the industrial associations which exist throughout the country; no doubt they must have borne this duty which has been paid on flour."
  Now, what he had to say upon that point was this. That might be all very well, but it was purely and entirely an assumption on the part of the right hon. Gentleman for which no evidence or witnesses, and no proof whatever had been offered to the House. He had made it his business to inquire into this matter and into facts in that part of England, and his information was exactly the opposite. It came, too, from a lifelong resident in the county of Durham, who had been for years in constant association with the mining popula-
  102
  tion of that county; nor was it in order to reply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he obtained it. On the contrary, he had it at the time of the Second Reading, but in the mass of material at his disposal he omitted to use it. He wrote to him fully on the subject, and the pith of that letter he proposed to quote to the Committee—
  "During the last ten days I have made several inquiries from miners' wives, small dealers and grocers and people trading in co-operative societies, and, without exception, I am told that the retail price of flour is the same to-day as it was before the duty was imposed. In one case—a co-operative society—the retail price of the flour is a penny per stone less now.… Among the miners and artisans of Northumberland and Durham, and, I believe, Cumberland too, fully 95 per cent. of the people bake their own bread. Co-operative stores flourish in every village and the baker's cart is unknown.… It will show the extent of household baking when I say that many of those societies, each with 1,000 to 6,000 on their books, do not sell a dozen loaves of bread, except fancy bread, in twelve months.… As regards the whole of the North the question may be summed up as follows: The price of flour with the working man has not been increased, so his bread costs no more than formerly. The system under which bread is sold does not show that the price of the loaf has been increased, so the person who buys bread is paying no more now. As the imposition of the duty has not increased the price paid by the consumer it is safe to say that its repeal will not reduce it, Therefore, the working man gets no benefit by the abolition of the registration fee."
  That was a tolerably fair answer, at all events, to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the faith of a gentleman long resident in that part of the world and intimately acquainted with the conditions under which the miners live, and he thought the Committee would agree that it destroyed the last plank of the defence on which the right hon. Gentleman rested for the course he had adopted. It was needless, he thought, to say any more. He did not think he need say another word upon that subject, or detain the Committee more than another moment or two. He was aware, in view of the larger proposals now before the country, many Members from the country, both in and outside the House, and on that side of the House were disposed to wait before taking any further action or taking part in any division in this House. Might he remind those who thought with him of the old adage "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush?" They had got this

  103
  valuable revenue at the smallest possible ost, without any loss accruing to the taxpayers, and he was most reluctant to abandon it, after advocating its imposition for twenty years. No one could tell when they would see it again. The Corn Laws were not repealed in a day, and although so far as he was individually concerned he had not the slightest doubt as to the ultimate success of the proposals made by the Colonial Secretary which were, as he understood, shared in and adopted by the Prime Minister,—
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I do not think these matters are strictly relevant to the question, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will confine himself at the conclusion of his speech within the limits to which he confined himself at the commencement.
  *MR. CHAPLINregretted that he should have trangressed even by a hands-breadth. He knew there were a great number of Gentlemen on this side of the House from their conversation, and still more from their letters, some of them received only this morning, who entirely agreed with him. But he was also aware of the natural reluctance to vote against the Government of which they were acknowledged supporters, but there were exceptions to every rule, and his experience taught him that this was one of them. It was, however, for them, not for him, to decide. He opposed this clause because the tax was imposed last year as a permanent tax, and with the deliberate and avowed policy of broadening the basis of taxation; he opposed it because at that time it was supported by arguments which had never been answered, and which had been more than justified by the result. He opposed it because it had provided a revenue with less trouble and inconvenience than would be effected by any other tax that could be devised; he opposed it because no one would benefit by its repeal, and they lost the opportunity of giving a real boon to the consumer, and especially to the poorer classes of the country; and, lastly, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by this inconsiderate action, had placed the best and most loyal supporters that ever a Government had in a thoroughly false, painful, and humiliating position.
  104
  Those were the reasons by which he was guided in opposing the repeal of this duty; and whether he was supported by many or by few he intended to take the decision of the House of Commons on the question.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, to leave out Clause 1."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
  Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid that the subject had been so often discussed that it was almost impossible to advance fresh arguments regarding it. He would, however, crave the permission of the Committee to say a few words, as he had not hitherto taken any part in the discussion, or registered any vote in connection with the question. It must be clear to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Government that it was a subject on which, at all events, the rural districts felt very strongly, and upon which they held very decided and distinct views. What was the position in which he found himself as the representative of a rural constituency, and an avowed and hearty supporter of His Majesty's Government? He had, as a supporter of the Government, to attempt the impossible, namely, to reconcile the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year with the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year. The arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year were confirmed by the opinion of the great majority of the House; and he failed to see how they had been upset by the counter arguments of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. His own natural instinct—partly because he was a soldier, and partly because he was a politician—was to follow his leaders; but when he found his leaders in sharp conflict he should take leave to make up his own mind. He did not want to labour the arguments which had been used with reference to the broadening and widening of the basis of taxation. But it surely stood to reason that if the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year had the effect of widening and broadening the basis of taxation, then the counter action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year must have the

  105
  effect of narrowing the basis of taxation. One of the shrewdest Chancellors of the Exchequer of the present generation, Lord Goschen, laid the most emphatic stress on seizing every opportunity of widening the basis of taxation, even if the tax imposed was very small. He himself heartily welcomed the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year; and he heartily regretted the reaction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer this year. That was not all. He was afraid he would have to find fault with the arguments adduced not only by the Chancellor of the Exchequer but also by his right hon. friend the Prime Minister.
  The Prime Minister defended the repeal of this tax on the ground that it was imposed because the Government wanted money, and was now to be repealed because the Government did not want any money. It might be perfectly true that money might have been wanted last year more than it was wanted this year, but he did not think it was quite correct to say that money was not wanted now. Who would not be able to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister of the many ways in which they could usefully dispose of revenue. The £2,500,000 which was not apparently needed for any specific purpose could have been used in the reduction of the heavy cost of education, under which the country was now getting a little fidgety and uneasy. There were also many other ways in which the money could be used. Under the Budget proposed by his right hon. friend the Income Taxpayer got considerable relief, to which he was thoroughly entitled, although it had not yet extended as far as he hoped it would. Direct taxation having been relieved, it was right that indirect taxation should also get some relief from the extra burdens for the war. If the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would help the indirect taxpayer by one single farthing he should be inclined to give every possible credit to his right hon. friend for endeavouring to balance his Budget in that direction; but he could not find that the indirect taxpayer would be benefited. In his own constituency he could not find a man who said that he would be benefited by the remission of the corn duty. Where, therefore, did
  106
  the balancing of the Budget come in? As far as his own constituency was concerned there was not a man in it who would have any reason whatever to be grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for repealing this tax. Abroad or at home he wondered where the individual was to be found who would thank his right hon. friend. The only person who would benefit would be the American miller. He, at all events, would have reason to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That, however, was not a fortunate position for the Government, or the Party which supported the Government, or the House of Commons, to be in. He regretted that the subject was not inquired into with a view to discovering whether the small agriculturist would or would not be benefited by the retention of the tax, and how his condition might be improved. He thought the arguments of his right hon. friend the Member for Sleaford would be difficult to upset. This £2,500,000 a year was not felt by the taxpayer, and it would be available revenue at the disposal of the Government for the manifold purposes for which it might be used. Surely, to put that revenue on one side was not a very wise or judicious proceeding. He regretted extremely that revenue which had borne so lightly on the taxpayer, and which might have been so extremely well used, should have been put on one side without sufficient cause or adequate reason, and, for his own part, he would give a fair and square vote against what he believed was an absolute mistake.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just spoken had a great reputation for being a strict disciplinarian. He well remembered a little while ago the hon. and gallant Gentleman at a late hour of the night, when a reply was difficult, pouring the vials of his indignation on hon. Members below the gangway who ventured to discuss the military policy of the Government. In those days the hon. and gallant Gentleman happened to agree with the Government; now the circumstances were different. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had entered a kind of agricultural cave under the leadership of his right hon. friend the Member for Sleaford, the

  107
  avowed object of which was to oppose the financial policy of the Government; and, if he might use the hon. Gentleman's own words, "to chivy the Chancellor of the Exchequer." What an example the hon. and gallant Gentleman was setting younger Members of the House. How could he expect, when he acted in such a manner, that his influence would be as repressive in the future as it had been in the past. His right hon. friend the Member for Sleaford moved to omit the clause which repealed the duty on corn. Personally, he thought that there were several features in the Budget which ought to commend it to the goodwill of the House of Commons, but there was no feature which, in his view, did more to make it satisfactory than the clause remitting the duty on corn. Although last year he voted for the duty and made a speech in its support, he failed to see the slightest inconsistency in this year supporting the Government in their decision to repeal the tax. Last year, when we were at war, it seemed that any taxation proposed by the Government of the day—whether for the expenses of the war, for the heavy expenditure inseparable from its termination, or to meet the great and growing expenditure which our armaments required—had a complete claim upon the support of the followers of that Government, provided that such taxation fulfilled the necessary conditions of yielding a substantial revenue from a large body of the population. The evident objections to a tax upon grain were not denied by most of those who spoke last year from the Government benches in its support; it was admitted that the tax, in so far as there was no countervailing excise, was technically protective; that it was a tax upon the necessities of life, and therefore on a totally different foundation from taxes upon comforts and luxuries; and that it would fall upon the poor and upon the poorest of the poor. Regret was also expressed that it narrowed the free list by adding so many articles to those on which duties were imposed. But while they admitted all this, they did not perhaps properly anticipate the extraordinary impulse this tax would give to the unhealthy appetites of those who were always endeavouring to take advantage of the necessity for raising revenue to advance the interests of some special class with which they
  108
  sympathised. He frankly confessed that he would have approached the question with more hesitation had the tax been proposed by any Member of the Government other than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, whose fiscal orthodoxy was so well known, and who was to-day the champion of free trade opinion on the Government benches. But when he remembered that last year the choice lay between this tax and further borrowing, he could not think that the Government acted with any want of courage or honesty in imposing the duty, and if the war had been still in progress, or there had been no prospect of any diminution of expenditure, he agreed that no logical case could have been made out for its repeal this year. But to-day the situation was widely different. As the fortunes of the country became over clouded and expenditure rose, the tide of taxation necessarily advanced. First, the luxuries of the rich, then the comforts of the poor, and, lastly, the necessities of life became affected. One after another, alcohol and tobacco, then tea, then sugar, and finally bread itself, vanished from the free list. But when the war was over, when expenditure was reduced, when the storms had passed away and the waters began to abate, one landmark after another came again into view, and naturally the last to be submerged was the first to reappear.
  The remark of the Prime Minister that he had never before known anybody to object to the repeal of a tax was very suggestive, because in a free trade country a remission of taxation was always a matter of universal rejoicing, but the moment taxation began to be imposed preferentially, protectively, or retaliatorily, there was a class of persons who would immediately point out what a wicked thing it was to remove a particular tax, and how detrimental its removal would be to the best interests of the country as a whole. It was perfectly natural that those who profited by a tax should object to its removal. He was not very clear, however, as to whether any class had actually profited by the corn tax. Certainly it was not the object of our taxation that any class should derive profit from it. Our object was to get money to carry on the Government of the country, not to advance the

  109
  interests of any particular class. If there were classes who had profited by this tax, the country must think itself lucky it had found it out so soon, and the classes who had profited must think themselves lucky it had not been discovered before. It was also natural that the repeal of the tax should be objected to by that large class of gentlemen who were attracted by the idea of a "self-contained Empire," and who thought the tax might have been made a stepping-stone thereto. He did not propose to deal with that subject, because, although it was a matter on which he had hoped to make a few observations, he had been bitterly disappointed in the courage of the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool. It was natural also that the removal of the tax should be objected to by those who implicitly believed that had it remained a permanent part of our fiscal system it would have brought in a great store of unearned wealth, generously provided by the foreigner. The discussion was probably too far advanced for anyone to change his opinion as to the incidence of the tax. Those who believed that import and export duties if jointly imposed might yield a revenue derived wholly or in part from the labour of the foreigner would doubtless adhere to their opinion to the end of the discussion. He, however, could not share that opinion. Although a temporary gain might sometimes be secured by rapid alterations of the fiscal system, yet the obstruction and dislocation of trade, and the uncertainty and probable disproportion of the ultimate re-adjustment, would in the end destroy more than the slender margin of profit, and the weight of the tax would, he firmly believed, come home, directly or indirectly, to our own people—if they were buyers they would pay in quality, quantity, or price; if they were sellers they would suffer in profit, convenience or reserve power. He had always believed that the corn tax was paid by the people of this country. He was not at all influenced in these views by the statement that only a slight rise in the price of bread had resulted from the tax. [Some HON. MEMBERS dissented.] Nor was he affected by the remarks that there had been no rise at all. The consumer paid just as certainly whether he
  110
  was mulcted in a certain sum by the imposition of a tax or deprived of a benefit which he would otherwise have enjoyed. Such a small tax as that now being repealed, operating over an enormous market, was not in itself sufficiently powerful to affect the price beyond the limits to which it would otherwise go. Freights on the Atlantic, speculation in America, a night of late frost, or a week of unusual sunshine, might cover the operation of such a small tax. But the way in which the tax affected the consumer was that when prices were fluctuating it accelerated the rise and delayed the fall, so that the consumer was certain to bear the burden eventually. This was not a matter of theory only. If the price had not been affected by the tax, how did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford explain the fact that the Treasury had thought it necessary to make more than twenty drawbacks on articles in the manufacture of which flour was used? Or how was it that a deputation of millers had recently waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, bitterly complaining that they had in hand large stocks of duty-paid corn which would now come into competition with corn admitted duty-free, and that consequently they would be serious losers?
  It had frequently been stated that the tax was paid out of the profits of the trade, and principally out of the profits of the foreigner. It was still the privilege of England to buy in the world's markets the food needed for her people; she purchased not only from America, but from Russia, the Argentine, Egypt, India, and other countries. All the exchanges of the world were connected by the electric telegraph, and the quotations varied to a sixteenth or even a thirty-second. Into this elaborate and complicated process of higgling the market—which he ventured to think was much more likely to ascertain the true price of the commodity than anything else the wit of man could devise—there came the British Government with a demand for two or three millions of money for purposes quite unconnected with trade, and they were solemnly asked to believe that the true price was not arrived at until the British Government entered into this operation. They were told that the buyers had been paying £2,500,000 more

  111
  than they needed to have paid before the tax was imposed. He was utterly unable to believe that. He held most strongly that the consumer paid this tax, and if he had not paid it all this year it was only because it was on the way, with the certainty that it would ultimately reach him with the arrears. But this, of course, was no argument against indirect taxation, because indirect taxation did not mean the special taxation of the millers or the shippers or any particular class, and he only referred to the point on account of what had been said by others. Indirect taxation was intended to be paid by the consumer and not by a special class. The hon. and gallant Member had spoken about broadening the basis of taxation, but he wished to point out that to go about the country talking about broadening the basis of taxation, and making arrangements 'by which even the poor would contribute something towards the maintenance of the Empire,' was, entirely opposed to, and incompatible with, the theory that the foreigner pays this tax. But if it was no argument against the tax that the consumer paid it, it was never-less pertinent to inquire on which class of consumer did it fall most heavily. That was a point they must consider. He was told, on very good authority, that the average working man who was married spent 10 per cent. of his income in the purchase of bread. The proportion of income which a working man spent in purchasing bread increased as the ladder of poverty was descended. There was this to be urged against a tax on grain, whether it be small or large, that it fell with increasing force in proportion as people became increasingly poor. Poor people actually consumed more bread when they were unable to pay for more expensive articles.
  His right hon. friend the Member for Sleaford stood forward as the farmer's friend, but there was one class of those engaged in the cultivation of the soil whom he thought his right hon. friend had insufficiently considered, and that was the agricultural labourer. Of all the classes of working men no class consumed a larger proportion of bread, or spent a larger proportion of their income upon bread, than the agricultural labourer. The right hon. Gentleman could not say that this class would get a countervailing compensation because of better employment or higher wages, because he had repeatedly told them, and only this after-
  112
  noon, that a shilling duty, or even a five shilling duty, could not possibly be of real assistance to the farmer, and would not bring an acre of corn into cultivation which had not been cultivated before. Undoubtedly the agricultural labourer would bear a larger proportion of any tax, large or small, than any other class of His Majesty's subjects. Would the agricultural labourer get any countervailing advantage of any kind whatever? Bread was the only commodity at present consumed by the working classes the consumption of which was increased by a tax. My noble friend the Member for Greenwich, in an argument last year which was very much misunderstood and somewhat misrepresented, pointed out that the effect of a tax on bread was not necessarily to make the poor labourer more economical in the consumption of bread, but it made him economise in meat and stimulants, and the deficiency of nourishment had to be made up by the consumption of larger quantities of bread. This tax fell with increasing force upon the very poor. He would not try to prove that the tax had been oppressive, burdensome and cruel. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol that this tax had not been appreciably distinguishable by the very poor, and that the consumer would not be conscious of any direct or tangible relief when it was taken off. Those who were under the strongest pinch of poverty would not understand that the screw had been relaxed just a little, but what he was concerned to establish was that the incidence of this tax, and taxes like it, was a real and unequal incidence, and that if such a tax were to be multiplied two, three, four, five, six, seven, or eight times—and they had no security that this might not be the case—its incidence would be cruel and burdensome, and most severe and detrimental to the well-being of the kingdom. He particularly rejoiced that the right hon. Gentleman had found it possible to take off the tax from the point of view of a Lancashire Member, because anything which tended to increase the cost of living in Lancashire struck a very great blow at the cotton industry, because the export trade in cotton catered for very poor people abroad, and cheapness of

  113
  production was almost vital to the prosperity of the cotton trade. He had often felt how great was the responsibility devolving upon the rulers of this country when he had travelled through Lancashire, and had seen what a vast number of people were gathered together upon a soil so utterly inadequate to sustain them. What was it that a Minister could give to Lancashire, which sent nearly forty Unionist Members to support the Government, to compensate Lancashire for the cheap and abundant food supply which it at present enjoyed?
  They had been told that a tax of one shilling produced £2,500,000, and that they could easily raise the tax instead of having to depend almost entirely upon the income tax, and it was urged that such a tax constituted a reserve in time of war. That was a point which ought to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford, who had very properly interested himself in the question of our food supply. The very first thing that would happen in case of a war with a country which possessed any kind of a navy would be a rise in freights, and consequently a rise in the price of food. The enemy would try to stop getting to this country cheaply, and that was a natural thing for an enemy to do during the operation of war. Was it conceivable that any Government in time of war could possibly impose a tax which would raise the price of food? Why, this tax which they were told was to be such a great reserve to enable them to raise an immense revenue over the whole area of the population would be the very first tax which any Government would have to take off. One would think to hear people talk that the market in England was a matter of no consequence to the people of the United States, and that they were conferring a favour upon us by sending their corn to this country. That was not the way a shopkeeper treated his best customers. If it was important to us to import large quantities of corn from America, our trade was scarcely less important to the people of the United States than to ourselves. He had always thought that it ought to be the main end of English statecraft over
  114
  a long period of years to cultivate good relations with the United States, and he believed that his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Fareham, who had been in such a hurry to worship the golden calf, did not differ from him in thinking that the friendship of America should be their main aim and they should not allow themselves to be turned from that purpose by gusts of ill humour or bad manners. But surely this great material point was worth considering. In times of peace it was an additional security and in times of war what greater security could they have for the food supply across the Atlantic. This was a point which the Prime Minister himself had recognised—and he was a great free trader out of school hours. What greater security could they have for their food supply in time of war than that the United States should be vitally interested in the preservation of an open English market, and that that should be a matter of supreme consequence to the farmers of the Western States? To recapitulate the arguments which induced him to vote against the Motion of his right hon. friend he would say that as a reserve in time of war this tax would prove a broken reed. That the tax benefited the farmer had been denied by the farmers' friends, and the argument that it was paid by the foreigner was a profound illusion; and as a permanent addition to the revenue it seemed to him to be unsatisfactory in view of the determination of the Party opposite to remove it upon the very first opportunity. The repeal of this tax was proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the recommendations of his financial advisers. Its repeal was decided upon by the Cabinet and their decision had been ratified by the House of Commons by an overwhelming majority. This tax was a storm signal marking troublous times and lavish and lamentable expenditure. It was now departing from the House of Commons never, he hoped, to return in the lifetime even of the youngest hon. Member. Let them hope besides that it would carry away with it those unhealthy appetites for privilege, preference, and protection which boded so ill for the continued prosperity of their country.
  *MR. JAMES HOPEsaid that a question had been asked by the opponents of the duty. Granting, they said, that the tax did not fall on the consumer, at what point of increase would it fall on the consumer? The question whether it fell on the producer or the consumer depended on two factors—the margin of profit of the producers and the keenness of the competition among the producers. Suppose a new tax was put upon any commodity which reduced the profit of the producer from 10 to 5 per cent. If the producer were a monopolist he would put up his price, and in that case the consumer paid the whole; but if he was not a monopolist, and was subject to severe competition, he would reduce the price, and as long as he still sold the article he would bear the burden of the tax and the consumer would get off scot free. Of course the point would come at which it would no longer be profitable for the weak producer to produce at all, and at that point he would retire out of the competition. Then the supply would be lessened, and then, and not until that point was reached, the burden would begin to fall on the consumer. But to ask for a general rule as to exactly when that point would be reached was just as easy as to ask for a rule at what point any other tax would be productive or non-productive. It was a question that could only be answered by arriving at the real facts of the case. Regarding the question of fact, both the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and his predecessor emphatically declared that this tax would not fall on the consumer. It was true that last year when the tax was put on he had a number of protests against it being put on. This year before the Budget came on, though he had representations with regard to the sugar duty, he had no single representation that the corn tax was burdensome and ought to be repealed. He was afraid that next year the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find himself either in need of fresh revenues, or in need of making drastic economies. The uniform practice had been not to economise by looking into the old expenditure and seeing what could be dispensed with, but by refusing new demands. In that way the public
  116
  service undoubtedly would be weakened There were, however, in the minds of hon. Members larger proposals which he was not allowed to refer to. Whether those were good or bad they ought not to be prejudged. He expected what the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich wanted was not discussion but prejudgment on insufficient data. He regretted that any semblance of prejudgment of the question should be given to the world by the bringing forward of this Amendment, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford would have done better had he reserved his strength and waited for broader issues in a wider field.
  LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid that when he was listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham he wondered why he did not deliver that speech last year. He had the pleasure of hearing the speech last year in which the hon. Member argued strongly in support of the tax which he was now so pleased was to be removed. The hon. Member's argument now was that he was not opposed to the tax last year because the war was going on, but that this year he thought it an excellent thing to remove because the war was over. He was now in the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and a large number of other Gentlemen on this side of the House who spoke and voted last year in favour of the tax being permanent. Personally, the hon. Member for Oldham might have his own idea of consistency; and perhaps his constituency had ideas of consistency as well, but for his own part he should feel ashamed if, having spoken in favour of the tax being permanent, he now came back and voted exactly the opposite way. There might be certain things which politicians did not value highly, but after all he thought that one thing a politician might value was his self-respect. He felt himself that having strongly supported this tax it would be an inconsistent thing to turn round and say that it was an utterly bad tax which should be immediately abolished. The hon. Member for Oldham—he did not think he was on very safe ground, especially in view of the speech he delivered last year—tried

  117
  to point out that this tax fell on the consumer, and then in the next passage he endeavoured to correct himself, no doubt thinking of his speech of last session. Those who opposed the repeal of the tax always had held that, although there might be certain cases in which this tax might fall on the consumer, by lessening the duty on tea or sugar far greater relief would be given to the consumer than by abolishing the shilling duty on corn. He, personally, had always considered this corn tax a good tax, and he had no intention of voting for its repeal. It was a good tax because it was easy to collect, it did no injury to trade, it broadened the basis of taxation, and it brought in £2,500,000 of revenue which fell, he believed, very lightly, if at all, on the consumer. He believed that almost always in introducing a Budget every Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the House that the revenue derived from a tax was less and less in proportion to the way in which it was felt, and consequently new subjects of taxation would bring in far greater revenue to the country. He might be permitted to heartily congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford for pointing out to the House that they opposed the repeal of this tax on financial grounds. He did not think that in the whole of his speech the right hon. Gentleman ever departed from the argument that the step the Chancellor of the Exchequer was taking this year was economically unsound.
  There was one point connected with this tax which he did not believe had been brought out in the course of the debates this session. He would admit for a moment the whole of the contention of hon. Members opposite—he did not know whether it was the contention of the hon. Member for Oldham—that the whole tax fell on the consumer. What was the state of the case? If it did fall on the consumer it brought at present £2,500,000 to the revenue, and that was not all charged against breadstuffs, but on other articles which came into the country. Breadstuffs only bore £1,250,000, so that each person only paid 7½d. a year. That was not a very excessive charge, even if the
  118
  whole of the tax fell on the consumer. He believed that they would sooner pay that tax when they knew that it was going to benefit somebody in this country than pay a higher price for their tea and sugar, which benefited nobody in this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said as an excuse for taking off the tax that it was liable to misrepresentation. A weaker argument he had never heard before in the House of Commons. Speaking for himself, he was not afraid of misrepresentation. It fact it rather did one good at times. He believed that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was afraid of losing his seat by being misrepresented on account of this corn tax, his fears were entirely groundless. Anybody could surely show to his constituents that this charge was not a very heavy one on the consumer or on the poorest of the poor. He had often listened to debates in the House, and had noticed that the speeches which were received with the greatest cheering were those of hon. Gentlemen like the Member for Exeter, or the hon. Member for Whitby, who rose in their places and spoke in favour of economy, deplored the enormous expenditure of the country, and insisted that it was high time we turned over a new leaf. He did not say that these hon. Gentlemen did not practice what they preached. He himself had taken part in several contested elections, and he noticed that as the fight got hotter and the question got closer as to what Party was to triumph, pressure was brought to bear on the candidates to support this, that, or the other project, which invariably meant increased national expenditure. There might be demands for increased pay to the postmen, or higher wages for the dockyard employees, or for old-age pensions, or for education, or compensation to publicans, or a hundred other matters which cost money; and he was afraid the candidate's cry for economy then went down the wind. Under these circumstances he could quite understand that these pious sentiments by financial purists which had been received with cheers in the House should dissipate in a closely contested election. The guardians of the public purse had a very easy remedy.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The noble Lord must remember that at present we are not discussing the general question of expenditure, but the corn tax.
  LORD WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBYsaid he was sorry he was transgressing, but only wanted to point out that the corn tax was a good tax, had produced £2,500,000 a year of revenue, was felt as oppressive by nobody, and that it was a great pity to abolish it on the present occasion. He was perfectly certain that the time would not be far distant when the loss of that £2,500,000 would be very much felt. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton had said that he would not have had the same objection which he had to the shilling duty on corn if there were an excise duty on the home-grown corn. But, after all, did not such an excise duty on home-grown corn exist at the present moment? And it was that which made many of them feel very sore at the abolition of the corn tax. The rates paid by agricultural land took the place of the corn duty. He could not discuss the incidence of the agricultural rates, or whether the landlord or the tenant paid them ultimately. But at all events it was the corn, or wheat, or meat raised on the land which paid the rates. Take the case of an acre which grew four quarters of corn. On that acre 2s. were paid as rates, which was equal to a tax of 6d. per quarter. He considered that that was an excise duty which the farmers at the present time paid, and they considered it a very heavy one indeed. The right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Government, said the other day that the reason for dispensing with this tax was that the money was not wanted. He had a suggestion to throw out to the right hon. Gentleman. A new Education Act had come into force, and the education rate was paid by the corn and meat produced in the country. He asked the right hon. Gentleman, even at the last moment, whether he would not retain the corn duty, and give a portion or the whole of it for the education of the people? Another argument for the repeal of the tax was that owing to the duty on flour a certain encouragement had been given
  120
  to the milling industry of the country. That was an extraordinary reason. Because a few more mills were set a going; because a few hundred more people were given employment, because more offals were produced for the feeding of cattle and other stock, therefore, the tax was to be abolished! All who wished to follow the line which they had adopted in the past, all who had self-respect in regard to principle in this matter, all who had in view the economic state of the country were to vote for the repeal of a tax which yielded a revenue of £2,500,000, and would bring no relief to the consumer! He would vote for the Amendment.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid he had dealt at length with this corn tax on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, and he did not think it would be necessary for him to go very minutely into the questions raised by the various speakers. His right hon. friend the Member for Sleaford commenced his speech by saying that he had always regarded the proposal to abolish the corn tax, not from a protectionist but from a financial point of view. When this question was under discussion at a previous stage he ventured to say that his right hon. friend had advocated the retention of the tax from a different point of view than that of finance. He remembered reading a speech in which the right hon. Member for Sleaford said that one of the effects which he expected from the tax was that it would bring thousands of people back to the land. His right hon. friend denied that he had ever used any language that justified him in making that statement. He had not the report with him at the time, but he had now provided himself with the speech which was made at Lincoln and contained the following passage—
  "We have heard from every part of England and by every post concerning how enormous would be the benefits accruing from the retention of the duty on corn. It would have the effect of providing work and wages for tens of thousands, and bringing back the people to the land."
  MR. CHAPLINsaid that he must have been misreported. He never could for a moment have imagined that the imposition of a shilling

  121
  duty on corn would bring back thousands of people to the land. What he did say was that the duty on flour had resulted in the investment of thousands of pounds of capital in the milling industry and the employment of hundreds of people.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid he was glad he had given the opportunity to the right hon. Gentleman to correct the mis-report. He accepted at once the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he did not use the language he was reported in The Times to have used. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had never supported the tax as a protectionist. Neither had he himself ever given any reason of the kind; he did not believe that it was protective in its incidence. The price of corn grown at home had not, in fact, risen; and one of his strongest arguments for abolishing the tax was that the farmers who expected to get some advantage from the imposition of the tax had actually suffered from it. When this matter was dealt with during the Second Reading debate he quoted a paragraph from a letter he had received from a Farmers' Association at Bolton to the effect that the farmers in that district actually suffered, in their view, from the imposition of the tax. He had also received from the Somerset Dairy Farmers' Association the following unanimous resolution—
  "This Association humbly petition the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider the tax on imported feeding stuffs that was imposed as a war tax, and pray for its remission now that the war is over, as the tax presses very heavily upon this, a dairy farming county."
  His right hon. friend had said that one of the advantages which farmers had derived from the imposition of this tax had been that they had been enabled to purchase feeding stuffs more cheaply, and he had alleged that the price of offals had fallen considerably. He had dealt with that question at some length on the Second Reading of the Bill, and showed conclusively that the small additional quantities; of offal that were available in this country could not be compared with the enormous quantity of feeding stuffs that were imported, and that the tax could not have the result which his hon. friend claimed for it. He had received a further letter
  122
  from the Bolton Association of Dairy Farmers, which stated—
  "Mr. Chaplin and his friends are never tired of informing the farmers that, owing to the slight preference given to the English millers, more flour has been produced, and consequently more offal has been thrown on the market, and at a reduced price. I am a fairly large user myself. I have also inquired from the principal dealers in the district, and we all affirm that the prices are practically the same as they were twelve months ago. In fact, if anything they are a fraction higher."
  He had a considerable amount of information in the same direction. The Yorkshire Agricultural Society's Journal, dealing with the figures to the close of 1902, said—
  "The tax upon corn and feeding stuffs has, up to now, been decidedly against the farmer.… Feeding stuffs areas a rule £1 per ton dearer."
  The London Corn Circular for 18th May, 1903 said—
  "On grain for feeding purposes the tax has been paid by the British Stock Farmer, who is admitted to be severely handicapped. That British agricultural interests have been in any way benefited is absolutely disproved by the fact that the price of wheat has declined from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. since the imposition of the duty."
  He contended, therefore, that his right hon. friend, in assuming that this tax had in any way benefited the British farmers, was maintaining a position which was not justified by the facts of the case.
  It had been said that no one who bought his own flour had suffered, and that flour had not been dearer since the tax than before it was imposed. The price of Minnesota first bakers' flour on 6th April, 1902, was 17s. 9d.; on 8th June, 1903, it was 21s., duty included, per sack of 280 lb. Therefore, that flour had increased by 3s. 3d. per sack of 280 lb. That conclusively proved that the wholesale price of flour had advanced far more than would be justified by the amount of duty which had been imposed upon it. He had in his hand a striking illustration of the fact that the price of flour for baking purposes had increased. Last year the Prisons Commissioners had to come to this House for a supplementary Vote of £12,000, and he was informed that a considerable part of that Vote was due to the additional price which they had to pay for articles affected by this tax. It was quite conceivable that a tax of this kind was not immediately felt, but for any one to tell him that a 4 or 5 per cent.

  123
  tax upon an article of consumption like this would not ultimately come upon the consumer was to tell him that which he could not by any possibility believe. His hon. friend said that the American millers were the people who were delighted with the taking off of this tax, and that the English millers were the people who did not like its being taken off. Why did not the English millers like its being taken off? It had been said that the difference between the tax on corn and the tax on flour was not protection. If it was not protection, in what way did it benefit the British miller? Then, again, why should the American exporter of flour object to the tax? He had not sent less flour because of the tax, and he had got a much higher price than was justified by the tax. He contended, as he had always contended, that the British farmer lost by this tax. Instead of paying a lower price for his offal in consequence of this tax, he had to pay a higher price for his feeding stuffs, and it would take a good deal to persuade him that the tax of £600,000, which was at present levied upon imported feeding stuffs, and which was now to be taken off, was not a tax which did harm to the farmer, or that its abolition would not do good to the farmer. In his opinion, the consumer paid in one way or another. He could not add anything to the speech of his hon. friend the Member for Oldham on this point.
  Although this tax of £2,500,000 was undoubtedly in a sense a broadening of taxation, it could not be called in the best sense broadening of taxation if it fell upon exactly the same class of taxpayers. It was admitted that the tax upon tea fell very largely upon the general consumer, and very largely upon the poor. And so did the corn tax. It had been alleged by hon. Gentlemen that the tax upon corn had not raised the price of bread, and therefore to take the tax off corn would not lower the price of bread During the greater part of the year the wholesale price of tea, notwithstanding the 2d. duty, had been only a halfpenny per pound dearer than it was before the war. The wholesale price of flour had been raised far more than the duty. Therefore it might fairly be contended that to take the tax off tea would not
  124
  be nearly so beneficial to the poor as to take off the tax on corn. It was right, while remitting a large amount of direct taxation, that they should also remit a portion of indirect taxation, and, after considering carefully which of the articles of consumption they should take for remission, he was perfectly certain that they came to the right conclusion in selecting corn. It had been stated over and over again that the Government had proposed the remission of this tax because they were of opinion that it was capable of misrepresentation. He never used that as an argument. His argument was that the tax pressed most heavily on the very poor, and therefore he proposed to take it off. He did say, incidentally, what must be acknowledged to be true by everybody, that a duty on corn, however slight it might be, was a tax which was very capable of misrepresentation. He made no apology whatever, for having used that term, but he merely wished to say that he never used it as the argument which led him to recommend his colleagues to take off this tax. He would not enter into any of the larger questions which had been adverted to by some of his hon. friends. It was sufficient for him to say that this tax was proposed to be taken off in the Budget upon his recommendation and advice to his colleagues, and it was agreed to unanimously by his colleagues. He hoped the Committee, in coming to a decision on this question, would show clearly that in their opinion the Government had done right in remitting a tax which, as his hon. friend the Member for Oldham had shown, pressed most heavily on those who were most poor. It was the last tax imposed before the conclusion of the war, so it ought to be the first tax taken off now the war was over.
  MR. MIDDLEMOREsaid he took it from the cheers that had been given that hon. Gentlemen opposite entirely concurred in the remarks the right hon. Gentleman had made, and would rightly welcome him if he were to cross the floor of the House and join them. He unfortunately had not been able to hear the first half of the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, but judging from what he heard

  125
  it must have been a most powerful speech. That speech also was greeted with hearty cheers from the Opposition, and the Opposition only, of which he perhaps had no reason to complain, because he in his humble way had at times drawn cheers from hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for Oldham had said that bread was the staple food of the poorest of the poor. On this he was sure the hon. Gentleman did not speak with experience equivalent to that which he himself possessed. In his daily intercourse with the poorest of the poor in the common lodging-houses, he had found that they, more than any other class, ate herrings and bacon, and that bread was not so important an article in their diet as it was in the diet of those who were not so poor. Was it too late to ask the Government to reconsider their position in regard to this tax? At a similar stage in the Education Bill recently they recast that measure, and there were reasons at least as cogent for asking the Government to recast the present measure, but that he knew it would be useless to ask for. He protested against this policy of playing shuttlecock and battledore with the financial policy, undoing one year what had been done in the previous year. It was undignified; it would break up the Unionist Party; some of the arguments in its favour had been pure nonsense; and it would alienate most of the supporters of the Government who valued consistency. This tax was imposed after long debate, after many appeals to political economy, after almost passionate demonstrations from the Front Government benches that the policy of free trade was in no way violated. This tax was imposed as a permanent tax, and it could not be withdrawn without dealing the Unionist Party a blow still more heavy than the blow dealt in the Education Bill. It was like a blow in the wind followed by another in the same spot by the same fist. They were puzzled. They did not know what they were to fight for in the future. They did not know what they were to speak for in the future except a fetish which, whatever might be said to the contrary, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had discarded, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had refound.
  126
  The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich and many people, both inside the House and out of it, would seem to have raised this doctrine of the unconditioned import of goods into this country to the level of a religion.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member was not entitled to go into the general subject on this occasion, but must confine himself strictly to the matter contained in the first clause.
  MR. MIDDLEMOREsaid in that cast he would drop the general question of free trade and would simply say that, for the sake of the repeal of this corn tax, there were people in England who would sacrifice everything we had; who would see the people, alienated from the soil from which they had sprung, the restoration of whose manhood and womanhood depended upon their being restored to the soil. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to him to have shown a grave hiatus in his personality, and had shown a great lack of sense of humour. It was better to be non-existent altogether than to be so partially existent as to exist without any sense of humour at all. If the right hon. Gentleman had had any sense of humour at all, even of the burlesque kind, he would have seen the plight to which he was reducing his followers; he would have seen the absurdity of asking them to repudiate all the principles which they had been relying on when making their speeches in regard to this tax, and which they understood were shared by him; he would have understood the absurdity of asking them to appear naked before their constituents, denuded of every rag of principle which they had been proclaiming from the housetops; he would have seen the absurdity of 400 or 500 gentlemen of England falling down on their hands and eating the leek he presented to them. It was a sorry sight, but the sorryness of the sight was swallowed up in the infinite absurdity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Fancy the right hon. Gentleman stripping them of all their principles; fancy him doing it to those on whom the life of the Government depended, and whose life depended on the Government. What

  127
  a perfect comedy of errors! What an absurdity for millions of people to laugh at! What transcendental and ludicrous absurdity, and all propounded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a grave face and a long-drawn visage, who saw no fun whatever in the screaming farce of which he was the author. The absurdity and ignominy of their present position was seen if they compared it with their position of last year—a position which had been scientifically defined by the hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow. That hon. Member had argued that the supply of corn on which this country depended would not be restricted by this tax, and that, consequently, the price would not be raised. Experience had demonstrated the truth of both those propositions. It was known, also, that corn freights had been reduced in America to meet the tax, that a portion of the burden, at any rate, was borne by the foreigner, and that the duty producing a revenue last year of £2,500,000, was now being absolutely thrown away. The revenue derived from this tax might have provided a great system of higher education—not much longed for, he feared, on that side of the House; or it might have established a great Imperial University, with postgraduate courses, which would have bound the higher life of the colonies with the higher life of England. [An HON. MEMBER: Old-age pensions.] He was keener on the revitalisation of England than on supplying crutches for the decaying life. What had Lord Goschen said recently?
  *THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Member that he was not entitled to reply to the debates in another place.
  MR. MIDDLEMOREsaid he desired not to reply to, but to endorse and embrace two declarations of Lord Goschen—viz., that the tax would not enhance the price of bread, and that there were circumstances with which it would be perfectly right to deal in a protectionist sense. As to the relations; of Members to their constitutents, he had found that supporters were very generous to Members who dealt fairly straight with them; they would make
  128
  every allowance for vagaries, for egotistical independence, and "kicking over the traces," but they did not like pulpiness, emasculation, ignorance of one's own mind, or the abandonment of a position which had been strenuously defended and declared to be impregnable. Nor would they like the shifty policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the passive obedience of his followers, some of whom were ready to lie down like tame wethers and let the right hon. Gentleman shear them. Constituents liked to see some elements of leadership in their leaders, but what elements of leadership could be found in the right hon. Gentleman? What remained for Members on the Government side to do? They had either to sit down quietly or stand up and explain away their previous speeches. They had got to tell their constituents that they did not mean that which they really did mean, that they were not in the future to be taken seriously, that their principles were reversible, and that the chief end of their political life was to be sufficiently flexible to adapt themselves with lightning rapidity to every condition of political affairs. He would be out of order in concluding as he had desired to conclude, but he would say that the physical degeneration of the people had been coincident with the doctrine of the unconditioned Import of food—
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid he had already pointed out that the general question of the unconditioned import of food was not the question before the Committee. The hon. Member had been warned twice, and he must ask him to obey his ruling.
  MR. MIDDLEMOREassured the right hon. Gentleman that he had been warned only once.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member should be more respectful to the Chair.
  MR. MIDDLEMOREsaid he wished to be both respectful and pertinent; he had honestly tried, and would continue to try to be both. If he had said anything disrespectful to the Chair he deeply regretted it, and would immediately withdraw it. He desired to say in conclusion that he would have to vote against the

  129
  Government, but he hoped that at a future day, after the elections, they would meet on happier terms, though he was afraid it would be on the other side of the House.
  SIR HARRY SETON-KARRagreed with the hon. Member for North Birmingham that there were elements in the situation entirely devoid of humour. He certainly did not like being one of a small minority of twenty-eight, whom he believed to be absolutely in the right, but his convictions were so strong that he would vote against the repeal of this duty, even though he and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division were alone in so doing. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer believed the tax was such a bad one, that it was paid by the consumer, and that it ought to be repealed, how came he to be a member of the Government which last year imposed the duty with the object of permanently broadening the basis of taxation? He was absolutely unable to reconcile the position of the right hon. Gentleman last year with his present attitude. His main object in rising was to allude to one point made by his hon. friend the Member for Oldham in the very able speech which he addressed to the House. He pointed out how this tax might or might not affect their food supplies from across the Atlantic. Last year the amount of breadstuffs imported into this country from the United States was just about one-half of their whole consumption, or, in other words, half of their daily bread came from the United States. He thought there was a great element of danger in that, because it meant that if anything interfered with their food supply from the United States they would run the danger of starvation in this country. If the United States exported such a very large amount of breadstuffs to this country, surely, whatever tax was imposed upon corn, they would be willing to pay that duty in order to have the freedom of our markets. In regard to this tax he thought it was absolutely certain that they had paid their share of the corn duty, and no matter how ingenious the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Member for
  130
  Oldham might be, it was a fact that the price of bread had not gone up in consequence of the tax. In the face of these facts, it was impossible to prove that the consumer had paid the tax. The British market was so important to the United States, that it was absolutely necessary for them to send their commodities to this country, and he believed that they would be willing to pay a higher tax if necessary. They had, by this tax, an opportunity of making the United States contribute to our revenue for the privilege of enjoying the freedom of our market.
  It was said that the time was not far distant when the United States would not be able to export so much grain to this country, because the soil was being exhausted by successive wheat crops, and the result would be that the United States of America would probably require the food supplies produced there for domestic use in their own country. But along the borders of the United States for 3,000 miles was one of their most important colonies, which he thought in the past they had treated very badly. Canada had a magnificent wheat area, comprising about 150,000,000 acres of land, and in this tax he saw a splendid opportunity to encourage the cultivation of wheat, which would enable Canada to become the granary of this country. That was why he was so much opposed to the repeal of this tax. Some day the position of affairs would be changed, and America would be using her own supply, and this was an opportunity for accelerating wheat production in Canada. They might have kept this duty on American corn and reduced it in favour of Canadian corn. That would have encouraged the cultivation of Canadian wheat. He was afraid it was too late to move the Government upon this question, but in the last hour he thought they might have left this duty on foreign corn in order to give a preference to colonial corn. By this very simple method they might have encouraged good feeling between this country and the great colony of Canada, which in the past they had neglected, and to some extent ignored. For those reasons he should vote against the repeal of this tax. He

  131
  entirely differed from his hon. friend the Member for Oldham in what he said about Lancashire feeling. He knew something about Lancashire people, for they were practical men, and they declared that they had not felt this tax. He was not going down to his constituents to try to make them believe that a tax which was imposed for the purpose of broadening the basis of taxation in one year was the right tax to repeal the next year. He believed the hon. Member for Oldham would find the feeling of Lancashire against him upon this point.
  MR. CHARLES MCARTHURsaid he did not know how far his hon. friend was to be taken seriously. He did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer could be accused of inconsistency in maintaining his opinion on this question. He wished to address one or two observations to the Committee upon this tax as to its incidence in the past, because that was the turning-point of the whole discussion. They had been frequently told that this tax was paid entirely by the foreigner. If that were so it appeared to him to be a most foolish thing to repeal a tax which did not fall upon the people of this country, but which was paid by the foreigner. Upon the other hand they had been told that this tax fell almost solely upon the consumer. But what had been the real incidence of this tax? Had it fallen mainly upon the foreigner or upon the consumer? He did not profess himself to be an authority upon this question, but he had endeavoured to make himself acquainted with the view of commercial men in Liverpool who were practically acquainted with the question, and he would read the reply to certain questions he had put to the Directors of the Corn Trade Association of Liverpool. The President of that Association replied as follows—
  "After careful consideration of the points in reference to the Corn Duty upon which you desire information, I was requested to reply:

  "'(1) That the imposition of the duty last year created considerable disturbance to our trade.

  "'(2) That the fear that it might be repealed without notice caused great anxiety which threatened to seriously curtail the volume of business.

  132

  "'(3) That its repeal has lead to further trouble and confusion.

  "'The repeal of the duty is viewed with feelings of great relief, and it is sincerely hoped that the trade may never again be troubled with it.'"
  As to who this tax was paid by he asked them had it been paid by the foreign exporter, by the shipowner in the shape of reduced freights, by the milling merchants, the baker or the consumer. Their reply was—
  "With regard to your other question I am to say that the Directors are of opinion that no part of the duty was borne by the foreign exporter, the shipowner or the merchant. A small part of the tax was borne by the baker, but the main burden fell upon the consumer."
  He was not quite satisfied with that reply, because it did not appear sufficiently explicit, and he asked them if it fell upon the consumer, how had it fallen upon him and had it fallen upon him in the shape of an increase in the price of bread or in what way? They replied as follows—
  "When the tax was first imposed the merchant and the miller were unable to recover the full increased price from the small dealers, bakers and others, and consequently they had to bear the loss. But after a short time, when price could be properly adjusted, the full duty was added to the price of wheat and flour. In many places the bakers increased the price of bread by ½d. per 4 lbs., and so recovered four times as much as the tax; but in large cities like Liverpool, where competition among bakers is necessarily keen, this could not generally be done, but, to some extent, the quality was lowered, and later when the price of flour was further increased from ordinary market causes the baker was able to advance the price of his bread."
  He took it that this was correct, coming from persons who did a large trade in corn in this country. He had received letters confirming this position, among others, one from the hon. Secretary of the Liverpool Millers Association. In that letter this gentleman said—
  "The idea that any portion of the tax was paid by the foreign grower or exporter is now entirely given up. When England was almost the only buyer of foreign wheat this might have been the case, but the increase in the importation of foreign grain to the Continent, namely, Italy, Germany, Holland, and Belgium, has, during the last few years, been enormous, until now the Continent is a much larger importer than the United Kingdom, especially during the last twelve months the shipments of foreign grain to the Continent since 1st August last, being 27,000,000 quarters and to the United Kingdom 22,000,000 quarters."

  133
  He ventured to say that the facts and figures he had quoted fully substantiated the position taken up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He believed that the trade was not entirely unanimous on the point. He might say that the London Corn Trade Association did not entirely take this view. They said that some part of the duty had been recovered from the foreign importer. His own opinion was that in the main this duty had been borne by the consumer, and in view of the great interest attaching to any tax on corn, the mainstay of the life of the people, and in view of the fact that any increase in the price of food must impair the vitality of our people and sap the foundation of our trade, he heartily concurred in the removal of this tax, and trusted it would never be reimposed.
  MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid the very effective speech of his hon. friend on his left, the Member for the Exchange Division, would be somewhat impaired when he told the Committee he also had made similar inquiries from the same people with entirely opposite results. He thought the right person to consult was the President of the Liverpool Corn Trade Association in regard to this tax. He wrote to him on the subject, and held his letter in his hand. [Cries of "Date."] The date was the 7th May, 1903.
  MR. CHARLES MCARTHUR: My letter is dated the 19th June, 1903.
  MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid he would like his hon. friend to supplement that by telling the Committee what were the politics of the Gentleman who had written his letter. He did not know the politics of the Gentleman who had written his own. His correspondent said—
  "The tax of 5s. per ton is so small as to be scarcely felt. Five shillings a ton on wheat is 2¾d. per 100 lbs., or cental (the measure by which we sell in Liverpool), equal to 1s. per sack of 280 lbs. of flour. We importers did not feel it, nor the dealer either. It was so small that one in the general grain trade did not perceive it. But the baker did, and for this reason. It requires a rise of 4s. per sack on flour (i.e. 1s. per 100 lbs. on wheat) to be a ½d. on the quartern loaf. Now, during the year that the tax has been on, the price has never advanced to more than 2s. per sack—too little to find its way to the 4lb. loaf and the consumer. The duty has nothing to do with a rise or fall in the market. That fluctuation is
  134
  caused by the great law of supply and demand. It caused great dislocation when it was imposed, and it is causing more now in the manner of taking it off. The Americans did reduce their freight charges for a while, but it did not affect us. American flour does not make the price of flour here. Prices are rather dearer now than a year ago. But this is not to be attributed to the duty, but rather to supply and demand and to the many cross-currents and wheels within wheels impossible to describe to those outside the trade."
  He was not an outsider, and he knew that that was correct. He knew that what really did affect the price, notwithstanding what his hon. friend had said, was the great law of supply and demand. When the United States or any other country had a large crop, and was obliged to sell it in a limited market, which was the case generally in the United States, the duty fell upon the man most anxious to do the trade, the man anxious to sell. If this country was very anxious to get wheat, and had no other source of supply, they would have to pay the duty. It was a fact that as regarded wheat, or any other article, the duty was borne, not necessarily by the consumer or producer, but by the man most anxious to get the trade. Where the seller was obliged to sell, the seller would pay the duty; where the buyer was obliged to buy, the buyer would pay the duty; where it is something between the two the duty will be adjusted between them. The hon. Member for St. Helens somewhat exaggerated the importance of the United States supply; he forgot such countries as Russia and the Argentine.
  SIR HARRY SETON-KARR: Is the hon. Member aware that Russia has sent us hardly any wheat for the last two years?
  MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid he would rather confine his observations to the Argentine. A gentleman who knew more about Argentine products than probably anybody else said to him some years ago that he did not know why this country did not tax meat and grain importations, and that that would be better for the Argentine, because they were better able to pay the tax, owing to the good profits of farming, than others were. That gentleman was specially referring to the United States

  135
  of America. The time was coming when the United States could not send this country so much as she did at present. He had no hesitation in saying that he did not approve of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal. What he had to tell his constituents was that the withdrawal of those grain duties had simply thrown away £2,500,000, which would have to be provided from some other source which they would feel. He did not know how the hon. Member for the Exchange Division was going to get over it, but he would explain that if this tax was repealed they were none of them a halfpenny the better, and that they paid the same for their bread as before. It had not given them old-age pensions and half-a-dozen other things which the Government might have given if they had not thrown away the money. Something ought to be done with respect to the coal duty, for instance. He utterly differed from the Prime Minister in the view that they did not want the money. He did not wish to say anything unkind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but if ever he wanted another constituency he had better not go to Liverpool. He was the one member of the Government who was most out of favour with the entire shipping community all over the country. The shilling duty on grain ought to be kept because, amongst other things, it would enable the light dues to be abolished. At present they were protecting foreign ports as against British ports. He had listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham. He knew his father, Lord Randolph Churchill, before the hon. Member for Oldham was born, and he knew his father's views upon that subject The hon. Member for Oldham respected his father's memory, and if he had known what his father thought of that question—
  LORD HUGH CECIL: What question?
  MR. DAVID MACIVER: And what the noble Lord's father thought of it, his views might be different. The late Lord Randolph Churchill's views were absolutely in accord, not only with the maintenance of that tax, but with the
  136
  larger question which the Colonial Secretary had introduced.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: These references are really not relevant to this matter. Some other time the hon. Gentleman might introduce this.
  MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid he would not press the matter further except to say that he believed a much larger number of hon. Members sympathised with the views of those who opposed the repeal of the duty than was generally supposed. He would go into the lobby in support of his right hon. friend.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid they must all sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, who was evidently suffering from being overburdened by the possession of a vast amount of information as to the opinions of other people, which no doubt it would be very instructive for the House to know, but which he was unable to communicate to the Committee because of the narrow scope of the question before it. What a pity, then, it was that the hon. Member did not persevere with the Amendment which stood in his name on the Notice Paper, which would have given him all the opportunity he desired to deliver this information. They had been puzzled to know why it was that the hon. Member, who did not lack courage, and did not even require a sympathetic audience—which was the ordinary inducement to make a speech—on this memorable and important occasion should not only have run away from his Amendment, but should have deliberately withdrawn it from the Paper after he had in so ingenious a way furnished himself with the opportunity he desired. This debate had lasted the whole sitting, and it would be noticed that no Member from that side had made a contribution to it. That they could well understand, but it would have been almost indecent if some one had not risen on that side to take a humble, modest part in this long discussion. They had been enjoying the debate; such a debate as was almost unparalleled in the experience of most of them. In the first place, they had heard all their own arguments on the subject

  137
  of the corn tax repeated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the hon. Member for Oldham, in a speech which commanded the admiration of the Committee. That in itself was enough to induce them to keep silence, because he thought they could have added nothing to, and they might have detracted something from, the force and cogency of the arguments used. They were their own old familiar arguments, and, therefore, they gave great satisfaction to them. But they were still left in a little doubt. They knew now from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the reasons why he had proposed the withdrawal of the tax, but they did not know quite at this moment why the Government as a Government proposed to withdraw it. He was speaking of the Government as an entity—if it maintained the character of an entity, of which they might entertain some doubt. But they were still as ignorant as they were, of the reasons that induced the Cabinet, who were so strongly unanimous in support of the tax last year, to propose its withdrawal now.
  They had seen also in the ranks behind the Government bench a pleasing diversity of opinion. Very strong language had been used, stronger than he had ever heard employed by Members of the House with regard to Ministers whom they supported in authority. [Some MINISTERIAL cries of "No, we don't."] Well, perhaps the hon. Member for Sheffield did not use strong language, and the right hon. Member for Sleaford adopted an ingenious mode of relieving his feelings, for he dressed up an imaginary agricultural labourer, and quoted his language with such unction that they could easily see that it was genuine in its origin. But he was bound to say that the hon. Member for Birmingham went a little beyond what was justified by the circumstances in the way in which he spoke of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would not do the Chancellor of the Exchequer the ill turn of supporting him against his own followers, which might lead Members to view him with some suspicion, but he thought in the interest of almost common civilities in the House he must enter some protest against the violent, though humorous, but none the less violent because humorous, objections raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham to the conduct and policy of the right hon.
  138
  Gentleman. In other quarters also they found a pleasing diversity of opinion. Even Liverpool was divided against itself, not only on the facts and theories, but in the authority of its representatives. They were often on that side supposed to be subject to differences of opinion. [Cries from the MINISTERIAL Benches of "No, no."] He was glad to hear the denial, but could at least assure hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that he had not as yet been able to detect in any quarter of that side of the House any diversity of opinion on the subject now before the Committee. They had arrived, or were about to arrive, at a conclusion of the matter eminently satisfactory to them. They were opposed to the tax last year, not to its intention, because he entirely believed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol did not anticipate any of those evil results which are now more apparent than they then were. They were opposed to this tax on the assured and settled grounds that it might lead to further extension of protectionist doctrines, that it was a tax on the food of the people, of the poorest people, who ought not to be laid under the burden of it, and they opposed it with other arguments with which the Committee were familiar. They found themselves amply justified that day. They should take part in the division with perfect unanimity and great heartiness, and they hoped they should see the last of a tax injurious to the best interests of the country and oppressive to the people of this country, and they hoped the tax would never be renewed.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid he was not at all surprised at the satisfaction of the right hon. Gentleman that all the arguments which had been used by his own side of the House had been repeated by the hon. Members who spoke on that side of the House in support of the remission of the duty. Nor had he any quarrel with anything that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, except in one particular point. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the agricultural labourer to whom he referred was very far from being imaginary; he was an actual individual, he was a genuine article, and he had used precisely the language quoted. His hon. friend below him had criticised the statement he had made in regard

  139
  to the result of the tax of last year in producing a cheap and abundant supply of offals. In the deputation which had been so often referred to there were farmers from all parts of the country, and they knew the actual facts in reference to the tax. They knew what they had paid for the articles before the duty was imposed, and what they had paid after. His hon. friend had asked him to reserve his efforts for larger occasions which might occur in the future. He could assure him that when these occasions arose he would not find him backward in any way; he would be at the front; and he hoped to do all in his power to forward a proposal of
  which he approved. But he could not respond to his hon. friend's wishes on this occasion, for a reason with which his hon. friend could sympathise. He was pledged to a number of supporters beyond the walls of the House to do all in his power to press this matter to an end, and he had never thrown over a backer yet. He therefore would press the matter to a division, and he hoped his hon. friend would vote with him.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 416; Noes, 32. (Division List No. 125.)

  AYES.

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

  Butcher, John George

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Caldwell, James

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cameron, Robert

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Aird, Sir John

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasg.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

  Dillon, John

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

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Dunsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Carew, James Laurence

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Asher, Alexander

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Duffy, William J.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Cawley, Frederick

  Dunn, Sir William

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

  Edwards, Frank

  Aubrey Fletcher, Rt. H. Sir H.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Ellis, John Edward

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Chapman, Edward

  Emmott, Alfred

  Balcarres, Lord

  Charrington, Spencer

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

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

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Fenwick, Charles

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith

  Bell, Richard

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

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

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North

  Ffrench, Peter

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Bignold, Arthur

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim S.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bigwood, James

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Black, Alexander William

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Blake, Edward

  Crean, Eugene

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cremer, William Randal

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Flower, Ernest

  Bond, Edward

  Crombie, John William

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Bowles, Col. H. F. (Middlesex)

  Crooks, William

  Forster, Henry William

  Bowles, T. G. (Lynn Regis)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Foster, Sir Michl. (Lond. Univ

  Brassey, Albert

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Brown, Sir Alx. H. (Shropsh.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardig'n

  Gardner, Ernest

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Delany, William

  Garfit William

  Bull, William James

  Denny, Colonel

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

  Burns, John

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Gilhooly, James

  Burt, Thomas

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Lloyd-George, David

  Partington, Oswald

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

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Logan, John William

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

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

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

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

  Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Lough, Thomas

  Penn, John

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Percy, Earl

  Gretton, John

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Lundon, W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Hain, Edward

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Price, Robert John

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Purvis, Robert

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Mid'x

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  M'Crae, George

  Reddy, M.

  Harwood, George

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Redmond, Jn. E. (Waterford)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Malcolm, Ian

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Heath, James (Staffords, N. W.)

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William

  Rigg, Richard

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Milvain, Thomas

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighsh.)

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristl, E.

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somerset, E.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  Mooney, John J.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Roche, John

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh.)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Russell, T. W.

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Joicey, Sir James

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Jones, David B. (Swansea.)

  Murphy, John

  Scott, C. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

  Joyce, Michael

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Norman, Henry

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Kitson, Sir James

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

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Labouchere, Henry

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Lambert, George

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

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  O'Brien, William (Cork)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Langley, Batty

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

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

  Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  O'Dowd, John

  Spear, John Ward

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

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

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Leamy, Edmund

  O'Malley, William

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Stroyan, John

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  O'Shee, James John

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Leng, Sir John

  Palmer Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

  Palmer, G. Wm. (Reading)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Levy, Maurice

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

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

  142

  143

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

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

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

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

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glam., E.

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

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

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

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

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Weir, James Galloway

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Tomkinson, James

  Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Toulmin, George

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Young, Samuel

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Williams, O. (Merioneth)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Wills, Sir Frederick

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Ure, Alexander

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

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Howard, Jn. (Kent Faversham

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

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

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

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

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Younger, William

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Sir Henry Seton-Karr

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans

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

  and Lord Willoughby de

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

  Myers, William Henry

  Eresby.

  Gunter, Sir Robert

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Clause 2:—
  *MR. CHANNINGsaid his object in rising was to move the remission of the extra 2d. on the tea duty which was imposed for the purposes of the war. This question would have to be considered from several points of view. When a tax was placed upon a commodity largely used in the country, a Chancellor of the Exchequer had to take into consideration how far such a tax diminished importation beyond the point at which it was a satisfactory and remunerative tax from the point of revenue. The amount of tea imported during the last three years had shown a very marked decrease. For the five months ending the 31st of May last year, there was a decrease of 9,500,000 lbs. as compared with the corresponding period in 1902, and as compared 1901, there was actually a decrease of 20,000,000 lbs. He was quite aware that since the month of May there had been a slight rally in tea imports, but it was quite plain that during the three years of war during which the extra 2d. was placed upon tea there had been a marked decrease
  144
  in imports, and these facts ought to be fully considered. He was aware that there was before the two preceding Budgets some forestalments which somewhat disturbed the figures, but there was no doubt that over the whole period there had been a marked diminution in the importation of tea into this country, and a marked increase in the price of tea, a higher price than the extra duty imposed, which pressed most heavily on the working classes. In the opinion of those who knew most of the subject this tax had also tended to the diminution of the production of tea, especially in India and Ceylon. It was high time to consider the revision of this tax from the point of view of revenue and from its results. The relief given on the income tax was a large relief—a much larger relief than many of the income taxpayers expected to receive, and if the facts were looked into with scientific accuracy it would be found that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a relief of 3d. on the income tax, and distributed the relief of the other penny over other things besides corn he would have more accurately attained the

  145
  happy mean of the equalisation of the burden on the various classes who contributed to the revenue of this country. With regard to the incidence of taxation on the working classes he had taken considerable trouble to obtain, from the most careful investigation in his division, a series of accurate budgets of working-class families. Taking the percentage of taxation on the three articles, tea, sugar, and corn, and calculating them in the form of an income tax upon the poor, he had found in thirty - nine of these carefully prepared budgets of the working classes, that taking the extra duties imposed for the purposes of the war during the last three years, the result was as follows:—The duty on corn amounted to an income tax of 2·926 of a penny in the £, the extra duty on tea to 1·85 of a penny, and on sugar 3·84 of a penny in the £. He would not deal with the other duties, except as to the total which pressed upon the working classes, which suggested to him that some relief should be given on the duty on tea. Taking the average duty paid by those thirty-nine working-class families in respect to the extra war tax on those three articles of food, and calculating their amounts, interpreted as an income tax, and based on the ad valorem values laid down by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and other experts, he found that the additional income tax paid indirectly by the working classes through these taxes alone, without touching tobacco or alcohol at all, amounted to 8·61 of a penny in the £. He would ask hon. Members to remember that whereas, so far as these figures gave a reason able presumption of accuracy, the income tax imposed upon the working classes by these taxes was that no less than 8½d., only 7d. in the £ was imposed upon the income tax payer for the purposes of the war. He found from figures supplied by co-operative societies last year that the total income tax of the working classes, as represented by the tax upon dutiable articles consumed, ranged from 1s. to 2s. in the £ on the income which they possessed. Those figures could not be seriously challenged; they were brought before him by some of the most experienced co-operators of the day, who had to deal with the expenditure of thousands of families.
  146
  The consideration he had to place before the Committee was, that they had in these war taxes imposed a larger amount upon the poorer classes than they had by the income tax on the wealthier classes. And it was useless to speak of this taxation as voluntary in the same sense as expenditure on tobacco and liquor. It was an expenditure incurred for the necessaries of life. And though the tea duty was not a tax on food in the same sense as the corn duty which touched the vital efficiency of the people, it was a tax which bore heavily on the necessities of the poor. He wished that the Colonial Secretary had been present, because he had desired to invite him to throw some light upon the calculations which the right hon. Gentleman had made in 1885, which were then challenged by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, and by the Economist newspaper, but which were never refuted. The present Colonial Secretary in 1885 made out that if they took into consideration the expenditure upon beer, tobacco, and spirits, the income tax paid by the working classes by means of dutiable articles was about 8 per cent of their income. Those figures had the authority of the Colonial Secretary at that time and were produced for as the basis of his policy of "ransom" of equality of taxation and equality of sacrifice. If the figures of the Colonial Secretary were in any way to be relied on as the income tax paid by the working man in 1885, when they had to pay on nothing except tea at a lower duty than now, coffee, currants, and tobacco and alcoholic liquor, he would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite what Budget the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary would have to prepare, having regard to the war duties, when the additional indirect taxation for the war amounted to no less than 8½d. in the £. The Colonial Secretary's figures in 1885 showed an income tax of 1s. 11¾d. in the £, and if the additional tea duty and the sugar duty were added, that would mean an income tax of 2s. 5½d. in the £, while, with the corn duty of last year you had an income tax of no less than, 2s. 8½d. in the £. He was astonished that hon. Members, with these sources of information before them, did not recognise the enormous gravity of the inequality of taxation which pressed upon the poorest

  147
  classes of the community. To those who understand the narrow circumstances and the terrible difficulties of working people, with incomes ranging from 12s. to 30s. per week, it required very strong arguments to justify the retention of a larger proportion of taxation upon the working classes than the higher classes had to bear. Such a course of action was wholly unjust, and in order to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer one more opportunity of enlarging the sphere of relief to those who were at present certainly over-taxed, he begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 28, to leave out the words 'continue to,' and insert the words 'cease and the duty of fourpence the pound on tea shall.'"—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'continue to' stand part of the Clause."
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid the Amendment, which he was unable to accept, had been urged on the ground that the consumer had been given less in the way of remission of taxation than the income tax payer, and the hon. Member had advocated that a further sum of £2,000,000 a year should be taken from the income tax payer and devoted to the remission of taxation on commodities. In considering the Budget for the year, he went very carefully into the incidence of direct and indirect taxation, and all the figures seemed conclusively to prove that by taking 4d. off the income tax, and £2,500,000 off indirect taxation, an equitable amount was being taken off each, having regard to the sums contributed by the direct and the indirect taxpayers respectively towards the expenses of the war. He also investigated very closely the burden borne by the two classes of taxpayers for some years past. As the Committee were aware, the tendency of late years had been to relieve the indirect taxpayer at the expense of the direct taxpayer, so that whereas in Mr. Gladstone's Budgets the indirect taxpayer contributed about twice as much as the direct taxpayer, the latter now contributed rather more than the former. Moreover, the reduction now being made left matters more favourable to the indirect taxpayer than before the war. He could hardly be expected to do more than that in the present Budget, but he quite recognised that in
  148
  any further remission of taxation care must be taken so to adjust the burden as to give equivalent redress to both classes of taxpayers. It was hardly necessary to refer again to the importance of not keeping the income tax at a higher rate than was absolutely necessary. It ought to be kept at such a figure, consistently with justice to other taxpayers, that it would be an available reserve in case of emergency, and no one would contend that an income tax of 11d. in the £ was as was as desirable, having regard to the circumstances he had mentioned. He assured the hon. Member he had carefully considered the claim of the working classes, and he was satisfied that in the proposals before the Committee substantial justice was done.
  SIR CHARLES MCLARENsaid that tea, so far from being a luxury, was really one of the prime necessities of life, and the tax upon tea fell on the poorest and most miserable class of the community. Those who had studied the question had come to the conclusion that if there was one thing more necessary than another to the enjoyment of life by the very poor, it was tea. Thousands of the lowest class of workers practically lived on what they called "tea" and bread and butter. The poorest of women, who sewed or worked in factories—the drudges of civilisation—found in tea the one solace of life, and the one luxury in which their means permitted them to indulge. These were the people who had no voice, and were not likely to have any, in the policy of the nation; they were too poor, ignorant, and weak to have any influence in the policy of a nation such as ours; they ought to be treated rather as children, and the taxation of the better classes ought not to be reduced at their expense. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he considered his Budget next year, would take this class into account. Another point of view from which the tea duty should be regarded was that of the English investor who had put money into the tea plantations of Assam and Ceylon. At a time when we were taking peculiar interest in the prosperity of the colonies, the question might well be considered of whether this taxation of investments in the colonies should go on. Ceylon, in particular, had suffered from a series of bad years. The

  149
  coffee plantations, in which the English investor originally put his money, were swept away, and tea had been put down in their place. The imports of tea had fallen off in consequence of this tax, and the quality of the tea drunk was much lower than when the tax was lighter. People were thus led to buy lower class China tea, and teas which were not in any sense the product of British capital. The tax on its present footing tended to reduce the value of English investments abroad, and to discourage other men from coming forward to increase the plantations which were now in some places so flourishing. For these reasons he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give his attention to the matter.
  *MR. LEVYsaid that while the Committee were grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for promising to reconsider this question before the next Budget, there were reasons which might prevent the right hon. Gentleman giving effect next year to any desire he might have to reduce the duty. Many people were disappointed that the tax was not reduced this year. Income taxpayers would have been perfectly satisfied with a reduction of 3d., and the ideal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of equalising direct and indirect taxation would have been more nearly achieved. Out of £10,500,000 surplus the direct taxpayer received £8,500,000.
  *MR. RITCHIE: He has contributed more to the cost of the war.
  *MR. LEVYdoubted whether the direct taxpayer had contributed as much as the indirect taxpayer. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to Mr. Gladstone's Budgets. In 1895, under the last Liberal Administration, the taxation on necessaries of life amounted to a little over 4 per cent., whereas now it amounted to 10¾ per cent., so that there was some justification for the demand that a penny less should be taken off the income tax and the tax on tea reduced by twopence.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Mr. J. W. LOWTHERin the Chair.
  Clause 2:—
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 28, to leave out the words 'continue to,' and insert the words 'cease and the duty of 4d. the pound on tea shall.'"—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'continue to' stand part of the clause."
  *MR. LEVY, continuing his speech, said he had endeavoured to show the right hon. Gentleman that he had not dealt equally with the direct and indirect taxpayer. This tea duty, like the corn tax, was justified by hon. Members opposite, who said that the wage earner of this country having approved of the war, it was only fair that they should contribute to the cost of it. He had never accepted the theory that the wage earners had approved of the war, but if they had they could have only done so by the introduction of facts which were not strictly accurate having been placed before them, and it was therefore somewhat unfair to penalise them for an error of judgment arrived at on the facts presented to them. Even if they did approve of the war, still they should be the first to receive relief now that it had terminated. They were the least able to bear the burden of taxation. While the income taxpayers had an income out of which to pay, the consumers had little or no capital, and week by week hardly knew how to eke out an existence, very often having to buy their tea in pennyworths and ha'porths. That being the case the Chancellor of the Exchequer having been bold enough to differ from those members of the Cabinet who desire to impose fresh taxation upon the food of the people, and who had repealed the corn tax, would surely be bold enough to go a step further and remit this extra 2d. on tea, imposed for purposes of funds for the

  151
  war. This year the income taxpayers would, by the remission of 4d. on the income tax, save something like £8,500,000. The indirect taxpayers, by the remission of the corn duty, would save nearly £2,500,000, but it must be remembered that if the Sugar Convention was ratified, as it probably would be against the wishes of the people, the indirect taxpayers would pay £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 a year more for their sugar. That burden would fall mostly on the working classes of this country, and that being so, there could be no justification for saying that the direct and indirect taxpayers were receiving equal benefits. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in addition, anticipated receiving an increased sum of over £2,000,000 from the Customs, and although that sum might be spread over a larger population than hitherto, the people of this country on their food would be paying no less a sum than £10,000,000 in excess of what they paid last year. The stamina of the country depended upon the quality and quantity of the food consumed by the people; many had to look, not to quality but quantity, and by reason of these taxes upon tea and upon sugar the quantity of food which some would consume must be seriously diminished. He therefore appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to remit the extra 2d. which was put upon tea for the purposes of the war; by so doing he would confer a great benefit upon a great mass of the community.
  MR. COHENsaid he was obliged to traverse a good many of the reasons of the hon. Gentleman opposite for the remission of this duty for the sufficient reason, among others, that no Chancellor of the Exchequer could remit taxation, when he had not the money to do so. It was perfectly impossible to raise the income tax to such an amount as would enable 2d. to be taken off the tea duty. So far as he personally was concerned he would make an appeal of a different character to the right hon. Gentleman. He would appeal to him not to remit any of the existing tea duty. He was sorry that even the corn tax had been remitted. The reason he so strongly opposed the argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite was because it
  152
  was based on a fallacy. He was in favour of treating, with every possible consideration, those who were most needy and those upon whom the burden of taxation pressed most heavily, but hon. Members opposite must not forget that the direct payers also paid a large amount of indirect taxation. No fewer than 112,397 income taxpayers possessed incomes of less than £160 per annum; 138,467 an income exceeding £160 and not exceeding £200, and 94,298 an income of over £200 and not exceeding £300. That made a total of 355,662 of what they must suppose to beheads of families, which multiplied by the usual computation of five, as being the number of the family, gives a total of 17,750,000 who paid income tax on an assessment of under £300 a year. In those persons expenditure, tea, sugar, and tobacco formed a large ingredient, and, therefore, in addition to the oppressive burden of the Income Tax they had to pay a large amount of indirect taxation, yet by a system of equity and logic, which he was unable to follow, hon. Members opposite found their consideration was aroused on behalf of those persons who only paid through indirect taxation and had not a word to say in favour of those who paid in addition the oppressive burden of direct taxation. There was another argument which had not received from hon. Gentlemen opposite that consideration it should have received. He never had any sympathy with those who cried out because the income tax was raised in times of stress or war, but it was the duty of every Government to reduce the income tax to such a level that they could resort to it again in times of stress. The capacity of the income tax as a source of revenue could not possibly be so great when the tax stood at 11d. or 1s., as it would be when it stood at 6d. or 7d. The direct taxpayers contributed more than their share to the expenditure of the country and pro tanto they had a greater claim on the Chancellor of the Exchequer for remission than those persons who, whatever they pay in indirect taxation, pay nothing in direct taxation. The right hon. Gentleman had to be very careful how he in any way still further reduced the resources of the country, which, at any rate, at present only existed on paper. He should be the last person in the world to question the

  153
  Estimates of the right hon. Gentleman, which were founded on expert advice, but Supplementary Estimates threatened them. In the last three or four weeks they had large possible and probable additions to those Estimates, and they must bear in mind the claims of the Debt and the absolute disappearance of the Sinking Fund. He certainly hoped the right hon. Gentleman would rigidly stand to the not too lavish provision he had made for the expenditure of the country.
  MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid he strongly desired that the tea duty should be reduced. In fact, he had an Amendment on the Paper that it should be reduced by 3d. It was not an answer to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not got the money. He had thrown away £2,500,000, and he talked about next year. That did not satisfy him. With regard to next year he was not without hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not be there as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that he would have some other and better occupation. Whether that was so or not he wished emphatically to express his dislike to the whole of the first five clauses of this Budget, and especially his dislike to the tea duty. He disliked the tea duty because tea was largely produced in our own dominions. The corn duty represented only 4 per cent. of the value, whilst the incidence in regard to tea was very difficult. Let them take an average price of 1s. a pound. The duty on that was 6d.—half the value. Therefore, it was perfectly clear that a reduction of 3d. would be so large that no tea dealer could possibly do other than take 3d. a pound off the cost. He did not suppose that there was anybody in the House who would argue that the tea duty did not fall absolutely on the consumer. The duty at present was far too heavy, and, so far as he was concerned, he should lose no opportunity, both in that House and elsewhere, of urging that it should be reduced. He had a very strong objection to any tax which increased the cost of the food of the people, and if he had thought that the corn duty would have had that effect he would not have supported it. Tea had now become almost as much a necessity of life as bread itself, and the tax upon tea had become a very serious thing indeed to working people. He
  154
  should always urge that the duty on tea should be reduced. He had a very strong objection to everything which increased the cost of the food of the people, and he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite.
  SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid that if his hon. friend succeeded with the view he had put forward, it would necessitate an increase in direct taxation. He doubted whether there were many Members on the Ministerial side of the House taking a large view of national questions who would consider that the alternative to the remission of indirect taxation should be an increase of direct taxation. He thought the views upon this point put forward by recent Chancellors of the Exchequer were very sound. During national emergencies, if they wanted a fund to draw from, they had the income tax, but if that tax was raised to the war point in times of peace, then they would not have that fund to fall back upon. When the income tax was raised beyond a certain point it pressed severely and unequally on the industries of the country. No doubt there was something to be said in favour of a duty on tea, and they should take into account what the real burden of the tax amounted to. When they had a commodity, the cost of producing which had been reduced beyond all expectation, as was the case with tea, then it could bear taxation without any hardship upon the consumer. Under these circumstances he could not support a reduction of the tea duty.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid he had already stated to the House the reasons why he was unable to accept the Amendment, but some observations had been made which seemed to call for a few words more from him. He did not desire to minimise the harden of indirect taxation on the working classes and the very poor, but he reminded the Committee that the relative burden of indirect as compared with direct taxation was not now so great as it was before the war. Before the war indirect taxation contributed in the proportion of 52·1 and direct taxation 47·9 to the revenue, but, after this Budget was passed the proportions would be 50·9

  155
  indirect taxation and 49·1 direct taxation. Considerably more revenue had been raised by direct taxation for the war than by indirect taxation, and the proposals in the Budget to a large extent rectified the balance once more. It had been assumed by hon. Members that the result of adding 2d. to the duty on tea had been to increase the price paid by the working classes to that extent. That certainly had not been the case, because through overproduction or some other causes the wholesale price of tea had decreased to the extent of 1½d. out of that 2d. He did not deny that if 2d. were taken off the tea duty the consumer would obtain the benefit; but his argument was that as far as the burden of that tax on the people was concerned, as compared with the period before the war, it was nothing like the 2d. which had been added to the tea duty. He had already explained that he was unable to do anything more in the way of a reduction of taxation this year, and he hoped that he had explained satisfactorily to the Committee that although this year they had taken off direct taxation a much larger sum than off indirect taxation, the balance was still in favour of the indirect taxpayer.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the contributions of the indirect taxpayer and the direct taxpayer now showed a balance in favour of the indirect taxpayer. He wished to point out that the duties on spirits, wine, and beer were included in indirect taxation. These things could not be looked upon as the necessaries of life, and when they were eliminated from the reckoning indirect taxation paid very little to the revenue. Tea and sugar produced about £11,000,000 out of a total revenue from taxation of £125,000,000; and if people did not choose to drink or smoke their burdens from indirect taxation were extremely small. As his hon.
  friend the Member for Preston had stated, if they took 2d. off tea they had to put it on something else, and unless they revived the corn duty he did not know upon what other article they could put it, and they would have to put it on the income tax. There was no doubt that of all classes those who paid income tax were a class upon whom the burden of taxation in the last few years had fallen very heavily. The working classes had not suffered by reason of want of employment during the war, while wages had continued good, and, therefore, they could not complain if the duty on tea was kept to the figure at which it now stood. He did not believe the tea dealers and grocers would confer the whole benefit of any reduction in the tax upon their customers; if so, it would be the first time in the history of the world in which that had been done. Any number of cases could be produced where a reduction of duty had not led to a reduction in price. The abolition of the corn duty had not led to a reduction in the price of bread, and a reduction of the tea duty would not necessarily lead to a reduction in the price of tea. When the coal dues were abolished in the City of London that did not lead to a reduction in price, and there was scarcely any instance where a reduction in the tax upon an article had been followed by a reduction in the price. He did not know whether the mover of the Amendment gave any indication of what article he would put the tax on in place of this 2d. on tea. He urged the Committee to hesitate before they took this 2d. off tea, which he did not believe was felt by any one. He was not aware of any other tax that could be put on in its place which would not be a greater burden.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 154; Noes, 92. (Division List No. 126.)

  AYES.

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Gilhooly, James

  O'Shee, James John

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

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

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Bignold, Arthur

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

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Bigwood, James

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Percy, Earl

  Bill, Charles

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Brassey, Albert

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Midx

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Butcher, John George

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Purvis, Robert

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Heath, James (Stafford, N. W.

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. H. (Som'rs't, E.

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Chapman, Edward

  Hope, J. F. (Sheff., B'tside)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Hudson, George Bickerstetn

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Spear, John Ward

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Keswick, William

  Stroyan, John

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Lawson, Jn. Grant (Yorks. N. R.)

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Crean, Eugene

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

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

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

  Denny, Colonel

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire,

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Milvain, Thomas

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

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

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Wylie, Alexander

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Mount, William Arthur

  Young, Samuel

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Myers, William Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Forster, Henry William

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Gardner, Ernest

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Edwards, Frank

  Joyce, Michael

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lambert, George

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

  Ffrench, Peter

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Leng, Sir John

  Bell, Richard

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Brigg, John

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Lundon, W.

  Burns, John

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Burt, Thomas

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  M'Crae, George

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Caldwell, James

  Grant, Corrie

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murphy, John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Crombie, John William

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Crooks, William

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Delany, William

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristl, E.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hutchinson Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Dillon, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  158

  159

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Runciman, Walter

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Williams, O. (Merioneth)

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

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

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

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Tomkinson, James

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Toulmin, George

  Younger, William

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Mr. Broadhurst and Mr.

  Sullivan, Donal

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Levy.

  Question put, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill," and agreed to.

  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  MR. DAVID MACIVERmoved to leave out the clause. He said the argument that this year the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not got sufficient money to carry out what he now proposed did not meet the case, because the life of the nation was not a matter of one year only. It was a matter of grave doubt how far they were wise in raising so large a proportion of their revenue from alcoholic drinks, and other things, the reasonable use of which was right and proper. No question of temperance, or what was best for the people, entered into the Exchequer's consideration in that matter, but simply how the greatest possible revenue could be raised. The excessive taxation of the articles concerned was very bad for everybody. The State made itself a partner with the brewer, distiller, and publican, and a partner which took as much as possible out of the interest concerned, and did as much as it could to stimulate the consumption of alcohol in this country. From a social and national point of view, not less than that of the traders affected, and of those who abused the good things of this life, the present system was undesirable, and for those reasons he moved the omission of the clause.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, to leave out Clause 3."
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  MR. DAVID MACIVERmoved an Amendment with the object of confining the income tax to profits derived from
  160
  investments beyond the limits of the British Empire. His objection to income tax was probably greater than to any other part of the Budget. The income tax was not only a tax upon those who directly paid it, but upon the trade and industries of the country. He had nothing whatever to say so far as it meant taxing the investments of those wealthy people who put their money into foreign concerns which competed with the industries of this country, and many of whom escaped the tax. He would like to see income tax abolished so far as the industries of this country were concerned. He was very far indeed from sharing the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others as to the right proportion between direct and indirect taxation, because he could not help remembering that a greater authority than any of them wished to abolish income tax altogether. However little he might agree with Mr. Gladstone in most matters he agreed with him in that. He was aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not got the money and that it could not be done, but he raised the question with a view to the future. There was no more abominable tax than the income tax, which was very unfair so far as it related to those who earned their daily bread as shopkeepers, clerks, or professional men. Minorities were not always wrong, and he was perfectly certain there were many who thought with him who would not vote in favour of the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 11, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'as regards all profits derived from investments other than in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or in any other part of His Majesty's Dominions.'"—(Mr. David MacIver.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *MR. RITCHIE: My hon. friend has supplied the practical answer to his own Amendment. He says it is quite impossible for me to do it. Indeed, we should be in a state of hopeless bankruptcy if we attempted it.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEYasked whether anything had been done with regard to the Committee on the income tax which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised.
  *MR. RITCHIE: The arrangements are not finally settled, but I hope to announce them at an early date.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONasked whether the inquiry would be by a Select Committee or otherwise.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid the Committee would be a Committee of the House appointed in the usual way.
  Question put and negatived.
  *MR. J. H. LEWIShad an Amendment on the Paper in the following terms—
  "In Clause 5, page 3, lines 11 and 12, leave out 'rate of eleven pence,' and insert 'following rate, namely: In respect of incomes exceeding one hundred thousand pounds a year, two shillings; In respect of incomes exceeding fifty thousand pounds and not exceeding one hundred thousand pounds a year, one shilling and ten pence; In respect of incomes exceeding twenty thousand pounds and not exceeding fifty thousand pounds a year, one shilling and eight pence; In respect of incomes exceeding ten thousand pounds and not exceeding twenty thousand pounds a year, one shilling and six pence; In respect of incomes exceeding five thousand pounds and not exceeding ten thousand pounds a year, one shilling and three pence; In respect of incomes exceeding two thousand pounds and not exceeding five thousand pounds a year, one shilling and two pence; in respect of incomes exceeding one thousand pounds and not exceeding two thousand pounds a year, one shilling; In respect of incomes exceeding seven hundred pounds and not exceeding one thousand pounds a year, eleven pence; In respect of incomes exceeding six hundred pounds and not exceeding seven hundred pounds a year, ten pence; In respect of incomes exceeding five hundred pounds and not exceeding six hundred pounds a year, nine pence; In respect of incomes exceeding four hundred pounds and not exceeding five hundred pounds a year, seven pence halfpenny; In respect of incomes exceeding three hundred pounds and not exceeding four hundred pounds a year, six pence; In respect of incomes exceeding two hundred pounds and not exceeding three hundred pounds a year, four pence; In respect of incomes exceeding one hundred and sixty pounds and not exceeding two hundred pounds a year, three pence."
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member could not propose a higher income tax than that named in the Bill, and, therefore, only the latter half of the Amendment, beginning with the proposed payment of 11d. for incomes over £700 a year, would be in order.
  MR. J. H. LEWISsaid he would restrict his proposals accordingly. He was under the impression that, as the scheme be proposed would not increase the total revenue from income tax provided for in the Bill, it would not be out of order, but under the circumstances he was bound to move the second part of the Amendment only. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss the question, without taking advantage of the technical difficulty. The point he wished to raise was whether the income tax should be graduated or not. It was one which had been raised on several occasions in the House, and he believed it was one which was growing in public favour. He need not argue the principle of graduated taxation. The history of English fiscal legislation contained many instances of that principle culminating in the Finance Act of 1894. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, when Chancellor of the Exchequer in that year, proposed a scheme of graduated death duties, the object being to impose a differential estate duty, and to equalise taxation between the property owner and the man who earned his income. In 1897–8 the estate duty yielded £11,000,000, and the income tax £17,000,000, the proportion of the former to the latter being therefore 65 per cent. Last year the amounts were £14,000,000 and £36,000,000, and the proportion 39 per cent. It was therefore clear that there ought to some readjustment in this respect. When he proposed a Motion of this kind in 1901, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed it on the ground of the extension he had made in the system of abatements, and also because it was a year in which it was necessary for him to ask Parliament to increase the income tax. This year a reduction was being made in the income tax. The late Chancellor of

  163
  the Exchequer stated then that if they had to reconsider the question, the principle adopted in 1894 should be adopted—that of imposing some compulsory taxation to equalise the taxation of the richer with that of the poorer class of income taxpayers. If ever such a case had arisen it had arisen now. Then the right hon. Gentleman said he would not bind himself to any policy or plan in the matter, but he very clearly indicated that some policy or plan would have to be adopted in order to reduce the inequalities which undoubtedly did exist at the present time. So far no step had been taken in that direction. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make some promise to reduce the inequality that, in spite of the exemptions, still prevailed between the larger and smaller income taxpayer.
  In practice only a small fraction of the benefit to which people with small incomes were entitled from abatements was realised by them. An enormous number of people were unaware of the exemptions to which they were entitled, and were deterred by difficulties from claiming the exemptions. The proportion of the amount recovered by the taxpayer to the amount due to him he should say was one-eighth or one-tenth; and when he thought what this system pretended to be, and what it really was, he was prompted to use very strong language indeed. If the right hon. Gentleman would look at the first column of the table he would find that there were 308,000 entitled to exemption of £160 a year; and in the last two columns he would find that there were 380,000 employees also entitled to exemption of £160. If they took a fairly low average of these exemptions it would be found that when the income tax was at the rate of 8d. in the £1 these exemptions amounted to £2,500,000 at least. Some time ago he had asked the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was received during a year when the income tax was 8d.; and the reply was that the amount actually paid to persons entitled to exemption was £313,000. There were an enormous number of people who were not aware that they were entitled to these exemptions, and there were a large number who were aware but who were deterred by the difficulties which existed from recover-
  164
  ing the sums due to them from the State. There were 300,000 income taxpayers with incomes of less than £200 per year, and 50,000 of those whose incomes were between £300 and £400, and 25,000 of those whose incomes were between £400 and £500, none of whom had received the abatements to which they were entitled. He thought it was the duty of the State, if this system of abatement could not afford relief to the poor taxpayers, to find some other system of taxation by which the small taxpayers should pay only the amount of the tax which the State wished to levy on them. He was well aware that there was one practical difficulty constantly urged by Ministers who had to meet a Motion of this character. It was the difficulty of inducing individuals to aggregate their incomes when derived from many sources; and of checking evasion of the tax. After all, however, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the difficulties were so great. Individuals were obliged to make a statement as to their incomes; these statements were examined, and certain checks applied. If a man had many sources of income, in nearly every case the source would be investments in limited liability companies. Now lists of the shareholders in these companies were public property. It would be quite possible to compile an alphabetical index of these shareholders by means of unskilled clerical labour. As a matter of fact he was told that there were private firms in the City which compiled lists of that character. At all events it was possible for Somerset House, which had these lists under its control, to make such a list, and the cost of that work would be justified when £2,500,000 of the poorer taxpayers' money was concerned. There could be no doubt that the present system, or want of system, did not work, and that the classes who were entitled to relief from income tax did not receive it. We must adopt some different system of graduating the income tax. The public believed that those small income taxpayers got the exemptions to which they were entitled; but, as a matter of fact, it was a mere make-believe, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would

  165
  seriously consider the case of these widows, spinsters, and other people with small incomes of £200 or £300, who did not get the relief to which they were entitled; if the right hon. Gentleman was able, to introduce that reform these classes would be deeply grateful to him.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, lines 11 and 12, to leave out the words 'rate of eleven pence,' and to insert 'following rate, namely:—In respect of incomes exceeding seven hundred pounds and not exceeding one thousand pounds a year, eleven pence. In respect of incomes exceeding six hundred pounds and not exceeding seven hundred pounds a year, ten pence. In respect of incomes exceeding five hundred pounds and not exceeding six hundred pounds a year, nine pence.'"—(Mr. J. H. Lewis.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'rate of eleven pence' stand part of the clause."
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid he quite understood that the hon. Gentleman had moved his Amendment not at all with the idea that it could be carried, but only to enable him to make the speech which he had just delivered in regard to graduation and abatements. He admitted that so far as the question of abatements was concerned, the whole of the existing system was one which required to be examined. He hoped that it would be one of the subjects to which the proposed Committee would direct its attention, with a view to seeing whether or not some more equitable arrangement than the present could be devised. But when they came to the hon. Gentleman's proposal in regard to graduation they were landed in absolutely inextricable difficulties. Graduation was discussed by Mr. Gladstone, who had pointed out the enormous difficulty and the impracticability of coming to any settlement of the question which would be equitable all round. It was true that on the face of it it seemed to be just that incomes over £5,000 or £10,000 a year should be called upon to pay more than the smaller incomes. But there were practical difficulties to consider, and it was impossible to contemplate any alphabetical arrangement of names in company lists like that adumbrated by the hon. Member. The intricacy and the difficulty of such a subject as that would be over-
  166
  whelming. It should be remembered that two-thirds of the money obtained from the income tax was received at the source—that was to say, deducted from the payment of dividends and the like. How was the Committee going to make the various companies at home and abroad responsible for ascertaining what was the income of an individual who received a dividend? The difficulty was absolutely insuperable. The suggestion, moreover, that the larger incomes should pay a higher duty than the smaller incomes had been to a large extent met in the remodelling of the death duties, which were, of course, something like income tax. As it stood, the income tax was considered by many persons as being of an inquisitorial character, and they resented as improper many of the inquiries made of them. He was constantly receiving complaints from income taxpayers as to the cross-examination and inquiry to which they were subjected, and which they did not consider reasonable or right. But, if the Treasury had to summon persons to the bar of the Department, and to cross-examine them as to whether they had £5,000 or £10,000a year, and require them to show cause why they should not be so assessed, it was possible a good many persons might be brought into the net who tried to escape, but only at the expense of friction and annoyance to hundreds of other taxpayers. He had looked carefully into the question, and he was convinced that the difficulties were overwhelming, while the cost of the investigation would eat up a large proportion of any additional sum they could possibly receive. Though in favour of some inquiry on the subject of abatements to remedy any injustice that might exist at present, he could not hold out any hope to the hon. Member that he could deal with graduation.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was glad to hear the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Committee, which they understood the other day was to deal with the question of evasions of income tax, would deal with the question of abatements. In his view it was quite clear that, apart from the question of a graduated income tax, the abatements made under existing circumstances might very well be extended to incomes

  167
  of from £700 up to £1,000 a year. At the same time he was bound to agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in opposing the general principle of the graduation of the income tax. He himself should like to feel that the graduation of the income tax could be extended from top to bottom, but he feared that that was out of the question. He hoped, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would allow the question of the death duties from this point of view to be referred to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Bristol, last year admitted that, if the income tax was to remain permanently at a higher level, it would be a fair question to consider whether the death duties should not be proportionately increased.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid he did not remember ever making such a statement.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he had not brought the quotation with him, but the impression on his mind was that the right hon. Gentleman in the course of the debate last year, or the year before, had stated that if the income tax came to be at a higher permanent level than at present, the death duties should be proportionately increased also. However, he did not wish for a moment to give any expression of opinion which would leave a wrong impression of what the right hon. Gentleman had said. He would be sorry to see any stumbling block put in the way of the collection of the income tax.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid that last year when he held the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, they had a debate of some importance on this matter, and, in response to the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries, he expressed his sympathy with the suggestion which he made that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the possibility of either extending the present abatement upon the income tax or of graduating the income tax upon the higher incomes. He did not accept the principle of graduation, but he admitted that his main objection to the proposal was the question of its practicability. He
  168
  doubted its practicability; but he thought it a fair subject for inquiry. The Committee he had in contemplation was not a Committee of the House of Commons, but a Departmental Committee of experts, who would deal with the question solely from the point of view of practicability. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had gone beyond that. He had seen certain matters connected with the income tax which in his opinion demanded inquiry, and he had undertaken that the inquiry should be conducted by a Committee of the House of Commons, and that this point should be included in it. He had been good enough to suggest that he should undertake an important position with regard to that Committee. He did not think that anything he could do—or that anyone in his position could do—could detract from the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day in a matter of such vast importance to the country as the proper collection of income tax. But anything he could do to assist the House or his right hon. friend in the matter, of course, would be cheerfully done. He thought this was a matter of considerable difficulty, and it was not settled, as the hon. Member for Poplar seemed to imagine, by anything that Mr. Gladstone might have said or done in the matter. In Mr. Gladstone's days, fortunately for the income taxpayer, the tax continued at a low point. They had now got to a time when the income tax in time of peace stood at 11d. in the pound. Well, that was a very serious matter, because how many of them could really believe that it was possible in the years before them that that poundage could be materially reduced? What was the result? It was this: Anyone who had devoted five minutes to the consideration of this point knew very well that the income tax, whatever rate it might be in the pound, pressed far more severely, as a matter of fact, upon the owners of small incomes as compared with the owners of large incomes. To a man of £50,000 a year what did the income tax matter? The man, again, of £20,000 or £10,000 a year felt the income tax but to a trifling extent compared with the man of £2,000 or £1,000 or £700 or £800. That was a fact that, surely, must come home to all of them if they wished to be

  169
  fair to the taxpayers of this country. Of course he need not say that the unfairness, if it was an unfairness, was largely increased when the income tax stood at a high level.
  Hon. Members opposite had proposed to meet this by graduation. He had no objection to the principle of graduation with regard to the income tax. He had no objection to it with regard to the death duties or the house duty. With regard to the house duty, it had, of course, been long in operation in this country, and with regard to the death duties, during the seven years that he had been Chancellor of the Exchequer he had found the principle of graduation work extremely well. But he was afraid that they would find it absolutely impracticable to extend the principle of graduation to the income tax for the reasons which had been given by his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which he gave to the House himself last year—namely, that the great fortress of the income tax, so to speak, in this country was the fact of its collection at the source, and if they resort to the only means at their disposal—namely, that of an inquisitorial investigation by officials specially appointed for that purpose into the circumstances of persons who were supposed to have more than a certain amount of income, which would bring them into a higher grade for taxation—they would be certain to have all kinds of evasions, qualifications, and mental reservations, which would really prevent any successful issue to the inquiry. It was possible, also, that the cost of such an inquiry might be entirely out of proportion to the results obtained. For the Committee could not too clearly remember that the bulk of the income tax was collected from small incomes—he meant comparatively small incomes—and that the fortunate persons who owned an income of £10,000 or £15,000 a year, or above that sum, were a very limited number indeed. He merely mentioned those matters from his own experience in order to show his appreciation of the great difficulties in the way, not at all as suggesting that they ought not to go very carefully into the subject, with the best expert evidence at their disposal, to endeavour to see
  170
  whether anything practical could be done so as to lighten the burden upon the income taxpayers with smaller incomes, and increase the burden upon the persons who at present felt it very little at all. He sympathised with that idea himself, but he would venture to say that he hoped that in the inquiry which was contemplated there would be no idea whatever of placing the whole system of the income tax into the crucible of a Select Committee of this House.
  Of course, there were many anomalies and difficulties in the income tax system. He wished every hon. Member of this House and anyone who thought he could remove them would first of all read that speech of Mr. Gladstone's in 1853, in order to appreciate to some extent the present position of the income tax and the difficulties in the way of making any alteration in it. If a Committee of this House was to be appointed to deal with this subject, the reference to it ought to be narrow, ought to be carefully confined to certain points, and ought to be definite. Otherwise he would venture to say that they would have no adequate results from any investigations of the Committee, and they might possibly have as useless a result as that of the Committee of 1860, which did not report at all after examining a great deal of evidence. Certainly they would run a great risk of dangerously interfering with one of the most important sources of revenue of the United Kingdom. He trusted that his right hon. friend, while carefully limiting the reference to this Committee, would include in that reference the principle which had been brought before the Committee in that debate. He trusted that if the Committee were appointed it might be their duty to inquire not merely into the working of the existing system of abatement—which he believed, on the whole, worked fairly well, although it was perfectly possible that some persons entitled to abatements did not receive them—but also that they might be enabled to enquire whether that system could be extended or in any way altered so as to make the income tax at its present high level fairer to all persons in the country who paid it.
  MR. TREVELYANexpressed his opinion that it was more imperative this year to continue to urge upon the financial authorities the necessity of inquiring into the question of the graduation of the income tax than it had been in preceding years. At a time when a declaration had been made in important quarters in favour of taxing the food of the people, we must consider whether there were no alternatives to such taxation. The plan of graduation was based on the fact that there existed in the country stores of wealth which we could tax without touching the resources of the poor. He did not lay it down that the proposal was necessarily practicable, but some system of the kind was in operation in one of our colonies and in Prussia, and there was obviously ground for inquiry into the subject. It would not be necessary to touch the present way of raising the existing income tax, but the country might inquire whether it would not be possible to require from the rich a declaration of their whole income in order that we might put upon them an extra tax.
  MR. MOULTONsaid he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol as to the importance of an inquiry into this matter of a graduated income tax. He had never been able to scheme out a system of graduated income tax which was not, in his opinion, thoroughly inequitable. Income was a very poor criterion of a man's wealth or his power to bear taxation. He wished to explain the proposal he was going to make in regard to the inquiry, which was essential in order that it might be useful to the nation. No doubt the whole theory of direct taxation was that wealth and the capacity for bearing burthens were taken regardless of how the income was derived; and the burthen was put on the shoulders of the taxpayer proportionate to that. To take the power of bearing burthens was, however, absolutely delusive. He had given an instance more than once of a man who had £10,000 in Consols, and a man who in the best three or four years of his life earned an income of £250 per annum. Both men were taxed equally,
  172
  although one was almost incomparably richer than the other. Parliament had endeavoured to remedy that by the rough-and-tumble method of death duties, which fell entirely on the owners of realised wealth. In that way, they had to a certain extent balanced the income tax, and the owner paid about double the tax on his income that the earner paid when the income tax was at 8d. in the £. He thought that even, then the owner was let off very lightly. But if it was proposed to increase the burthen of the income tax and to add to the existing income tax a second income tax graduated according to the amount of the income, justice would not be done unless there was an inquiry made as to the nature of that income. An income might be partly earned and partly derived from realised property, but any attempt to divide income into those two classes would utterly fail. He could imagine a business income which was little more than 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. on the money invested, and which in part might be derived from realised property; and he could imagine a business income which depended entirely on the skill of the person who carried on the business; and between those two extreme classes there would be found such a graduation that it would be impossible to decide in what proportion the two elements of incomes, earned and incomes derived from realised property existed. He was, therefore, satisfied that any attempt to put a heavier burthen on a man in proportion to his income would cause a quite intolerable injustice. One man might have an income of £1,000 from Consols, another man might have an income of £1,000 derived from his earnings; but although the latter would be capable of bearing taxation, he would be crushed if he were to be taxed to the same extent as the former.
  Income tax had worked well because it was balanced by the death duties, and because a man's wealth was estimated partly by what he could earn and partly by what he owned; and if the income tax was not pushed too far that would be a good, reasonable, and practical approximation to justice. But it should not be imagined for a moment that it would be just if it were not balanced to a certain extent by the death duties. He should like to see an inquiry as to

  173
  whether income tax could be graduated and yet justice done; but he was certain that a heavier income; tax would mean a heavier tax on the earners. He should also wish to see an inquiry as to whether the death duties should not be dependent on the scale of the income tax. If the income tax were doubled, it was borne equally by those who earned aud those who owned—a most unfair division of an extra burthen such as the war expenditure. The only way in which that could be remedied was to get a tax on capital, and the only tax on capital they had was the system of death duties. He should like to see the scale of the death duties doubled when the income tax was doubled, and when the income tax was lowered he should also like to see the death duties lowered. They should satisfy themselves as to the fair proportion of both taxes to be borne by owners and earners; and then the two taxes should go up and down together. It might also be useful to enquire whether the capital tax which was the justification for the income tax should not vary in proportion to the amount of income.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid he did not know what the terms of reference to the Committee which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to appoint were to be. The Committee were given very little information about the range of the inquiry in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He would make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the interests of a large and increasing number of poor persons who had incomes varying from 50s. to £100 per year derived from investments in limited liability companies and corporation stock. An income tax of 11d. in the £ was deducted from those incomes, and seldom, if ever, did those persons get a rebate. In the first place, many of them did not know that they were entitled to a rebate; and, in the second place, even if they did know, they were not aware as to the means to be taken to secure it. What he wished was that part of the reference to the Committee should be to devise some simple, certain, ready means of recovering money paid as income tax by persons entitled to it. He did not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer ever had occasion to apply for a rebate
  174
  himself. The right hon. Gentleman smiled; and he, therefore, gathered that he never had occasion to apply, as his income was always sufficiently above the water-mark to afford him no hope of recovering money paid as income tax. He wished the Treasury officials would inform the right hon. Gentleman as to the enormous difficulties which attach to any attempt to recover money from the Treasury. Small tradesmen with an income of about £200 a year, part of which was derived from investments, very rarely indeed secured the rebates to which they were entitled. That was a real, genuine, substantial grievance. In his own personal experience he knew many cases where income tax was paid, although the persons paying it were not liable. The process of recovery was so difficult that it was easier to pay it than employ a lawyer to make out a claim. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as well as his predecessor, spoke in a condemnatory way of the inquisitorial nature of levying the income tax. He did not see where that arose. If a man were an honest man, he made a statement of income more or less correct, more generally under the mark than above it. He sat for many years in a court of appeal to hear appeals against income tax; and he knew of his own knowledge that many people paid income tax who were not liable at law to pay it. What he wished was that some protection should be given to this class of income tax payer, from the cruel injustice from which they now suffered. If the right hon. Gentleman saw that this grievance was rectified, he would be conferring an act of justice on hundreds of thousands of people.
  He was bound to say he was not quite able to follow the remarks of his hon. friend the Member for Launceston. He usually understood what his hon. friend said; but he was unable to follow him in his argument condemnatory of the principle of this Amendment. He believed that the great majority of the people of this country regarded the present system as unjust His hon. friend referred to the death duties; but it was not the man who owned the property who paid the death duties, but the fortunate person

  175
  who succeeded to it. If he had an experience of that kind, he certainly would not grumble at the payment of the death duties. He believed that the country was tired of the present system; and with all due respect to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, for whom he always had a great regard, he hoped the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would mark a new era in his Chancellorship by making this inquiry as wide as possible. If the Treasury came out victors in argument from the inquiry, so much the better for their own reputation, but he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would provide ample opportunity for arguing the question at a public inquiry. In any case, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that poor people were no longer robbed in the manner he described. Although he had had some little experience of public affairs, he found it was no easy matter to satisfy Somerset House that he was entitled to money which had been illegally deducted from his income.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid he agreed that great trouble was experienced in securing rebates of income tax. There seemed to be a system at Somerset House of obstruction and delay designed to prevent people from getting the return of money to which they were entitled. That seemed very unreasonable; and there ought to be some simple process by which people would be able to show that they were entitled to a rebate, and when that was shown payment should be made without further trouble. At present there seemed to be an idea that getting money from Somerset House was like getting butter out of a dog's mouth, He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take some steps to secure that those cases should be more readily attended to without all the annoyance and irritation which now existed. With regard to the inquiry, he had advocated an inquiry for fifteen years. He did not think that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer quite liked the idea; and he himself had no doubt that it would lead to some loss of revenue; but there were at present many cases in which hardship existed, and they should be inquired into. To tax the two classes of income
  176
  equally was neither logical nor fair; but he ageeed with the hon. Gentleman that the death duties very largely put that right. The imposition of the death duties generation after generation led to a large proportion of the value of property being transferred to the Exchequer. He thought that system was fairly just; but there were certain anomalies which he hoped would be considered by the Committee. Another matter which should also be considered was the mode of assessing, and the question of appeal. He thought the present system of appeal was most unfair, and that it led to great hardship. A system under which a man was not allowed to be represented, although his opponent was represented, wanted inquiring into. The income tax was a permanent tax; and unfortunately it did not look as if it could be reduced for many years. Therefore some system should be devised whereby it could be collected as fairly as possible.
  *MR. J. H. LEWISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was right in supposing that the inquiry would include the system of granting and obtaining abatements; whether it would also include the desirability of extending the system to higher incomes, and, if so, how that could be done; also whether the inquiry would extend to the comparative incidence of the estate duty and the income tax respectively; and the practicability of adopting a system of graduated income tax.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid the form of reference had not yet been settled. It was proposed to inquire into the question of evasion, collection, abatements, and many other points in connection with the income tax. The Committee would agree, he thought, that it was very desirable that the inquiry should not range over so varied a field as to prolong the proceedings. They wanted to have an inquiry which would lead to some reform of these pressing matters in a short space of time. He could not undertake to say that the inquiry would include the question of graduation. He had been inquiring into that matter himself, and he was persuaded that the difficulties were immense, and he did not really see his way out of the difficulties

  177
  which presented themselves to him. But the reference had not been finally decided yet, and until it had been decided he was not prepared to say exactly what the scope would be.
  *MR. J. H. LEWISasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would go so far as to inquire into the system of graduation which was at present in vogue in at least one British colony, as well as elsewhere.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid he could not add anything to what he had said. Of course he would consider all the proposals that had been made that night before the reference was finally settled. With regard to the question of the hon. Gentleman opposite, he presumed the Committee would naturally inquire into that particular point when they inquired into the whole question of the equity of abatements. He agreed that they ought to see whether they could not make it more easy to obtain the return of money that had been paid. With regard to what his hon. friend the Member for North Islington had said, he was convinced that there was a good deal to be said in favour of some alteration in the present mode of appeal, so that the appellant might have power to appoint some one to put his case before the Commissioners, either counsel or a solicitor. He was quite sure something of that kind ought to be done, and he hoped he might be able to do it without inquiry at all. There were several small matters in connection with taxation with which he hoped to deal in what he might call an Omnibus Bill, and, as they were none of them of a contentious character, he imagined there would be
  178
  no prolonged discussion when they were dealt with.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: What about the death duties?
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid he did not think they could extend the inquiry.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHhoped the hon. Member would not put the Committee to the trouble of a division. He was anxious, as he had said, that the inquiry of this Committee should extend not only to the question of abatements, but also to the practicability of graduation. He had endeavoured to impress his views on his right hon. friend, and, though he did not himself believe it was practicable, he felt quite sure that, if it was impracticable, it would be a good thing for everybody if it could be shown to be so. If the hon. Member took a division on his Motion now, on the ground that he was dissatisfied with his right hon. friend's answer, he thought he would injure the cause he had at heart. He quite understood the position of his right hon. friend, who was not yet authorised to state precisely what the inquiry would be, and he was sure his right hon. friend would bear in mind what had been said in the course of the debate.
  *MR. J. H. LEWISsaid, in view of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had by no means given anything in the nature of an absolute negative to his question, and in view of the remarks just made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. MCCRAEcomplained of a lack of uniformity as between England and Scotland in the collection of income tax. While 93 per cent. was collected in Scotland at 28th February only 53 per cent. was collected in England, representing a loss to the revenue of £30,000 a year in interest. He thought they were entitled to an assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, until the collection of income tax in England was brought up to a higher standard, they in Scotland should have extended to them the same time for payment as was given in England. He asked that until a rearrangement had been made the two countries should be put in a position of perfect equality. He had made representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and although he had been told there was no difference in actual law, the collection was a month or six weeks earlier in Scotland than in England.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid that as far as he was aware there was no inequality. In Scotland, however, they were rather more eager to pay quickly than in England, as he should expect from his fellow-countrymen, who always liked to discharge their debts as quickly as they could.
  *MR. MCCRAEsaid it was not a question of eagerness, but of compulsion.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid that as far as the law was concerned there was no difference between the two countries. He had made inquiry, and could find no reason why the collection should be
  180
  earlier in Scotland, unless it was that the collectors were more prompt.
  *MR. MCCRAEsaid it was really a serious matter, and was exciting much dissatisfaction in Scotland.
  *MR. RITCHIEpointed out that to bring England up to the level of Scotland would not benefit Scotland. He thought it would not be desirable to push the matter or to adopt more stringent measures; the tax was a very heavy one, and he was unwilling to give another turn to the screw.
  SIR MARK STEWARTstated that the feeling expressed by the hon. Member was common to all Scotland on both sides of politics, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the matter his attention.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6:—
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to report Progress at this point. There was on the Paper a proposed new clause relating to the coal duty, and that would involve a good deal of discussion. But before that was reached he desired to raise a point with reference to the Sinking Fund, in connection with which he believed some of his hon. friends had points they wished to bring forward. He thought, therefore, this would be a convenient stage to report Progress.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid that while he did not intend to take the coal tax to-night, he thought the Committee ought to finish the clauses in the Bill and then start the new subject of the coal duty tomorrow. The question of Sinking Fund was no doubt very important, but it was not a matter that lent itself to prolonged discussion.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid in that case he would proceed with the observations he desired to make. The point he desired to raise did not cover much ground, but the Committee would see that it was a vital matter in reference to the efficiency of the Sinking Fund. There were a great many of them who made out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's provision of £27,000,000 for the fixed debt charge was short by about £500,000 of what was necessary to bring it up to the old level. Besides that, there was no provision for the reduction of the new debt, the South African war debt. That left the fund, in a sense, inadequately provided for. The right hon. Gentleman himself had stated—
  "In January next we are to receive £10,000,000 more out of the loan which has been underwritten by the Transvaal mine-owners, so that within twelve months we shall receive £14,000,000, and the interest on that £14,000,000 will be £400,000, which will be added to the Sinking Fund of the fixed debt charge, so that the amount of the fixed debt charge available for the extinction of the debt will be increased by nearly £500,000.… In another year we shall get another £10,000,000, and the year after that we shall get a further £10,000,000, so that we are going to put on the Sinking Fund £1,000,000 odd in three years. That will go on being added to the Sinking Fund, so that by the time this £30,000,000 Transvaal Loan is paid we shall have a Sinking Fund of close on £9,000,000 sterling."
  In short, the right hon. Gentleman admitted the insufficiency of the pro-
  182
  vision for the Sinking Fund as it stood, but looked to the Transvaal loan of £30,000,000 to furnish in two or three years an adequate sum to make it good. But was it a certain asset on which the right hon. Gentleman was calculating? What security was there that the Transvaal loan, and especially the second and third instalments, would be paid? Was the right hon. Gentleman justified in relying upon the certainty of the receipt of that large sum of money? He noticed in the report published by a Johannesburg newspaper of the meeting at which the arrangement with regard to the loan was arrived at, that Sir Percy FitzPatrick used the following words—
  "Never in the history of the world has a young and struggling State taken on the burden of £30,000,000 of unproductive debt. None of us here to-day know enough to express a confident opinion; we are a great deal in the dark. I believe in the future of this country, and I believe that, given reasonable time, we shall be able to bear the burden of this debt; but you must realise that it is an experiment, a great experiment. If we face this, and if we brush on one side those stipulations which would safeguard us in making this experiment, if we abandon them and leave it entirely to the wisdom of the mother country and to her—well not magnaminity, that is not the word, let us say to her wisdom in the highest sense of the word to deal gently with us, should it prove that our condition and our needs in the future require it, we may be neglecting business precautions, we may be even committing an act of what is called folly or indiscretion, but we are doing it because it is our duty and would do no less. We have confidence in the good sense and the goodwill of the British people, who having it in their power, if needs be, at a future date to lighten the burden, will most certainly not impose upon us that which we cannot bear. They have in reserve the two unguaranteed instalments amounting to £20,000,000. My conviction is that if we cannot bear it when due they will defer it until we can."
  That was a perfectly natural position for Sir Percy FitzPatrick and his friends to take up, but it was wholly subversive of the theory that this loan

  183
  was a fixed and certain income to make up for any insufficiency there might be in the provision for the Sinking Fund? He did not know, nor was this the occasion on which to inquire, how, when, or by what authority, this loan was to be granted, guaranteed, and secured, but in order to gain information on the specific point to which he had referred he moved to leave out Sub-section 1 of the clause.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 27, to leave out Sub-section (1)." (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section (1) stand part of the clause."
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid it was hardly accurate to represent that no provision had been made in the £27,000,000 for a Sinking Fund for the war debt. There was an immediate addition of £750,000. It was quite true that in arguing that £27,000,000 was sufficient he confidently expected that in the next three or four years there would be a repayment of £30,000,000 from the Transvaal. The right hon. Gentleman asked what was their security. His right hon. friend the Secretary for the Colonies, in his statement on the subject of the finances of the Transvaal, fully explained to the House how that matter stood. The Transvaal was at present a Crown colony, and it was not necessary that we should take from them, in the ordinary sense of the term, security for the payment of debt which they were willing to incur. It was not necessary, because the matter was practically in our own hands. But, of course, they would not be justified in making the
  184
  assumption that the Transvaal could pay that money unless they had had some assurance from those who were interested which led them to believe that they would receive the money. The Colonial Secretary had informed the House that the contribution was assented to by an assembly representing the various interests of the colonies for the purpose of considering the contribution of the colonies towards the expenses of the war. At the first meeting some of the representatives of labour dissented, but subsequently, on the proposal being explained exactly, the dissentients withdrew their objection. Another meeting representing all interests, including those of labour, came unanimously to the resolution that they would be prepared to find the £30,000,000, and the mine owners guaranteed at least the first £10,000,000. Therefore, so far as the first £10,000,000 were concerned, we were quite safe. If, therefore, we only received that £10,000,000, and also the amount of money which we should receive back in repayment of the loan from the Transvaal, which undoubtedly we should receive in the course of the present year, we had at once an appreciable sum which would represent an addition to the Sinking Fund of £400,000 or £500,000. The Government were confident that they would also get the remaining £20,000,000, and they were supported in that belief by Lord Milner's review of the prospects of the finances of the Transvaal during the next three years. Lord Milner had arrived at the conclusion that that money would be forthcoming, and the progress which had been made since he made that forecast justified the view which he had

  185
  taken. Therefore, although the Government had no actual guarantee so far as the whole £30,000,000 were concerned, all the interests in the colonies had agreed to the proposals of his right hon. friend for the payment of that sum. Having regard to the fact that at the end of four years, if they obtained that £30,000,000, they would have a fixed charge containing within it some £9,000,000 towards the Sinking Fund, or 1·25 per cent. of the outstanding debt, which was a larger percentage than ever existed before, they would not have been justified in increasing the burden of the people of this country in the shape of taxation.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid it was not easy to discuss the matter at that time of night, but he had no wish to delay the progress of the Bill. He certainly should be sorry to blame His Majesty's Government or the Secretary for the Colonies for having settled with the Transvaal for the contribution of £30,000,000 towards the expenses of the war. He thought it was a good settlement, and it was as much as he ever expected to get. He thought, however, it would be a bird in the hand, and from the Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the speech of the Colonial Secretary it has so considered in their calculations. But he was sorry to hear from the speech of his right hon. friend that he was a little doubtful about £20,000,000 of the sum of £30,000,000.
  MR. RITCHIE: I have no doubt at all.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid he wished he was as certain as his right hon. friend. It was a rather delicate matter to discuss in the House, and they certainly ought not to throw any doubt on
  186
  the probability of recovering that sum. But what was the position? The revenues of the Transvaal depended largely on the railway receipts, that was admitted, and the railway receipts had been very large during recent months, and were estimated by Lord Milner at a very considerably increased sum for the ensuing year. With his knowledge of Lord Milner's financial powers he would not wish to throw the slightest doubt on the estimate, but it must be remembered that this was the time when railway receipts in the Transvaal must necessarily be very large, for everything was coming in for restoration work in the territory. But taking Lord Milner's calculations and assuming them to be perfectly justified, there would be, as he understood from Papers laid on the Table, a deficit of some £200,000 or something of the kind in the third year, assuming that the second and third ten millions of the thirty were to be raised, and this was to be made good by increased revenue. The calculations might be right, but there were other factors in the situation. We expected to receive £10,000,000 next January, and that might be taken as certain, and then again £10,000,000 in January, 1905, and £10,000,000 again in January, 1906. Well, 1905 was some way off, and January, 1906, a long way off, and the Transvaal was a country that above all others would pay for development, and there would necessarily be a conflict to some extent between the funds required from the revenue for providing the second and third £10,000,000 and the sum required for further development required in the Transvaal. He suggested that his right hon. friend would make the second and third millions far more secure if His

  187
  Majesty's Government would insist on a provision in the ordinance that certain receipts should be ear-marked to provide the interest for the £30,000,000; in other words, that the receipts not from taxation, but from mines or property of that kind, should be ear-marked to provide the interest on the £30,000,000. Last year it occurred to the Government that it would be better that there should be no fixed sum named as the Transvaal's contribution to the war expenditure, but that certain revenue of the Transvaal should be set aside practically indefinitely in order to provide that contribution. His right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary went out to South Africa with that idea, but he found it was impracticable—and he thought he was absolutely right—because it placed a burden of an indefinite amount on the Transvaal for an indefinite time, and that might check development altogether. What he suggested was a different matter—namely, that in the ordinance certain revenues should be ear-marked for providing the interest on the £30,000,000 and no more. He ventured to hope that his right hon. friend and the Government would give the matter their attention, because he thought at present there was some slight danger of losing the later contribution towards the £30,000,000 which the Transvaal had agreed to as a fair contribution from that colony towards the war expenditure.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that very important considerations were raised by the facts which had been placed before the Committee by the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol,
  188
  and it would greatly conduce to the proper discussion of the matter if the Government would now consent to report Progress.
  *MR. RITCHIEadmitted that the matter was important, but it had been debated on more than one occasion, and the facts and arguments were really confined within very narrow limits. He hoped, therefore, the Committee would dispose of the matter to-night.
  MR. BUCHANANcontended that the facts showed clearly the absence of certainty with regard to this one and only source of any repayment of the war debt.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid he had endeavoured to point out that so far as the contribution towards the war expenses was concerned they had the first £10,000,000 assured while the other two sums of £10,000,000 each would bring the amount of the Sinking Fund up to a figure it had never before reached.
  MR. BUCHANANpointed out that the right hon. Gentleman was mixing up two subjects—the sufficiency of the sum quoted for the Sinking Fund, and the adequacy of the means being taken for the early extinction of the war debt. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, in bringing forward his various Bills for raising money, always made a strong point of the fact that the borrowing for the purposes of the war should be temporary, not permanent, and that the first obligation on the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the conclusion of the war would be to take effective steps for the early extinction of the war debt. The only two conditions which the right hon. Gentleman imposed upon himself or his

  189
  successor were that the war should be over, and that he should be able to state the amount of the contribution to be obtained from the Transvaal. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated the amount of the Transvaal's contribution, but the Committee had seen the comparatively slight security for the second and third instalments. Even though the whole £30,000,000 were paid, it was a comparatively small fraction of the total war debt, which amounted to £67,000,000 unfunded debt, and £90,000,000 funded debt. They had expected that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to make some clear and definite statement of the intentions of the Government in the immediate future in regard to the debt, but the right hon. Gentleman had disappointed them: he had made no attempt to deal with the question upon which his predecessor had laid so much stress—viz., the necessity at the earliest possible date of some diminution in the amount of the unfunded debt. £10,000,000 of Exchequer bonds would mature in about six weeks, and it was
  time the right hon. Gentleman gave some assurance as to what he intended to do with regard to them.
  *MR. RITCHIEsaid that he thought it was not desirable to make any definite statement as to the way in which the £10,000,000 of Exchequer bonds, or indeed the unfunded debt generally, was to be dealt with. But he did not regard the amount of that debt with satisfaction, and he intended to make inroads upon it as quickly as the resources at his command would permit. With regard to the war debt generally, he anticipated it would be extinguished by March, 1915, the whole debt would then be reduced to a figure below that at which it stood in March, 1899.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, "That Clause 6 stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 154; Noes, 36. (Division List, No. 127.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Greene, Sir E. W. (Bury St. Ed.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Greene, Hy. D. (Shrewsbury)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Gretton, John

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Crean, Eugene

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Balcarres, Lord

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld. G. (Midx

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

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Cullinan, J.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Bill, Charles

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Heath, James (Stafford, N. W.

  Bond, Edward

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Brassey, Albert

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Butcher, John George

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somrst E.

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Hope, J. F. (Sheff., B'tside)

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hoult, Joseph

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

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

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Joyce, Michael

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Kennedy, Patrick James

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Keswick, William

  Charrington, Spencer

  Forster, Henry William

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasyow)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Law, H. Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Percy, Earl

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Stock, James Henry

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Taylor, Austin (Last Toxteth)

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Purvis, Robert

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lundon, W.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Redmond, Jn. E. (Waterford)

  Valentia, Viscount

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Webb, Col. William George

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

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

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

  Rothchild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. Graham (Bute

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Murray Charles J. (Coventry)

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

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Spear, John Ward

  NOES.

  Allen, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Asher, Alexander

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristl, E.

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Black, Alexander William

  Labouchere, Henry

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Brigg, John

  Lambert, George

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Brown, Geo. M. (Edinburgh)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

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

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Toulmin, George

  Caldwell, James

  Levy, Maurice

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  M'Crae, George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Mr. M'Kenna and Mr.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Norman, Henry

  Buchanan.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Joseph Walton.)
  Put and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

NEW BILL.
  ANCIENT LIGHTS.
  Bill to amend the law relating to Easements of light, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Fletcher Moulton, Mr. Haldane, Mr. Robson, Mr. H. D. Greene, and Mr. Herbert Robertson.
  ANCIENT LIGHTS BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Easements of Light," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 254.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  On the Motion that the House do now adjourn.
  SIR ALEXANDER ACLAND HOODsaid that after the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill that day the Employment of Children Bill, as amended, would be considered as the first order.
  Adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply—(Petition for Bill).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Dover Corporation Bill; Merthyr Tydfil Urban District Council Bill. Committed.
Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill [H.L.]; Bristol Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Salford Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Commercial Gas Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Gas Light and Coke Company Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Elementary Education Amendment Bill; Out-door Relief (Pensioners) Bill. Brought from the Commons.
Tramways Orders Confirmation:(No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill; City and South London Railway Bill; Great Central Railway Bill; London County Council (General Powers) Bill; Walker and Wallsend Union Gas Bill; Lancashire and Yorkshir and London and North-Western Railways (Steam Vessels) Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Stewart of Garlies (E. Galloway) be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl Powis; read, and agreed to.
Gosport, Fareham, and Cosham Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Brighton Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Bury and District Joint Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Bolton be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Crawshaw; read, and agreed to.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill. House in Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a to-morrow.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill. House in Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Thursday next.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Housing of the Working Classes) Bill. House in Committee (according to Order): Amendment made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of the Amendment to be received on Thursday next.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4 Bill). Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Naval Works Provisional Order Bill. House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made: Further Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived; The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.

PETITIONS.
  DECLARATION OF THE SOVEREIGN AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
  Petitions for abrogation of: of Roman Catholics in Plymouth (4); Devonport (2); Axminster; Barnstaple; Bideford; Chudleigh (2); Buckfastleigh; Dartmoor, Prince Town; Dartmouth; Exmouth; Honiton; Ilfracombe; Newton Abbot (2); Paignton; Sidmouth; Teignmouth; Tiverton; Torquay, St. Mary Church; Totnes; Bridport; Chidcock; Dorchester; Lyme Regis; Marnhull and Gillingham; Portland; Shaftesbury; Sherborne; Shottisbury; Staplehill and Wimborne; Swanage; Weymouth; Bodmin; Camborne; Falmouth; Launceston; Liskeard; Penzance; St. Ives; Saltash; Polperro; Truro; the Lizard; St. Columb and St. Magnam; and Gosport. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions in favour of: of persons signing (30); read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS—ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3001. United States (Philadelphia).
  No. 3002. Bulgaria.
  No. 3003. Turkey (Erzerum).
  No. 3004. China (Nanking).
  No. 3005. France (New Caledonia).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 16th June 1903, granting a retired allowance to Henry Upton, sorter, Post Office, London.
  CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
  List of all pensions granted during the year ended the 31st March 1903, and payable under the provisions of Section 9 (1) of the Civil List Act, 1901.
  FINES, ETC. (IRELAND).
  Abstract of the Accounts of Fines accounted for by the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks, for the year 1901.
  DOGS REGULATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1865.
  Accounts of receipts and expenditure under the Act, for the year 1902.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP.
  (Special Exception: Overtime, Christmas Card making.)
  Order, dated 18th June, 1903, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department with regard to the overtime employment of women in the making of Christmas and New Year cards.
  (Dangerous and Unhealthy Industries.)
  I. Report to His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department by Chester Jones, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, on the draft regulations (October 1902) proposed to be made for factories and workshops in which the process of file-cutting by hand is carried on.
  II. Regulations, dated 19th June, 1903, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in pursuance of section 19 of the Factory and Workshop Act; 1901, for the process of file-cutting by hand.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MUNICIPAL TRADING.
  The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered out except to Members of the Committee, and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order. (No. 124.)

  ARMY REGULATIONS.
  *LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the present Army Regulations in regard to the Staff College and to the appointment of officers to Staff and extra regimental duties, especially in relation to officers above the rank of captain in the cavalry and artillery; and to move that it is desirable, in the interests of the service, that opportunities should be given to a larger number of officers to pass through the Staff College for a shorter period than at present; that all officers on the Staff or extra regimental duty should be seconded; and, further, that all officers should return to their
  6
  regiments on promotion, or on the completion of five years' Staff or extra regimental service. With regard to the first point, that of the entrance and period of instruction at the Staff College, it may be known to your Lordships that there are two ways only in which officers can enter the Staff College—the first is by nomination by the Commander-in-Chief without any examination whatever, and the second by competitive examination after a period of "cram." This period of "cram," and the two years which officers have to stay under present circumstances at the Staff College mean two years and a half away from their regiments, and I cannot help thinking that it is rather late in the day when officers have been serving His Majesty for nine or ten years that they should be asked to go to school again and "cram" before they can go in for a practical examination. After all, cramming, though a great benefit to some, is a great impediment to others. Those who are able to cram their brain without injury to themselves, and who are rapid writers, get an advantage over many who are, perhaps, practical and good officers and better soldiers Therefore I suggest that this period of cramming and this competitive examination should be abolished. I think that all officers who are carefully recommended to the Commander-in-Chief as fit and good officers to go to the Staff College and likely to make good Staff officers, ought to be allowed to go there without having to undergo this second schooling and this competitive examination. The cramming alone, if it were abolished, would save at least six months, but I should like the competitive examination done away with also. I also think that the two years at the Staff College is a very much longer time than is necessary for men who ought to have a practical knowledge of most subjects, and who had passed a competitive examination before they entered the Army.
  But if that two years cannot be done away with in all cases, I venture to suggest, as an alternative course, that after one year at the Staff College officers should go through an examination, and those who prove that they are

  7
  particularly and exceptionally proficient in special subjects, and likely to make good officers for the Intelligence Department or for the Scientific Departments of the War Office, should be allowed to stay another year, on the understanding that they are to leave their regiments and to look in future for appointment on the Staff. I should also like to see other officers allowed to go to the Staff College to improve themselves in subjects in which they think they are deficient without having to undergo the whole of the course in all the subjects set down for them. The present system limits the number of officers who are able to go to the Staff College, and it also limits the number of officers available when a war breaks out to go to the front. It is notorious that at the commencement of the late war nearly every officer went away from the War Office on active service, and left the Department with only new recruits to carry out work of which they knew nothing whatever; and it is very creditable to the heads of the War Office that they carried on the work as well as they did; but I think there ought to be a sufficient number of Staff officers to supply the requirements of a war without removing those officers who are so much needed at that particular moment in the position in which they have acquired most knowledge. In favour of my proposals I will quote words from Lord Selborne's eloquent speech on Naval reform in this House. Referring to "competitive examinations," the first Lord of the Admiralty said that—
  "These words have been invested with a halo of infallibility and democracy which I do not think they in the least deserve."
  I believe from the cheers with which that statement was received in this House, that your Lordships largely agreed with my noble friend. But the noble Earl went further, and added that—
  "He was not afraid of a system of nomination carefully guarded."
  Again I cordially agree with him, and I assert that the principle of education which he laid down at that time as good for the Navy is equally good and up-to-date for the Army. Lord Selborne laid
  8
  down in clear and emphatic terms that—
  "The principle of sound education is that all useless education should be eliminated, and that officers should be taught what they must know and is of use to them."
  I cannot understand why, if that is good for the Navy it should not be good for the Army also, and I venture to suggest to those who control the War Office that they should consider the plan that has been put forward by my noble friend for the Navy. I do not believe myself in "cram" work; I believe that what is crammed is very easily forgotten.
  This system not only limits the duly qualified officers both in peace and war, but it prevents, what is more important, that constant interchange between Staff and regiment which, I think, would be a very great advantage to both. It is laid down, and I believe it is still continued in the edition of the Royal Warrant for this year, that Staff appointments are only for five years, but everybody who knows anything about the subject knows perfectly well that that no longer refers to a period on the Staff after which officers must go back to their regiments, but simply to the period in the one office in which they are serving. Once on the Staff is always on the Staff now, and that is a very bad thing, in my opinion, both for the Staff and for the regiments. In the first place it prevents the regiments from getting the advantage of highly educated officers coming back to them; and, in the second place, it prevents the opinions of regimental commanding officers and others being made known to the War Office, because they have to filter through those who know very little about regimental work. The principle with regard to Staff College officers is not adhered to altogether. In our wars, even in little wars, regimental officers are constantly called upon. Officers who, it is thought, would be useful, are sent out to Africa and elsewhere when they are wanted, whether Staff College men or not. Then the halo of infallibility is quickly abandoned; it is only with regard to snug berths and soft billets at home where this rule is inviolable. The officers on the Staff have greater opportunities of rapid promotion than regimental officers, and they gradually rise to the higher positions at the War Office without any

  9
  very great experience or knowledge of regimental work. It therefore makes it all the more, desirable, in my opinion, that their subordinates should include officers who are in touch and sympathy with regimental officers and men.
  But I do not desire to labour this question, as great changes have been made in the Military Education Department. I turn to the point in my Motion with regard to the non-seconding of officers above the rank of captain. By Regulation 26 of the Royal Warrant no officer above the rank of captain can be seconded. As your Lordships are aware, when an officer below the rank of major goes on the Staff he is seconded, and another officer is promoted to take his place; but when a major or lieutenant colonel is removed to Staff duty, his place is not filled up, but an extra captain is allowed to the regiment to do the duty of the captain who is performing the work of the major. This may be for Treasury reasons; the Treasury save 2s. a day in the case of cavalry majors, and 3s. 6d. a day in the case of battery majors, by not filling up their places when the officers go to the Staff. These officers are, therefore, deprived of from £30 to £40 a year, for the years they are doing major's duty. That is a great hardship, especially as these officers have great responsibilities. In old days the regiments were entirely bossed by the colonel, the adjutant, and the riding-master, but now every battery major and every squadron major is practically the commanding officer of his battery or squadron. He is also responsible for the paying of the men, for the drill, for the mounting of the men, and for discipline, with an appeal only, if he gives punishment which is considered excessive, to the colonel commanding. These senior captains are called upon for years to assume all these responsibilities, and perform all the duties, of majors without either the rank, pay, or position. Many regiments are deprived of one or more majors for years, and these Staff or extra-regimental duty officers rarely return to regimental duty again. I could mention cases, but I will not, where captains seconded on the Staff have become squadron majors and remained on the Staff unseconded. I could mention other cases where captains who have been seconded on the Staff have
  10
  come back as majors and again gone away to the Staff, leaving the captains to continue doing major's duty. I think this is most unfair to the captains. During war time if an officer is taken for Staff duty he is graded according to the duty he has to do, and receives pay and rank accordingly. Why should not the same treatment be given to regimental officers as is meted out to the Staff? I think this is a suitable time to do justice to regimental officers, for I think every general officer and everybody who was in the South African war will admit that it was to a large extent a regimental officers' war, and they can no longer be considered inferior to Staff officers. I ask those responsible for the Army to look at these questions with an open mind and not to allow themselves to be ruled only by opinions of Staff College men; to give more facilities to regimental officers to make themselves proficient in any subjects without having to stay at the Staff College two years, and to do all they can to promote interchange between regiments and the Staff, and closer touch between the War Office and the views of regimental officers.
  Moved to resolve that, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable, in the interests of the Service, that opportunites should be given to a larger number of officers to pass through the Staff College for a shorter period than at present; that all officers on the Staff or extra regimental duty should be seconded; and, further, that all officers should return to their regiments on promotion, or on the completion of five years' Staff or extra regimental service.—(The Lord Heneage.)
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The EARL of HARDWICKE): My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the matters to which he has drawn my attention have been receiving most careful consideration at the hands of the military authorities. I would remind him that the Secretary of State has recently created a new post at the War Office—that of Director-General of Military Education and Training, who of course has specially to deal with the various matters to which the noble Lord has referred. The noble Lord stated that there were at the present time two means of entrance to the Staff College.

  11
  It is a small point, but perhaps I might as well make it clear, there are, as a matter of fact, three. There is, in the first instance, the competitive examination. There are twenty-four vacancies in the Staff College each year, and the number of officers who are allowed to compete is unlimited. They are officers who have shown ability and a desire to make themselves proficient in Staff work, and who have received the approval of the colonel commanding their regiment to their working for this competitive examination. The recommendation of the colonel has to be endorsed by the General Officer commanding the Army Corps, and he submits their names to the Commander-in-Chief for approval. The second means by which officers can enter the Staff College is by nomination of the Commander-in-Chief. The Commander-in-Chief nominates each year eight officers who have shown themselves specially able and devoted to their duties, and he can also nominate any adjutant whose duties have brought him to the front in connection with the regiment to which he is attached. Then there is the third means, to which the noble Lord referred, namely, special distinction in Staff work on active service. Of course the noble Lord will understand that it is only when the opportunity arises for an officer to distinguish himself on active service that his name can be brought forward, and that in times of peace those specially selected officers do not get the same chance as in time of war.
  The noble Lord has referred in terms of disapproval to the system of competitive examination. He wishes to see officers allowed to pass into the Staff College without having previously to cram, and in futherance of his argument he quoted my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. I do not for a moment wish to suggest that every word that the First Lord said has not got my most cordial support and the support of the military authorities, but I would point out to him that the Navy and the Army are carried on under entirely different conditions. The naval officer is practically always on active service, and therefore it is not difficult for the naval authorities to see by practical observation that an officer is doing well in his
  12
  work. On the other hand, the regimental officer, unless, as I have said, he is engaged on active service, does not have the opportunity of showing his capacity for Staff work, and though we have a system of nomination for officers who have distinguished themselves in Staff work on active service, we are obliged to adhere to some form of examination for officers to show their capacity before they are allowed to pass into the Staff College. If the noble Lord's suggestion were adopted and a great many more regimental officers allowed to pass through the Staff College, we should be placed in this dilemma, that we should have a very large number of officers passing through the training necessary to qualify them for Staff work and we should not have the Staff work to give them. It seems to me obvious that if we increase the number of officers entitled to claim to serve on the Staff it would be necessary to largely increase the number of officers employed on the Staff. Otherwise you would have officers qualified for whom there was no employment, and that would not receive any favour at the hands of the officers themselves. I would like to inform the noble Lord of the number of officers who have passed through the Staff College in previous years. In July, 1884, there were at the Staff college forty-four students; in July, 1889, there were sixty-five; in July, 1894, sixty-four; and in July, 1899, sixty-seven. The noble Lord will see that the number has been steadily increasing. We hope shortly to be able to allow eighty officers to be at the Staff College at one time; and it is under consideration whether or not it would be possible, with the accommodation available at the Staff College, to increase that number still further; but I am afraid I cannot hold out to the noble Lord any hope that we shall be able to do away with some form of examination for entrance into the Staff College. The officers who join the Staff College are now all seconded, and though they are not seconded for the period which they have to devote to preparing themselves for the entrance examination, that has not been found to interfere greatly with the efficiency of the regiment.
  The noble Lord considers that the course at the Staff College is too long.

  13
  He thinks that it would be better if, instead of a two years course, officers were allowed to pass out at the end of the year, having made themselves proficient in only certain subjects. I am afraid that is not the view that is held by the military advisers of the Secretary of State on this subject. The course at the Staff College has lately been considerably changed. The experiences of the South African War have enabled the authorities to see in what special subjects it is necessary that officers should make themselves proficient, and I would point out that the course for the first year includes military history, strategy, tactics and administration, topography, law, and riding; and in the second year that is supplemented by the study of Imperial defence, reconnaissance, the working out of problems, both administrative and purely military and strategical, etc. In addition to that officers have to make tours of instruction, visiting battlefields, etc., under military tuition, and they have also to go through a course of instruction in other arms than that in which they are themselves employed and to learn modern languages. It is not considered possible that this course could be adequately gone through under the period that has been laid down, namely, two years. The noble Lord says that all officers on the Staff or extra regimental duty should be seconded. I admit that there is a great deal to be said, from the point of view of military efficiency, for the argument that the noble Lord advances, but I would point out to him that it is not a matter that has been pressed by the military authorities, for this reason—they are aware that to give effect to the change the noble Lord proposes would be a very expensive matter. They agree that, in view of the questionable advantage that might be gained, it would not be to the advantage of the Army as a whole to take a sum of £35,000 out of our Military Vote to carry out this change, and perhaps to deprive some other branch of the service of this sum of money. The noble Lord is particularly anxious that this change should affect only the cavalry and the artillery.
  *LORD HENEAGE: I think the noble Earl must have added an extra "0" to
  14
  the figure. It would not cost more than £3,000 or £4,000.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I will give the exact figures. I have them here. If the majors and captains were seconded it would cost—in the cavalry, £3,400; in the artillery, £4,300; and in the infantry, £24,100 a year.
  *LORD HENEAGE: I did not raise the point of the infantry, because infantry majors have no work to do.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: Though, of course, it is not impossible to make such a change, and to make it applicable only to the cavalry and artillery, I am afraid that from the point of view of the military authorities it would be undesirable to distinguish in a matter of this kind between the infantry and the cavalry and artillery, and it is perfectly clear that if we made the change it would have to apply to the Army as a whole and not to the particular branches to which the noble Lord refers. Then the noble Lord urged that it was desirable that all officers should return to their regiments on promotion, or on the completion of five years Staff or extra regimental service. The noble Lord said "Once on the Staff always on the Staff," and he pleaded for a greater interchange between officers on the Staff and officers serving in regiments. The noble Lord will be glad to hear that his suggestions have already been adopted by the War Office. It is laid down, and the practice is rigidly adhered to, that every officer after five years on the Staff is to go back on the completion of the five years to his regiment. I may even say that the appointments are for three years and five years, so that after three years in many cases officers will return to their regiment, but in no case will they remain after five years. Of course this does not apply to full colonels who have left their regiment, but so far as junior officers are concerned they will always return, as I have said, after five years. The noble Lord further asked that they should return to their regiments on promotion, but it would be impossible for officers to return to their regiments immediately on promotion. I hope the noble Lord is satisfied generally with the tenor of my remarks, and that he will not think it

  15
  necessary to press his Motion to a division. Staff officers are not separate in any way from the regimental officers; they are only the best officers coming to the front by examination and by their desire to get on in their profession. The services of regimental officers have been recognised during the late war, for out of some 2,000 rewards given for service in South Africa, 1,800 went to regimental officers and only 200 to officers who had passed through the Staff College. I think that must appeal to the noble Lord as a conclusive argument that the War Office have not in any way disregarded the services of regimental officers who served in South Africa.
  *LORD HENEAGE: After the explanation that has been given by the noble Earl I shall withdraw my Motion. I only desired that the question should be fairly discussed. I can assure the noble Earl that I did not mean to infer that regimental officers had been overlooked. Three-fourths of the officers who served on the Staff during the late war were not Staff College men but regimental officers who had been taken away from their regiments and not seconded. The reason why I refer to artillery and cavalry majors is that they are to all intents and purposes the commanding officers of their batteries and squadrons, whereas the rank of major is merely a titular rank in the infantry without any responsibility whatever.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

  THE CONDITION OF HOLYROOD PALACE.
  *THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE, who had given notice, "To ask His Majesty's Government whether Mr. Fellowes, representing His Majesty's Government, is correctly reported as having said on 21st April that the Lord High Commissioner's decision not to inhabit Holyrood Palace had come as a great surprise to the Office of Works, and to inquire what steps will be taken to improve the condition of Holyrood Palace as a fit residence for the Sovereign or his representative; and to move for Papers." said: My Lords, before I put the Question of which I have given notice, I would ask your
  16
  Lordships' indulgence while I say a few words as to the circumstances which have led to it. Your Lordships may remember that about two months ago a notice appeared in a leading paper, the Scotsman, that I, as His Majesty's Lord High Commissioner to the Church of Scotland, would not reside this year in Holyrood Palace. This brought about a storm of correspondence in the Press and speeches in Parliament. I may say that the attacks were almost as vigorous as they were numerous. The correspondence may be summed up under these two heads—first, that I have deserted and abandoned Holyrood lightly and without due reason; and, secondly, that I have done so without communicating my decision to His Majesty's Government. My position, representing His Majesty, is a high one. I feel that the right place to meet these accusations is your Lordships' House, and I should like to be allowed a few words to describe, as far as I can, the office which I have the honour to hold. It is less well known this side of the Tweed than I could wish. The Lord High Commissioner's appointment is an annual one, usually made about the month of March, and his duties are primarily to represent the Sovereign at the great General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which meets every year to carry out and to look after the interests of that Church. He opens the Assembly and attends its sitting as a rule every morning, and he continues during the whole of its session, which generally last about twelve days, to attend until he dissolves the Assembly at the close of its labours.
  That is the sum-total, I think, of his actual duties. But in addition to these actual duties a great deal of extra work has grown up. It has become the custom to entertain very large numbers at dinner. Many years ago it was a very much smaller matter. I have heard that fifty or sixty years ago the appointment was a comparatively lucrative one. I find from Dr. Ramsay, who for many years was Purse-bearer to the Lord High Commissioner, that in the year 1852 a relative of the noble Lord on my right was then Lord High

  17
  Commissioner and he was the first to get leave to have rooms in Holyrood Palace. Up to that time it had been the custom to entertain some leading men in the General Assembly at one of the hotels of the town. My own ancestors, I believe, who during the 18th century were there for over thirty years, went about in Bath chairs and dined at pothouses wherever they had an opportunity. Lord Belhaven, however, got leave to go to Holyrood, and as this was somewhat further off than the inn at which he had been accustomed to entertain, he invited the Lord Provost and a few others to dine with him there. That was the way the dinners began. They grew in the course of time until they averaged between 300 and 400 people in the twelve days. But by degrees that has grown and grown until, when I had the honour of being first appointed, something like 1,200 people came to dine in the twelve days. I do not complain; I merely mention the fact. It is a very pleasant thing and I enjoy it very much, but it ought to be understood that this is the case. In addition to that, we have large assemblies in the evenings which represent, as a rule, 600, 700, or 800 persons, according to the number of people who happen to be in Edinburgh. That is probably about the sum-total of what the entertainments really amount to, but your Lordships will readily see that entertainments of this size require a very large staff of servants. They cannot be carried on without a very large staff. During the last six years my household living in the house has averaged something like sixty or seventy, with thirty or forty more who are there all day long and in the evening. That puts a great strain upon any drains. It is not like an ordinary household of twenty, thirty, or forty people.
  I have already said that my appointment is usually made in the month of March. The General Assembly sits in the middle of May, and the two months which elapse constitute a very short time in which to make the very large contracts necessary to carry out these entertainments. I therefore gave the Secretary for Scotland a gentle hint that if the appointment could be made a little sooner it would prevent rather
  18
  serious handicapping of the Lord High Commissioner, who has to make these contracts in a short time, and is some times troubled with the difficulty of getting them done. Consequently, this year, with the view of enabling me to make these contracts more easily, I was appointed about the last week or February. It was not until the 17th of March that I happened to hear, while I was in London, on what I thought was sound authority, that there was really a serious question about the drains at Holyrood. Within half-an-hour I went to the Chief Commissioner of Works and asked him if he would be good enough to let me see the Report which I understood had been obtained as to the condition of the drains. Lord Windsor received me most cordially, and said it was perfectly right and that he would send me the Report next morning. On the following day, the 18th of March, that Report had not arrived. I had made arrangements to go abroad on the 19th, and, as I did not want to trouble my noble friend, I wrote an urgent letter to the Secretary of the Office of Works, Sir Schomberg M'Donnell, to the effect that these large contracts which were already being negotiated by my Purse-bearer were hanging in the air, that if I could not go to Holyrood they must be cancelled, and that it was, therefore, an urgent matter. On the 19th I received no Report, but I got a note from Sir Schomberg M'Donnell in which he said—
  "There is no danger for you or your household. It would be very different with the King with his Court. Under such conditions the existing drainage would be inadequate."
  But as I have something like seventy or eighty people in my household, and thirty or forty more there all day long, it appeared to me that even His Majesty could not fill the Palace very much more than I did, and that what was quite inadequate for His Majesty and his Court might perhaps not be quite safe for me. On the 19th I had to leave England, and I wrote again. I have no doubt that my noble friend will give some explanation; but, though I continued writing first to the First Commissioner of Works, and then to my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland, it was not until the 30th that

  19
  I received extracts from the Report. Lord Windsor, with the kindness which always distinguishes him, telegraphed that the Report should be sent at once. That was on 25th March, but, as I say, I did not receive the extracts till the 30th. The matter was, therefore, at that moment of quite extreme urgency. Contracts representing £600, £700, or £800 were hanging in the air, and I had to decide one way or the other at once. Sir Schomberg M'Donnell suggested that I should get an independent Report. It was perfectly impossible for me to let these things hang up while I got this independent Report; moreover, I did not see why I wanted an independent Report.
  After receiving the extracts on 30th March I wrote on the same day to Lord Windsor at the Office of Works, and to Lord Balfour as Secretary for Scotland, asking if they thought it necessary to convey a message to His Majesty to express my extreme regret that I could not reside at Holyrood. I gave them briefly my reasons. What I said was—
  "These drains appear to be very defective. There is a public sewer at one end, and they open into bedrooms at, the other. Under these circumstances, I ought not to put a great crowd of people into the Palace."
  I did that entirely on my own responsibility. Nobody else had anything to do with it. That was on 30th March, and you will understand my surprise when I came home to find that on 21st April, three weeks afterwards, Mr. Fellowes was reported to have said, in reply to Mr. Dewar, the Member for Inverness-shire, that the question of my not living in Holyrood had created great consternation in Scotland, and had come as a great surprise to the Office of Works. I cannot say when they received my letter of 30th March, but I sent it through my Purse-Bearer, and I do not think he could have delayed it many days. At any rate, the letter to the First Commissioner was despatched at the same time and in the same way as the letter to Lord Balfour which the latter acknowledged on the 11th of April, ten days before Mr. Fellowes' speech. I think Lord Windsor will agree that I have some reason to ask, first of all, what was the cause of the delay in sending the Report, and, secondly, how it
  20
  came to be such a surprise to the Office of Works. There may be some doubt as to the precise words Mr. Fellowes used, because, although I have referred to Hansard, I find he is not reported in the first, person. But there can be no doubt as to the meaning of his words, because I find it from several speeches and articles which appeared afterwards. Mr. Dewar asked the question, Mr. Fellowes replied to it, and immediately afterwards Mr. Shaw, the Member for the Border Burghs, said—
  "The Government say they are very much surprised."
  Mr. Weir said the Government ought not to come down and tell the House that they were surprised, and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman said—
  "Lord Leven, I believe, was in constant communication with the Government,"
  and the Prime Minister replied—
  "I believe that is not so."
  On 22nd April Sir John Stirling-Maxwell brought the question up in another place, and Mr. Fellowes replied; but he did not retract anything as to this great surprise, and there appeared in the Scotsman on the 23rd, an article saying—
  "We have been assured that until the unofficial statement was made in our columns on 17th April no Minister or Government Department had heard of Lord Leven's intentions."
  I have Lord Balfour's acknowledgment of my letter, dated the 11th. The Scotsman on the 23rd went on to say—
  "What Mr. Fellowes does say is that it is a great surprise to the Office of Works to hear that Lord Leven is not going to reside at Holyrood."
  The same paper on the same day said—
  "Lord Leven forgot the people and he forgot the Secretary for Scotland and his colleagues.'
  Very vigorous language was used, and I think it is fair that the explanation should be made as publicly as the statement which was made in another place.
  I leave that now, and come to the second indictment, which accuses me, without due cause, of having neglected and abandoned the ancient Palace of Holyrood. In many of these letters and speeches it was stated that I was thereby insulting the nation, showing a most offensive indifference to the Church

  21
  and the Assembly over which I presided, and violating ancient traditions. I did not readily leave Holyrood Palace. I left it with most extreme regret, but in the face of the Report which I received I felt that I had no option but to leave.
  His Lordship then read extracts from the Report showing that of the thirty-two water closets in the Palace nineteen would have to be removed or altered; several of these were in the walls of bedrooms, and one discharged into a rain-pipe. Some of the scullery sinks were also described as defective, and, apparently, discharging direct into the main drain. Reference was also made to unventilated pan-closets in walls adjoining bedrooms.
  Continuing, his Lordship said: Of course, if the external arrangements had been very perfect a good deal might have been done by vigorous flushing. But when I come to the external drains I find that the Report states that the present outfall sewer of the Palace is built of rubble and very imperfect, that its level is too high to permit of a safe fall for the drainage of the Palace, and, as a consequence, the drains very quickly become choked. I did not think that was a house in which to put four or five scores of people. It is quite true that for five years previously I had lived there, and my predecessors had lived there, and that we had had no illness; but drains every year get a year older. Besides that, there was the additional strain upon them this year in that His Majesty was coming to Edinburgh the week previous to the General Assembly. You will readily see, therefore, that the danger was in increasing ratio. I do not think I am fairly subject to any great indignation from my countrymen or anyone else because I declined to put a large number of people into a house in that condition. The number of people themselves constitute a source of danger. The scullery refuse alone, owing to the enormous number of meals prepared in the Palace, would have been enough to choke most drains; however efficient. I entertain at regular dinner parties about 1,200 people in the twelve days, and then I have 100 people in the house during that time, each eating three meals a day at least, which makes
  22
  3,600 more meals, or a total of 4,800 meals in the twelve days. Besides that there are the stables and the military band of thirty or forty men. It seemed to me that this was a serious matter. It appeared to be a dangerous thing to do, and I decided at once that I would not do it, and I communicated my decision to the Secretary for Scotland and to the First Commissioner of Works at the earliest possible opportunity.
  I now come to quite a different subject. The announcement was made in the Scotsman of the 17th of April. It was due to the extreme delay of getting the Report that all the trouble and correspondence took place. The news that I was not going to Holyrood leaked out when the contracts began to be cancelled. The Scotsman on the 17th sent to the Purse-bearer and asked for an official announcement of what we were going to do—was I going to be in Holyrood or not. The Purse-bearer said it was impossible for him at that moment to give any official announcement as the contracts were not completed. I suppose the Scotsman could not wait, for next morning the article appeared. I do not know that I need trouble your Lordships with the letters and speeches, but some of them were rather amusing One man said that my salary ought to be taken away, and that he was sure that it was from motives of economy that I did not go to Holyrood. He said—
  "Lord Leven ought to face typhoid because he is paid for it."
  I suppose he did not know that my allowance only covers about two-thirds of my expenses. In fact, I really live at the rate of £90,000 a year for the twelve days. Another correspondent wrote—
  "His not to reason why,
  His but to sniff and die."
  A third said that in dining elsewhere I was violating ancient traditions. Well, till within the last fifty years they always did dine elsewhere. Some of the critics were perhaps a little vicious. These correspondents seem to think that their mission in life is to go about stinging and showing up people without any particular reason. They remind me rather of the old lady's remark in regard to fleas. "I don't object to fleas," she said, "but I don't like the way they get their living." I have no fault to find with the critics. One thing is plain; they have evoked the

  23
  national feeling, the passionate desire that Holyrood should be maintained. That spot throbs with historic memories; there is no place which appeals so strongly to our national sentiment and patriotism. On the site of the ancient Abbey, a cradle of the Church, a sanctuary and place of refuge through centuries of strife and turmoil, it is like sacred ground. Beneath the shadow of that hill, those towering crags, the landmarks of the capital, at the foot of perhaps the most interesting street in the Kingdom, still beautiful in the quaintness of its ancient homes of Scotland's nobility, dominated by that castle whose history is the nation's history, the Palace of Holyrood stands splendid in its quiet dignity. I do not plead on my own behalf. I ask on behalf of the Scottish nation that this ancient monument should be maintained and handed down to future generations as the home of the Scottish Sovereign. The Papers I move for are a plan of the Palace of Holyrood House as it now exists, along with full reports showing the internal sanitary arrangements and water supply, and the external drainage system as existing to-day, and a report showing what is proposed to be done to make them good, and a detailed estimate of the cost.
  Moved that there be laid before the House—1. A plan of the Palace of Holyrood House as it exists; 2. A full report, showing—(a) The internal sanitary arrangements and water supply, and its external drainage system as existing to-day; (b) A report showing what is proposed to be done to make them good, and a detailed estimate of the cost.—(The Earl of Leven and Melville.)
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Lord WINDSOR: My Lords, I should like to say at the very outset that I regret it extremely if anything has been said on behalf of the Office of Works which should give the impression for one single moment that I wish to transfer any blame which ought to rest upon myself to the shoulders of my noble friend. That, I am sure, he will acquit me of; it is the last thing I should attempt. But I think that he really has misinterpreted the answer that was given in the other House by Mr. Fellowes. I did not hear the
  24
  debate myself, but I find from Hansard that Mr. Fellowes said—
  "He knew that the question had created great consternation in Scotland, and he might say, on behalf of the Board of Works, that what they had heard and seen during the last two or three days had come as a great surprise to them."
  That I take to mean that the consternation and the outcry in the Scotsman was what occasioned the Office of Works great surprise. The Prime Minister, too, afterwards said in the same debate that it had never occurred to him that the fact that the High Commissioner thought it safer in the existing condition of the drains at Holyrood to live in an hotel would be the cause of an outbreak of national sentiment. That was certainly what the reply of Mr. Fellowes was intended to mean; but if the language was ambiguous I repeat that I regret very much that it should have been so interpreted, and that the noble Lord has any justification for thinking that blame has unduly been put upon his shoulders. There are one or two points in his speech that I must refer to briefly. I venture to think that I can show the House and the noble Earl that his grievance is against the Scotsman, and not against His Majesty's Government. I should like to say a word with regard to the delay in giving the noble Earl the Report upon which the Office of Works acted in recommending that the state of the drainage in Holyrood Palace was not such as could justify His Majesty occupying the Palace during his last visit to Edinburgh. It is perfectly true, as the noble Earl says, that he saw me personally and asked me to let him see the Report. That was, as he explained to the House, on the eve of his departure abroad. I was unable until the next day to get at the Office, and it was impossible then to part with the actual Report. A copy had to be made for the noble Earl's inspection, and it did not arrive on the Continent, I regret to say, until ten days after. It might have reached him a few days before, I believe. I am sorry that there was any delay in his seeing the Report. But he will forgive me for reminding him that he mentioned in a letter to me that he had heard in October last from Sir Schomberg McDonnell that the condition of the drains in Holyrood

  25
  Palace was bad, and he was told that if he would come to the Office of Works there was a Report open for his inspection.
  *THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE: I have no recollection of Sir Schomberg's saying anything of the kind. What he told me was that the drains were in a bad condition, and I urged that they should not be touched in the winter. I never heard any more. I thought the drains were not in that serious condition, until I came to London and saw my noble friend.
  *LORD WINDSOR: Of course I quite accept what my noble friend says, but I was under the impression that at that time he was informed that the Report was open to his inspection if he desired to see it. But that is not his recollection.
  *THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE: I cannot say absolutely that it was not so; but I have no recollection of it. It was mentioned to me in an offhand way at a dinner. I said I was sorry to hear it, and that if the drains were touched in the winter they would be sure to be bad again in the spring.
  *LORD WINDSOR: The point I make is that this Report was asked for on the eve of the noble Earl's departure for abroad, and that it was necessary to make a copy. Though I admit it might have reached him a day or two before it did, still it was only a question of whether the Office of Works could have got out a copy of the Report a day or two before they actually did. What I do wish to make quite clear to him and to the House is that there was no intention whatever of keeping back that Report from him, or of concealing it in any way in the Office of Works, so that those who had a perfect right to see it should not do so. There was another point in which I do not think the noble Earl correctly interpreted the debate in the other House. He referred to what Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman said. He stated that Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman had asked whether the High Commissioner had not been in communication with the Government, and that the Prime Minister had replied that it was not so. But that is not, I think, quite the correct interpretation of what
  26
  was said. Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman was referring to the Lord High Commissioner's knowledge of the state of Holyrood Palace from the fact that he resided there for certain stated times for several years past, and Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman said that what had been urged was that this was a piece of mismanagement on the part of a Department of the Government, because Lord Leven, whose knowledge of Holyrood Palace as a habitable house was derived from the experience of past years, had doubtless represented the condition of affairs to the Board of Works. He said that no doubt while in residence there he was in constant communication with the Office of Works. That was what the Prime Minister said he understood was not so, and I think my noble friend will agree with me that he did not complain, when he was in residence in Holyrood Palace, to the Government that the condition of the drainage was bad. Therefore, I do not think that the answers which were given in that particular case were otherwise than perfectly correct.
  There is another question on which I should like to say a word—the question of blame that may be thought to attach to the Government and myself representing the Office of Works in this matter. I think that if this is looked at calmly, without the, shall I say, irritating effects of the Scotsman before us, we shall see that it is impossible in the case of all country houses to alter completely the whole system of the drainage each time that some professor of sanitary science discovers some newer and better method. It inevitably comes to this—that you arrive, after a certain number of years, at the conclusion that the system of drainage is antiquated and that the whole thing must be redone. It may be said, at any time when you arrive at that point, that you ought to have discovered it before, but, as I say, you cannot continue year after year completely to alter the system of your drainage. You have to keep it in good order, and go on with it, until after a certain time the newer methods have to be adopted. With regard to the upkeep and maintenance of the drainage at Holyrood, I do not think there is any complaint to be made. The system is

  27
  antiquated. There is a new main sewer being put in in the town which will enable a better outfall from Holyrood to be made, and though the Government considered it right, after the Report they had received that His Majesty should not be advised to occupy Holyrood, they had taken a sum of money in the Estimates for this year for the purpose of putting the drainage in a satisfactory state. My noble friend asks in his Question what steps will be taken to improve the condition of Holyrood Palace as a fit residence of the Sovereign or his representative. We believe that the money we have got this year will put Holyrood Palace into a perfectly fit condition to receive the Sovereign. The work is to be put in hand at once, and the intention is to complete it, if possible, by the end of this year. Further, I may assure my noble friend that it is the intention of the Government to see that the work is thoroughly and efficiently carried out, so that there shall be no question whatever at any future time of advising His Majesty that Holyrood Palace is not in a fit condition to receive him. That is the intention of the Government, and in those circumstances I would ask the noble Earl to refrain from pressing for the Papers for which he has asked.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I have some diffidence in interfering in this interesting discussion, but I must confess that the statement of the First Commissioner of Works leaves something to be desired as an answer to the statement made by the Lord High Commissioner. The First Commissioner has gone into generalities, with which I perfectly agree, as to the impossibility of varying a system of drainage annually according to the views of any expert that you may consult. But that is not the point which I understand was raised by the Lord High Commissioner. He says that nothing has been done to the drainage at Holyrood, and it is no answer to say that you cannot annually vary the system of drainage according to the report of experts. As I under stand the matter, the report of the experts was distinctly unfavourable, and, therefore, I think that we shall all agree
  28
  that the Lord High Commissioner was justified in feeling some apprehension at visiting the Palace or residing in it in existing circumstances. But think the whole gravamen of this charge has been missed by the First Commissioner. There used to be a story of Lord Holland, a nephew of Mr. Fox's—I think it was the third Lord Holland—that when in office in the Cabinet, and any thorny question of administration came up for discussion, he was in the habit of saying, Fiat experimentum in corpore vili. Let the experiment be tried in Scotland before going any further. I think that the real sting of what has occurred in the Lord High Commissioner's mind, is that it was proposed that he should be the vile corpus on which the experiment of residence in Holyrood should be tried, under the somewhat unfavourable conditions he has described with so much minuteness, and I doubt not with so much accuracy. I do not want to lay too much stress on the informal note of Sir Schomberg McDonnell, but it was certainly almost brutal in its frankness with reference to the possibility of my noble friend residing in Holyrood and the impossibility of His Majesty going there with his Court. I think that is the real case that the First Commissioner has to meet. The truth of the whole matter is this—that if the Lord High Commissioner had had time to make his own announcement in his own way, things would have gone very differently. I cannot answer for the Scotsman newspaper here. I am not qualified to act in its defence, but I quite agree with my noble friend that its hand falls uncommonly heavy on those whom it wished to smite. No one can speak with more painful experience than myself, but I quite agree with the Government that they cannot be responsible for the truculent nature of their own organ in Scotland. I do not believe that the Secretary for Scotland inspired its phillippics against my noble friend the Lord High Commissioner. I could have wished in the interests of this historic Palace, that we could have heard less of the seamier and darker side of the arrangements of that edifice, but it was necessary, for the proof of my noble friend's case, and I trust with all my heart that the discussion may result in the consummation he so devoutly wishes,

  29
  to render the Palace sufficiently cleanly and healthy for the residence of the Lord High Commissioner next year.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I certainly should not have risen but for the final challenge of the noble Earl who has just sat down. I think, if I may venture to say so, that he misses one point in the difficulties which beset the Office of Works in regard to this matter. The state of Holyrood was found in the course of the winter to be not satisfactory. I need not go further into the matter, because I think it was admitted by everybody that it was not entirely satisfactory. It was impossible to take it in hand, as I understand, early in the winter for two reasons. In the first place, nothing of the magnitude required could be done until the House of Commons had voted the necessary supplies for the purpose, and therefore it was absolutely impossible to do the work before the time when the Lord High Commissioner had to take up his residence in Holyrood. It was also, I understand, physically impossible to get such work as was necessary completed before the date fixed for His Majesty's visit to Scotland. His Majesty was not going to reside in Holyrood for the reasons which were announced at the time, and it would obviously not have been wise to be digging at the drains at the time, and while there were Courts and levées going on there. The noble Earl put his finger upon the real cause of the outcry when he indicated that if a judicious and frank announcement had been made of the reason why the Lord High Commissioner had resolved not to reside in Holyrood this year at a sufficiently early date, no strong feeling would have been evinced in regard to the matter. Perhaps I may venture to say, as my noble friend the Lord High Commissioner mentioned my name in his statement, that so far as I am concerned officially I have nothing to do with the noble Earl's appointment; I have nothing to do myself with Holyrood, nor have I any sort of control, official or otherwise, over the place where the Lord High Commissioner resides. It is perfectly true that my noble friend left a letter for me to be delivered after he had gone abroad, stating that he could not reside in Holyrood. But my noble friend will bear me out
  30
  when I say that the moment I heard of his decision I telegraphed to him urging that a proper announcement should be made, and warning him that unless that was done, a considerable amount of feeling would arise. I ventured to say that if it had been frankly announced on the part of the Lord High Commissioner, either directly or through his Purse-bearer, that in the circumstances, and for this year only, he could not occupy Holyrood, nothing would be said about it at all. But there was a sort of vague apprehension, perhaps stimulated by interested persons, that this was part of a consistent policy to abandon Holyrood altogether, and this gave a certain amount of force to the outcry and the agitation. I know perfectly well that the Lord High Commissioner had no such intention, because he knows as well as I do what Scottish sentiment in regard to Holyrood is, and that such a thing would not have been tolerated. I think a great deal has been made by the noble Earl of a certain amount of newspaper correspondence, which after this lapse of time it was hardly worth while to dig up from the obscurity into which it had gone. But he has liberated his soul, and, therefore, I hope the matter will end. But I repeat what I began by saying, that the noble Earl of Rosebery was, I think, absolutely correct when he said that if a judicious announcement had been made on the part of the Lord High Commissioner at the moment it was first decided not to occupy Holyrood Palace this year, we should never have heard of a tenth part of the correspondence which has taken place in regard to it. I am authorised to repeat, if there should be any doubt about it, that I know it to be the intention of the Office of Works to do all they can to put Holyrood Palace into a thoroughly satisfactory state of sanitation I hope the House will allow the matter to rest there, and that my noble friend, who has indicated his intention to move for Papers, will not at any rate at present press the Motion further.
  *THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE: I need hardly say that it is with great satisfaction that I accept the explanation of Lord Windsor, that it was

  31
  not intended to convey the impression that I had not communicated to His Majesty's Government or to him any intention not to reside at Holyrood. As to blame, I do not think any excuse was needed for not having repaired the drains since they were found faulty in October of last year. It would have been impossible to have effected such work properly during the winter months; in my opinion it would have been perfect madness. I never imputed any blame to the Office of Works for not attempting what I think it would have been a most imprudent thing to do. I accept with great frankness my noble friend's assurance. Lord Balfour seemed to imply that I ought to have made an official announcement in time, that I was not going to reside in Holyrood, but if he will go back to the dates he will find that it was not possible. I was away and my Purse-bearer could not be expected to state officially that I was not going to reside in Holyrood, unless he was in a position to state where I was going to stay. It was quite impossible that he could make any announcement until the contracts were complete. Upon the assurance which has been given I will not press for Papers. The Government have promised to put the drainage right, and I think they had better.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  MOTOR TRAFFIC.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, who had a Question on the Paper "to ask when it is proposed to introduce the Bill dealing with the regulation of motor traffic," said: My Lords, I have been asked by the President of the Local Government Board to postpone this Question because the matter is going to be considered at once by the Government. I will therefore defer the Question until Thursday next.
  Question (by leave of the House) postponed.

  BISHOPRICS OF SOUTHWARK AND BIRMINGHAM BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, the Bill which I have to ask your Lordships to read a second time is for the purpose of giving powers for the founding of two new Bishoprics, the Bishopric of Southwark and the Bishopric of Birmingham. I believe I am right in saying that that part of the Bill which deals with the Bishopric of Southwark is identical with the Bill which has passed your Lordships' House on two previous occasions. The diocese of Rochester, as it is at present constituted, is not only unwieldy with regard to its population, but most inconvenient as to its area and for all purposes of organisation. It is separated into two sections differing very much as to the conditions of their population. One part consists of the South London Parishes and the Suburban and County Districts of East and Mid Surrey, and the other of Gravesend, Rochester, and Chatham, and between these two portions runs part of the diocese of Canterbury. The present population of the whole diocese is 2,250,000. The Bill proposes that the populous district of the diocese in South London, with a population of about 2,000,000, should be formed into the new Bishopric of Southwark. The present difficulties are also somewhat accentuated by the fact that the residence of the Bishop is in South London, whilst the cathedral is in Rochester. The other part of the diocese will have added to it a small portion of the diocese of Canterbury, and will, I understand, with that addition have a population of about 400,000. It is also proposed that the existing residence of the Bishop of Rochester should become the residence of the Bishop of Southwark.
  With regard to the new Bishopric of Birmingham it is proposed to constitute it of parishes taken from the dioceses of Worcester and Lichfield. The diocese of Worcester now contains a population of 1,400,000 and comprises 500 parishes, many of them very populous. The population of the diocese of Lichfield is about the same, and it contains 475 parishes. I believe the area taken from the diocese of Worcester is one-third of the whole area of the diocese and a still larger proportion of the population, and it will be recognised that the spiritual needs of the population of that important area could be much more conveniently

  33
  met by the formation of the new diocese. The wishes of the locality are shown in the fact that already a very large sum of money has been subscribed to establish a fund for the new Bishopric of Birmingham. I believe there has already been subscribed £92,000 out of the total sum required, namely, £110,000. The Bill revives the provisions of the Bishoprics Act, 1878. Under that Act the Bishoprics of Liverpool, Newcastle and others were founded, and authority was given for the establishment of a Bishopric Endowment Fund for each of the new Sees, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners being required to hold those funds for the special purposes for which they are to be used. These two Bishoprics of Southwark and Birmingham may be founded under that Act by an order of His Majesty in Council as soon as the endowment funds are reached, and I believe it is laid down that the incomes must amount to £3,500 a year. There are a large number of incidental questions with which I might occupy the time of the House, but I will content myself by saying that the new Bishoprics proposed in this Bill have the approval of the Archbishop of Canterbury and of the right rev. Prelates whose dioceses are affected, and who will deal with any question, of detail that may arise at this or any subsequent stage of the Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Belper.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I desire to say a word or two with regard to this Bill on behalf of my noble friend Lord Spencer. The noble Lord, Earl Spencer, asked on Friday that this Bill should be postponed till to-day, because it deals with a subject in which he takes great interest, and he felt that he had not had sufficient time to master the details of it. Unfortunately, Lord Spencer is not able to be here to-day. He is kept at home, having been overtaken by the gravest family anxiety, in which I am sure he has your Lordships' deepest sympathy. I think it right to say that Lord Spencer had no intention of opposing the Second Reading or of thwarting the Bill in any way, but there were details he wished to criticise and there was one considerable point of
  34
  policy which he desired to raise. That point, briefly, was whether it was wise to create two new Bishoprics and endow them with considerable revenues at a time when the incomes of the great bulk of the clergy of the Church of England are extremely small owing largely to agricultural depression and the fall in the tithe-rent charge. It did seem to him that it was desirable to consider carefully whether in those circumstances this was a happy time to create two new Bishoprics and to give them, I do not say excessive but certainly large incomes, when the subordinate officers of the Church are receiving such small stipends. That was the main point my noble friend wished to raise, and I think I have sufficiently served the purpose by shortly stating it. I have no doubt that some right rev. Prelate will have a word to say on the subject.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I should like to say a few words upon this Bill. Twenty-six years have passed since I began, in the very subordinate capacity of secretary to a committee on this subject, to deal with the almost unsolvable problem of how to divide up the dioceses of Rochester, Canterbury, Winchester, and St. Albans in such a manner as to produce the best possible results with the minimum of inconvenience. The problem is, I say without reserve, the most difficult among the problems of that kind with which I have ever had to do. Anyone who examines a map on which the formation of the diocese of Rochester is marked, must wonder how any bishop, even if he possess all the energy and devotion of my right rev. brother who now presides over the diocese, has found it possible to work it. I am convinced that the solution of the problem contained in the Bill is the best that could be arrived at in the circumstances. I am less personally conversant with the state of affairs at Birmingham, but for many years it has been the universal opinion of those best qualified to judge, that a new diocese, with Birmingham as its centre, is absolutely necessary. That that should now be possible, thanks to the munificence of the people of Birmingham, is gratifying to all who

  35
  have at heart the welfare of the Church in the Midlands. I should entirely share in the opinion put forward by the noble Lord on behalf of Earl Spencer—the cause of whose absence we all deeply regret—if the money for the new Bishopric was being provided from sources available for the other purposes to which he has alluded, but, as I have said, the money for the constitution of the new Bishopric has been specially subscribed by those who are promoting this particular object. The noble Lord's criticism, although perfectly natural, and, I may say, obvious, to one who may have had no adequate opportunity of studying the details of the subject, is, I venture to think, a somewhat short-sighted one. If we want the general condition of the clergy in the poorest districts and most poorly-endowed parishes to be improved, and there can be no Member of this House who does not share such a wish, the best way of proceeding is to make the working of the Church as efficient as we can make it. When we have a sufficient number of dioceses and the Bishops hard at work in them keeping things on the right lines and making them stir and glow, then the time will have come when we can hope for such support as will diminish the present hardships of the poor clergy. This result will be promoted, and not hindered, by allowing those who desire to give money for the purpose of founding these Bishoprics to do so. The only detail to which this answer to the noble Lord's criticism may not apply, is the application of certain portions of money from the sale of a residence of former Archbishops of Canterbury to the provision of a new See house for the Bishop of Rochester, and of some portion of the endowment of the See, the present See house of that diocese being handed over to the new diocese of Southwark. But it has to be remembered that that particular money has, all through, been applied to the purposes of an episcopal residence; so that even that money is not diverted to any purpose of a different kind from that for which it is at present available. Any further points on which your Lordships may desire
  36
  information will be readily given in Committee, and I hope your Lordships will now read the Bill a second time.
  LORD NORTON: My Lords, I heartily endorse what has just been said by the most rev. Primate. He considered that the objection suggested by Lord Tweedmouth was a natural one. Whether it is natural or not, it is the most complete non sequitur I have ever heard in my life, that we should abstain from endowing new Bishoprics because the income of the clergy is small. Why, that is the very reason for doing it. Church feeling in Birmingham has already been considerably strengthened during the tenure of office of the present Bishop of Worcester, and I am certain that when that energetic man is Bishop of Birmingham, no event will have occurred for a number of years so likely as that to increase the incomes of the clergy. Therefore, if the objection of the noble Lord is the only objection that can be raised to this Bill, I think it is the strongest possible reason for supporting it, and I can only hope that no more effective argument against it will be raised in another place. The poor clergy are in any case in nowise injured by a scheme which is paid for out of private subscription. If there is any defect in the Bill it is that the diocese of Worcester is not called upon to make anything like a proper contribution to the Bishopric of Birmingham. The Bishopric of Birmingham will take one-third of the diocese of Worcester, and a great deal more than one-third of the population of that diocese; but the diocese of Worcester is not asked to make a contribution towards the diocese of Birmingham. Naturally, Worcester ought to hand over to the new diocese one-third of her endowment for doing a third of the work, of which she will now be relieved. A city of the size of Birmingham ought to have a Bishop. Already the prospect of getting a Bishop, and such a Bishop as the one who will take over the new See under this Bill, has entirely changed the feeling of the city of Birmingham towards the Church. There are only two men who can fill the Town Hall on any occasion—Mr. Chamberlain and the proposed Bishop of Birmingham.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 125),

  OUT-DOOR RELIEF PENSIONERS BILL (No. 126).
  Read 1a, and to be printed.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock till to-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply—(Petition for Bill).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Dover Corporation Bill; Merthyr Tydfil Urban District Council Bill. Committed.
Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Bill [H.L.]. Commons Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill [H.L.]; Bristol Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Salford Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Commercial Gas Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Gas Light and Coke Company Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Elementary Education Amendment Bill; Out-door Relief (Pensioners) Bill. Brought from the Commons.
Tramways Orders Confirmation:(No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill; City and South London Railway Bill; Great Central Railway Bill; London County Council (General Powers) Bill; Walker and Wallsend Union Gas Bill; Lancashire and Yorkshir and London and North-Western Railways (Steam Vessels) Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Stewart of Garlies (E. Galloway) be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl Powis; read, and agreed to.
Gosport, Fareham, and Cosham Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Brighton Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Bury and District Joint Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Bolton be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Crawshaw; read, and agreed to.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas) Bill. House in Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a to-morrow.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill. House in Committee (according to Order): Bills reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bills to be read 3a on Thursday next.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Housing of the Working Classes) Bill. House in Committee (according to Order): Amendment made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of the Amendment to be received on Thursday next.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4 Bill). Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Naval Works Provisional Order Bill. House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a to-morrow.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made: Further Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived; The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.

PETITIONS.
  DECLARATION OF THE SOVEREIGN AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
  Petitions for abrogation of: of Roman Catholics in Plymouth (4); Devonport (2); Axminster; Barnstaple; Bideford; Chudleigh (2); Buckfastleigh; Dartmoor, Prince Town; Dartmouth; Exmouth; Honiton; Ilfracombe; Newton Abbot (2); Paignton; Sidmouth; Teignmouth; Tiverton; Torquay, St. Mary Church; Totnes; Bridport; Chidcock; Dorchester; Lyme Regis; Marnhull and Gillingham; Portland; Shaftesbury; Sherborne; Shottisbury; Staplehill and Wimborne; Swanage; Weymouth; Bodmin; Camborne; Falmouth; Launceston; Liskeard; Penzance; St. Ives; Saltash; Polperro; Truro; the Lizard; St. Columb and St. Magnam; and Gosport. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions in favour of: of persons signing (30); read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS—ANNUAL SERIES.
  No. 3001. United States (Philadelphia).
  No. 3002. Bulgaria.
  No. 3003. Turkey (Erzerum).
  No. 3004. China (Nanking).
  No. 3005. France (New Caledonia).
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUPERANNUATION.
  Treasury Minute, dated 16th June 1903, granting a retired allowance to Henry Upton, sorter, Post Office, London.
  CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
  List of all pensions granted during the year ended the 31st March 1903, and payable under the provisions of Section 9 (1) of the Civil List Act, 1901.
  FINES, ETC. (IRELAND).
  Abstract of the Accounts of Fines accounted for by the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks, for the year 1901.
  DOGS REGULATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1865.
  Accounts of receipts and expenditure under the Act, for the year 1902.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP.
  (Special Exception: Overtime, Christmas Card making.)
  Order, dated 18th June, 1903, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department with regard to the overtime employment of women in the making of Christmas and New Year cards.
  (Dangerous and Unhealthy Industries.)
  I. Report to His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department by Chester Jones, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, on the draft regulations (October 1902) proposed to be made for factories and workshops in which the process of file-cutting by hand is carried on.
  II. Regulations, dated 19th June, 1903, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in pursuance of section 19 of the Factory and Workshop Act; 1901, for the process of file-cutting by hand.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  MUNICIPAL TRADING.
  The evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered out except to Members of the Committee, and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order. (No. 124.)

  ARMY REGULATIONS.
  *LORD HENEAGE: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the present Army Regulations in regard to the Staff College and to the appointment of officers to Staff and extra regimental duties, especially in relation to officers above the rank of captain in the cavalry and artillery; and to move that it is desirable, in the interests of the service, that opportunities should be given to a larger number of officers to pass through the Staff College for a shorter period than at present; that all officers on the Staff or extra regimental duty should be seconded; and, further, that all officers should return to their
  6
  regiments on promotion, or on the completion of five years' Staff or extra regimental service. With regard to the first point, that of the entrance and period of instruction at the Staff College, it may be known to your Lordships that there are two ways only in which officers can enter the Staff College—the first is by nomination by the Commander-in-Chief without any examination whatever, and the second by competitive examination after a period of "cram." This period of "cram," and the two years which officers have to stay under present circumstances at the Staff College mean two years and a half away from their regiments, and I cannot help thinking that it is rather late in the day when officers have been serving His Majesty for nine or ten years that they should be asked to go to school again and "cram" before they can go in for a practical examination. After all, cramming, though a great benefit to some, is a great impediment to others. Those who are able to cram their brain without injury to themselves, and who are rapid writers, get an advantage over many who are, perhaps, practical and good officers and better soldiers Therefore I suggest that this period of cramming and this competitive examination should be abolished. I think that all officers who are carefully recommended to the Commander-in-Chief as fit and good officers to go to the Staff College and likely to make good Staff officers, ought to be allowed to go there without having to undergo this second schooling and this competitive examination. The cramming alone, if it were abolished, would save at least six months, but I should like the competitive examination done away with also. I also think that the two years at the Staff College is a very much longer time than is necessary for men who ought to have a practical knowledge of most subjects, and who had passed a competitive examination before they entered the Army.
  But if that two years cannot be done away with in all cases, I venture to suggest, as an alternative course, that after one year at the Staff College officers should go through an examination, and those who prove that they are

  7
  particularly and exceptionally proficient in special subjects, and likely to make good officers for the Intelligence Department or for the Scientific Departments of the War Office, should be allowed to stay another year, on the understanding that they are to leave their regiments and to look in future for appointment on the Staff. I should also like to see other officers allowed to go to the Staff College to improve themselves in subjects in which they think they are deficient without having to undergo the whole of the course in all the subjects set down for them. The present system limits the number of officers who are able to go to the Staff College, and it also limits the number of officers available when a war breaks out to go to the front. It is notorious that at the commencement of the late war nearly every officer went away from the War Office on active service, and left the Department with only new recruits to carry out work of which they knew nothing whatever; and it is very creditable to the heads of the War Office that they carried on the work as well as they did; but I think there ought to be a sufficient number of Staff officers to supply the requirements of a war without removing those officers who are so much needed at that particular moment in the position in which they have acquired most knowledge. In favour of my proposals I will quote words from Lord Selborne's eloquent speech on Naval reform in this House. Referring to "competitive examinations," the first Lord of the Admiralty said that—
  "These words have been invested with a halo of infallibility and democracy which I do not think they in the least deserve."
  I believe from the cheers with which that statement was received in this House, that your Lordships largely agreed with my noble friend. But the noble Earl went further, and added that—
  "He was not afraid of a system of nomination carefully guarded."
  Again I cordially agree with him, and I assert that the principle of education which he laid down at that time as good for the Navy is equally good and up-to-date for the Army. Lord Selborne laid
  8
  down in clear and emphatic terms that—
  "The principle of sound education is that all useless education should be eliminated, and that officers should be taught what they must know and is of use to them."
  I cannot understand why, if that is good for the Navy it should not be good for the Army also, and I venture to suggest to those who control the War Office that they should consider the plan that has been put forward by my noble friend for the Navy. I do not believe myself in "cram" work; I believe that what is crammed is very easily forgotten.
  This system not only limits the duly qualified officers both in peace and war, but it prevents, what is more important, that constant interchange between Staff and regiment which, I think, would be a very great advantage to both. It is laid down, and I believe it is still continued in the edition of the Royal Warrant for this year, that Staff appointments are only for five years, but everybody who knows anything about the subject knows perfectly well that that no longer refers to a period on the Staff after which officers must go back to their regiments, but simply to the period in the one office in which they are serving. Once on the Staff is always on the Staff now, and that is a very bad thing, in my opinion, both for the Staff and for the regiments. In the first place it prevents the regiments from getting the advantage of highly educated officers coming back to them; and, in the second place, it prevents the opinions of regimental commanding officers and others being made known to the War Office, because they have to filter through those who know very little about regimental work. The principle with regard to Staff College officers is not adhered to altogether. In our wars, even in little wars, regimental officers are constantly called upon. Officers who, it is thought, would be useful, are sent out to Africa and elsewhere when they are wanted, whether Staff College men or not. Then the halo of infallibility is quickly abandoned; it is only with regard to snug berths and soft billets at home where this rule is inviolable. The officers on the Staff have greater opportunities of rapid promotion than regimental officers, and they gradually rise to the higher positions at the War Office without any

  9
  very great experience or knowledge of regimental work. It therefore makes it all the more, desirable, in my opinion, that their subordinates should include officers who are in touch and sympathy with regimental officers and men.
  But I do not desire to labour this question, as great changes have been made in the Military Education Department. I turn to the point in my Motion with regard to the non-seconding of officers above the rank of captain. By Regulation 26 of the Royal Warrant no officer above the rank of captain can be seconded. As your Lordships are aware, when an officer below the rank of major goes on the Staff he is seconded, and another officer is promoted to take his place; but when a major or lieutenant colonel is removed to Staff duty, his place is not filled up, but an extra captain is allowed to the regiment to do the duty of the captain who is performing the work of the major. This may be for Treasury reasons; the Treasury save 2s. a day in the case of cavalry majors, and 3s. 6d. a day in the case of battery majors, by not filling up their places when the officers go to the Staff. These officers are, therefore, deprived of from £30 to £40 a year, for the years they are doing major's duty. That is a great hardship, especially as these officers have great responsibilities. In old days the regiments were entirely bossed by the colonel, the adjutant, and the riding-master, but now every battery major and every squadron major is practically the commanding officer of his battery or squadron. He is also responsible for the paying of the men, for the drill, for the mounting of the men, and for discipline, with an appeal only, if he gives punishment which is considered excessive, to the colonel commanding. These senior captains are called upon for years to assume all these responsibilities, and perform all the duties, of majors without either the rank, pay, or position. Many regiments are deprived of one or more majors for years, and these Staff or extra-regimental duty officers rarely return to regimental duty again. I could mention cases, but I will not, where captains seconded on the Staff have become squadron majors and remained on the Staff unseconded. I could mention other cases where captains who have been seconded on the Staff have
  10
  come back as majors and again gone away to the Staff, leaving the captains to continue doing major's duty. I think this is most unfair to the captains. During war time if an officer is taken for Staff duty he is graded according to the duty he has to do, and receives pay and rank accordingly. Why should not the same treatment be given to regimental officers as is meted out to the Staff? I think this is a suitable time to do justice to regimental officers, for I think every general officer and everybody who was in the South African war will admit that it was to a large extent a regimental officers' war, and they can no longer be considered inferior to Staff officers. I ask those responsible for the Army to look at these questions with an open mind and not to allow themselves to be ruled only by opinions of Staff College men; to give more facilities to regimental officers to make themselves proficient in any subjects without having to stay at the Staff College two years, and to do all they can to promote interchange between regiments and the Staff, and closer touch between the War Office and the views of regimental officers.
  Moved to resolve that, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable, in the interests of the Service, that opportunites should be given to a larger number of officers to pass through the Staff College for a shorter period than at present; that all officers on the Staff or extra regimental duty should be seconded; and, further, that all officers should return to their regiments on promotion, or on the completion of five years' Staff or extra regimental service.—(The Lord Heneage.)
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The EARL of HARDWICKE): My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the matters to which he has drawn my attention have been receiving most careful consideration at the hands of the military authorities. I would remind him that the Secretary of State has recently created a new post at the War Office—that of Director-General of Military Education and Training, who of course has specially to deal with the various matters to which the noble Lord has referred. The noble Lord stated that there were at the present time two means of entrance to the Staff College.

  11
  It is a small point, but perhaps I might as well make it clear, there are, as a matter of fact, three. There is, in the first instance, the competitive examination. There are twenty-four vacancies in the Staff College each year, and the number of officers who are allowed to compete is unlimited. They are officers who have shown ability and a desire to make themselves proficient in Staff work, and who have received the approval of the colonel commanding their regiment to their working for this competitive examination. The recommendation of the colonel has to be endorsed by the General Officer commanding the Army Corps, and he submits their names to the Commander-in-Chief for approval. The second means by which officers can enter the Staff College is by nomination of the Commander-in-Chief. The Commander-in-Chief nominates each year eight officers who have shown themselves specially able and devoted to their duties, and he can also nominate any adjutant whose duties have brought him to the front in connection with the regiment to which he is attached. Then there is the third means, to which the noble Lord referred, namely, special distinction in Staff work on active service. Of course the noble Lord will understand that it is only when the opportunity arises for an officer to distinguish himself on active service that his name can be brought forward, and that in times of peace those specially selected officers do not get the same chance as in time of war.
  The noble Lord has referred in terms of disapproval to the system of competitive examination. He wishes to see officers allowed to pass into the Staff College without having previously to cram, and in futherance of his argument he quoted my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. I do not for a moment wish to suggest that every word that the First Lord said has not got my most cordial support and the support of the military authorities, but I would point out to him that the Navy and the Army are carried on under entirely different conditions. The naval officer is practically always on active service, and therefore it is not difficult for the naval authorities to see by practical observation that an officer is doing well in his
  12
  work. On the other hand, the regimental officer, unless, as I have said, he is engaged on active service, does not have the opportunity of showing his capacity for Staff work, and though we have a system of nomination for officers who have distinguished themselves in Staff work on active service, we are obliged to adhere to some form of examination for officers to show their capacity before they are allowed to pass into the Staff College. If the noble Lord's suggestion were adopted and a great many more regimental officers allowed to pass through the Staff College, we should be placed in this dilemma, that we should have a very large number of officers passing through the training necessary to qualify them for Staff work and we should not have the Staff work to give them. It seems to me obvious that if we increase the number of officers entitled to claim to serve on the Staff it would be necessary to largely increase the number of officers employed on the Staff. Otherwise you would have officers qualified for whom there was no employment, and that would not receive any favour at the hands of the officers themselves. I would like to inform the noble Lord of the number of officers who have passed through the Staff College in previous years. In July, 1884, there were at the Staff college forty-four students; in July, 1889, there were sixty-five; in July, 1894, sixty-four; and in July, 1899, sixty-seven. The noble Lord will see that the number has been steadily increasing. We hope shortly to be able to allow eighty officers to be at the Staff College at one time; and it is under consideration whether or not it would be possible, with the accommodation available at the Staff College, to increase that number still further; but I am afraid I cannot hold out to the noble Lord any hope that we shall be able to do away with some form of examination for entrance into the Staff College. The officers who join the Staff College are now all seconded, and though they are not seconded for the period which they have to devote to preparing themselves for the entrance examination, that has not been found to interfere greatly with the efficiency of the regiment.
  The noble Lord considers that the course at the Staff College is too long.

  13
  He thinks that it would be better if, instead of a two years course, officers were allowed to pass out at the end of the year, having made themselves proficient in only certain subjects. I am afraid that is not the view that is held by the military advisers of the Secretary of State on this subject. The course at the Staff College has lately been considerably changed. The experiences of the South African War have enabled the authorities to see in what special subjects it is necessary that officers should make themselves proficient, and I would point out that the course for the first year includes military history, strategy, tactics and administration, topography, law, and riding; and in the second year that is supplemented by the study of Imperial defence, reconnaissance, the working out of problems, both administrative and purely military and strategical, etc. In addition to that officers have to make tours of instruction, visiting battlefields, etc., under military tuition, and they have also to go through a course of instruction in other arms than that in which they are themselves employed and to learn modern languages. It is not considered possible that this course could be adequately gone through under the period that has been laid down, namely, two years. The noble Lord says that all officers on the Staff or extra regimental duty should be seconded. I admit that there is a great deal to be said, from the point of view of military efficiency, for the argument that the noble Lord advances, but I would point out to him that it is not a matter that has been pressed by the military authorities, for this reason—they are aware that to give effect to the change the noble Lord proposes would be a very expensive matter. They agree that, in view of the questionable advantage that might be gained, it would not be to the advantage of the Army as a whole to take a sum of £35,000 out of our Military Vote to carry out this change, and perhaps to deprive some other branch of the service of this sum of money. The noble Lord is particularly anxious that this change should affect only the cavalry and the artillery.
  *LORD HENEAGE: I think the noble Earl must have added an extra "0" to
  14
  the figure. It would not cost more than £3,000 or £4,000.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: I will give the exact figures. I have them here. If the majors and captains were seconded it would cost—in the cavalry, £3,400; in the artillery, £4,300; and in the infantry, £24,100 a year.
  *LORD HENEAGE: I did not raise the point of the infantry, because infantry majors have no work to do.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: Though, of course, it is not impossible to make such a change, and to make it applicable only to the cavalry and artillery, I am afraid that from the point of view of the military authorities it would be undesirable to distinguish in a matter of this kind between the infantry and the cavalry and artillery, and it is perfectly clear that if we made the change it would have to apply to the Army as a whole and not to the particular branches to which the noble Lord refers. Then the noble Lord urged that it was desirable that all officers should return to their regiments on promotion, or on the completion of five years Staff or extra regimental service. The noble Lord said "Once on the Staff always on the Staff," and he pleaded for a greater interchange between officers on the Staff and officers serving in regiments. The noble Lord will be glad to hear that his suggestions have already been adopted by the War Office. It is laid down, and the practice is rigidly adhered to, that every officer after five years on the Staff is to go back on the completion of the five years to his regiment. I may even say that the appointments are for three years and five years, so that after three years in many cases officers will return to their regiment, but in no case will they remain after five years. Of course this does not apply to full colonels who have left their regiment, but so far as junior officers are concerned they will always return, as I have said, after five years. The noble Lord further asked that they should return to their regiments on promotion, but it would be impossible for officers to return to their regiments immediately on promotion. I hope the noble Lord is satisfied generally with the tenor of my remarks, and that he will not think it

  15
  necessary to press his Motion to a division. Staff officers are not separate in any way from the regimental officers; they are only the best officers coming to the front by examination and by their desire to get on in their profession. The services of regimental officers have been recognised during the late war, for out of some 2,000 rewards given for service in South Africa, 1,800 went to regimental officers and only 200 to officers who had passed through the Staff College. I think that must appeal to the noble Lord as a conclusive argument that the War Office have not in any way disregarded the services of regimental officers who served in South Africa.
  *LORD HENEAGE: After the explanation that has been given by the noble Earl I shall withdraw my Motion. I only desired that the question should be fairly discussed. I can assure the noble Earl that I did not mean to infer that regimental officers had been overlooked. Three-fourths of the officers who served on the Staff during the late war were not Staff College men but regimental officers who had been taken away from their regiments and not seconded. The reason why I refer to artillery and cavalry majors is that they are to all intents and purposes the commanding officers of their batteries and squadrons, whereas the rank of major is merely a titular rank in the infantry without any responsibility whatever.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

  THE CONDITION OF HOLYROOD PALACE.
  *THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE, who had given notice, "To ask His Majesty's Government whether Mr. Fellowes, representing His Majesty's Government, is correctly reported as having said on 21st April that the Lord High Commissioner's decision not to inhabit Holyrood Palace had come as a great surprise to the Office of Works, and to inquire what steps will be taken to improve the condition of Holyrood Palace as a fit residence for the Sovereign or his representative; and to move for Papers." said: My Lords, before I put the Question of which I have given notice, I would ask your
  16
  Lordships' indulgence while I say a few words as to the circumstances which have led to it. Your Lordships may remember that about two months ago a notice appeared in a leading paper, the Scotsman, that I, as His Majesty's Lord High Commissioner to the Church of Scotland, would not reside this year in Holyrood Palace. This brought about a storm of correspondence in the Press and speeches in Parliament. I may say that the attacks were almost as vigorous as they were numerous. The correspondence may be summed up under these two heads—first, that I have deserted and abandoned Holyrood lightly and without due reason; and, secondly, that I have done so without communicating my decision to His Majesty's Government. My position, representing His Majesty, is a high one. I feel that the right place to meet these accusations is your Lordships' House, and I should like to be allowed a few words to describe, as far as I can, the office which I have the honour to hold. It is less well known this side of the Tweed than I could wish. The Lord High Commissioner's appointment is an annual one, usually made about the month of March, and his duties are primarily to represent the Sovereign at the great General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which meets every year to carry out and to look after the interests of that Church. He opens the Assembly and attends its sitting as a rule every morning, and he continues during the whole of its session, which generally last about twelve days, to attend until he dissolves the Assembly at the close of its labours.
  That is the sum-total, I think, of his actual duties. But in addition to these actual duties a great deal of extra work has grown up. It has become the custom to entertain very large numbers at dinner. Many years ago it was a very much smaller matter. I have heard that fifty or sixty years ago the appointment was a comparatively lucrative one. I find from Dr. Ramsay, who for many years was Purse-bearer to the Lord High Commissioner, that in the year 1852 a relative of the noble Lord on my right was then Lord High

  17
  Commissioner and he was the first to get leave to have rooms in Holyrood Palace. Up to that time it had been the custom to entertain some leading men in the General Assembly at one of the hotels of the town. My own ancestors, I believe, who during the 18th century were there for over thirty years, went about in Bath chairs and dined at pothouses wherever they had an opportunity. Lord Belhaven, however, got leave to go to Holyrood, and as this was somewhat further off than the inn at which he had been accustomed to entertain, he invited the Lord Provost and a few others to dine with him there. That was the way the dinners began. They grew in the course of time until they averaged between 300 and 400 people in the twelve days. But by degrees that has grown and grown until, when I had the honour of being first appointed, something like 1,200 people came to dine in the twelve days. I do not complain; I merely mention the fact. It is a very pleasant thing and I enjoy it very much, but it ought to be understood that this is the case. In addition to that, we have large assemblies in the evenings which represent, as a rule, 600, 700, or 800 persons, according to the number of people who happen to be in Edinburgh. That is probably about the sum-total of what the entertainments really amount to, but your Lordships will readily see that entertainments of this size require a very large staff of servants. They cannot be carried on without a very large staff. During the last six years my household living in the house has averaged something like sixty or seventy, with thirty or forty more who are there all day long and in the evening. That puts a great strain upon any drains. It is not like an ordinary household of twenty, thirty, or forty people.
  I have already said that my appointment is usually made in the month of March. The General Assembly sits in the middle of May, and the two months which elapse constitute a very short time in which to make the very large contracts necessary to carry out these entertainments. I therefore gave the Secretary for Scotland a gentle hint that if the appointment could be made a little sooner it would prevent rather
  18
  serious handicapping of the Lord High Commissioner, who has to make these contracts in a short time, and is some times troubled with the difficulty of getting them done. Consequently, this year, with the view of enabling me to make these contracts more easily, I was appointed about the last week or February. It was not until the 17th of March that I happened to hear, while I was in London, on what I thought was sound authority, that there was really a serious question about the drains at Holyrood. Within half-an-hour I went to the Chief Commissioner of Works and asked him if he would be good enough to let me see the Report which I understood had been obtained as to the condition of the drains. Lord Windsor received me most cordially, and said it was perfectly right and that he would send me the Report next morning. On the following day, the 18th of March, that Report had not arrived. I had made arrangements to go abroad on the 19th, and, as I did not want to trouble my noble friend, I wrote an urgent letter to the Secretary of the Office of Works, Sir Schomberg M'Donnell, to the effect that these large contracts which were already being negotiated by my Purse-bearer were hanging in the air, that if I could not go to Holyrood they must be cancelled, and that it was, therefore, an urgent matter. On the 19th I received no Report, but I got a note from Sir Schomberg M'Donnell in which he said—
  "There is no danger for you or your household. It would be very different with the King with his Court. Under such conditions the existing drainage would be inadequate."
  But as I have something like seventy or eighty people in my household, and thirty or forty more there all day long, it appeared to me that even His Majesty could not fill the Palace very much more than I did, and that what was quite inadequate for His Majesty and his Court might perhaps not be quite safe for me. On the 19th I had to leave England, and I wrote again. I have no doubt that my noble friend will give some explanation; but, though I continued writing first to the First Commissioner of Works, and then to my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland, it was not until the 30th that

  19
  I received extracts from the Report. Lord Windsor, with the kindness which always distinguishes him, telegraphed that the Report should be sent at once. That was on 25th March, but, as I say, I did not receive the extracts till the 30th. The matter was, therefore, at that moment of quite extreme urgency. Contracts representing £600, £700, or £800 were hanging in the air, and I had to decide one way or the other at once. Sir Schomberg M'Donnell suggested that I should get an independent Report. It was perfectly impossible for me to let these things hang up while I got this independent Report; moreover, I did not see why I wanted an independent Report.
  After receiving the extracts on 30th March I wrote on the same day to Lord Windsor at the Office of Works, and to Lord Balfour as Secretary for Scotland, asking if they thought it necessary to convey a message to His Majesty to express my extreme regret that I could not reside at Holyrood. I gave them briefly my reasons. What I said was—
  "These drains appear to be very defective. There is a public sewer at one end, and they open into bedrooms at, the other. Under these circumstances, I ought not to put a great crowd of people into the Palace."
  I did that entirely on my own responsibility. Nobody else had anything to do with it. That was on 30th March, and you will understand my surprise when I came home to find that on 21st April, three weeks afterwards, Mr. Fellowes was reported to have said, in reply to Mr. Dewar, the Member for Inverness-shire, that the question of my not living in Holyrood had created great consternation in Scotland, and had come as a great surprise to the Office of Works. I cannot say when they received my letter of 30th March, but I sent it through my Purse-Bearer, and I do not think he could have delayed it many days. At any rate, the letter to the First Commissioner was despatched at the same time and in the same way as the letter to Lord Balfour which the latter acknowledged on the 11th of April, ten days before Mr. Fellowes' speech. I think Lord Windsor will agree that I have some reason to ask, first of all, what was the cause of the delay in sending the Report, and, secondly, how it
  20
  came to be such a surprise to the Office of Works. There may be some doubt as to the precise words Mr. Fellowes used, because, although I have referred to Hansard, I find he is not reported in the first, person. But there can be no doubt as to the meaning of his words, because I find it from several speeches and articles which appeared afterwards. Mr. Dewar asked the question, Mr. Fellowes replied to it, and immediately afterwards Mr. Shaw, the Member for the Border Burghs, said—
  "The Government say they are very much surprised."
  Mr. Weir said the Government ought not to come down and tell the House that they were surprised, and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman said—
  "Lord Leven, I believe, was in constant communication with the Government,"
  and the Prime Minister replied—
  "I believe that is not so."
  On 22nd April Sir John Stirling-Maxwell brought the question up in another place, and Mr. Fellowes replied; but he did not retract anything as to this great surprise, and there appeared in the Scotsman on the 23rd, an article saying—
  "We have been assured that until the unofficial statement was made in our columns on 17th April no Minister or Government Department had heard of Lord Leven's intentions."
  I have Lord Balfour's acknowledgment of my letter, dated the 11th. The Scotsman on the 23rd went on to say—
  "What Mr. Fellowes does say is that it is a great surprise to the Office of Works to hear that Lord Leven is not going to reside at Holyrood."
  The same paper on the same day said—
  "Lord Leven forgot the people and he forgot the Secretary for Scotland and his colleagues.'
  Very vigorous language was used, and I think it is fair that the explanation should be made as publicly as the statement which was made in another place.
  I leave that now, and come to the second indictment, which accuses me, without due cause, of having neglected and abandoned the ancient Palace of Holyrood. In many of these letters and speeches it was stated that I was thereby insulting the nation, showing a most offensive indifference to the Church

  21
  and the Assembly over which I presided, and violating ancient traditions. I did not readily leave Holyrood Palace. I left it with most extreme regret, but in the face of the Report which I received I felt that I had no option but to leave.
  His Lordship then read extracts from the Report showing that of the thirty-two water closets in the Palace nineteen would have to be removed or altered; several of these were in the walls of bedrooms, and one discharged into a rain-pipe. Some of the scullery sinks were also described as defective, and, apparently, discharging direct into the main drain. Reference was also made to unventilated pan-closets in walls adjoining bedrooms.
  Continuing, his Lordship said: Of course, if the external arrangements had been very perfect a good deal might have been done by vigorous flushing. But when I come to the external drains I find that the Report states that the present outfall sewer of the Palace is built of rubble and very imperfect, that its level is too high to permit of a safe fall for the drainage of the Palace, and, as a consequence, the drains very quickly become choked. I did not think that was a house in which to put four or five scores of people. It is quite true that for five years previously I had lived there, and my predecessors had lived there, and that we had had no illness; but drains every year get a year older. Besides that, there was the additional strain upon them this year in that His Majesty was coming to Edinburgh the week previous to the General Assembly. You will readily see, therefore, that the danger was in increasing ratio. I do not think I am fairly subject to any great indignation from my countrymen or anyone else because I declined to put a large number of people into a house in that condition. The number of people themselves constitute a source of danger. The scullery refuse alone, owing to the enormous number of meals prepared in the Palace, would have been enough to choke most drains; however efficient. I entertain at regular dinner parties about 1,200 people in the twelve days, and then I have 100 people in the house during that time, each eating three meals a day at least, which makes
  22
  3,600 more meals, or a total of 4,800 meals in the twelve days. Besides that there are the stables and the military band of thirty or forty men. It seemed to me that this was a serious matter. It appeared to be a dangerous thing to do, and I decided at once that I would not do it, and I communicated my decision to the Secretary for Scotland and to the First Commissioner of Works at the earliest possible opportunity.
  I now come to quite a different subject. The announcement was made in the Scotsman of the 17th of April. It was due to the extreme delay of getting the Report that all the trouble and correspondence took place. The news that I was not going to Holyrood leaked out when the contracts began to be cancelled. The Scotsman on the 17th sent to the Purse-bearer and asked for an official announcement of what we were going to do—was I going to be in Holyrood or not. The Purse-bearer said it was impossible for him at that moment to give any official announcement as the contracts were not completed. I suppose the Scotsman could not wait, for next morning the article appeared. I do not know that I need trouble your Lordships with the letters and speeches, but some of them were rather amusing One man said that my salary ought to be taken away, and that he was sure that it was from motives of economy that I did not go to Holyrood. He said—
  "Lord Leven ought to face typhoid because he is paid for it."
  I suppose he did not know that my allowance only covers about two-thirds of my expenses. In fact, I really live at the rate of £90,000 a year for the twelve days. Another correspondent wrote—
  "His not to reason why,
  His but to sniff and die."
  A third said that in dining elsewhere I was violating ancient traditions. Well, till within the last fifty years they always did dine elsewhere. Some of the critics were perhaps a little vicious. These correspondents seem to think that their mission in life is to go about stinging and showing up people without any particular reason. They remind me rather of the old lady's remark in regard to fleas. "I don't object to fleas," she said, "but I don't like the way they get their living." I have no fault to find with the critics. One thing is plain; they have evoked the

  23
  national feeling, the passionate desire that Holyrood should be maintained. That spot throbs with historic memories; there is no place which appeals so strongly to our national sentiment and patriotism. On the site of the ancient Abbey, a cradle of the Church, a sanctuary and place of refuge through centuries of strife and turmoil, it is like sacred ground. Beneath the shadow of that hill, those towering crags, the landmarks of the capital, at the foot of perhaps the most interesting street in the Kingdom, still beautiful in the quaintness of its ancient homes of Scotland's nobility, dominated by that castle whose history is the nation's history, the Palace of Holyrood stands splendid in its quiet dignity. I do not plead on my own behalf. I ask on behalf of the Scottish nation that this ancient monument should be maintained and handed down to future generations as the home of the Scottish Sovereign. The Papers I move for are a plan of the Palace of Holyrood House as it now exists, along with full reports showing the internal sanitary arrangements and water supply, and the external drainage system as existing to-day, and a report showing what is proposed to be done to make them good, and a detailed estimate of the cost.
  Moved that there be laid before the House—1. A plan of the Palace of Holyrood House as it exists; 2. A full report, showing—(a) The internal sanitary arrangements and water supply, and its external drainage system as existing to-day; (b) A report showing what is proposed to be done to make them good, and a detailed estimate of the cost.—(The Earl of Leven and Melville.)
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Lord WINDSOR: My Lords, I should like to say at the very outset that I regret it extremely if anything has been said on behalf of the Office of Works which should give the impression for one single moment that I wish to transfer any blame which ought to rest upon myself to the shoulders of my noble friend. That, I am sure, he will acquit me of; it is the last thing I should attempt. But I think that he really has misinterpreted the answer that was given in the other House by Mr. Fellowes. I did not hear the
  24
  debate myself, but I find from Hansard that Mr. Fellowes said—
  "He knew that the question had created great consternation in Scotland, and he might say, on behalf of the Board of Works, that what they had heard and seen during the last two or three days had come as a great surprise to them."
  That I take to mean that the consternation and the outcry in the Scotsman was what occasioned the Office of Works great surprise. The Prime Minister, too, afterwards said in the same debate that it had never occurred to him that the fact that the High Commissioner thought it safer in the existing condition of the drains at Holyrood to live in an hotel would be the cause of an outbreak of national sentiment. That was certainly what the reply of Mr. Fellowes was intended to mean; but if the language was ambiguous I repeat that I regret very much that it should have been so interpreted, and that the noble Lord has any justification for thinking that blame has unduly been put upon his shoulders. There are one or two points in his speech that I must refer to briefly. I venture to think that I can show the House and the noble Earl that his grievance is against the Scotsman, and not against His Majesty's Government. I should like to say a word with regard to the delay in giving the noble Earl the Report upon which the Office of Works acted in recommending that the state of the drainage in Holyrood Palace was not such as could justify His Majesty occupying the Palace during his last visit to Edinburgh. It is perfectly true, as the noble Earl says, that he saw me personally and asked me to let him see the Report. That was, as he explained to the House, on the eve of his departure abroad. I was unable until the next day to get at the Office, and it was impossible then to part with the actual Report. A copy had to be made for the noble Earl's inspection, and it did not arrive on the Continent, I regret to say, until ten days after. It might have reached him a few days before, I believe. I am sorry that there was any delay in his seeing the Report. But he will forgive me for reminding him that he mentioned in a letter to me that he had heard in October last from Sir Schomberg McDonnell that the condition of the drains in Holyrood

  25
  Palace was bad, and he was told that if he would come to the Office of Works there was a Report open for his inspection.
  *THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE: I have no recollection of Sir Schomberg's saying anything of the kind. What he told me was that the drains were in a bad condition, and I urged that they should not be touched in the winter. I never heard any more. I thought the drains were not in that serious condition, until I came to London and saw my noble friend.
  *LORD WINDSOR: Of course I quite accept what my noble friend says, but I was under the impression that at that time he was informed that the Report was open to his inspection if he desired to see it. But that is not his recollection.
  *THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE: I cannot say absolutely that it was not so; but I have no recollection of it. It was mentioned to me in an offhand way at a dinner. I said I was sorry to hear it, and that if the drains were touched in the winter they would be sure to be bad again in the spring.
  *LORD WINDSOR: The point I make is that this Report was asked for on the eve of the noble Earl's departure for abroad, and that it was necessary to make a copy. Though I admit it might have reached him a day or two before it did, still it was only a question of whether the Office of Works could have got out a copy of the Report a day or two before they actually did. What I do wish to make quite clear to him and to the House is that there was no intention whatever of keeping back that Report from him, or of concealing it in any way in the Office of Works, so that those who had a perfect right to see it should not do so. There was another point in which I do not think the noble Earl correctly interpreted the debate in the other House. He referred to what Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman said. He stated that Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman had asked whether the High Commissioner had not been in communication with the Government, and that the Prime Minister had replied that it was not so. But that is not, I think, quite the correct interpretation of what
  26
  was said. Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman was referring to the Lord High Commissioner's knowledge of the state of Holyrood Palace from the fact that he resided there for certain stated times for several years past, and Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman said that what had been urged was that this was a piece of mismanagement on the part of a Department of the Government, because Lord Leven, whose knowledge of Holyrood Palace as a habitable house was derived from the experience of past years, had doubtless represented the condition of affairs to the Board of Works. He said that no doubt while in residence there he was in constant communication with the Office of Works. That was what the Prime Minister said he understood was not so, and I think my noble friend will agree with me that he did not complain, when he was in residence in Holyrood Palace, to the Government that the condition of the drainage was bad. Therefore, I do not think that the answers which were given in that particular case were otherwise than perfectly correct.
  There is another question on which I should like to say a word—the question of blame that may be thought to attach to the Government and myself representing the Office of Works in this matter. I think that if this is looked at calmly, without the, shall I say, irritating effects of the Scotsman before us, we shall see that it is impossible in the case of all country houses to alter completely the whole system of the drainage each time that some professor of sanitary science discovers some newer and better method. It inevitably comes to this—that you arrive, after a certain number of years, at the conclusion that the system of drainage is antiquated and that the whole thing must be redone. It may be said, at any time when you arrive at that point, that you ought to have discovered it before, but, as I say, you cannot continue year after year completely to alter the system of your drainage. You have to keep it in good order, and go on with it, until after a certain time the newer methods have to be adopted. With regard to the upkeep and maintenance of the drainage at Holyrood, I do not think there is any complaint to be made. The system is

  27
  antiquated. There is a new main sewer being put in in the town which will enable a better outfall from Holyrood to be made, and though the Government considered it right, after the Report they had received that His Majesty should not be advised to occupy Holyrood, they had taken a sum of money in the Estimates for this year for the purpose of putting the drainage in a satisfactory state. My noble friend asks in his Question what steps will be taken to improve the condition of Holyrood Palace as a fit residence of the Sovereign or his representative. We believe that the money we have got this year will put Holyrood Palace into a perfectly fit condition to receive the Sovereign. The work is to be put in hand at once, and the intention is to complete it, if possible, by the end of this year. Further, I may assure my noble friend that it is the intention of the Government to see that the work is thoroughly and efficiently carried out, so that there shall be no question whatever at any future time of advising His Majesty that Holyrood Palace is not in a fit condition to receive him. That is the intention of the Government, and in those circumstances I would ask the noble Earl to refrain from pressing for the Papers for which he has asked.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I have some diffidence in interfering in this interesting discussion, but I must confess that the statement of the First Commissioner of Works leaves something to be desired as an answer to the statement made by the Lord High Commissioner. The First Commissioner has gone into generalities, with which I perfectly agree, as to the impossibility of varying a system of drainage annually according to the views of any expert that you may consult. But that is not the point which I understand was raised by the Lord High Commissioner. He says that nothing has been done to the drainage at Holyrood, and it is no answer to say that you cannot annually vary the system of drainage according to the report of experts. As I under stand the matter, the report of the experts was distinctly unfavourable, and, therefore, I think that we shall all agree
  28
  that the Lord High Commissioner was justified in feeling some apprehension at visiting the Palace or residing in it in existing circumstances. But think the whole gravamen of this charge has been missed by the First Commissioner. There used to be a story of Lord Holland, a nephew of Mr. Fox's—I think it was the third Lord Holland—that when in office in the Cabinet, and any thorny question of administration came up for discussion, he was in the habit of saying, Fiat experimentum in corpore vili. Let the experiment be tried in Scotland before going any further. I think that the real sting of what has occurred in the Lord High Commissioner's mind, is that it was proposed that he should be the vile corpus on which the experiment of residence in Holyrood should be tried, under the somewhat unfavourable conditions he has described with so much minuteness, and I doubt not with so much accuracy. I do not want to lay too much stress on the informal note of Sir Schomberg McDonnell, but it was certainly almost brutal in its frankness with reference to the possibility of my noble friend residing in Holyrood and the impossibility of His Majesty going there with his Court. I think that is the real case that the First Commissioner has to meet. The truth of the whole matter is this—that if the Lord High Commissioner had had time to make his own announcement in his own way, things would have gone very differently. I cannot answer for the Scotsman newspaper here. I am not qualified to act in its defence, but I quite agree with my noble friend that its hand falls uncommonly heavy on those whom it wished to smite. No one can speak with more painful experience than myself, but I quite agree with the Government that they cannot be responsible for the truculent nature of their own organ in Scotland. I do not believe that the Secretary for Scotland inspired its phillippics against my noble friend the Lord High Commissioner. I could have wished in the interests of this historic Palace, that we could have heard less of the seamier and darker side of the arrangements of that edifice, but it was necessary, for the proof of my noble friend's case, and I trust with all my heart that the discussion may result in the consummation he so devoutly wishes,

  29
  to render the Palace sufficiently cleanly and healthy for the residence of the Lord High Commissioner next year.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I certainly should not have risen but for the final challenge of the noble Earl who has just sat down. I think, if I may venture to say so, that he misses one point in the difficulties which beset the Office of Works in regard to this matter. The state of Holyrood was found in the course of the winter to be not satisfactory. I need not go further into the matter, because I think it was admitted by everybody that it was not entirely satisfactory. It was impossible to take it in hand, as I understand, early in the winter for two reasons. In the first place, nothing of the magnitude required could be done until the House of Commons had voted the necessary supplies for the purpose, and therefore it was absolutely impossible to do the work before the time when the Lord High Commissioner had to take up his residence in Holyrood. It was also, I understand, physically impossible to get such work as was necessary completed before the date fixed for His Majesty's visit to Scotland. His Majesty was not going to reside in Holyrood for the reasons which were announced at the time, and it would obviously not have been wise to be digging at the drains at the time, and while there were Courts and levées going on there. The noble Earl put his finger upon the real cause of the outcry when he indicated that if a judicious and frank announcement had been made of the reason why the Lord High Commissioner had resolved not to reside in Holyrood this year at a sufficiently early date, no strong feeling would have been evinced in regard to the matter. Perhaps I may venture to say, as my noble friend the Lord High Commissioner mentioned my name in his statement, that so far as I am concerned officially I have nothing to do with the noble Earl's appointment; I have nothing to do myself with Holyrood, nor have I any sort of control, official or otherwise, over the place where the Lord High Commissioner resides. It is perfectly true that my noble friend left a letter for me to be delivered after he had gone abroad, stating that he could not reside in Holyrood. But my noble friend will bear me out
  30
  when I say that the moment I heard of his decision I telegraphed to him urging that a proper announcement should be made, and warning him that unless that was done, a considerable amount of feeling would arise. I ventured to say that if it had been frankly announced on the part of the Lord High Commissioner, either directly or through his Purse-bearer, that in the circumstances, and for this year only, he could not occupy Holyrood, nothing would be said about it at all. But there was a sort of vague apprehension, perhaps stimulated by interested persons, that this was part of a consistent policy to abandon Holyrood altogether, and this gave a certain amount of force to the outcry and the agitation. I know perfectly well that the Lord High Commissioner had no such intention, because he knows as well as I do what Scottish sentiment in regard to Holyrood is, and that such a thing would not have been tolerated. I think a great deal has been made by the noble Earl of a certain amount of newspaper correspondence, which after this lapse of time it was hardly worth while to dig up from the obscurity into which it had gone. But he has liberated his soul, and, therefore, I hope the matter will end. But I repeat what I began by saying, that the noble Earl of Rosebery was, I think, absolutely correct when he said that if a judicious announcement had been made on the part of the Lord High Commissioner at the moment it was first decided not to occupy Holyrood Palace this year, we should never have heard of a tenth part of the correspondence which has taken place in regard to it. I am authorised to repeat, if there should be any doubt about it, that I know it to be the intention of the Office of Works to do all they can to put Holyrood Palace into a thoroughly satisfactory state of sanitation I hope the House will allow the matter to rest there, and that my noble friend, who has indicated his intention to move for Papers, will not at any rate at present press the Motion further.
  *THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE: I need hardly say that it is with great satisfaction that I accept the explanation of Lord Windsor, that it was

  31
  not intended to convey the impression that I had not communicated to His Majesty's Government or to him any intention not to reside at Holyrood. As to blame, I do not think any excuse was needed for not having repaired the drains since they were found faulty in October of last year. It would have been impossible to have effected such work properly during the winter months; in my opinion it would have been perfect madness. I never imputed any blame to the Office of Works for not attempting what I think it would have been a most imprudent thing to do. I accept with great frankness my noble friend's assurance. Lord Balfour seemed to imply that I ought to have made an official announcement in time, that I was not going to reside in Holyrood, but if he will go back to the dates he will find that it was not possible. I was away and my Purse-bearer could not be expected to state officially that I was not going to reside in Holyrood, unless he was in a position to state where I was going to stay. It was quite impossible that he could make any announcement until the contracts were complete. Upon the assurance which has been given I will not press for Papers. The Government have promised to put the drainage right, and I think they had better.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  MOTOR TRAFFIC.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, who had a Question on the Paper "to ask when it is proposed to introduce the Bill dealing with the regulation of motor traffic," said: My Lords, I have been asked by the President of the Local Government Board to postpone this Question because the matter is going to be considered at once by the Government. I will therefore defer the Question until Thursday next.
  Question (by leave of the House) postponed.

  BISHOPRICS OF SOUTHWARK AND BIRMINGHAM BILL [H.L.]
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, the Bill which I have to ask your Lordships to read a second time is for the purpose of giving powers for the founding of two new Bishoprics, the Bishopric of Southwark and the Bishopric of Birmingham. I believe I am right in saying that that part of the Bill which deals with the Bishopric of Southwark is identical with the Bill which has passed your Lordships' House on two previous occasions. The diocese of Rochester, as it is at present constituted, is not only unwieldy with regard to its population, but most inconvenient as to its area and for all purposes of organisation. It is separated into two sections differing very much as to the conditions of their population. One part consists of the South London Parishes and the Suburban and County Districts of East and Mid Surrey, and the other of Gravesend, Rochester, and Chatham, and between these two portions runs part of the diocese of Canterbury. The present population of the whole diocese is 2,250,000. The Bill proposes that the populous district of the diocese in South London, with a population of about 2,000,000, should be formed into the new Bishopric of Southwark. The present difficulties are also somewhat accentuated by the fact that the residence of the Bishop is in South London, whilst the cathedral is in Rochester. The other part of the diocese will have added to it a small portion of the diocese of Canterbury, and will, I understand, with that addition have a population of about 400,000. It is also proposed that the existing residence of the Bishop of Rochester should become the residence of the Bishop of Southwark.
  With regard to the new Bishopric of Birmingham it is proposed to constitute it of parishes taken from the dioceses of Worcester and Lichfield. The diocese of Worcester now contains a population of 1,400,000 and comprises 500 parishes, many of them very populous. The population of the diocese of Lichfield is about the same, and it contains 475 parishes. I believe the area taken from the diocese of Worcester is one-third of the whole area of the diocese and a still larger proportion of the population, and it will be recognised that the spiritual needs of the population of that important area could be much more conveniently

  33
  met by the formation of the new diocese. The wishes of the locality are shown in the fact that already a very large sum of money has been subscribed to establish a fund for the new Bishopric of Birmingham. I believe there has already been subscribed £92,000 out of the total sum required, namely, £110,000. The Bill revives the provisions of the Bishoprics Act, 1878. Under that Act the Bishoprics of Liverpool, Newcastle and others were founded, and authority was given for the establishment of a Bishopric Endowment Fund for each of the new Sees, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners being required to hold those funds for the special purposes for which they are to be used. These two Bishoprics of Southwark and Birmingham may be founded under that Act by an order of His Majesty in Council as soon as the endowment funds are reached, and I believe it is laid down that the incomes must amount to £3,500 a year. There are a large number of incidental questions with which I might occupy the time of the House, but I will content myself by saying that the new Bishoprics proposed in this Bill have the approval of the Archbishop of Canterbury and of the right rev. Prelates whose dioceses are affected, and who will deal with any question, of detail that may arise at this or any subsequent stage of the Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Belper.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I desire to say a word or two with regard to this Bill on behalf of my noble friend Lord Spencer. The noble Lord, Earl Spencer, asked on Friday that this Bill should be postponed till to-day, because it deals with a subject in which he takes great interest, and he felt that he had not had sufficient time to master the details of it. Unfortunately, Lord Spencer is not able to be here to-day. He is kept at home, having been overtaken by the gravest family anxiety, in which I am sure he has your Lordships' deepest sympathy. I think it right to say that Lord Spencer had no intention of opposing the Second Reading or of thwarting the Bill in any way, but there were details he wished to criticise and there was one considerable point of
  34
  policy which he desired to raise. That point, briefly, was whether it was wise to create two new Bishoprics and endow them with considerable revenues at a time when the incomes of the great bulk of the clergy of the Church of England are extremely small owing largely to agricultural depression and the fall in the tithe-rent charge. It did seem to him that it was desirable to consider carefully whether in those circumstances this was a happy time to create two new Bishoprics and to give them, I do not say excessive but certainly large incomes, when the subordinate officers of the Church are receiving such small stipends. That was the main point my noble friend wished to raise, and I think I have sufficiently served the purpose by shortly stating it. I have no doubt that some right rev. Prelate will have a word to say on the subject.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I should like to say a few words upon this Bill. Twenty-six years have passed since I began, in the very subordinate capacity of secretary to a committee on this subject, to deal with the almost unsolvable problem of how to divide up the dioceses of Rochester, Canterbury, Winchester, and St. Albans in such a manner as to produce the best possible results with the minimum of inconvenience. The problem is, I say without reserve, the most difficult among the problems of that kind with which I have ever had to do. Anyone who examines a map on which the formation of the diocese of Rochester is marked, must wonder how any bishop, even if he possess all the energy and devotion of my right rev. brother who now presides over the diocese, has found it possible to work it. I am convinced that the solution of the problem contained in the Bill is the best that could be arrived at in the circumstances. I am less personally conversant with the state of affairs at Birmingham, but for many years it has been the universal opinion of those best qualified to judge, that a new diocese, with Birmingham as its centre, is absolutely necessary. That that should now be possible, thanks to the munificence of the people of Birmingham, is gratifying to all who

  35
  have at heart the welfare of the Church in the Midlands. I should entirely share in the opinion put forward by the noble Lord on behalf of Earl Spencer—the cause of whose absence we all deeply regret—if the money for the new Bishopric was being provided from sources available for the other purposes to which he has alluded, but, as I have said, the money for the constitution of the new Bishopric has been specially subscribed by those who are promoting this particular object. The noble Lord's criticism, although perfectly natural, and, I may say, obvious, to one who may have had no adequate opportunity of studying the details of the subject, is, I venture to think, a somewhat short-sighted one. If we want the general condition of the clergy in the poorest districts and most poorly-endowed parishes to be improved, and there can be no Member of this House who does not share such a wish, the best way of proceeding is to make the working of the Church as efficient as we can make it. When we have a sufficient number of dioceses and the Bishops hard at work in them keeping things on the right lines and making them stir and glow, then the time will have come when we can hope for such support as will diminish the present hardships of the poor clergy. This result will be promoted, and not hindered, by allowing those who desire to give money for the purpose of founding these Bishoprics to do so. The only detail to which this answer to the noble Lord's criticism may not apply, is the application of certain portions of money from the sale of a residence of former Archbishops of Canterbury to the provision of a new See house for the Bishop of Rochester, and of some portion of the endowment of the See, the present See house of that diocese being handed over to the new diocese of Southwark. But it has to be remembered that that particular money has, all through, been applied to the purposes of an episcopal residence; so that even that money is not diverted to any purpose of a different kind from that for which it is at present available. Any further points on which your Lordships may desire
  36
  information will be readily given in Committee, and I hope your Lordships will now read the Bill a second time.
  LORD NORTON: My Lords, I heartily endorse what has just been said by the most rev. Primate. He considered that the objection suggested by Lord Tweedmouth was a natural one. Whether it is natural or not, it is the most complete non sequitur I have ever heard in my life, that we should abstain from endowing new Bishoprics because the income of the clergy is small. Why, that is the very reason for doing it. Church feeling in Birmingham has already been considerably strengthened during the tenure of office of the present Bishop of Worcester, and I am certain that when that energetic man is Bishop of Birmingham, no event will have occurred for a number of years so likely as that to increase the incomes of the clergy. Therefore, if the objection of the noble Lord is the only objection that can be raised to this Bill, I think it is the strongest possible reason for supporting it, and I can only hope that no more effective argument against it will be raised in another place. The poor clergy are in any case in nowise injured by a scheme which is paid for out of private subscription. If there is any defect in the Bill it is that the diocese of Worcester is not called upon to make anything like a proper contribution to the Bishopric of Birmingham. The Bishopric of Birmingham will take one-third of the diocese of Worcester, and a great deal more than one-third of the population of that diocese; but the diocese of Worcester is not asked to make a contribution towards the diocese of Birmingham. Naturally, Worcester ought to hand over to the new diocese one-third of her endowment for doing a third of the work, of which she will now be relieved. A city of the size of Birmingham ought to have a Bishop. Already the prospect of getting a Bishop, and such a Bishop as the one who will take over the new See under this Bill, has entirely changed the feeling of the city of Birmingham towards the Church. There are only two men who can fill the Town Hall on any occasion—Mr. Chamberlain and the proposed Bishop of Birmingham.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 125),

  OUT-DOOR RELIEF PENSIONERS BILL (No. 126).
  Read 1a, and to be printed.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock till to-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.