Sitting of 19 April 1904

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

  PROVISIONAL ORDER RILLS (NO STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  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, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) Bill. Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.
  Amersham, Beaconsfield, and District Water Bill; Wolverhampton Corporation Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Cambrian Railways Bill [Lords]; Elysée Palace Hotel Company Bill [Lords]; Gosport Water Bill [Lords]; Huddersfield Corporation Act, 1902 (Amendment) Bill [Lords]; Matlock and District Gas Bill [Lords]; Metropolitan Railway Bill [Lords]; New River Company Bill[Lords]; Nuneaton and Chilvers Coton Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; Tynemouth Corporation Bill [Lords]; University of Leeds Bill [Lords]; Victoria University of Manchester Bill [Lords]; West.Metropolitan Railway (Abandonment) Bill [Lords]; Yorktown and Blackwater Gas Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP G).
  Captain JESSEL reported from the Committee on Group G of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, they had adjourned until Friday, at Twelve of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Select Committee—
  1."That, in the case of the Tottenham Improvement Bill, Petition for Additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to introduce their Additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit,"
  2."That, in the case of the Strabane, Raphoe, and Convoy Railway Bill, Petition for Additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to introduce their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."
  3."That, in the case of the City of London (Central Criminal Court House), Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."
  4."That, in the case of the' North Wales Electric Power Bill [Lords], the

  517
  Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."
  Resolutions agreed to.

PETITIONS.
  DOGS BILL.
  Petition from Montrose, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES (RENEWAL).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; from Worthing; St. Just; Drift San-creed; Carfury; Penzance (two); Gosen; Bow; Knowlwood; Ilminster; Acton; Yeadon (three); Bolton; Chelsea; Baildon Green; Morton Banks; Guiseley; Barnstaple; Buckland Brewer; Ilfracombe; Ilkley; Plumstead; Glasgow (two); Bristol (two); Walbottle; Blyth; Brow; Beech Grove; and Flim by (two); to lie upon the Table.
  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Montrose, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  RE-VACCINATION BILL.
  Petition from St. Helens, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF BUTTER BILL.
  Petition from Chelsea, against; to lie upon the Table.
  TOWN AND COUNTY COUNCILS (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Montrose, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TRANSVAAL (CHINESE LABOUR ORDINANCE).
  Petition from Chelmsford, for withdrawal; to lie upon the Table.
  VAGRANTS' CHILDREN PROTECTION BILL.
  Petition from Montrosa, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the urban and rural districts of Rugby, in the county of Warwick (Rugby and District Light Railway Order, 1904) [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.

  FINANCIAL STATEMENT (1901–5).
  Copy ordered, "of Statement and Revenue and Expenditure as laid before the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when opening the Budget."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 132.]

  SAVINGS RANKS ACTS AMENDMENT [DEFICIENCY ANNUITY|.
  Committee to consider of authorising the continuance of the payment of the terminable annuity payable under the Savings Banks Act, 1880, in pursuance of any Act of the present session to amend the Savings Banks Acts (King's Recommendation signified), To-morrow.—(Mr. Victor Cavendish.)
  TRADE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM WITH GERMANY.
  Return [presented 18th April] to be printed. [No. 131.]
  EXPLOSIONS (EXPLOSION AT THE FACTORY OF MESSRS. CURTIS AND HARVEY, LIMITED, FAVERSHAM, KENT).
  Copy presented, of Report by Captain M. B. Lloyd, His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the circumstances attending an explosion of gunpowder which occurred in the mixing house of the factory of Messrs. Curtis and Harvey, Limited, at the Marsh, Faversham, on the 2nd February, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade,

  519
  authorising the construction of Light Railways from St. Osyth to Clacton-on-Sea, in the county of Essex, in the rural district of Tendring, and the urban district of Clacton (Clacton-on-Sea and Osyth Light Railway Order, 1904) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the borough of Leicester and in the rural districts of Barrow-upon-Soar and of- Market Bosworth, in the county of Leicester (Leicester and District Light Railways Order, 1904) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the parishes of Arkley, Barnet Vale, Chipping Barnet, Bushey Rural, Bushey Urban, and Watford Urban, in the county of Hertford (County of Hertford Light Railways (No. 1) Order, 1904) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, transferring to the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of Bradford the powers conferred upon the Nidd Valley Light Railway Company by the Nidd Valley Light Railway Order, 1901, and amending that Order (Bradford Corporation (Nidd Valley Transfer) Light Railway Order, 1904) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Distribution of Contraband Tobacco to Chelsea and Kilmainham Pensioners.
  MR. WHITMORE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the practicability of distributing amongst the pensioners of the
  520
  Royal Hospitals at Chelsea and Kilmainham the balance now on hand of the tobacco which has been seized as contraband.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I regret that it is not possible to adopt this suggestion. The grant of seized tobacco is confined in the first instance to cases where the tobacco would otherwise be charged upon the Votes. This covers not only the Key and Edinburgh Botanic Gardens, but also the Criminal Lunatic Asylums at Broadmoor, Dundrum, and Perth. Any surplus not needed for these institutions is given, under an arrangement made in 1893, to troops going on foreign service.

  Inspection of Tenement Houses used as Workshops.
  MR. FORDE RIDLEY (Bethnal): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to a statement lately made by one of the sanitary inspectors of the borough of Bethnal Green as to the evasion of the Factory Act in consequence of workrooms being part of tenement houses, thus avoiding inspection by the authorities as to the sanitary conditions, overcrowding, and other circumstances under which the work is done; and, if so, can he give any hope of these evils being remedied by the issuing of an Order in Council or other method.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douqlas.) I do not clearly understand the Question, and I think there may be some misconception. So far as I can gather from inquiries, the statement referred to did not attribute any difficulty in enforcing the Factory Act in workrooms to the fact that they form part of tenement houses; and, as a fact, the provisions of that Act are enforceable equally in tenement houses as elsewhere. I understand that it is a rule in Bethnal Green that these houses should be visited once a month. On the information before me no question appears to have arisen which calls for further action on my part.

  Licensing and Drunkenness in Liverpool
  SIR FREDERICK MILNER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that during the last five years in Liverpool 248 licences have been taken away by the magistrates, and that proceedings for drunkenness have increased from 4,069 in 1899 to 7,507 in 1903; and, if so, whether he can take steps by legislation or otherwise to deal with the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) Accepting the figures given as correct (though I have been unable to verify the number of licences stated to have been taken away), I confess that I do not gather from the Question what is the evil which my right hon. friend suggests should be remedied by legislation. I may say that the increase in prosecutions for drunkenness is discussed in the Report on the Liverpool Police for 1903, and is attributed by the head constable not to an increase in drunkenness but to a more strict administration of the law, due, in some part, to the Licensing Act of 1902.

  Postal Arrangements at Donard, County Wicklow.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has come to any decision in reference to an alteration in the postal arrangements of Donard, county Wicklow.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I hope shortly to be in a position to inform the hon. Member of the arrangements which are being made for an improved service to Donard during the summer months.

  Consular Reports
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has the attention of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs been given to the Report of Mr. Consul-General Chapman, dated 5th March, 1904, on the changes in the distribution of works of art in the royal galleries of Florence; does the preparation of such Reports as this come within the sphere of Consular duties; and will he consider the propriety of abstaining in future from
  522
  printing and circulating Reports of this character at the public expense.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) I. Yes, Sir. 2. Consular officers are expected to send home from time to time, in addition to their annual Reports on trade, special Reports on subjects of general interest, including the arts and sciences. The Report in question is supplementary to a Report by Consul-General Chapman on "Florence, its Administration and Institutions." which was laid before Parliament in June, 1898. 3. It is not intended to publish Reports of this character except in special instances; but the Secretary of State would prefer not to lay down any hard and fast rule on the subject.

  Cotton in India—Consumption and Growth.
  MR. EMMOTT: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state how the estimates of local consumption of cotton for purposes other than cotton spinning are made; and whether he will consider the advisability of presenting to the House each year a Return showing, in regard to the previous year, the total estimated yield of cotton both in British India and the Native States, and the export from India and the consumption in India both in cotton manufacture and for other purposes.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Various estimates have at different times been made of the quantity of cotton locally consumed in India otherwise than by the Indian spinning mills. A summary of the data on which the calculation has been made is given in volume 4, page 55, of Dr. George Watt's Dictionary of the Economic Products of India. I will ask the Viceroy whether any more recent and reliable estimate has been made, and whether the Return asked for by the hon. Member can be prepared.

  Soldiers and Sailors in Irish Lunatic Asylums.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of British sailors and soldiers at present confined in lunatic asylums in

  523
  Ireland; and whether the Treasury, in accordance with the Lunacy (Ireland) Act, 1901, contribute to their maintenance; and, if so, how much per head.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The inspectors of lunatics have no information of the number of sailors and soldiers confined in district asylums. There is no Treasury contribution in aid of the maintenance of discharged sailors and soldiers while so confined, but the ordinary capitation grant is payable in such cases out of the local taxation account.

  Expenses of Candidates for Dental Appointments to the Army.
  MR. SHACKLETON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the fact that the expenses of the candidates for dental appointments who were asked to attend at the War Office for an interview were not paid; and, if so, whether he proposes to reconsider this decision.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) It is not the practice to give travelling expenses in such cases, and there would not appear to be any sound grounds for making any alteration of the practice for the case in question.

  Rifle Manufacture.
  COLONEL BOWLES: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the contract for the manufacture of rifles at £4 10s., given to trading firms, is only for the number to be delivered and paid for during the present financial year; and, if not, whether it will be possible to revise the price should it be found the rifle can be turned out more cheaply than expected.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The price mentioned applies to a specific number of rifles, which, it is anticipated, will be delivered before the close of the current financial year, when fresh arrangements can be made if necessary.

  Committee on Barrack Construction— Publication of Report.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: To ask the Secretary of State for
  524
  War when the terms of the Report of Lord Esher's Committee on the Construction of Barracks, 1902, will be printed for the information of Parliament.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) There do not appear to be any grounds for departing from the decision previously announced not to publish this Report, which was one of a purely Departmental character.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Naval Salvage Operations.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in cases like that of Al Submarine, the British Navy is entirely dependent on foreign or other salvage companies; whether it is adequately equipped with appliances for lifting sunken or stranded vessels; whether our naval officers are instructed in carrying out salvage operations; and whether there is a naval salvage corps, and who is at the head of it.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): I think the hon. Member will find all the information asked for in my printed reply to the hon. Member for Chester on the 15th instant.†
  SIR JOHN LENG: Is there any naval salvage corps?
  MR. PRETYMAN: No, Sir.

  The War in the Far East.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any officer connected with the Naval Intelligence Department has been sent out to the Far East to observe and report upon the tactics of the naval combatants in the war between Russia and Japan.
  MR. PRETYMAN: The reply is in the affirmative.

  Royal Garrison Regiment.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for
  †See page 296.

  525
  War whether provision will be made that the men of the Royal Garrison Regiment, at present under orders for transport from Malta to South Africa, who are within twelve months of the completion of their term of service, and many of whom are within from seven to ten months of that completion, should not proceed to South Africa but should be sent to the depot at home to complete the remainder of their period of service, having regard to the expense involved on their return home after a few months service in South Africa, and to the fact that the Indian Government, before the departure of the Lancaster Regiment from Malta to India, refused to take over men who had less than twelve months to serve before the completion of their term of service from the date of the landing of the regiment in India.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The services of these men are not required at home, and there will be such ample transport available from South Africa about the 1st November that no extra cost to the public will be incurred by sending to South Africa all men whose time will not expire before that date. The question of expense does not, therefore, enter into the matter, nor is it analogous to the case quoted.

  Recruiting in Ireland.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to a lithographed circular, dated 3rd March, 1894, signed by Major Gerard, Recruiting Staff Officer for Dublin, and sent to business firms in Dublin asking them to advise any respectable young man between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five who may apply to them for work which they cannot give them, or whom these firms may dismiss for any reason other than misconduct or physical inability, to join the Army, with the promise of situations on leaving the Army; whether this circular was issued on the initiative, direct or indirect, of the War Office authorities, and whether it meets with the sanction of those authorities; and what explanation, if any, has the War Office to give for the issue of this circular.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have seen the circular in question, which is signed by Major Luard, and which appears to be a very proper one. The document contains no promise, as alleged in the Question, of situations on leaving the service, but expresses a hope of, in future, being able to thoroughly recommend men when leaving the service for situations in firms such as the firm in question. I must point out to the hon. Member that recruiting officers carry out their duties under the orders of the General Officer Commanding without reference to the War Office.

  Irish Army Ordnance Department.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether labourers employed in the Army Ordnance Department in Ireland are paid a full week's wage when holidays occur in a week, or whether they are paid only for the actual days upon which work is done; and whether he will state the maximum and minimum wage per week of such labourers.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Labourers employed in the Army Ordnance Department in Ireland and elsewhere receive pay for the official Government holidays, as laid down in the Pay Warrant only. The wages vary according to the market rates in the various districts. The lowest rate paid is 16s. a week and the highest 18s. 6d.; leading hands receive about 2s. a week extra.

  Chinese Government and the Transvaal Labour Ordinance.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the negotiations with the Chinese Government relating to the recruiting of labourers for the Transvaal are yet completed; and when he will be able to lay further Papers on this subject.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTONT,): Every possible effort has been made to expedite the completion of arrangements. As soon as the negotiations are complete no time will be lost in laying Papers.

  Chinese Indentured Labour in the Transvaal.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Sec-rotary of State for the Colonies whether he can now state what safeguard there will be for the Chinese indentured labourer if, after an experience of some months, he finds that continuous work in the mines is deleterious to his health; whether if, under these circumstances, he breaks his contract with the object of returning to China, he will have to repay the expenses and the cost of his passage home; and, if so, whether arrangements will be made to render it possible for him to earn the necessary amount, seeing that he is prohibited from doing any work above ground.
  MR. LYTTELTON:I have to refer the hon. Member to my answer to a similar Question on the 29th March. †
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: On the last occasion the right hon. Gentleman said he did not quite understand my Question. It was intended to refer to men who became unhealthy some months after they arrived in the Transvaal and found themselves unable to continue to work in the mines.

  Unemployed Kaffirs in the Transvaal.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now state the number of Kaffirs at present in what are termed the unemployed shelters in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony; and whether he can give the number of the occupants of these unemployed shelters on the first of each month for the last six months.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have not yet received the information but hope to do so soon. I have telegraphed to Lord Milner on the subject.

  Congo Free State—Injuries to British Subjects.
  MR. EMMOTT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Memoranda giving examples of injuries suffered by British subjects in the Congo Free State
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxii., 975.
  528
  mentioned in the third paragraph of page 84 of Whits-book, Africa, No. 1 (1904), have been sent to the Government of the Congo Free State; and, if so, whether a copy will be laid upon the Table.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,: The answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. These matters were dealt with locally. The Memoranda were communicated to the Congo Government inconsequence of the doubt expressed in their Note of 17th September as to the statement that the time of His Majesty's Consul had been engrossed by inquiries into the grievances of British subjects. As they have no connection with the general complaint by His Majesty's Government of the system of administration prevailing in the Free State, it is not proposed to lay the Papers.

  Congo Free State—111 Treatment of Natives
  MR. EMMOTT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any reply has been made to the request of the Government of the Congo Free State, reported in the third paragraph of page 3 of the White-book, Africa No. 1 (1904), for the facts in reference to cases of ill-treatment of natives, which had then been reported in the despatches of His Majestys Consular Agents; and, if so, whether a copy of the reply will be laid upon the Table.
  EARL PERCY: His Majesty's Minister at Brussels has been instructed to inform the Congo Government that His Majesty's Government see no object in communicating the reports mentioned in the Question, which are now of ancient date, and although founded on apparently reliable testimony, were not, like the recent Report by Mr. Casement, the result of personal inquiry by His Majesty's Consular Officers.

  Macedonian Gendarmerie
  MR. CHARLES ALLEN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state whether the Turkish Government have refused the proposals with regard to

  529
  the Macedonian gendarmerie put forward by the Governments of Austria and Russia since the Turkish Note of 25th March; and, if so, whether the twenty-five foreign officers appointed to the gendarmarie will be accompanied by non-commissioned officers; and whether the powers of these officers have as yet been fully agreed upon and defined.
  EARL PERCY: The Turkish Government have since their Note of the 24th maintained their refusal to employ the full complement of officers and non-commissioned officers proposed by the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Ambassadors. The latter have in a Note dated 1st April, insisted on an unreserved acceptance of their demands and in the meantime the twenty-five foreign officers, whose employment has already been sanctioned, have been ordered to proceed to Salonica. No non-commissioned officers have yet been sent out. The powers to be exercised by the foreign officers were defined in the Note presented to the Porte, and no objection was raised in their last reply.

  Siam.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will lay before Parliament the Agreements entered into with Siam by the French Government as well as by His Majesty's Government as to the outlying portions of the Siamese dominions, and referred to in Lord Lans-downe's despatch covering the documents relating to the arrangements with France; whether the French Agreements thus referred to or incorporated have yet received the sanction of the French Legislature; and, if not, whether their present form may be considered as final in connection with the assent to be asked from the French Legislature to all the arrangements dealing with Siam.
  EARL PERCY: Two Agreements have been entered into with Siam by the French Government; as the first of these was not ratified by the French Legislature a second Agreement was negotiated, and now awaits ratification. Both of these Agreements have been published
  530
  in the French Press. The first Agreement has, we understand, been entirely superseded, and there would be no object in presenting it to Parliament. Until the second Agreement has received the sanction of the French Chambers, we cannot undertake to say that it has assumed its final shape. The Agreements entered into between His Majesty's Government and Siam with regard to the Siamese Dependencies in the Malay Peninsula are of a strictly confidential nature, and in deference to the strong wish of the Siamese Government it is not intended to make them public.

  Smuggling of Ammunition in the Persian Gulf.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board is aware of the recent discovery of smuggling from the Persian Gulf, through our Custom House at Kurachi, of ball cartridge ammunition, marked Birmingham Arms Factory; and have efforts been made to trace here, from the place of origin, the channels through which this illicit traffic reached British India, also its subsequent destination.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): I have no information on this matter beyond what I have seen in a newspaper. The Government of India will be asked to furnish a report.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will make inquiries nearer home—say at some of the Birmingham factories!

  Promotion in the Central Telegraph Office.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that on 7th May, 1903, it was officially stated that a certain female telegraphist of the Central Office, London, had not been promoted to any superior grade, but had been merely temporarily lent to the Central Telephone Exchange, he will state if the lady in question is still employed at the Central Telephone Exchange, and, if so, what rank she is holding at that place and when her temporary period of duty will expire.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): The lady to whom the hon. Member is understood to refer has recently been appointed a first class assistant supervisor in the Central Telephone Exchange, a post for which, during her temporary employment at the Central Exchange, she showed herself to be fully qualified.
  MR. NANNETTI: Has this lady been promoted over the heads of other ladies equally competent and of longer service.
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir, certainly not of equal competence.

  Workmen's Compensation Act Inquiry.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Departmental Committee appointed to consider the amendment of the Workmen's Compensation for Accidents Acts has yet completed its inquiry; and whether the Government propose to proceed during this session with a Bill for the amendment of those Acts.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR. THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I understand that this Committee, having concluded the taking of a large amount of evidence, is now engaged in considering its Report, and will proceed with all reasonable expedition. When the Report is received the Government will take it into immediate consideration with a view to legislation, but I cannot, at present, make any statement as to dates. I have every hope of being able to deal with the question this session.

  Customs Boatmen
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: I beg to ask the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury between what ages men are admitted to employment as Customs boatmen; and whether any, and, if so, what exceptions to the age limits are allowed.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD,): The age of admission to appointments as Customs boatmen is at present
  532
  between seventeen and twenty-two years. On and after 12th May, 1905, the limits of age will be seventeen and twenty. An established officer may be appointed to a second situation whatever his age, provided that at the time of his first appointment to the service he was eligible under the regulations then in force for his second situation. Extra officers may be admitted up to the age of forty, provided they were first employed in the Customs before they were twenty-two † and have been employed for not less than six months in each year.

  Protection of Scotch Fisheries—Sea Police Duty.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the fact that H.M.S. "Seamew," "Speedwell," and "Cockchafer" have not been engaged on sea police duty during the present year, will he state what vessels have been directed to patrol the areas which came within the patrol of these vessels last year.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): As previously stated none of the vessels named by the hon. Member have been engaged on sea police duty for the Fishery Board during the present year, but I am informed by the Admiralty that H.M.S. "Speedwell," "Cockchafer," and "Redwing" were all employed at various times for the protection of Scotch Fisheries during 1903. The "Margaret" and the "Cockchafer" are carrying out this duty at the present moment.

  Irish Queen's Colleges—Deputy- Presidents-
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can give the names of the persons who act respectively as deputies for the presidents of Queen's College, Cork and Belfast; how many times during the past year each individual has so acted; who appoints such deputy; what salary they receive, if any; from what fund such salary, if any, is paid; is any regular record of such appointment kept; if he can state the names of the
  †After the 12th of May, 1905, this limit will be twenty.

  533
  persons who have filled the post in each case; and what part of the session does the president of each college spend in residence.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYSDHAM,): The College statutes require the president, on occasions of absence, to appoint a deputy from among the professors. The president of Belfast College was not absent last year. In the cases of Cork and Galway the statutory requirement has been strictly observed when the occasion arose, but no record has been kept of the appointment of deputies. No salary is attached to the position of deputy.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the absurdity of the position that the president of the Queen's College, Cork is permanently living out of the country.
  MR. MOONEY: Did not this gentleman recently give a pledge on the strength of which he was elected member of a certain committee?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  The White Estate.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether in view of the fact that an order for the sale of the White Estate has been made by Judge Ross, and that several evicted tenants of that estate have given particulars of their evictions to the Estates Commissioners, he will state what the Estates Commissioners propose to do for these evicted tenants.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The cases of any tenants evicted from this estate will be duly considered by the Estates Commissioners.

  Castletown, Berehaven, and Bantry Harbours.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the necessity that exists for dredging the inner harbours of Castletown, Berehaven, and Bantry; and whether he will take steps to have this work effected.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I would refer to my reply to the Question put to me on the 28th March by the hon. Member for South Kerry † on the subject of the dredging of harbours generally.

  Dohern National School.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that inconvenience has resulted from the closing of the national school in Dohern, Upper Drumreilly, county Leitrim, and that children in the Dohern district are now obliged to walk about three miles to school; and, if so, will he state what action does the National Board propose to take in connection with this matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed by the Commissioners that prior to the closing of this school it had been declining for some years in number of pupils, in efficiency, and in suitability of accommodation. In October last the manager stated that it was impossible to continue the school owing to insufficient attendance of children and the exstence of so many other schools in the district. In these circumstances, and having regard to the unsuitable condition of the building, it was closed.

  Irish Police and United Irish League Meetings.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the police attend and take the names of those meeting in the United Irish League rooms, Corofin, county Clare; and whether he can state by whose sanction the police act in reference to the meetings of an organisation which is not illegal.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The police on duty in the vicinity of the building referred to took cognisance of the persons attending the meetings. It is the duty of the police to make notes, mentally or otherwise, of matters of general interest. The terms of instruction to this effect are being modified.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid this action on the part of the police was cal- culated to lead to considerable trouble.
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxii, 848.
  MR. FLAVIN: And it is the practice generally in the South of Ireland, where the police have nothing else to do.

  Rathmines Urban District.
  MR. MOONEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Local Government Board have not yet held the inquiry on the petition for the division of Rathmines into wards; and, if so, whether, in view of the inconvenience likely to result from their delay in this matter, he will take steps to see that this inquiry is held forthwith.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The inquiry cannot be held until after the lapse of three months from the date of publication of the order of the county council proposing the division of the urban district into wards. This period will expire on the 26th instant, and the inquiry will take place as soon as possible after that date.

  Tithe, Quit, and Crown Rents in Ireland
  MR. WILLIAM McKILLOP: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether ho can state in terms of years purchase the maximum, minimum, and average prices at which quit rents, Crown rents, and tithe rents were redeemed in Ireland in the years ending 31st December, 1901, 1902, and 1903.
  MR. WYNDHAM: With respect to tithe rents, the average number of years purchase during the last three years is as follows:—In 1901, 22·11 years; in 1902, 22·07 years; in 1903, 22·2 years. With respect to quit rents and Crown rents, I must ask the hon. Member to address this part of the Question to my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury.

  Irish Estates Commissioners—Forms for Sale and Purchase of Land.
  MR. KILBRIDEI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay on the Table of the House a copy of the forms issued by the Estates Commissioneis in connection with the sale and purchase of land in Ireland.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The forms are on sale at all law stationers. It is not considered necessary to lay them on the Table of the House.

  Irish Land Purchase.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that it was the practice, under the Land Purchase Acts of 1891 and 1896, to publish in the Dublin Gazette from week to week the particulars of applications for advances and the decisions of the Land Commission in reference thereto, and that these particulars stated what advances were applied for, what advances were sanctioned, what advances were refused, the rents that were being sold, and the price paid for them; if so, will he say whether this procedure is being followed with regard to all sales under the Land Purchase Act of 1903; and, if not, will he state what caused the departure fro m precedent.
  MR. WYNDHAM: These weekly schedules still continue to be published in the Gazette in pursuance of Section 32 of the Act of 1891. The publication of the proceedings of the Estates Commissioners is provided for in Section 23 (14) of the Act of 1903, and, as I have already stated, a Return will shortly be laid on the Table of the House containing a variety of information in respect of sales to, or sanctioned by, the Commissioners.

  Irish Post Office—Delays in Forwarding Post Office Order Advices.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience caused in poor districts in Ireland owing to the delay in forwarding advices to post office orders issued abroad; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to have a second advice issued and sent direct to the paying office.
  LORD STANLEY: I am aware that the system of transmitting through the Chief Money Order Office in London all advices of money orders issued abroad for payment in the United Kingdom may in some cases cause a certain amount of delay in payment, not only in Ireland,

  537
  but elsewhere; but I am not, as at present advised, prepared to alter the system, which possesses great advantages.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Is the noble Lord aware that in many parts of the West of Ireland the delay often extends to a fortnight?
  LORD STANLEY: No, Sir, I am not aware of that.

  Castletown Postal Service.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what arrangements, if any, have been made to improve the postal service in Castletown, Berehaven.
  LORD STANLEY: The question of improving the mail service in Castletown, Berehaven, is still under consideration, and I will inform the hon. Member of the result at the earliest possible date.

  National Expenditure Committee's Report.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he has conferred with the Leader of the Opposition, and if he can now state what action he will take on the Report of the National Expenditure Committee; and what facilities he will afford for the discussion of the said Report.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I have had the opportunity of a short conversation with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and I think I am not misrepresenting his views when I say that he and I were agreed in having some doubts as to the efficacy or practicability of the scheme advocated by the majority of the National Expenditure Committee. But we were also agreed that it represented a serious and honest attempt to deal with a very important question, and we thought it would be desirable, if possible, that some debate should take place in the House on the subject. At the same time I have to say for myself—and this is a question in which the right hon. Gentleman opposite, fortunately for himself, has no responsibility—that I do not at this moment see when that opportunity is to be provided.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Has the right hon. Gentleman come to any decision as to giving a day for the Public Accounts Committee Report?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think my hon. friend will remember that I suggested to the House that if there was a general desire that the Report of the Public Accounts Committee should be discussed—a question on which I do not pronounce any opinion—the best plan would be to diminish the number of days in Supply, making twenty-two instead of twenty-three, on the understanding that the twenty-third day should be given to the discussion my hon. friend desires.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any measures to ascertain if there is such a feeling as to justify him in taking that course.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is rather early to do that. We have not yet reached the twenty allotted days, and, until that period approaches, how we are to dispose of the additional three days which may be allotted seems almost premature.

BISHOPRIC OF BRISTOL BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 155.]

RAILWAYS (PRIVATE HIDINGS) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Trade, etc., with an Amended Title.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 133.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 133.]
Bill as amended (in the Standing Committee) to be taken into consideration upon Friday, 17th June, and to be printed [Bill 156.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures—Sir Barrington Simeon; and had appointed in substitution—Mr. Victor Cavendish.
Report to lie upon the Table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (WAYS AND MEANS).
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means, if under consideration at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House.")—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
The House divided:—Ayes, 292; Noes, 123. (Division List No. 83.)

AYES.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Aird, Sir John

Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C.R.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Corbett, T, L. (Down, North)

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Grenfell, William, Henry

Arrol, Sir William

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Gunter, Sir Robert

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas' F.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Hamilton, Rt Hn. Lord G (Middx

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Hamilton, Marq of (L'ndonderry

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Cust, Henry John C.

Harcourt, Rt Hn. Sir W (Monm't

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Baird, John George Alexander

Davenport, William Bromley

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Balcarres, Lord

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

Baldwin, Alfred

Denny, Colonel

Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

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

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

Haslett, Sir James Horner

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

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

Hartley, Sir George C. T.

Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E

Heaton, John Henniker

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Doughty, George

Helder, Augustus

Beach, Rt, Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Beckett, Ernest William

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Bignold, Arthur

Duke, Henry Edward

Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somers't,E

Bigwood, James

Dunn, Sir William

Hogg, Lindsay

Black, Alexander William

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Holland, Sir William Henry

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Bond, Edward

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Horner, Frederick William

Boulnois, Edmund

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Houston, Robert Paterson

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Faber, George Denison (York)

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Fardell, Sir T. George

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Ferguson, R, C. Munro (Leith)

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Burt, Thomas

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

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Butcher, John George

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Kitson, Sir James

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ

Fisher, William Hayes

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Fison, Frederick William

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

Causton, Richard Knight

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

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

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Forster, Henry William

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

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Acerington)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Galloway, William Johnson

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Chapman, Edward

Gardner, Ernest

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Charrington, Spencer

Garfit, William

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Churchill, Winston Spencer

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

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets)

Coates, Edward Feetham

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

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Coddington, Sir William

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

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

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

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Pierpoint, Robert

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

Lowe, Francis William

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Spear, John Ward

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Platt-Biggins, Frederick

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Plummer, Walter R.

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Pretyman, Ernest George

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs)

Macdona, John Cumming

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'Taggart

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Pym, C. Guy

Stroyan, John

Maconochie, A. W.

Randles, John S.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Rasch, Sir Frederic Came

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

M'Crae, George

Ratcliff, R. F.

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

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Rea, Russell

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Malcolm, Ian

Renwick, George

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Rickett, J. Compton

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Thornton, Percy M.

Milvain, Thomas

Rigg, Richard

Tuff, Charles

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Valentia, Viscount

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Rose, Charles Day

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose

Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

Morpeth, Viscount

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Runciman, Walter

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Mount, William Arthur

Russell, T. W.

Wills, Sir Frederick

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

Muntz. Sir Philip A.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

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

Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

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

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

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

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

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

Myers, William Henry

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Wolff. Gustav Wilhelm

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

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

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Norman, Henry

Seton-Karr. Sir Henry

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Sharps, William Edward T.

Wylie, Alexander

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Pemberton, John S. G.

Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside

Percy, Earl

Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Ainsworth. John Stirling

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Jordan, Jeremiah

Allen, Charles P.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Joyce, Michael

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Dobbie, Joseph

Kearley, Hudson E.

Atherley-Jones, L.

Donelan, Captain A.

Kilbride, Denis

Austin, Sir John

Doogan, P. C.

Lambert, George

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Duncan, J. Hastings

Langley, Batty

Blake, Edward

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Boland, John

Fenwick, Charles

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Brigg, John

Field, William

Leng, Sir John

Broadhurst, Henry

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Levy, Maurice

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

Fuller, J. M. F.

Lewis, John Herbert

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Furness, Sir Christopher

Lough, Thomas

Burns, John

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Lundon, W.

Caldwell, James

Grant, Corrie

Lyell, Charles Henry

Cameron, Robert

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Cawley, Frederick

Hammond, John

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Channing Francis Allston

Hayden, John Patrick

M'Kean, John

Clancy, John Joseph

Helme, Norval Watson

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Cremer, William Randal

Henderson. Arthur (Durham)

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Crombie, John William

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

Markham, Arthur Basil

Dalziel, James Henry

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Mooney, John J.

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Horniman, Frederick John

Murphy, John

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Delany, William

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

542

543

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

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

Robson, William Snowdon

Wallace, Robert

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Schwann, Charles E.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

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

Shackleton, David James

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

O'Connor. James (Wicklow, W.

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

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

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Weir, James Galloway

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

Slack, John Bamford

White, George (Norfolk)

O'Malley, William

Soares, Ernest J.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

O'Mara, James

Strachey, Sir Edward

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Partington, Oswald

Sullivan, Donal

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

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

Reckitt, Harold James

Tennant, Harold John

Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

Reddy, M.

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

Young, Samuel

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Tomkinson, James

Redmond, William (Clare)

Toulmin, George

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Norton and Mr. Jacoby.

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Ure, Alexander

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

THE BUDGET STATEMENT.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I do not know how far I may count upon the sympathy of the Committee in the difficult task which lies before me, but at any rate I would appeal to their indulgence. I shall have need of all their forbearance. I am new to these great responsibilities. I enter upon them at a moment of considerable difficulty, and I am confronted in this House with an unusual number of critics who, if I may use a civic phrase, have passed the chair, and have themselves had personal experience of the office that I now fill. To my right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol I owe my first introduction to national finance, and though, perhaps, he would not be gratified if I attributed to his influence all the opinions which I have formed upon fiscal subjects, at any rate I am glad to acknowledge my obligations to him. Both to him and to the right hon. Member for West Monmouth we owe a large part of the huge revenue that we now raise. I hope I may be permitted to say with what regret I read the announcement recently made by those two right hon. Gentlemen that they would not again seek seats in this House. Sir, we hall miss them from our Budget debates, in which for so long they have borne the leading part; but I may venture to promise that long after they have
544
left us their memory will be kept green in these discussions by the taxes which they have imposed. I said just now that the circumstances of the moment were unusually difficult. When my predecessor made his financial statement last year, he was able to look forward to a great surplus, and to propose considerable remissions of taxation. Unfortunately the financial out-turn of the year has been far less favourable than was then anticipated. The great wave of prosperity which we have enjoyed for many years seems at length to have spent its force, and the cycle of less prosperous years, which experience teaches us to expect after every period of great expansion and prosperity, appears at length to have overtaken us; and it has made its effects felt especially during the latter half of the past year. The season was, I am afraid, a disastrous one for agriculture; it adversely affected the building trades and many other industries; and the cotton industry was depressed by the shortage of the supply of the raw material, while the evil was aggravated by the operations of speculators. Freights were depressed, in part, no doubt, owing to the large increase in tonnage in recent years, and in part owing to the cessation of the heavy demands which during the war, and after the war, the Government were obliged to make upon the mercantile marine of the country; and, as is not unusual under those circumstances, shipbuilding has not had a very flourishing year. Our own depression has been aggravated by the depression in South Africa, and foreign competition has been keener, I suppose, than ever before, so that markets in which we used to regard ourselves as supreme have become increasingly threatened by the enterprise

545
and the successful commercial organisation of other countries. Some of these causes are permanent, some are merely temporary, but all have combined to affect our present prosperity, and have thrown their shadow over the financial aspects of the past year. Though there have been few serious labour disputes, wages have, I am afraid, generally fallen, and the number of the unemployed has increased. On the whole there has been a shrinkage of trade, a lessening of employment, a fall in wages; and all these facts have had their influence upon the revenue of the year.

THE EXCHEQUER RECEIPTS 1903–4.
The exact figures of the revenue are already in the hands of the House. They show that the Exchequer receipts from taxes fell short of the estimate by no less a sum than £2,790,000. The land tax and the house duty exceed the estimate by £50,000, and the income-tax produced £300,000 in excess of what was anticipated. But Customs and Excise, Death Duties, and Stamps all did badly and in the aggregate produced £3,140,000 less than the estimate which my right hon. friend put forward. The non-tax revenue did rather better and slightly exceeded the estimate, but the final result is that the year closed with a deficit on the revenue side of the account of £2,724,000 as compared with the anticipations of my predecessor. The Committee may expect from me some explanation of this great deficiency. I need not enter into a detailed account of the calculations upon which the Budget Estimates were based; it is sufficient to say that they were framed in the usual manner, on the best information which the Customs and Inland Revenue authorities could supply to my right hon. friend the Member for Croydon. It is never a very easy task, as I think my predecessors will admit, to forecast the revenue of the coming year; it is increasingly difficult to do so when the amount we raise from individual taxes is so high as it is at present, and when a very small percentage of error in the total estimate makes a very large practical difference. I must say that I think anyone who will look back over a period of years and compare the Estimates given by my predecessors, and supplied to them by
546
the great department of revenue for the then ensuing year, will be not so much surprised that sometimes they are in error as astonished that in the aggregate they should be so wonderfully close to the ascertained result. But the Committee may like to know more particularly wherein these Estimates were erroneous. I take first the Customs. The Customs revenue fell short of Budget anticipations by nearly £800,000. I am glad to say, and I think the Committee will be pleased to note the fact, that that is not wholly due to a falling off in consumption of dutiable articles.

THE REPEAL OF THE CORN TAX.
The Committee will remember that the repeal of the corn duty only took effect on the 1st of July last. For the three months of the last financial year for which it remained in force my right hon. friend estimated that, after making all allowances for repayments on sticks in hand and for drawbacks, he would obtain a revenue of £400,000 net. Unfortunately, the repayments and the drawbacks proved very much heavier than was anticipated, and instead of getting a net yield from the tax of £400,000 we obtained only £100,000, or one-fourth of the estimated amount. So that the repeal of this tax has proved a more costly operation for the revenue than was anticipated; whilst, if we may judge by the course of prices since, I am afraid it has hardly produced that advantage to the consumer which was anticipated in some quarters.

OTHER CUSTOMS DUTIES.
Of the other Customs duties, coal fell short of the Estimate by £50,000, a decrease mainly—indeed, in my opinion, almost wholly—due to the fall in the price of coal, which has caused a larger amount to be exported below the tax value. Dried fruits produced an excess of £50,000, in part due to the very unfortunate fruit season which we had at home, and in part to an exceptionally fine crop of raisins and figs abroad. The coffee group yielded £45,000 more than the Estimate, an increase almost wholly attributable to the increased consumption of cocoa. Spirits show a deficiency of no less than £330,000, as to which I shall have more to say when I come to deal

547
with Excise. The wine duties fell short of the Estimate by £220,000. They have been a very unsatisfactory source of revenue for some years past. They have shown no sort of elasticity, and they are quick to react to any diminution in our prosperity. I am afraid they are evidence that business has been less prosperous in the past year than in preceding years. Sugar fell short of the estimate by £290,000. But that decrease is almost wholly due to the introduction in September last of the system of refining in bond. Up to that time sugar paid the duty before it entered the refinery. After that time the refining was done in bond, and the duty was only collected when the sugar left the refinery. On 1st September, when the new system came into force, the refineries had in Mock sugar upon which duty had been paid to a value of £250.000; and the Committee will understand that it was not until that sugar had been worked off and a fresh lot of sugar had passed through the refineries that any further duty could be collected from it. The drop in sugar, therefore, is almost wholly due to a change in the point at which we collect our duty, and is not, I am glad to say, due to decreased consumption on the part of the people. There remain tea and tobacco. Both have done well. Tobacco yielded £60,000 more than the estimate. For many years past the consumption has been increasing uninterruptedly, and the yield of last year was larger than the yield of any preceding year except 1900– 1901, when it was swollen by large fore-stalments in expectation of an increase in the duty. It amounted last year to the large figure of £12,560,000. Tea was even more successful. The Budget estimate for tea was £6,350,000. The receipts were £6,595,000, showing an excess of receipts over the estimate of a quarter of a million.

EXCISE.
I now turn to Excise. The yield of Excise was even more disappointing than the yield of Customs. It was only £31,550,000, against an estimate of £32,700,000, or a deficiency of the enormous sum of £1,150,000. The beer duty was expected to yield £13,400,000. It produced only £13,100,000. Spirits show an even greater falling off. They yielded only
548
£17,750,000—that is to say, £850,000 less than the Budget estimate. Thus, taking Customs and Excise together, beer and spirits combined fell short of the Budget estimate by nearly £1,500,000. To what are we to attribute this great deficiency? The beer revenue was affected by the cold summer. I am told that that makes a very considerable difference in the consumption of beer. I remember on one occasion, some years ago, when I was walking in the Lake Country, coming on a cold summer afternoon upon a shanty in the hills, where I asked if I could have a cup of tea. The proprietor replied, "Yes, I thought you would be wanting tea. I have got the kettle boiling. It is not bottle weather." Last summer was not bottle weather. I believe that this decrease in the consumption of beer, which was due to the cold, wet summer, has been paralleled by a similar decrease in the consumption of temperance beverages such as ginger-beer and herb-beer. But if the cold summer was injurious to the revenue, the mild winter was equally harmful, because, if the cold summer decreases the consumption of beer, the mild winter checks the consumption of spirits. Then, also, the Licensing Act. of 1902 had, I am advised, some influence upon the consumption of these drinks. It can hardly be a coincidence that the marked falling off in the duty began from the date when the Act came into force. I am told that it has had a discouraging effect upon those who are not only heavy drinkers themselves, but the cause of heavy drinking in others. But when all allowance is made for each of these factors, I am afraid that some part of the falling off in the consumption is to be put down to the fact that people have had less to spend, and must be taken as evidence of the decreased prosperity of the country.

DEATH DUTIES AND STAMPS.
The death duties produced £13,000,000—that is £300,000 less than the estimate. Their course during the year has been wholly normal, and the falling off is due entirely to the great depreciation in Stock Exchange values, which has caused the total value of individual estates to be lower than it

549
otherwise would, and, of course, has in some cases had the effect of removing an estate from a category of higher graduation to a category of lower graduation. In fact, it is hardly too much to say that it was almost the duty of a prudent millionaire to take the opportunity of stocks and shares being so low to pass his property in the ordinary way to his successor. Stamps were estimated to yield £8,400,000, and they produced only £7,500.000, less by' ££00,000 than the estimate, and less by £700,000 than the actual yield of the preceding year. In that year the stamp revenue was £8,200,000. It was collected regularly throughout the year, and showed no sign of falling off in the last quarter. It was hoped in the past year that we might have seen a great revival of industrial activity in South Africa, which would have had its effect upon Stock Exchange transactions at home. But the past twelve months have been a period of extreme depression on the Stock Exchange, and we have obtained less revenue both in consequence of the falling off in the number and value of stocks and shares transferred and by reason of lower receipts from the companies' capital share duty, owing to there having been fewer flotations of new companies in the year. This closes my review of revenue.

EXPENDITURE, 1903–4.
I turn now to the expenditure. The Budget estimate of expenditure in 1903–4 was £143,951,000. Since that-time supplementary grants have been made to the extent of £4,488,000, bringing up the total expenditure to £143,442,000. Against this we have to set the realised savings of previous years and the estimated savings of last year. The net result is that the Exchequer issues were £146,961,000, an excess over the Budget estimate of £3,007,000. The Committee may ask why, with the knowledge I obtained shortly after assuming ray present office that the revenue of the year was falling below the receipts which were anticipated from it, I sanctioned any fresh expenditure. The answer is short and simple. I had practically no choice in this matter. I came into office in October last. By
550
that time, for good or for evil, the fortunes of the past year were fixed. The prolongation of the military operations in Somaliland and the inadequacy of the amounts provided in the original Navy Estimates for shipbuilding and repairs had already caused the expenditure to exceed the Estimates, and there was practically only one item of any consequence over which I had any control. That one item was the sum of about £700,000, included in the expenditure of last year, for the purchase of the Chilian ships. If I had refused my sanction to that expenditure I might indeed have reduced the deficit by a little over £700.000: but at what cost to the taxpayer in the future, let the Committee judge. For, had these two ships been allowed to pass into a foreign fleet, we should have had to spend a much larger sum in building to restore the balance of naval strength, and for the time during which our ships were under construction. our relative position amongst the Navies of the world would have been seriously impaired. I need not labour my defence on that point. The subject has already been under discussion in the House and I do not think that in any quarter the decision of the Government to purchase these ships has been seriously questioned. That was my responsibility. I assume it gladly. I think I should have been lacking in my duty if I had failed to respond to the demand made upon me. I now conclude my review of the past year's expenditure. In addition to the £146,961,000 chargeable to the income account of the Exchequer, it collected and assigned in the course of the past twelve months in relief of local rates £9,795,000, and provided for an expenditure of £7,305,000 on capital account, on behalf of certain services for which the spending departments are authorised to borrow. I have been asked to give the figures, and they are made up as follows: For Naval Works, £3,318,000; Military Works, £2,950,000; Telephones, £780,000; Uganda Railway, £67,000; Land Registry buildings, £16,000; new-general buildings, £162,000; and public offices, Dublin, £12,000. Thus the total outlay of the State, on income and capital account combined, amounted during last year to £164,061.000.

STATE OF THE BALANCES.
I return to the Exchequer account and we find that, the Exchequer expenditure having been £146,961,000 and the Exchequer revenue having been £141,546,000, the year closed with a deficit of £5,415,000, which has constituted a draft upon our balances. Fortunately, Sir, they were in a better position to stand a heavy draft than usual. During the course of the South African war we raised cash to the amount in round figures of £152,300,000, whilst the expenditure charged against capital was only about £149.500,000. We thus raised during the war £2,800,000 in excess of our actual requirements, and the balances were abnormally swollen to that extent. But the deficit of the year did not constitute the only demand upon our balances. We made a further draft upon them for capital purposes to the extent of £2,000,000, in connection with the various works programmes which I have already explained to the Committee, and which the National Debt Commissioners were unable to replace from the moneys at their disposal within the year. Thus the state of the balances is as follows:—We began the year with a balance at our bankers of £6,637,000, but we were owed by the Transvaal a sum of £3,000,000, which formed a temporary advance made to them under the terms of surrender and which was to be repaid out of the first issue of the Guaranteed Loan. That sum as it was repaid was paid back into the balances. Thus our real balance at the beginning of the year was £9,637,000. This was depleted as follows:—Our expenditure exceeded the revenue by £5,415,000; our advances on capital account exceeded the amount which the National Debt Commissioners could supply by £2,000,000, and we lost on Exchequer bonds, which had to be renewed at a discount, £38,000. On the other hand, the repayment on account of bullion exceeded the advance by £80,000, and we obtained from our bankers a temporary advance of £2,000,000, to recoup us the amount which we had advanced from balances on capital account. We thus ended the year with a balance on 31st March last of £4,264,000. There is, of course, no fixed standard of balances, and they
552
have, as a matter of fact, varied considerably at different times. It is, certainly, not convenient to have them very low at a time when the income-tax is very high, because the income-tax is mainly collected in the last quarter of the year, and we are rather short of supplies for financing the Exchequer in the earlier portions of the financial year. But to the extent to which the balances were abnormally swollen by cash raised during the war, for the purposes of the war, and not at the moment applied to the war, they may now be fairly reduced, and we may allow a sum of a little less than £3,000,000 of the deficit of last year to be borne by the balances. The Committee must remember that is less than the amount of the war charges which fell upon last year's Estimates; and it was to meet war charges that this sum of £2,800,000 was raised.

THE UNCLAIMED DIVIDEND ACCOUNT.
There remains a further inroad upon the balances of a little over £2,500,000. Towards making good that sum I propose to realise an asset, at present not utilised, to the extent of £1,000,000. I do not know whether the Committee are aware that all Government stock which has remained unclaimed for ten years is transferred to the National Debt Commissioners. The dividends which have accrued upon that stock arc transferred at the same time, and, together with the dividends subsequently accruing, they form an account which is known as the Unclaimed Dividend Account. It is with that account alone I propose to deal. I do not intend to touch the unclaimed stock, but only the dividends which have accrued upon it. The liability on the Unclaimed Dividend Account is a liability for the dividends actually paid—that is to say, for simple interest on the unclaimed stock. The fund itself accumulates at compound interest, and therefore, quite apart from the fact that it is absolutely certain that a large portion of this money never will be reclaimed, the fund itself is always making a profit, and its assets are always tending to grow in excess of its liabilities. So large had this profit become in 1866 that in that year stock to the amount of £3,000,000, out of a total sum standing at the credit

553
of the fund of £3,087,375, was cancelled. The assets now again exceed the liabilities. They amounted in round figures at the close of last financial year to £1,760,000, whilst the claims which are annually stablished against the account have averaged no more than £4,000 or £5,000. It is clear, therefore, that it is perfectly safe once more to have recourse to this fund now, as was done by Mr. Gladstone in 1866; but instead of cancelling the stock I propose to realise it, as opportunity offers, to the extent of £1,000,000, and to credit the proceeds to the balance. The only difference is that, instead of writing off a liability, I shall add to our available assets. Assuming the Committee to agree, as I hope they will, to this proposal, there will remain in round figures £1,500,000 of last year's deficit still to be made good out of the surplus of this or succeeding years. What I propose to do in that respect the Committee will see when I come to my proposals for balancing the account of 1904–5.

THE NATIONAL DEBT.
I turn next to the account of the National Debt, and I am glad to say that it is rather more favourable. For the first time since the opening of the late war our total liabilities show a reduction in the course of the past twelve months. On 31st March, 1903, the total liabilities were £798,349,000; on 31st March last, they had fallen to £794,498.000. being a reduction of £3,851,000. Of this amount £31,868,000 represents the liability in respect of sums borrowed for various works of permanent improvement, for which the War Office, Admiralty, and other Departments are authorised to provide by loan. That sum has increased in the course of the year by £4,293,000. But, as the Committee know, both the interest and the Sinking Fund of the Terminable Annuities, by which this money is borrowed, are charged on the ordinary Estimates of the year. Deducting, therefore, that sum, as has been done by my predecessors in other years, so as to keep my account in harmony with the figures they have given to the Committee, the total dead-weight debt on 31st March last was £762,630,000, or a reduction in the course of the year of £8,149,000. The Funded Debt in 1903–4 has been
554
reduced by £2,453,000; the liability in respect of terminable annuities is reduced by £4,196,000; and the Un-funded Debt by £1,500,000. Of this sum £3,000,000 represent the repayment by the Transvaal of an advance made during the war. That money was repaid in the course of the past year, but. to make the point clear, I should say that it is in addition to the £3,000,000 of which I have already spoken, which went into the balances. This £3,000,000 which was repaid was used to redeem Exchequer bonds. Accordingly, deducting this sum of £3,000,000, the amount, by which our own exertions reduced the National Debt in the course of the year, was £5,149,000, not, I hope the Committee will think, an altogether unsatisfactory account of our proceedings.

A COMPARISON OF INDEBTEDNESS.
It may interest the Committee to have a comparison of our position in respect of debt during the last five years. In the course of the five years ended 31st March last we created debt to the amount of £188,630,000. This amount is attributable; to the war, £159,000,000; to other expenditure charged to capital account, £27,630,00); and to recent low state of our balances, £2,000,000. The total amount redeemed in the period has been £29,525,000, leaving a net increase of the State's liabilities over this period of five years of £159,105,000, or almost exactly the same amount as we raised for the purposes of the war.

GROWTH OF LOCAL INDEBTEDNESS.
I think it will be interesting to turn for a few moments from this account of our national indebtedness to the figures of local indebtedness. They will repay attention. We sometimes hear it said or suggested that the great fall in the values of Government stocks and all high-class securities in recent years is wholly due to the extravagant borrowings of the State. In a time of great war you must borrow, but if we examine the matter a little more closely, it will be seen that other causes have been at work to reduce the price of gilt-edged securities, and that, if national stocks and the stacks of local authorities are to regain their old credit, local authorities as well as the

555
Exchequer must agree to restrict for a time their demand? on the money market. At the close of the year 1901–2, the latest for which figures are available, the total outstanding loans of local authorities in the United Kingdom amounted to £412,000,000, For England and Wales figures are available to show the growth of this indebtedness during the last twenty years. In England and Wales alone the total outstanding loans in 1880 were £137,000,000. In the ten years from 1880 to 1890 that amount was increased by £62,000,000. In the ten years from 1890 to 1900 the amount was further increased by £95,000,000, while in the two years from 1900 to 1902 the amount was increased by no less a sum than £49,000,000. That is to say, the present rate of increase is two and a half times as great as it was in the period between 1890 and 1900; more than four times as great as between 1880 and 1890. In the twenty years between 1880 and 1900, while in England and Wales the local indebtedness increased by £157,000,000, the gross capital liabilities of the State were reduced by £132,000,000. But when the State was forced again to become a borrower, owing to the exigencies of a great and prolonged war, there was no compensatory restriction in the demands of the local authorities. In the three years ending 31st March, 1902, the local authorities of the United Kingdom borrowed over £103,000,000. The total sum added to the National Debt on account of the war, which disturbed the equilibrium of four financial years, is therefore only just about four-and-a-half years borrowings of local authorities in the United Kin, dom at the present rate of progress.

THE LOCAL LOANS FUND.
Of course, a great part of this local indebtedness is incurred in fulfilment of new obligations which this House thrusts on the local authorities. I think that may perhaps give us some reason to pause before we continue to place so many new obligations upon them. And it is true also that a very considerable portion of the indebtedness is invested in remunerative undertakings, or at least in undertakings which it is hoped will prove to be remunerative. That does not alter the fact that for the great mass of
556
these liabilities the resources of the rats-payers are either directly or contingently liable. Sooner or later it will be necessary to call a halt in this process of mortgaging the future. Despite the great success of the recent issue of the London County Council, there are many signs that local authorities are less welcome visitants to the money market than was the case a few years ago. Discouraged there, they naturally turn to the State to help them in their difficulties. The Local Loans Fund was established in order to give local authorities, and especially those not in a favourable position to borrow on their own credit the advantage of the superior credit of the State. But the State is entitled to discriminate between the demands which are made upon it. It is not tolerable that, after they have spoiled the money market by their own large demands, local authorities should be in a position to force the State into the money market so spoiled. In order to check that process, and in order to preserve the Local Loans Fund against loss which would have been incurred otherwise, the Treasury have already been obliged to make an all-round advance in the rates which the Public Works Loan Commissioners charge. I am considering in conjunction with my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board and with the Public Works Loan Commissioners, whether it may not be advisable to still further restrict these loans to those authorities who are least able to borrow upon reasonable terms for themselves, and to those purposes which this House has specially desired to encourage. In any case the State cannot continue to provide money with as lavish a hand as in recent years, now that money is dear and the Savings Banks no longer afford us as large resources as formerly.

ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE 1904–5.
What are the prospects of the present year? I take expenditure first. The Consolidated Fund charges, including the fixed debt charge, amount to £29,800,000. The Supply services embodied in the Estimates amount to £112,580,000, or, together, £142,380,000. But to these figures I have to add some provision on account of Somaliland, for

557
which, as the Committee know, nothing was taken in the Estimates. Of course the announcement made by the Secretary for War is fresh in the recollection of the Committee, but still, although the active military operations have come to an end, we must, I fear, face a considerable charge. There are heavy terminal charges in the first place. We have then to make provision for such forces or garrisons as it may be necessary to leave in the country. After consultation with my right hon. friend, I fix the whole amount to be provided for Somaliland in the present year at £500,000, which he believes to be a safe figure. That brings the total expenditure charged to the revenue account of the Exchequer to £142,880,000. In addition the State will collect and pay over in relief of local charges a sum estimated at £9,696,000, and it will incur fresh capital expenditure, for the purposes for which, as already explained, the spending departments are authorised to borrow, to an amount estimated at £10,000,000. The last figure is provisional. I am still in communication with the spending departments on the subject. It will not in any case be exceeded, and I hope that, without causing any serious interruption to work now in progress, it may be possible still further to reduce it. That includes Military and Naval Works and expenditure on telephone extension.

ESTIMATED REVENUE 1904–5.
But my present concern is with the expenditure of £142,880,000 on Supply and Consolidated Fund services, and the question to which I now invite the attention of the Committee is, upon how much revenue can I count, on the present basis of taxation, towards meeting this liability Customs should yield £33,900,000. That is an increase of only £50,000 over the yield of last year. I have to allow for decreases on several articles of consumption and for the loss of the £100,000, which were the net proceeds of the corn tax last year. On the other hand, tobacco should give me some increase, and the sugar duty will be free from the disturbance, to which I have already referred, caused by the introduction in the middle of last year of the system of refining in bond. Excise I pat at £31,500,000, a decrease
558
of £50,000 from the receipts of last year, in order to allow for a further fall in spirits. Death duties I take at £13,000,000, the figure of last year. Stamps I put at £7,550,000. That is an increase of £50,000 over last year, but is still far below the yield of l902–3. I am not sure that I am not putting the figure too low; but stamps are, of all sources of revenue, perhaps the most difficult to estimate. They react very quickly to any rise or fall in Stock Exchange business. I think that there are already signs that the extreme depression of the past twelve months is passing away, and that we may look forward to better things this year. At the same time, warned by the disappointments of the past, I think it is better that if I err at all I should err on the side of moderation, and I accordingly take a figure which my advisers and I myself, after hearing all they have to say, think a safe figure. Land tax and house duty I take at £2,650,000, the same as last year, Then I come to income-tax. I have to allow for a further loss of £2,000,000 in consequence of the reduction of the tax last year, because the arrears remaining over into this year will be collected at the lower figure. But I have also to make a further allowance, because, in the three years average on which the profits assessable under Schedule D are computed, a bad year takes the place of a very good one. I therefore put the total yield of the income-tax at £28,000,000 which is £2,800,000 less than last year. This makes a total tax revenue of £116,600,000. From the Post Office I anticipate £15,950,000, an increase of £500,000; from the telegraphs, which include the telephones, I expect £3,750,000. Telegraphs have not done well in the past year, and but for the telephones would have done very much worse. That was in part due to the absence of a certain class of Stock Exchange business, and in part due to the super session of the telegraph by the telephone. From Crown lands I expect £450,000, from Suez Canal shares £960,000, and from miscellaneous revenue £1,350,000, making a total non tax revenue of £22,460,000, and a total revenue from all sources of £139,060,000. against a total expenditure of £142,880,000.

THE DEFICIT
The Committee will therefore see that I have still to make good a sum of £3,820,000, without allowing any margin for contingencies, and without making any further progress towards the restoration of balances. How are we to get it? I have been favoured, like my predecessors, with a great number of suggestions, and if in a multitude of counsellors there were always wisdom I ought to be a very Solomon. Unfortunately, many of these suggestions ignore the practical limitations under which I must work. Many of them are contradictory; not a few of them are impracticable, and a large proportion of them emanate from gentlemen who are evidently much more concerned to tax out of existence somebody or something which they dislike, than to provide revenue to the Exchequer.

THE SINKING FUND
But there is one suggestion to which I must allude, because from communications that have reached me I gather it finds favour amongst some Members of this Committee. It is that I should suspend the Sinking Fund. That is, no doubt, the simplest, as it certainly is from a Parliamentary point of view the easiest, way of getting out of my difficulty, but it is a suggestion to which I for one am unwilling to assent, and I hope the Committee will support me in my refusal. The Sinking Fund was only recently re-established on the cessation of war. It is our first reserve should—which Cod forbid—war break out afresh. It ought to be jealously preserved for such a contingency, and to have recourse to it recklessly and without imperious necessity in time of peace is to make as direct an onslaught on our power to wage an effective war, as if we were directly to diminish our naval or military preparations. If for these reasons I should consider that it was at all times bad policy to suspend the Sinking Fund without absolute necessity or at least very urgent cause, I think it would be doubly bad policy at the present time, with the price of Government securities at the figure at which they now stand, and with the knowledge that for several years to come the Government must be borrowers in pursuit of their statutory obligations under the Naval and Military Works
560
Acts, for the Irish Land Purchase Acts, and for other purposes. I therefore dismiss that suggestion.

INCREASE OF THE INCOME-TAX.
Then it is suggested to me that, as the income-tax payer received the major portion of the relief accorded last year, he should bear the whole burden of the new taxation required in the present year. But that is to ignore altogether the course of taxation during the war. During the war the income-tax payer did not only bear his fair proportion of the war charges, but he was called upon, as he always will be called upon in time of war, to contribute to the expenses of the war out of proportion to his ordinary contribution to peace expenditure. The income-tax is, in fact, the second of our great financial reserves for time of war. In a famous passage of his Budget speech of 1853 Mr. Gladstone illustrated its potency by showing how we need have had no National Debt at all if there had been resolution enough to impose an income-tax in an effective form at an earlier period of the great Napoleonic war, and he pointed to what the tax might do for us again in a similar great emergency, provided that its efficacy were not destroyed by pretended reforms, chief among which was differentiation. But, Sir, we can destroy the efficacy of the income-tax as a reserve for war just as completely by keeping it at too high a rate in peace, as by attempting to make a fundamental change in the basis on which it is levied. I have to make an appeal to the patriotism of the income-tax payer. I have to ask the Committee to support me in increasing the figure, the already high figure, at which it now stands. In the opinion of His Majesty's Government l1d. is too high a rate to be permanent in time of peace. It leaves too small a margin of reserve in case of war, and although I am obliged to ask the Committee to add an additional penny this year and to raise the rate to 1s., I say for myself that, in my opinion, it is the income-tax, payer who will have the first claim to relief, and I hope the sacrifice I am now asking of him will not endure for long. There are some disadvantages attendant on the income-tax—some cases of hardship, real

561
or apparent—which are inseparable from the nature of the tax itself; but they are all of them increased and aggravated when the tax is at so high a figure. In my opinion the remedy and the only remedy for them is to be sought in reducing the tax again to a more moderate level and not in fundamental alterations of the nature of the tax itself. There are other objections to the tax less inherent in the nature of the tax, and less inseparable from it. There is the question to which my right hon. friend the Member for Croydon called attention in a very striking passage last year, th3 question of evasion, by means of which some gentlemen escape from their due share of burden and throw a heavier burden upon all their fellow-citizens. There is the question of the proper way to charge income derived from patent rights, copyrights, and such sources. There is the very difficult question of the allowances which it may be proper to make in respect of wasting assets charged to capital; and, lastly, there are the complaints with which every Chancellor of the Exchequer and, I imagine, most Members are familiar from people of small income as to the difficulty of recovering payment of income-tax which has been overpaid. I propose to refer these questions to a Departmental Committee, and I had hoped to be in a position to state exactly of whom the Committee would be composed. I cannot yet give all the names, but I may say I have been fortunate in obtaining the assistance of my right hon. friend the Member for Croydon, who will be Chairman of the Committee, and of the hon. Member for Poplar, who has always taken great interest in our financial discussions. They will have the assistance of the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, and of one or two other gentlemen, amongst whom will beat least one representative Income-tax Commissioner. I hope they will be able very shortly to get to work, and that, as a result of their efforts, we may see our way to meet some of these cases of hardship, which I think are the most serious danger which the income-tax incurs, and the removal of which would do much to mitigate the hostility which is felt to it in any form. The additional penny which I ask the Committee to
562
impose would yield, in a full year, £2,500,000. In the present year it should give me £2,000,000. For the balance of my requirements I must turn to indirect taxation. After the account I have given to the Committee of the wine duties and of the beer and spirit duties, they will see that it is useless to have recourse to them in the present year. If I were to raise the duty I should probably lose more revenue than I should gain; and, however desirable that might be in the opinion of some hon. Gentlemen because of its social effects on the country, it is, certainly, not a change that can commend itself to me when I am seeking revenue.

THE TOBACCO DUTIES.
I come next to tobacco. Tobacco has done well during the past year, but it is already heavily taxed, and I am advised that to attempt to raise the whole of the sum I require from tobacco alone would involve so great an increase in the duty as would seriously check consumption and destroy the purposes for which it was imposed. I do not, therefore, propose to make any general alteration in the rates of the tobacco duty. But there are some changes and adjustments which I think it would be desirable to introduce. The tobacco duties are an interesting study. They comprise a series of rates on the raw material and on various manufactured products, and, although the rates have been several times varied, the proportion which these rates now bear to one another is practically the same as that at which it was fixed by Mr. Gladstone in 1863. There is no doubt what was his object at that time. He intended to throw open the tobacco trade to foreign competition as other trades had then recently been thrown open; and he explained that he allowed the difference between the rates on manufactured and on raw tobacco as a full and fair equivalent for all charges—both the direct and the indirect charges—to which the British manufacturer was subject, and "in order that the labourers who were employed in the manufacture, amongst whom were women and children, might be well looked after." What has been the result? In the first place. I think it is

563
demonstrable that there was an error in the calculations on which Mr. Gladstone worked. He himself, indeed, subsequently corrected the error, but he did not alter the rates which he had proposed, and the result is that the home manufacturer, making for home consumption, has a larger measure of—shall I say compensation?—than Mr. Gladstone had intended. The anomalies do not end here. There are separate rates for cigars, cigarettes, cavendish, snuff, and other manufactured tobaccos, and for raw leaf.
The basis of the whole is the duty on raw leaf, which at the time of Mr. Gladstone's changes was fixed at 3s. 1 4–5d., soon after raised to 3s. 2d., and which now stands at 3s. I do not propose to alter that rate. But the principle of the scale being that there should be a rate for raw tobacco, with a correlative but increased rate for each form of the manufactured article, it has always been an anomaly that the first process of manufacture or treatment which the leaf goes through is marked by no corresponding rate in our scale. That process is the process of stemming or stripping the leaf—that is, separating the less valuable stalk from the more valuable portion of the leaf—and the omission to mark that stage by a separate rate of duty, coupled with the unsatisfactory condition of our drawbacks, as to which I will say something later, has resulted in the transference of a great portion of this work from this country to other places. In the five years, 1860–1864, only 43 per cent. of the tobacco that entered this country-was stripped before importation. Last year no less than 77 per cent. had undergone this process before it was brought into this country. That is to say that by our Customs regulations we have actually driven employment away from our shores. Now, I do not know what degree of acceptance Mr. Gladstone's | proviso that we should allow something. in order to enable workpeople engaged in the trade to receive fair treatment would meet in this Committee to-day, but I imagine that nowhere would there be any desire that our Customs duties should go out of their way to penalise and discourage the employment of British labour and to force manufacturers, contrary to
564
the natural course of trade, to carry on part of their processes of manufacture elsewhere. But if this failure to have a separate rata for tobacco which has undergone this process of treatment has been injurious to labour, it is also injurious to the revenue. In the first place, the revenue loses the additional sum which it might gain if this part of our tobacco duties were framed in accordance with the rest of them. In the second place, the stalk is the moistest part of the leaf; and, as the duty is assessed upon the total weight, including any natural moisture of the leaf, it is decidedly to the disadvantage of the revenue to discourage the importation of the stalk. It is clear that the stripped leaf has a definite and distinct value differing from that which the whole leaf enjoys. It is not right that this separate value, this process of manufacture which the leaf has undergone, should not, like all other processes of manufacture which add to the value, be marked on our scale and find its reflection in the appropriate way. I propose, therefore, to remove this anomaly. I leave the rate on the raw leaf at 3s., and I introduce a new rate of 3s. 3d. on tobacco stripped before importation—that is. a rate of 3d. in excess of the rate on the raw material.
Next, Sir, I come to cigars. In 1898, when my right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol reduced the duties on tobacco generally, he left the cigar duty unchanged. He treated foreign cigars as an article of luxury which might very fairly pay a luxury duty in excess of that paid on tobacco. The luxury tax at that time was 6d., and was exactly comparable to the special tax which Lord Goschen, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, imposed upon sparkling wines in addition to the ordinary wine duty calculated on the alcoholic strength, to which they were also subject. I do not think that any complaint has been made of the luxury duty of 6d. When the duties were further altered in 190') that 6d. wa3 increased to 8d. I now propose to add an additional 6d.to the duty on foreign cigars, and, at the same time, I propose to put a similar luxury tax of 1s. on foreign cigarettes. These rates, I ought to have said, arc per lb. in both cases. There

565
are two other changes which I must explain to the Committee as briefly as I can. In 1887 the limit of moisture allowed in tobacco was fixed at 35 per cent. In 1898, in connection with the reduction of the duties, it was reduced to 30 per cent. Well, Sir, in practice it has been found that it is not possible, especially for the smaller manufacturers, to work up to the full limit allowed them for fear that they may accidentally exceed it in some portion of their production, and so incur the very heavy penalties which are contingent upon such an offence. Practically, with a nominal limit of 30 per cent., they can very little exceed 28 per cent. I think it has been proved that it is desirable, as it certainly was the intention that in certain kinds of tobacco they should actually be able to work up to the full limit of 30 per cent. I propose, therefore, now to raise the moisture limit to 32 per cent. in order to give them a little latitude.
Lastly, Sir, there is the question of drawbacks on which, also, I must say a few words. It has long been a complaint of the trade that the present rate of drawback is insufficient, unequal, and unfair; and, I think if any hon. Member likes to follow the calculations which were presented to the House in 1863 he will see that that must be so. But since that time there has been a change in the nature of the tobacco imported which aggravates the injustice. The public taste has changed. It now requires a lighter tobacco, which can only be grown on light and sandy soils; and tobacco grown on these soils contains a greater amount of inorganic matter than was the case with the tobacco of old days. The whole subject is very technical, and I will not enter into it in detail now. But I may say that a Joint Committee of the Customs and Inland Revenue authorities has been carefully examining this subject; and they have laid before me proposals which I am prepared substantially to accept, subject to such alterations as are necessitated by the changes in the duty which I have announced to-day. I shall be able to tell the Committee exactly what is proposed before we get to the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. But I may say at once that in place of one rate we shall propose to introduce four or five different
566
rates of drawback; and I am not without hope that one result of this change may be to lead to a considerable increase in our export trade of manufactured tobacco, and more particularly of cigars, especially to our Colonies. I am told that at the present day the Colonies are supplied to a very large extent from Hamburg and from Holland, not in consequence of any superiority of the manufactures of those countries, but because the insufficiency of our drawback acts as a penalty on export. The net result of these changes, after making allowance for the increase in the limit of moisture, will be a gain to the revenue which I estimate will this year amount to £550,000. What the yield will be in future years must of course depend upon the proportion which the importation of stripped leaf bears to whole leaf in each year. I do not myself anticipate any marked or sudden change in this respect, and, if I am right, this change which I propose will continue to give us an additional revenue in future years, whilst, in any case, we shall remove an anomaly and an injustice in our scale of Customs. By these means I obtain an additional revenue of £2,550,000. I still require a sum of something like £2,000,000.

INCREASED TEA DUTY.
I can obtain it from tea or from sugar. Sir, the sugar duty was only recently imposed, and the trade has lately been subjected to some uncertainty owing to the Brussels Sugar Convention. On the whole, therefore, it has appeared to His Majesty's Government that it is better that the sugar trade should not be disturbed again at the present time, and we propose to have recourse to tea. I shall ask the Committee to add twopence per pound on tea. As I have already said, tea did well. It produced last year £250,000 more than the estimate in twelve months when almost every other source of revenue failed to realise anticipations. Allowing for the disturbance created by forestallments and backwardations in recent years when changes in taxation have been anticipated, it has been a steadily growing revenue, and the consumption is not likely to be materially checked by the increase which I propose. Even with that increase the

567
average price to-day, duty paid, will be hardly one half of what it was in 1864. From this source I expect to get £2,000,000.

THE FINAL BALANCE SHEET.
I am now in a position to present my final balance-sheet to the Committee. I will not repeat the figures which are unaltered by the changes which I have proposed in taxation. I have added to Customs £2,550,000,bringing its total yield up to £36,450,000. I have added to income tax for the present year £2,000,000, making its estimated yield for this twelve months £30,000,000. By these means I arrive at a total revenue of £143,610,000, against an expenditure of £142,880,000, leaving a surplus of revenue over expenditure of £730,000. That is a larger margin than it has been customary to allow in recent years, and it is to this source that I look for the further restoration of the balances beyond the amount which I have already provided. Sir, I have now finished my task. I thank the Committee for the patience with which they have listened to me, and the indulgence that they have shown. Assuming office at a moment when the revenue was falling below the estimates, and when expenditure was already in excess of the Budget provision, I have found myself face to face with a double deficit. I have been obliged to propose to the Committee new taxation. But the difficulties which I have to meet are largely temporary, and I look for further relief to the cessation of the military operations in Somaliland and to the reforms which my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War is preparing in our Army system. But the time for that relief is not yet, and it has been my duty to increase, and not to remit, taxation. Additional taxation is never popular, and the resources to which I can have recourse in present circumstances are limited. I have done my best with the means at my disposal, and I appeal with some confidence to the Committee to support proposals which I believe to be sound in themselves, necessary and adequate for the maintenance of our high financial credit, and framed in harmony with our existing financial system and with due regard to the just interests of all classes of the community

CUSTOMS—TEA.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That in lieu of the duty of Customs now payable on tea, there shall be charged on and after the twentieth day of April, nineteen hundred and four, until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and five, the following duty (that is to say):—
"Tea, the pound …Eight pence."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has discharged himself of a task of unusual difficulty in a manner which,. I am sure, has earned the admiration of the House. I think I should not do justice to what is in all our minds if I did not allude to one personal difficulty which I need only allude to for the purpose of putting it aside. It is that the right hon. Gentleman finds himself, as it appears to most of us, in a position presenting some incongruity between the office which he holds and the opinions and ambitions which he does not conceal in fiscal and trade matters, and, possibly, even with the avowed policy, so far as we can know it, of the Administration of which he is a member. And, therefore, he must have expected that all he said to-day would be scrutinised by every one who listened to him with a view to discovering whether there was anything which might appear to any of us, whatever our opinions on this vexed question may be, to be of a subterranean character applicable to that question. I think the right hon. Gentleman must have been conscious of a certain peculiar interest on that ground which pervaded the Assembly which he was addressing. On one or two occasions, I think, he made an observation which, to a very sensitive ear, might appear to have a further meaning than appeared on the surface, but on the whole, I think, in this respect as well as in the lucidity and completeness of his statement, the right hon. Gentleman has acquitted himself most admirably.
The right hon. Gentleman had a task of great difficulty to? undertake. We have not known a financial position so serious in our time. In the second

569
year of peace, after the war taxation had been only partially reduced in the first year, the rest of that war taxation is not only to be maintained but absolutely to be increased, and the right hon. Gentleman has found himself obliged, as he thinks, to add to the indirect taxation of the country at a time when it is universally admitted that that branch of taxation had not received the relief it was entitled to last year. The right hon. Gentleman has at least shown courage, of different kinds perhaps, in two particulars. He has maintained unequivocally the Sinking Fund, which, as he says, is the great resource of this country in an emergency. But, at the same time, he has shown another sort of courage in proposing, I venture to say, two of the most unpopular taxes which could be brought forward by any Chancellor of the Exchequer—namely, an addition to the already high income-tax and an addition to the tax upon tea. The right hon. Gentleman has touched upon a vast number of most important subjects which will require the due consideration of the Committee, and I wish to repeat, on behalf of the Committee, the claim which was made last year and acknowledged by the right hon. Gentle-man who was then the spokesman of the Government. That is the claim that we should have an ample opportunity of discussing, not this or that particular Resolution, not the individual taxes that are interfered with, one after another, but also the general policy of the Budget. This question arose last year, and members of the Committee then found themselves stopped from what they considered was the the full discussion that was required of the general financial situation on the ground that, unless there was a general agreement on the subject, and, of course, subject always to the acquiescence of the Chair, they must confine themselves to the limits of the particular Resolution. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer acknowledged that there was "a good deal in the argument, and if he should have again to bring in a Budget he should take care that the House was not put into the position in which, to his regret, it now found itself." I think it only right, and a matter of duty to the other Members who are interested in the
570
subject, that I should distinctly claim that the Government should allow not only the general discussion on the first Resolution to-night, but on another Resolution which will give that ample opportunity which, I am sure, the right hon. Gentleman himself would agree ought to be given. I am not going to enter upon all those elaborate and detailed questions which the right hon. Gentleman has so ably dealt with. I am not sure that, on this occasion, our interest has turned so much upon conjectures as to the particular tax which is to be increased or modified, or imposed or abolished, or on any other of the details of the scheme of taxation. The great governing fact which stands over the whole finance of the year is the enormous growth of expenditure. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not make his survey a little more complete by saying something upon that point. He was severe upon the local authorities. He said it was necessary to call "Halt!" in the process of expenditure, and he seemed shocked by their extravagance; but he had not a word to say as to the huge Estimates for which he is himself responsible.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I referred to borrowing.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Well, but nobody needs to borrow unless he spends, and the way to get rid of the necessity of borrowing is to refrain from spending. We used to have little admonitions from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol which I am bound to say—I have often remarked it before—did not appear to have much effect. But we have not had even the blessing of a homily or an admonition from the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, perhaps, bases his neglect of that part of his usual performance on the knowledge and experience he had of the ineffectual results of those speeches. I believe it is to this growth of expenditure rather than to ingenious devices for meeting the charge and covering up the cost that the country should direct its most earnest attention. The facts speak for themselves. For the hundredth time I will repeat some of them, because they

571
ought to be constantly brought before the House. Our national expenditure in 1886 was £92,200,000. In 1895, with some variations, it still remained at £93,900,000. The estimated expenditure for the coming year is £142,300,000. The Navy has gone from £9,400,000 in 1870 to £17,600,000 in 1895 and £42,100,000 in 1905. The Army has risen from £12,300,000 in 1870 to £18,700,000 in 1895 and £32,500,000 in 1905. And we have been told by the Secretary of State for War himself that we must expect an increased expenditure in the next year and the year after because of the re-armament, which is at present concealed from our view by the fact that it is being mainly defrayed by India. This is a state of things which requires only to be recited in this House, surely, to invite to it the most earnest and serious attention of the Committee.
And let me say that the right hon. Gentleman referred incidentally to a further expenditure which is going on and which is often allowed to pass without notice. I refer to the expenditure from capital under a series of Acts which are hidden away from the public and often from Parliamentary knowledge. And this expenditure is being rapidly developed. The money is expended and is repaid by annuities which are charged on the ordinary Estimates. I am quite aware of the convenience and advantages of this system. It gives continuity to the administration of the works undertaken. It prevents the confusion and disturbance created by the periodical necessity of surrendering balances. I daresay it is economical in some respects. It frees the hands of the administrating authority, but its by-product, if I may say so, is the concealment from the country of this expenditure that is going on. I will recite the Acts. They are the Barracks Act, 1890, the Naval Works Acts from 1895 to 1908, the Military Works Acts from 1897 to 1901, the Telegraphs Acts from 1802 to 1899, the Uganda Railway Acts from 1896 to 1902, the Niger Company Act, 1899, the Pacific Cable Act, 1901, Public Offices (Acquisition of Sites) Act, 1895, Public Offices (Whitehall Site) Act, 1897, and the Land Registry (New Buildings) Act, 1900. I venture to say there are many
572
Members of the House who are not in the least aware of the extent to which this expenditure is going on. At the end of 1892–93 the total liability under legislation of this kind was £621,000. What does the Committee think it is now? At the end of 1902–3 it was £27,408,000. Here is, practically, £27,000,000 added to the National Debt in ten years, and it is a growing expenditure. The amount spent last year was £8,119,000, and the amount expected to be spent in this year is £9.789,000. Therefore, besides the ordinary expenditure charged against revenue, with which we are familiar in the Estimates, we are spending this year £9,750,000 and concealing it from ourselves by charging it against capital. We talk of the Sinking Fund, and I have said how much we approve of the stern virtue of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in not tampering with the Sinking Fund, but here is an expenditure that obliterates the Sinking Fund.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It goes far to do so.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman, who is well acquainted with these things, will, I hope, explain them to the House, and if he can explain them satisfactorily no one will rejoice more than I shall. These are facts which, it seems to me. give importance to this Budget, and I mention this subterranean expenditure, as it were, only by the way, in order to impress upon the House the fact that the enormous sums which we see on the face of the Estimates do not include all our liabilities. These facts appear to me urgently to call upon us to arrest, while we may, the headlong extravagance of recent year's. This is a question which far transcends Party interest. It is the interest of us all to maintain the financial strength of the country, and also as Members of the House of Commons to show that we are not idle and indifferent to such progress of expenditure. I trust that the House. of Commons will not be slow to discharge

573
its first duty in this matter, and will not be content with discussing taxes which may be imposed or removed, or general administration, but will discuss the source and origin of all the evil, which is the growing expenditure of the country.
MR. RITCHIE: My first duty, an agreeable one, is to congratulate my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the great ability with which he has discharged a duty which he has rightly described as on this occasion especially difficult. He has stated the views he holds and the proposals he makes with such clearness that they are perfectly plain to the Committee, which, as I myself know, is by no means an easy task. I very much regret that my right hon. friend was placed in the difficult position of having to meet a falling revenue, and I regret it the more because it may be, and no doubt has been, contended in many quarters that it was my own proposals of last year which have landed my right hon. friend in his present difficulty. Sir, I have myself received many congratulations from friends that it has not been my duty on this occasion to perform my right hon. friend's task, congratulations which do doubt were well intended, and I will therefore, take the opportunity of saying that I should have been glad if anything I could have done could have relieved my right hon. friend from the difficulties created by last year. My right hon. friend has stated with great clearness the various circumstances which led to the revenue being considerably less than was anticipated last year. Those who have occupied the position know well that a Chancellor of the Exchequer has to rely, and properly to rely, for the estimates he makes on the advice he receives from those efficient officers of the State who have for so long performed their duties admirably. It must not be supposed that these estimates are made in anything like a haphazard way, they are made after most complete inquiry into all the various circumstances that are likely to affect the revenue, and I for my part did what I am sure my right hon. friend has done—I went very carefully into every item of the estimates with my advisers, being most anxious, above all things, that the estimates of
574
revenue should not be excessive. I did not feel justified, after the inquiry and discussion, in making material reductions on the proposals put before me, and if I had made any reductions they would certainly not have been in any degree adequate to the deficiency, which, unfortunately, has arisen.
My right hon. friend has stated, quite truly, that the falling off of the revenue is largely owing to a cycle of bad trade. But last year there were no indications of sufficient magnitude to justify a Chancellor of the Exchequer in inferring that this falling off would occur. Many circumstances have led to it. There have been" the aftereffects of the war. It was anticipated that after the war there would be a very considerable revival of trade, especially with South Africa, but nothing of the kind has occurred; on the contrary, the trade with South Africa last year has not been so good as it was in previous times. Then there has been the disturbance in the cotton trade, which has been very injurious to a large number of people. I do not wish to touch on any controversial subject just now, but my own belief is that the controversy which unhappily has taken place in connection with our fiscal policy has made trade perhaps somewhat less than it would otherwise have been. But however that may be, I think I am justified in contending that, as far as the falling off in the revenue is concerned, it is of a character that could not have been foreseen either by myself or my advisers last year. One reason which my right hon. friend gave, although unsatisfactory to him from the point of view of a revenue collector, must be satisfactory to the House—namely, that, to some extent at least, the falling off in the consumption of beer and spirits was owing to the Licensing Act of 1902. That Act has undoubtedly made everyone more careful; it has hindered the drunkard from getting more drink, it has made the dispenser of drink more careful in selling, and I think it has had some effect in removing the abuses of drinking which unfortunately occur in a large number of bogus clubs. However slight the effect may be, that it has had any effect is matter not for regret but for sincere congratulation.

575
My right hon. friend has said that the repeal of the corn tax was more costly than had been anticipated and that the advantages were less apparent. How costly the character of the repeal may be is a matter over which no one had any control; it merely depended, I imagine, on dealing fairly with the people who were engaged in the trade who had paid the tax and had large stocks in hand. I am sure the Committee will feel that I myself acted rightly in dealing fairly, and indeed generously, with those people and in making remissions.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I did not criticise the repayments made, I did not say that they were not necessary or justified. On the contrary I think my right hon. friend was quite right to make them.
MR. RITCHIE: My right hon. friend has suggested that the advantages anticipated were not very apparent, although earlier in his speech he said that one of the reasons for the deficiency in the revenue was a very bad harvest. Surely my right hon. friend will not argue, when there has been a bad harvest, that, although the price of bread has not been reduced, the consumer does not therefore receive any advantage from the remission of this tax. It is impossible to say exactly what has been the effect, how much or how little, because of other circumstances which have to be taken into account, but, in view of the years of bad harvest. I think it was a matter not for regret but congratulation that the tax was taken off. However, I do not say that in any controversial spirit.
My right hon. friend has said that expenditure had been increased by three items. One of them was the extra expenditure in Somaliland. None of us anticipated that anything like that expenditure would be necessary, but I certainly am not one of those who desire to say one word against the expenditure. We entered upon that campaign for very adequate reasons, and we are bound to carry that campaign through to a successful termination, whatever the cost. No one regrets the cost more than do the Government, and for my part I make no complaint against them for the extra expenditure. With regard to the Naval
576
Estimates, if my right hon. friend meant to imply that I cut down naval expenditure in a way that made the Estimates inadequate, I am sure my right hon. friend will accept from me the statement that there is no foundation for that implication.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What I said was that I understood from the First Lord of the Admiralty that there was some doubt as to what sums were required; that my right hon. friend undertook to provide a larger sum than was included in the original Estimates if experience showed that it would be necessary; and that the sum which was needed was even larger than was anticipated.
MR. RITCHIE: I was going to say that the whole matter of dispute between my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty and myself was a mere matter of £200,000 upon the question of contract work. I declined to add £200,000 more to the Estimate for contract work which might not have been earned. It has turned out that the contractors have done more work than I anticipated they would do. With regard to the purchase of the Chilian battleships, in my opinion the Government were amply justified in that expenditure. It would have been most unwise if the Government had allowed them to go to a foreign fleet, when they might have altered the balance of power, but I warn my noble friend that we shall expect to see some reduction in future Naval Estimates on account of the transaction. I do not say that the naval programme of the Government ought to be reduced, but I do say that the expenditure on these ships ought to be regarded as an anticipatory expenditure, which should reduce by so much the Naval Estimates of a future year. Both sides of the House will acknowledge that my right hon. friend has met the deficit in the revenue in a bold and statesmanlike manner. Some people may find fault with my right hon. friend for the depletion of the Exchequer balances, but, under the circumstances, I think my right hon. friend was justified in utilising some of those balances. It has always been the practice when there has been a deficit, and when taxation has been high,

577
for a sum to be taken out of the balances, and, therefore, I have no fault to find with my right hon. friend on account of this proposal.
There is one thing on which I heartily congratulate my right hon. friend, and that is his decision not to touch the Sinking Fund. It is an easy thing to reduce the Sinking Fund, but a difficult thing to justify, and I am convinced that he was wise in not touching it. I think my right hon. friend was perfectly justified in adding a penny to the income-tax because I am perfectly certain that I should not have taken 4d. off the income-tax last year had I anticipated that there would have been such a fall in the revenue; therefore, no fault can be found with my right hon, friend in putting a penny on the tax, which would have remained on last year if the deficit could have been anticipated. I was glad to hear that my right hon. friend intends to appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into the subject of the income-tax. There is a very large field of inquiry for such a Committee, and I can only say that for my part I shall be glad to render such assistance in the matter as I can. I do not propose to say anything about the tobacco which is a complicated question; but I am sorry my right hon. friend has thought it necessary to increase the duty on tea. Tea has done well, said my right hon. friend, and therefore let an additional tax be put upon it. That may be an excellent Chancellor of the Exchequer reason, but it has always appeared to me unfair that people who pay most freely should be most heavily taxed. I am not, however, prepared to say that in this matter my right hon. friend has been unwise in acting as he has done. I should have preferred to see a higher duty put upon tobacco; but I do not press the point, because I know there are difficulties connected with an increase in the duty on tobacco. I am sure the Government will attend to the request of the Leader of the Opposition that adequate time shall be given for the discussion of the whole Budget. Owing to a misunderstanding, partly, I am afraid, my fault and partly the fault of the Front Opposition Bench, an opportunity was not given for a full discussion of the Budget last year, and I then promised on behalf of the
578
Government that care should be taken to prevent a repetition of the mistake. My right hon. friend remarked that the indirect taxpayer had not received adequate relief last year. In my opinion the indirect taxpayer has received perfectly adequate relief. It must be remembered that a larger share of the burden of taxation last year was borne by the income-tax payer than by the indirect taxpayer, and that consequently the direct taxpayer had a more urgent claim to relief, which could not possibly be set aside. In conclusion, I have again to offer my right hon. friend the heartiest congratulations upon the manner in which he has discharged the difficult task that has fallen to him as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
MR. HALDANEsaid the House would not blame the right hon. Gentleman for Croydon for being out in his estimates last year. The period was an exceedingly difficult one, and that the estimates were inaccurate was not the fault of those who advised the right hon. Gentleman. Whether or not the cause was a cycle of depression he was not quite sure. It was perfectly true there had been a period of depression but it was of a different kind to that to which they had been used in the past. At other times, when depression had occurred, it had been general in its character, affecting many countries, but of late the depression had been local and he was not sure whether it. was not due to a shortage of the purchasing power of this country owing to the withdrawal of capital from its proper channel owing to the war. All would be agreed in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the way that he had performed his task in bringing in his Budget. He had kept up the high reputation of the Chancellors of the Exchequer of this House for lucidity. Lucidity was the characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and it was a quality for which they were all grateful. The right hon. Gentleman had had a difficult task to perform and it was impossible at this moment to make criticisms as to details. The right hon. Gentleman was to be warmly congratulated on having had the courage to refrain from suspending the Sinking Fund.

579
but the right hon. Member for Croydon, he thought, had been a little too generous in his defence of the Exchequer balances. It was quite plain the Exchequer balances could not be touched without the money obtained there from being charged to capital, and therefore the defence which had been made by the right hon. Member for resorting to the Exchequer balances, although it might be right to resort to them under the present circumstances, could not be allowed to go without question.
With regard to the income-tax, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done quite right, and he had explained that the country could not afford even the reduction of last year, not because of the circumstances the right hon. Member for Croydon had before him, but because the estimates of that season had turned out to be too sanguine. He regarded, however, the imposition of the additional tax upon tea with the greates suspicion. Nothing was more plain than the fact that successive Chancellors of the Exchequer had not made any inquiries lately into the incidence of indirect taxation; as to how the incidence of the revenue raised fell upon the taxpayer, especially in regard to indirect taxation. Indirect taxation was a matter which required a great deal more investigation than it had received, and as regarded the tax on tea he proposed to {reserve his criticisms until the time came to deal with the matter specifically. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had intimated his intention to appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into the income-tax, but the incidence of the income-tax was very wide and he was not quite sure that the terms of reference for the proposed inquiry would carry the matter far enough. The difficulty of collection was far more stringent than it had ever been, and he was not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman would not have to consider whether he was not killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. It was extremely difficult to differentiate between the different kinds of profits, especially when they were made by persons only casually in this country. The whole burden of the income-tax required very careful reconsideration. The principles remained the same as they were in the early
580
fifties, and before long they would have to be revised in a much more comprehensive sensen than had been stated this afternoon if the full efficiency of that tax was to be realised. He was glad to hear there was to be no additional tax on alcohol. Some of that tax pressed now very heavily on certain individual industries, and he could state case after case, if necessary, of industries being starved in this country owing to the duty on alcohol as, for instance, the cellulose industry. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on having dealt with the tobacco duties in a scientific spirit. Cigars were now to be manufactured in this country far more than before. Whether they would be of the kind that one would expect to receive from the right hon. Gentleman he did not know, but an opportunity was to be given for the manufacture of cigars for export.
They did not, however, need to go into the details at this stage, but they could turn their minds to the broad issues which the Budget disclosed. He doubted whether the Budget realised the very serious situation in which the country was at the present time. There was no doubt that in the last twenty years the annual income from all sources had been steadily growing. The annual income was calculated in 1882–3 at £14,000,000,000; in 1891–2 it was £16,000,000,000, whilst in 1902–3 it was probably no less than £20,000,000,000. That was a very great increase in twenty years. It meant an increase of annual income of 38 per cent., as against an increase in population of 15 per cent., or an increase of income per head of the population of 20 per cent. On the other hand, the growth of expenditure from 1873 to 1883 was £1,000,000 a year; from 1883–4 to 1896, including the period when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire was at the Treasury, there was a period of economy during which the increase of expenditure was not more than £750,000. Then came a change of administration and in the following eight years the increase of expenditure was over £50,000,000, or an increase of £6,250,000 a year. The right hon. Member for West Bristol appeared to dissent. He had retired from the Government before that limit was reached; but he made a most remarkable speech,

581
substantially to this same effect, in September, 1902, which contained one of the most valuable warnings which had been given to the country for some years. The Votes which were responsible for this enormous increase of £50,000,000 in eight years were the Army and Navy Votes. During the period from 1883–4 to 1893–4 the Army Estimates had increased by £14,000,000, whilst during the same period the Navy Vote showed an increase of £24,000.000. Educational expenditure had also increased by £9,000,000. That was a striking expenditure. He was the last to wish to reduce the naval expenditure in any way that would prevent the Navy being the most efficient that could be obtained, but it could not be forgotten that that efficiency was relative. The position of other Powers had to be considered, and he thought the time had come when a thorough-going diplomatic effort should be made to arrange with the great Powers to put a check on this startling rate of increase. He was glad to see in the Army Estimates that something like a beginning had been made, but the Navy deserved consideration from the point of view of highest statesmanship for the purpose of dealing with this important question. The National Debt was another serious matter. In 1897 Consols reached the figure of 113⅞ whereas in 1903 they were as low as 86⅞. Then, too, the Government recently issued their guaranteed 2¾ per cent. Land Stock at 87, which meant that they were paying about 3¼ per cent. for money. That was a startling alteration in the state of the national credit which could hardly be accounted for by the increase of local taxation and local loans, though he quite admitted that there had been a tendency to come into the market with local loans in competition with the Government, which had made the position of the Government weaker than it used to be. The fact that 3¼ per cent. had now to be paid as against less than 2½ per cent. eight years ago was a serious matter to be taken into account. Then there was the question of local rates, which, for the last year, had been estimated at £55,000,000, and it had been calculated that these had doubled in the last twenty years. Local debt amounted to upwards of £400,000,000, but a large
582
part of that was reproductive, being represented by telephones, water supply, lighting, tramways, and other services which brought in returns. The unremunerative portion of the debt might be taken at one-half the total amount. Be that as it might, local and Imperial taxation together amounted to the formidable sum of over £190.000,000. It was true that that was only about 10 per cent. on the national income, but had anybody any serious idea of what was the incidence of that taxation, how it was distributed between the various classes of the population, and how more was to be obtained if the emergency arose?
He did not think it was any use having an inquiry into expenditure. Expenditure was a matter of policy, and policy was a matter of which this House and the nation had to judge. But on the question of expenditure and the raising of revenue the House and the nation were very much in the dark as to the incidence of taxation, and he would like to see a Royal Commission, containing the very best statisticians and economists of the country with some of the first men of business, set to work and devoting, if necessary, two or three years to the task of furnishing the country with a thorough Report on the subject. The Income-Tax Commissioners and the Board of Inland Revenue were certain to have masses of information of the most useful kind with regard to the distribution of the national income and the way in which taxation fell upon it. He agreed that it was not easy to see how the existing sources of taxation could be increased. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the extreme lucidity with which he had placed his Budget statement before the Committee, and he had made these criticisms of a general character in the belief that they concerned subjects which ought to be dealt with at an early date by one occupying the responsible position of Chancellor of the Exchequer.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The right hon. Gentleman opposite has dealt with much knowledge and ability with many important subjects connected] with the financial situations

583
of the country. He has gone far beyond the finance of this particular year, but I think his main desire was to call the attention of the Committee to the great difficulties of the present situation. In that I entirely agree with him. But if the difficulties are such as have been described, all the more credit is due to my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the admirable and courageous manner in which he has performed his task to-day. My right hon. friend was good enough to refer in a very friendly way to the relations which used to exist between us at the Treasury. I can only say that if my views on fiscal subjects in any way modelled the opinions of my right hon. friend, he has amply fulfilled to-day, in performance, the promise which he gave in his early days at the Treasury. I recognise, as the Leader of the Opposition recognised, that in this matter my right hon. friend had a difficult and delicate task to perform. He has views on fiscal subjects with regard to the future from which I unhappily differ, but not a trace of those views was to be found in his speech to-night; and I welcome with even greater satisfaction the fact that not a trace of those views is to be found in the proposals of the Budget.
What was the situation with which my right hon. friend had to deal? It was none of his making. Nobody can blame him in the smallest degree for the fact that there has been in the past year a deficit of £2,750,000 in our revenue as compared with the estimate of his predecessor, and an increased expenditure beyond the Estimates of about the same amount, making altogether a realised deficit in the year of nearly £5,500.000. Nor should I wish at all to blame his predecessor my right hon. friend the Member for Croydon. I know too well the difficulties of framing estimates of revenue for the coming year. I was more fortunate. In my time the country was more prosperous, and my estimates of revenue were, with one exception, invariably exceeded in the result. Sometimes they were very largely exceeded, but I always confessed to the Committee—and I hold the opinion strongly—that no Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to take credit for a revenue far in excess of
584
his anticipations any more than he can fairly be blamed if, owing to depression of trade or other causes, the revenue falls short of his estimates. The pride of a Chancellor of the Exchequer should be to make the yield of the revenue and his estimates, as nearly as possible, balance.
Now, what is the manner in which my right hon. friend has proposed to deal with the deficit of the past year? There is one point in regard to that deficit to which I wish to call attention. I have said that I do not in the least blame my right hon. friend the Member for Croydon, but I do think that greater caution should have been exercised by him and the responsible heads of the Revenue Departments with regard to the estimates of revenue last year from Customs and Excise. What are the facts? My right hon. friend was advised to estimate his receipts from Customs at £207,000 beyond the yield of the previous year, but there was an actual falling off as compared with the yield of the previous year of £583,000. That was a mistake of nearly £800,000. Then my right hon. friend expected an increased yield from Excise of £600,000, and there was an actual decrease of £550,000, a mistake of £1,150,000. What happened in the year before? In the year before that—the last for which I was responsible—Excise had shown a considerable falling off. The Excise had shown a falling off of £600,000 in 1902–3 and Customs a falling off of £767,000 as compared with my estimate, and in the year 1901–2 the receipts from Excise had been equally discouraging. I mention these matters, not in order to suggest blame to any one, but in order to express a hope that my right hon. friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken warning in the framing of his estimates for the coming year from this steady falling off, especially in Excise. I notice that he estimated his receipts from Excise next year on the present basis of taxation at within £50,000 of the receipts in the present year. Well, I hope he has taken account of the tendency to fall off and also of the fact that he has had the benefit of an additional day in the year that has just passed. I hope the same with regard to Customs.

585
But there is still another matter. My right hon. friend the Member for Croydon has said to-day, and we must all feel that if we could only be wise before the event instead of after it, we should all have agreed last year that it was wrong to reduce the taxation of the country by so large an amount as was actually remitted, and my right hon. friend has said that if he had known how the year would turn out he would not have taken off a penny of the income-tax. Well, I think there are a good many people who will be disposed to go a little further. I supported His Majesty's Government last year in the repeal of the corn duty, for which I was responsible; I did it with the greatest reluctance, but I did it because I believed it to be the least of two evils. I believed it to be better that that duty should be repealed than that it should be used as the first step in a policy of preference or protection. But, Sir, I had another reason for supporting the repeal of that duty. That was because my right hon. friend the Member for Croydon as Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed in his Budget speech to the House a strong hope that he would be able so to reduce the increase of expenditure that he might be justified on that account also in remitting the amount of taxation which he proposed to remit. Well, I trusted, and I said so at the time, to the sense which I hoped right hon. Geatlemen on that Bench had at last begun to feel of the danger of this increasing expenditure, and that that would induce them to stop the increase and justify the remission of the corn duty. But what has happened? We have seen again an increase in the present year of £2,750,000 on the Naval Estimates, for which I am bound to say that in my opinion no sufficient reason has yet been given. We have seen Estimates produced by the Secretary of State for War which he has declined himself to defend or even to excuse except as merely provisional Estimates, necessary in the transition stage towards a time of greater efficiency, and, I hope, of diminished military expenditure. It is in those circumstances that my right hon. friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has been deprived of a penny on the income-tax, and of £2,500,000 from the corn duty, a
586
duty which I still think, as I told the House two years ago, when once established would do very little practical harm to anybody, whatever might be said against it in theory, and the repeal of which, so far as I know, has done no good whatever to any body. That is the position in which we now stand, thanks to the remission of these taxes last year.
How does my right hon. friend propose to deal with this deficit due to the past year of £5,400,000? I do not quite understand, I confess, his proposals on that score. He appropriates, in the first place, from the balances £3,000,000 which has been paid into them from the Transvaal Guaranteed Loan for advances made by this country to the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony, I think, in the year 1902–3. I do not quite understand for what object those particular advances were made, and I would remind my right hon. friend that, though the money was taken from the balances to make those advances, yet it got into the balances from the loan which I borrowed in the year 1901–2. It was borrowed money, borrowed for the purposes of the war, and, having been borrowed, I must say I think that in strictness it ought to have been applied to the redemption of Exchequer bonds or to the redemption of some form of debt, rather than applied to pay off a deficit in the balancing of the finances of any particular year. But I do not at all wish to say this by way of criticism of my right hon. friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, because, on my conscience, I believe that if I had been in his place I should have done exactly the same thing. I think that we owe him so much for having declined the temptation to take anything from the Sinking Fund that we may well forgive him this proposal with regard to the £3,000,000. Then, having taken these £3,000,000, my right hon. friend proposes to draw still further upon the balances towards the deficit of £5,400,000. I do not quite gather to what extent he draws. [An HON. MEMBER: The whole.] No, I do not think it was the whole, because he proposes to appropriate certain dividends arising from unclaimed stock, and waiting demands from the owners of that stock, who never appear, a course which I think is perfectly justified by the precedents of former years, and I can only congratulate

587
him on having so fortunate a windfall. That he has put, I think, at £1,000,000
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I propose to realise to that extent.
SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Well, I hope my right hon. friend will be careful about the realisation, because these funds are invested in Consols, and we all feel that this is not precisely the time at which it would be advisable to realise Consols if it can possibly be avoided. But that would account for £4,000,000, out of the deficit of £5,400,000. I do not quite understand how the remainder is to be dealt with, and perhaps when he comes to answer my right hon. friend will explain this point. When he came to the imposition of taxation for the coming year I certainly understood that he only provided for the deficit of the present year. He proposes to provide for that deficit by imposing an additional penny on the income-tax, 2d. per lb. on tea, and by certain changes in the tobacco duties, which he thinks would produce him a revenue of £550,000. I will not attempt to discuss the proposed changes in the tobacco duties. I sympathise with my right hon. friend in one of his proposals, that with regard to imposing greater taxation on the imported leaf without the stalk than is now imposed upon it, as compared with the tax on the imported leaf with the stalk. But I would venture to give my right hon. friend a little warning with regard to the tobacco duties. It is a very dangerous thing, as I know from experience. The trade is a very sensitive trade. Tobacco is an article not merely of consumption here but of manufacture, and you have to consider the question of the manufacturer, the dealer, and the consumer; and when you are dealing with an article which produces a revenue to this country of something like £12,500,000, it may very well be that changes of this kind may so disturb the trade as to bring about the loss of a greater revenue than you ever expected to gain. I merely give my right hon. friend that caution without professing at the present moment to be able to speak on this matter with the technical knowledge which any discussion of it would demand.
Next I come to the duty on tea. I congratulate my right hon. friend in
588
that he has chosen tea [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh" and MINISTERIAL cheers] in the circumstances as the main source of his new indirect taxation. I think that he was absolutely right when he had to impose fresh taxation for the coming year to divide his proposals between direct and indirect taxation, and I think that, having regard to the circumstances of the present revenue which he has detailed to us, tea was certainly the best subject that he-could have chosen for that purpose. There is one point only which I would venture to suggest. I hope that he will get the £2,000,000 which he has every right to expect from the additional 2d. on tea, but I have found in more than one year that if there was one article more than another which lent itself to the machinations of those acute gentlemen connected with trade who are always clearing goods in the anticipation of an increase of duty or holding them back from clearance in the anticipation of a reduction of duty—if there was one article more than another which lent itself to this it was tea. I have been deprived of a large amount of revenue in some years by these operations, and I hope my right hon. friend will not find when next January and February come, if he continues to be, as I devoutly hope he will continue to be, Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the Estimates presented at the beginning of the new session look so favourable for the reduction of taxation that the dealers of tea may be tempted during the last two months of the financial year to keep back their tea in the hope of a reduction of the 2d. instead of clearing it, as they ought to do, to meet the demands of my right hon. friend. I think my right hon. friend is right in adding to the duty on tea on this main ground. Tea is an article of almost universal consumption. It is not the subject of any manufacture in this country, and therefore the Exchequer receives from the tax on tea a larger proportion of the burden that falls on the people than from many other matters that I could mention. But I hope my right hon. friend will not be attacked, as I was attacked, with regard to the duty on tea. I remember when I proposed to maintain or increase—I forget which it was—the duty on tea I was

589
met by an enthusiastic fiscal Member—my hon. friend the Member for Sheffield—with the proposal that I should apply colonial preference to the question of tea. I resisted that proposal. I called the attention of the Committee to the fact that if I accepted it I should lose most of the revenue I expected to derive from tea, and that our colonial fellow-subjects were able to drive foreign tea pretty well out of the market without any preference at all. I hope that no similar attack will be made on my right hon. friend. I hope he will not be told that this tax, which does nothing more than yield a large sum to the revenue at the least possible cost to the consumer, is an unscientific tax, because it does no good to distressed producers in this country. I hope my right hon. friend will not excite bitter hostility on the part of tea producers in India and in Ceylon because he has not only not listened to their desires, if these desires exist, for a preference on tea—he has not only not listened to desires which were expressed to me for a reduction of the existing duty on tea—he has not merely dissembled his love with regard to them, but he has kicked them downstairs by the proposal of an additional twopence on tea. Well, I should entirely sympathise with my right hon. friend in the resistance to any such attack which, no doubt, he would feel it his duty to offer.
Now I come to the income-tax. My right hon. friend proposes an addition of a penny on the income-tax. That raises to my mind very grave questions which were alluded to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Haddingtonshire, and were alluded to, and obviously felt, by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. It is surely a very grave matter that in time of peace, when every proposal before us, I hope, tends to show better and more peaceful relations between us and two of the greatest nations of the world than have been the case for many years—it is a grave matter that at such a time we should be asked to raise the income-tax to a 1s. in the £. My right hon. friend expressed his feeling that we were dangerously reducing our resources in the event of war coming upon
590
us by such a proposal as this. Is it not obvious that if the income-tax had been, before the commencement of the South African war, a shilling instead of eight-pence, this country would have lost for the purposes of the war no less than £10,000,000 a year, which would have had to be raised by some other; form of taxation. That being so, I think it is a very serious matter that we should be asked now for an income-tax of 1s. in the £1. But this raises a question to which I confess I attach some little importance. Who will feel this taxation most? Not the rich man. There is a sort of idea in the mind of some people that the income-tax is a rich man's tax. Why, Sir, rich men do not much mind what taxation you put upon them, except in regard to the death duties. No; those whom the income-tax really affect are the income-tax payers who are above the income-tax limit and yet do not possess an income of more than £2,000 a year. They are the most heavily taxed and rated class of people in this country. Of course, our present system of abatements does something, and in some cases does a great deal, to reduce the poundage of the income-tax upon incomes below £700 a year. But when you have 1s. in the £1 of income-tax, I confess it does seem to me that there is great reason in the demand that something of this kind shall be further extended. It is not as if we were asked to impose this tax for a year only. Can any one of us hold out much hope to the income-tax payers that it is likely to be lowered next year or the year after? My right hon. friend told us that he hoped for some relief next year from the cessation of the war in Somaliland, which I hope by that time may not have been renewed, and also from some reduction in the Army Estimates, which I hope we may receive, although we do not receive it this year. But I do not believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer next year will be able to reduce the 1s. in the £1 income-tax. If that be so, it looks something very like a permanent burden upon a class of persons who, I think, are ill able to bear it. Is it not possible, by way of an extension of abatements or by some system of graduation, to make the income-tax on a certain poundage less heavy upon these people, if not more heavy upon those who are richer. To my mind

591
there has never been any objection in principle to a movement of this kind. We know very well that we have graduation in the death duties; we have graduation in the house duty already. The difficulty is its practical application to the income-tax. I confess I doubt its practicability, but what I would earnestly press upon my right hon. friend, as I pressed upon the late Chancellor of the Exchequer the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon last year, is that this question of the practicability of some extension of abatements or some kind of graduation should be examined by the practical skilled Committee which he intends to appoint to deal with the income-tax. I cannot but think that this is a moment when this claim may very fairly be made. If it should be possible that any result should come from it which would relieve the income-tax payers, I think nobody ought to be more grateful than the Party of which I am a member. But if it should be impossible, all I can say is that I fear that you will create in the minds of the payers of income-tax a very grave and discontented feeling towards the Government of the country, and towards the authorities, as regards the amount of taxation which they are called upon to pay.
It may be impossible, I do not know—
"Hope springs eternal in the human breast."
I may be impossible for the present Government to stop the increase of expenditure. That is a matter which must occupy a good deal of our time in the d bates on this question. The right hon. and learned Member for Haddingtonshire quoted some figures with regard to the annual increase of expenditure in this country in late years; I will just mention some of them. I have looked back to the year 1881–2, twenty-three years ago, and I find that in that year the total annual expenditure of the country was £85,500,000. For the seven years following it increased at the rate of £500,000 a year; for the seven years again following that it increased at the rate of £2,250,000 a year, and for the nine years ending this year it has increased at the rate of £1,250,000. I say such an increase cannot go on. If it goes on, in my belief it will impose a burden of taxation that this country will not
592
stand. It has already imposed upon us £23,500,000 of taxation primarily imposed for war purposes, but maintained in time of peace and added to this year by my right hon. friend to the extent of another £1,000,000. If this is to go on, in my belief the burdens of the taxpayer will become so great that there will be a reaction in this country which will not only sweep away us who may be held responsible for it, but will do what is very much worse. It will diminish expenditure to such an extent as to destroy that efficiency which those who are responsible for the present extravagance, as I believe it to be, are always telling us it is their one desire to maintain.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: The speech which we have just heard—a memorable speech in every sense of the word—will strike the House as having some special peculiarities in it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol was himself Chancellor of the Exchequer during eight of those years to which he has so wisely, so accurately, and so well, called attention in referring to the financial position of the country at the present time. My right hon. friend the Member for Haddingtonshire made a very apt address to the House, showing the financial position of the country, both on its favourable side and on its depressing side. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has, without referring to the unfavourable side, very much deepened the colour of the picture which my right hon. friend drew of the unfavourable side. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, although in his closing remarks he warned the House, in language by no means too strong, as to what the possible result—I think I may say the certain result—would be, if this policy which has been pursued during the last eight or ten years is persisted in. did not touch the real point, where the difficulty arises, and where we have a right to complain against those who have held office during that period. No one. of course, complains of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has discharged his duties in a manner which has commanded the admiration of the whole House. A more lucid, clearer, and. I think,

593
a fairer speech has seldom been made by any man occupying the position. What I want to bring home to the Committee and to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol and his colleagues before he left office, is that the responsibility for our present position does not rest with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Lord Beaconsfield said that finance was a question of policy. Though it be the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be the careful and strict guardian of the public purse, it is not in his Department to settle the general policy of the Government. During the last few years we have had too much isolation of Departmental as distinguished from Cabinet control. If finance be a question of policy, who is responsible for the general policy of the country? The Minister who is responsible for the expenditure of the country is the Prime Minister. I am not referring to the right hon. Gentleman personally; but I say it is the bounden duty of the Prime Minister, who is the only man who can control, and ought to control, and has the means of controlling, all the Departments of State—he is the man specially responsible to the Crown, to the country, and this House, not only for the finance of the country, not only for its commercial policy, but also for its foreign relations—for those international relations which tend to war or peace. He is responsible for the expenditure of every Department in the State. Now, I cannot say what is behind the veil of the present Cabinet, but I think there is an impression—and I do not think it is an unfounded one—that there has been, of late years, a laxity of financial control, that the Departments have been independent, that they have spent what they liked. I am only saving what everybody in official life knows to be true. Let me recall to the attention of the House and of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol the speech that he made a little more than twelve months ago. He was then Chancellor of the Exchequer. In that speech he stated that for years before the war, during the war, and after peace was declared, he protested against the growth of expenditure to his colleagues, and that these protests were received with indifference; and he called attention—and I am
594
now quoting his actual words—"to the absence of active, firm, and continuous support of the Prime Minister." I followed the right hon. Gentleman in that debate, and I said that no more serious charge had ever been brought by a Minister against his colleagues. I recognised that the Cabinet was one and indivisible, and of course it was personified in the person of the Prime Minister. That charge has never been refuted; the Prime Minister has never noticed it. He has never said that it was a mistaken view, nor that it was an incorrect view.
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I was not Prime Minister then.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: In Juno. 1903?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have never been Prime Minister when the right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I was assuming that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol was longer in office than he was. I do not wish to make this a matter personal at all; but I want to point out that the Prime Minister, as such, is responsible to the House and the country. We desire to reduce our expenditure and so to reduce taxation; and we do not want to realise all the calamities pointed out by previous speakers to-night. We have got to reduce expenditure. This is a purely peace Budget. We are presumed to have got rid of, to have wiped off, everything of the past war, and yet we are told—a new Chancellor of the Exchequer comes down and tells us—that in peace, as essential to a peace Budget, we are bound to provide this enormous sum of money—including nearly £70.000,000—for the military and naval expenditure of this country—a sum which has never been equalled before in a time of peace. Therefore we must raise this heavy taxation. From what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol has affirmed, the 1s. income-tax is likely to

595
be permanent, with additional taxation on the poorer classes; and we have no prospect held out of a reduction as years go on. And this will go on until the House and the country determines that there shall be a reduction in expenditure. Do not let us be met with the usual sneer, viz., that the Opposition are indifferent to the position, and power, and honour of the country. My right hon. friend behind me spoke very strongly as to what he felt about the Navy. I do not think there is a man on this side of the House who would not uphold the doctrine that we must have all the protection which the strongest Navy in the world can give us. Nobody has charged the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol with being a Little Englander, or that he is indifferent to the naval supremacy of the country. Rut. he has been behind the scenes, and he says he believes there is no ground for the increase of naval expenditure which we are incurring this year. Whatever we may feel with reference to the Navy, there is no difference as to Army expenditure. The right hon. Member for West Bristol expressed his own opinion, which I am afraid is true, that there is little prospect of a reduction in the Army. We are at liberty to say two things. We are opposed to a great territorial and expensive Army; we believe that we are spending a great deal more upon our Army than there is any necessity to spend, and that we are not getting our money's worth for it.
There are steady increases going on in other branches of our expenditure, and I am not sure that those increases should be regarded as necessary. We have been told to-night that the next seven years are by no means to be cheeseparing times. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman goes on an ascending scale: that we will have our taxation increased year after year. We must put our foot down and say, "Thus far, and no farther." Sir Robert Peel said that there were risks which must be undertaken. We are in danger of a growing expenditure in all Departments of the State. The regularly increasing expenditure has become epidemic. It is not confined to the military or naval Departments, there is a general tendency to extravagance all round.
596
That is the great lesson we learn from this Budget to-night—the first peace Budget we have had propounded to us since the war. The details cannot be discussed to-night. It is not fair to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or to our constituents. Nor is it necessary. But I will say that I, for one, dissent from the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and from those of the right hon. Member for West Bristol, with reference to the tea duty. I agree with him that this is a tax which everybody pays; that we are dealing with a tax on a commodity of universal consumption; and that, possibly, there is as little wastage in the result of that tax as in any other; but it is a tax that presses upon the poor. For a large section of our working classes tea is essentially an article of food. That tax was 4d. before the war; and now the proposal to-night is that in a peace Budget it should be 8d. What other tax-has been increased at the same rate? The right hon. Gentleman has alluded to the tobacco duty. I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer had restored the position as it was before the Member of Bristol's proposals which the right hon. Gentleman made some years ago. He took 6d. in the lb. off the duty on tobacco, and at the time of the war he only put 4d. on. I said at the time that I thought he should have replaced the whole of the 6d.; and even then it would not have been novel or unfair, because it was a tax which had been paid ever since the time of Sir Robert Peel, except when Sir Stafford North cote increased it, and that rate had produced no general dissatisfaction. But whether it be a tea duty or a tobacco duty, I agree that we have not yet got to the bottom of the incidence of these indirect taxes. You may say that this man pays so much in the £1 and that man pays so much in the £1; but you must have regard to the purse from which he has to pay.
I cannot sit down without congratulating the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon his courage about the Sinking Fund. I think that it is, perhaps, the most favourable feature of his Budget. He has had the courage to resist, the temptation, in order to avoid the increase of taxation, to tamper with the Sinking Fund. We have heard a great

597
deal about the price of Consols and the depreciation of securities. I believe that one of the causes, and by no means the least of the causes, of the depression in the money market has been the impression that even the fear of a suspension of the Sinking Fund creates in the mind of the capitalist class, and I strongly commend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the courage he has displayed in declining to tamper with the Sinking Fund I will ask the Prime Minister to make perfectly clear his intentions regarding the discussion on the Budget because it is evident that some of the Resolutions, as they involve new taxation, will have to be passed to night. Vote A has been passed again and again on the understanding that upon a subsequent occasion there would be a full debate on the Budget proposals on a Subsequent Vote. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give the pledges which he gave last year before the House is asked to consent to the Resolution.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should not have risen at this stage of the debate had it not been for the appeal made to me by the right hon. Gentleman. I think I can give him a perfectly satisfactory reply, so far as that appeal is concerned. My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will ask the House to pass, before it separates to-night, the tea duty and the new tobacco duty. That is absolutely necessary for renewal purposes. But the fact that it has to be passed tonight might, unless special arrangements are made, unduly hampers the debate on the finances of the country. The only way to reconcile the liberties of the House with the interests of the Exchequer is to pass by consent the Resolutions required for new taxation, and then to take a general debate on one of the other Resolutions. I think the convenient course will be to put down the income-tax Resolution first on Thursday, and on that Resolution it will be understood that the main debate on this stage of our proceedings upon the proposals of my right hon. friend shall be taken by the House. The right hon. Gentleman made an elaborate attack upon me as Prime Minister. Perhaps I had better reserve anything I have to say on that question until Thursday or some later stage of this
598
Bill. He must not take me as agreeing with any of the strictures he has passed upon the Government and its relation to expenditure.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I would have liked to reserve until the general debate on the Budget the few remarks I have to make on the subject, but, I will not do so because it is impossible for me or my colleagues to be at the House on Thursday. Ireland is the poorest portion of the United Kingdom, and it is proper that Ireland's voice should be raised in the clearest manner and at the earliest opportunity possible on the question of the imposition of additional taxation. One of the commonplaces of these debates on Budgets in past years has been the complaint which was once made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol that it was unfashionable to preach economy in connection with Budgets. That is not the case with hon. Members from Ireland, because they are forced upon all occasions such as this to make the gravest complaint against the rapid and extraordinary increase in taxation. It was not possible for any Member of this House to hear the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for West Bristol without serious misgivings as to the future. The right hon. Gentleman quoted figures which, if properly appreciated, would create a sensation in the public mind. He showed that in the year 1881–2 the expenditure of the country was a little over £85,000,000. but it now amounted to £150,000,000. These figures are appalling. How can this Budget, in the face of such a fact, be regarded as a peace Budget which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton has described it to be? Moreover, no hope is held out of any serious diminution of expenditure in the future. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, whos3 opinion in this matter I prefer to that of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, took that view, and even believed that next year it would be impossible to reduce income-tax. So far as Irish Members are concerned, they are absolutely helpless in the matter and hopeless. They cannot look to the future with any hope or confidence. They have had

599
the same story, year after year, of ever-increasing burden upon Ireland. Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol considered they were reaching the limits of taxation. So far as Ireland is concerned, this limit has been reached long ago. The power of the Irish people to bear taxation has been practically exhausted. I would emphasise the extraordinary fact that the linking of Ireland with the richest nation in the world has proved her ruin. No matter how poor Ireland might be, if she were on her own resources and not linked with England, this extraordinary burden would not be placed upon her. England might be able to afford wars in Somaliland, South Africa, and Tibet, but Ireland could not. Would the right hon. Member for. West Bristol apply the principle of differential treatment to Ireland as he wished to apply it to the income-tax payer? The taxation proposed to be placed upon Ireland by this Budget would amount to about £400,000 a year, or, in other words, Ireland would be called upon to pay one-tenth of the whole of this new taxation. In the year 1895, the Royal Commission reported that Ireland ought not to pay more than one-twentieth. That was a unaminous decision, but it was not accepted by everyone as correct. A good many of those who signed the Report thought it was altogether an excessive estimate of what Ireland ought to pay. Since then Parliament has imposed millions of additional taxation upon Ireland, and now this year the Government come forward and propose new taxation.
Now, as to the new taxation, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton has told us that it will hit the poor. But it will not hit the poor in this country half so much as the poor in Ireland. There are poor and poor, and I say there is no kind of poverty in this country so deep and so wretched as the poverty which is to be found in the congested districts in Ireland. In these districts tea is an absolute necessity of life. I remember a couple of years ago quoting in this House from the Report of the Congested Districts Board specimens of the budgets of the average families in these poor districts. Some of them went down as low as £8 a
600
year, but as a specimen of the best class of those budgets I remember representing those of a well-to-do family whose income was a little over £20 a year. Well, of that £5 17s. 0d. went in tea. On this point let me read a couple of passages in the evidence given by the Bishop of Raphoe the most rev. Dr. O'Donnell, who lives in the midst of these people, and who is intimately acquainted with their circumstances. He is asked this question—
"Passing from that point to the question of the food of the people in the congested districts has your Lordship any remark to make?—Yes. The food of the people in the congested districts has greatly changed, as the fashion of people's clothes has changed, or the material out of' which the clothes are made. It has changed and become more expensive and, in my opinion, not better. More white bread is eaten and more tea consumed, but no more meat, less meat. I would say that the Irish farmer with a valuation of under £10 a year is a vegetarian. On Sunday he may have bacon, but those who are valued under £4 a year, and they are the overwhelming majority, have no kind of meat except two or three times a year. In the congested districts the food is vegetable food."
Then he is asked with reference to the increase of the consumption of tea and he answers—
"A change has come about in the food of the people of congested districts. Much of the substantial portion is composed of potatoes when they have a supply. When the potatoes fail the main food is Indian meal."
—that is the yellow meal used in kennels, not entirely because it is not sufficiently good food for the dogs.
"Has the prejudice to the Indian meal disappeared? To a large extent."
Now will the House listen to this—
"Sometimes the poor people have milk but often they have not, even with their stirabout, and the nature of this food is such that the want of milk has a great deal to do with the large use of tea in the poorer parts of Ireland. When a man has hard work and has for dinner only stirabout, a little tea with some bread is really a necessity of life to enable him to go back to his task."
Now there is an article of food, an absolute necessity of life of these people, that you are going to tax. You are going to put on Ireland an additional tax of about £300,000 a year upon tea, and the budget of every one of these poor families will be so much the worse by the fact that what they are compelled to pay extra upon tea will leave them so much less to spend upon bread. It is a

601
cruel tax. Its pressure upon the poor is terrible, and it is much more, as I have said, upon those in Ireland than in England. Let me say one word about this matter. This indirect taxation is a more serious grievance in Ireland than in England. I have been for years preaching in this House the doctrine that the direct and indirect taxation ought to be brought down somewhere near a level. You have done it in this country. You are never tired of boasting in this country that you have brought down your direct taxation to about the same as your indirect taxation. But in Ireland you have never made an effort in that direction. The indirect taxation of Ireland is 75 per cent. of the whole—I think 75 per cent. at least. And therefore when you put taxation of this kind upon the Irish people you are refusing to remedy the incidence of taxation upon the poor.
Now I hope when we come to the Second Reading of the Budget Bill it will be possible for my colleagues and myself to raise the broad question of the over-taxation of Ireland, and to do so with the necessary detail. I do not propose to do it now, I have only risen at this moment to make my protest—I know it will not be an effectual one—my immediate protest, against this additional burthen upon Ireland and especially against the cruelty of seizing upon this article of tea, above all others, which will strike a deadly blow at the homes of the poorest people of our country. It is the story year after year. I really think that English Members, if they would dispassionately consider the matter, ought to be impressed by the extreme patience of the Irish people under the burthens that have been laid upon them, and of the extreme patience of their representatives. You sometimes are impatient with our ebullitions of temper, when, perhaps goaded out of that placid temper which you affect in this country, we give rein for the moment, to our passion or our ill-temper. You are amused and you reprove us, but if you remember how, generation after generation, we and our grandfathers and fathers have come to this House almost begging of you to save our poor people from unjust burthens, that we have come here and gone away empty-handed
602
and have had to go back to our people and tell them that you might as well be addressing the nether millstone as the average Member of this House, who knows nothing of Ireland, who has never been there, and cares nothing about Ireland, who will not take the trouble to listen to Irish wrongs, who will not take the trouble to make himself informed upon them—I say if you remember these things I think you ought in fairness to be astonished at the continued patience, at the persistence, in the face of defeat and disappointment, with which we pursue these efforts to get justice from this House. For these reasons I protest in the name of Ireland against this Budget; I protest against increasing taxation at all, and I especially protest against imposing a further burthen upon the poorest of our people.
SIR EDGAR VINCENTsaid the hon. Gentleman to whom the House had just listened was, he thought, rather forgetting the liberality of England in the matter of the Irish Land Act of last year, and he thought the accusation of the absence of generosity did not lie very well at present.
Mr. JOHN REDMONDsaid they denied altogether the generosity. On the statement of the Chief Secretary, every penny of the money was being provided out of Irish funds.
SIR EDGAR VINCENTsaid the very means by which the money under that Act was raised were very largely, if not entirely, the result of the contribution of England. The present financial situation was one of grave difficulty, almost unprecedented in the finance of this country. His right hon. friend had faced the situation with courage; his only complaint was that he had not, perhaps, gone far enough. The Sinking Fund which he had so wisely maintained he should have been glad to see increased, because the present Sinking Fund was largely illusive. He should be the last to minimise the responsibility of the Prime Minister, but it was not fair to attribute our financial duties either to one Party or to one man. The financial position of the country—responsibility for which must

603
be shared by both sides of the House and by the country at large—was worse than it had been at any time during the last fifty years. The gravity of the position had not been adequately realised. There had been at the head of the Administration for the last few years two distinguished statesmen, both of whom came from that part of the country from which we expected the severest economy, namely, Scotland, and he could not attribute extravagance to them. An extravagant Scotchman was a great rarity and the succession of two rather prodigal Scotchmen in power was a combination against which the gods would fight in vain. What mortal Chancellor of the Exchequer, then, could hope to be successful against such a combination? What was the result to which this conjunction had brought the country? He believed the financial position was worse than at any time during the last fifty years. Expenditure was admittedly out of hand. Annual increase succeeded annual increase with the regularity of the seasons, and no one appeared to have either the will or the power to arrest the dangerous progress. Taxation was at an unprecedented level for time of peace—a level admittedly dangerous in that it trenched upon our reserve against emergency. National credit was lower than at any period during the last twenty years, and, relatively to the credit of foreign nations, it was lower than at any period during the last fifty years. A certain laxity and confusion in the control over Estimates exercised by this House was perhaps a partial cause, and he regretted that the old simplicity of financial statements of which we had been proud appeared to be gradually disappearing. The inclusion of expenditure under the Works Bills in the Budget Statement was a step in the right direction.
Taking expenditure first he would briefly state the facts on which he based his opinions on the points he had mentioned. Since 1893 our total expenditure had grown from £90,000,000 to £140,000,000, an increase of about 55 per cent. or more than £4,500,000 a year. Such a rate of increase of expenditure was out of all proportion to the increase of population, the increase of trade, or the increase of national production. According to the best statistical authorities,
604
the natural increase in the produce of a tax, assuming no change were made in the system of taxation, amounted to about £2,500,000 a year; therefore an increased expenditure of £4,500,000 or £5,000,000, meant that an annual increase of £2,000,000 in taxation had become necessary. In the course of ten years, extravagant expenditure had been equivalent to an increase in the income-tax of 7½d. in the £, and if the present rate were continued, a further increase of 7½d., or some equivalent increase of taxation, would become absolutely necessary. The only alternative was an increase of borrowing—a course that was viewed with abhorrence by every sound financial authority. We had already made too large an appeal to credit. Where had the £50,000,000 increase of expenditure gone? £40,000,000 had gone to the Army and the Navy. That increase of expenditure was defended, not so much on the ground of national necessity as on the plea that, compared with foreign nations, we were bound to maintain our relative position. It was therefore germane to the question to consider what had been the increase in the military expenditure of foreign nations. Our military expenditure (including Works Bills) in the course of ten years had increased by no less than 120 per cent., whereas the increase in the case of Germany was only 30 per cent., of France 25 per cent., of Austria even less, and of Russia only 6 per cent. Last year the military expenditure of the Empire, including India, was £90,000,000, whereas in Germany it was £43,000,000, in France £45,000,000, and in Russia £47,000,000. Our military expenditure had more than doubled in ten years, and in the case of no other country had it increased in greater ratio than 30 per cent. It might be said that the large cost of our military establishment was due to the system of voluntary enlistment, but he had shown on previous occasions that the cost of the pay in the Army and the Navy represented only a fraction of the total, and that the great bulk of the expenditure was attributable to material, equipment, nourishment, and other essentials; so that the excess of our military expenditure over that of foreign nations could be attributed only in very small

605
degree to the system of voluntary enlistment as opposed to conscription.
As to taxation, of the £33,003,000 of new taxation imposed for the war, £27,000,000 were now necessary for peace expenditure;. He contended, however, that even with this large increase in the burdens of the country, we were not properly meeting our obligations. From all the estimates of expenditure as against revenue, the expenditure on borrowed capital, on Works Bills, was excluded. On the one side was the Sinking Fund of £6,000,000 or £6,500,000, and on the other side was he would not say secret borrowing, but "footnote" borrowing to the extent of more than £6,500,000. Last year it amounted to £7,000,000, and this year the Chancellor of the Exchequer feared it would amount to £10,000,000. Instead of paying off the borrowings made on account of the South African War, we were adding £3,000,000 to them. This constant recourse to the money market necessarily had a decided effect on cur credit. He submitted that the financial position of the country required the most careful consideration. After allowing for the reduction of interest on the Debt from 3 per cent. to 2½ per cent., it would be found that the course of our credit during the last five years had been distinctly less favourable than that of the credit of the great Empires of the Continent. Everyone must recognise that this comparative decline of our borrowing power would be a distinct disadvantage in any grave emergency. In the fourth place there was a tendency not to revise the estimates of expenditure presented to the House as fully or with as complete knowledge as was desirable. A Select Committee which sat last year made certain proposals under which hon. Members would have been able to call witnesses before them to go into the details of all items of expenditure. He believed that some measure of that kind was urgently necessary, and he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime I Minister had not seen fit to accept the proposals which were made by that Select Committee. He trusted, however, that he would be able to carry out that which they all desired, namely, to give the House an opportunity to discuss the
606
present system of Estimates at as early a date as possible.
There was a further point to which it appeared to him necessary to draw the attention of the Committee. This country was becoming more and more dependent upon foreign funds for the maintenance of its financial position, and it was within the knowledge of everybody acquainted with financial affairs in the City that at the present moment foreign investments in British stocks were larger than they had ever been before. Although he would be the last person to quarrel with those foreign bankers who provided them with the money which they stood so much in need of there could be no question that the position was some what less satisfactory than when this country was self-contained and self-supporting. They had heard a good deal about the desirability of this Empire being self-supporting as regarded food. He ventured to say that the argumen in favour of this country being self-supporting in regard to money and credit was still more worthy of consideration.
The conclusion he had arrived at regarding all these points was that it was the bounden duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assert the paramount claims of the financial situation to the earnest consideration of His Majesty's Government. Their finances were out of order and they must be put right. That appeared to him to be the most vital business before the Government and the country. In the second place he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would discard all those dodges of account which seemed to obscure the true situation, and which prevented the House and the country from understanding the real necessity and reality of the case. In the third place he ventured to express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would realise that no system of taxation, however scientific, could put £100,000 or £1,000,000 into the coffers of the Treasury without taking it from the reproductive forces of the country. The more the Government spent on the Army and Navy the less the country had to spend on other things, and he trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be misled by the

607
idea that scientific taxation could produce money from the clouds. This kind of taxation might obscure the incidence but it could not diminish the burden. In his opinion the only remedy for this position of things was to reduce the expenditure which rendered such heavy taxation necessary. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would understand that what was urgently required was to reduce the expenditure in order to diminish the burden which now rested upon the trade of the country, and which in his judgment gravely prejudiced their position in case of war. If the right hon. Gentleman would grapple with the problem bravely and courageously, as he had no doubt he would, he was convinced that he would obtain from private Members on both sides of the House a support far in excess of anything which he might anticipate.
MR. ASHTONsaid that hon. Members on both sides of the House appeared to recognise that the finances of the country were really in a critical condition at the present moment, but, nevertheless, he could not accept everything that had fallen from the lips of the hon. Member who had just sat down. He had spoken of the largely increased expenditure during the last twenty years, and he said that both sides of the House were equally to blame in that respect. Speaking for the Opposition side of the House he could not accept that position, at any rate for the last twenty years. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol had told them that, during those twenty years, in the first seven years of that period the expenditure had only grown by £500,000 a year, but for the next seven years it grew at the rate of about £2,500,000 a year; and for the last nine years it grew by £4,250,000 a year. He could not forget that during the greater part of that time right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite had been responsible for the finances of the country, and for the first seven years during which the expenditure of the country was only raised by £500,000 a year they had at the head of the inances of this country a right hon. Gentleman who sat on the opposite side of the House, to whom was due more than to any other man the fact that during the last
608
half century the expenditure of this country had been kept down—he alluded to Mr. Gladstone. It was owing to the fact that Mr. Gladstone was in office that the expenditure only rose by £500,000 a year, and it was because he was absent from the Government after that time that the expenditure had risen. He thought they were now in want of another man like Mr. Gladstone who would put his foot down and check expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol did his best, but after a time he was overpowered by his extravagant colleagues, and he had to resign his position.
He wished to say a few words about the deficit of the past year, but before doing so he wished to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon one point in his speech, and that was the way in which he accounted to them, for what they all deplored, namely, the decrease in the genera! trade of the country which had so much affected the revenue. He was glad to notice that he did not account for that falling off in the trade by what he would call Birmingham reasons. He told them straight that the falling off in their trade was in the first place mainly duo to the war; and, secondly, to the usual rise and fall in the prosperity of the country which took place time after time. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon the fact that throughout his speech there was no sign whatever of the doctrines of tariff reformers. There was one point, however, in which he approached very near to those doctrines, and that was in regard to the tobacco tax. He did not pretend to understand much about the complicated details of that tax, but it appeared to him that he proposed to put 1s. extra on foreign cigarettes without putting an excise duty on home cigarettes. With regard to the question of the deficit, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave them some very encouraging figures as to the way in which the Sinking Fund had worked in spite of the deficit with which he had to deal. That deficit amounted to £5,500,000. The right hon. Gentleman said he was able to show them that by means of the Sinking Fund the Debt had been reduced by £8,000,000. Even then, with the £3,000,000 that came out of the Transvaal

609
Loin there was still to go towards the Sinking Fund £5,000,000. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon that fact. But it was all very well to talk of having reduced the Debt, but what had been done to meet the deficit? He had met it only so far as £1,000,000 was concerned by making use of the unclaimed dividends on the National Debt. So far as the other £4,500,000 was concerned it was being met by the creation of fresh debt. The right hon. Gentleman had taken £3,000,000 which had already been raised and which ought to have gone to reduce the Debt, to reduce his deficit, and he had also taken £1,500,000 out of the balances. They heard a great deal Last year about the wonderful Sinking Fund that was going to be established, and a beautiful picture was drawn of how it was going to reduce the National Debt by £9,000,000 a year, and they were told that at the end of fifty years they would entirely extinguish the debt. It was rather a come-down to be told now that really about £500,000 was going this year to the Sinking Fund. That was a lamentable result during a year of peace. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had made some very serious miscalculations in his Budget estimates last year.
And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make hi3 Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  CUSTOMS—TEA.
  1. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That in lieu of the duty of Customs now payable on Tea, there shall be charged on and after the twentieth day of April, nineteen hundred and four, until the first day of August, nineteen hundred and five, the following duty (that is to say):—
  "Tea, the pound … Eightpence."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. ASHTONsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer was sanguine in budgeting only for a surplus of £750,000. They had had during the past few years much experience of Supplementary Estimates, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought now not only to budget for a few hundred thousand pounds above his estimates for the year, but ought to make some allowance for Supplemental Estimates which were sure to come during the course of the year. He might have made good the deficit by reducing the expenditure or adding to the taxation of the country, He (Mr. Ashton) believed that the time was coming when in the interests of national finance they would have to make a reduction in the expenditure of the country. He was glad to find there were right hon. Gentlemen opposite who were of the same opinion. The taxation of the country was rapidly approaching the point where elasticity would disappear and they would be face to face with an absolute necessity of reducing the expenditure or as an alternative of laying on taxation which would press very severely on the springs of the industry of the country. He did not suppose that during the course of the present Government they would see any material reduction in expenditure if they were to judge from the enormous increase during the time they had been in power. Figures had been given for the past twenty years, but those for the past nine years were sufficient for his case. During the time the Party opposite had been in power the expenditure of the country had been raised by fully 30 per cent. That was a very serious increase, and he saw no signs from the present estimates of its being checked.
  On the other hand, he believed there was large scope for reduction in at any rate two directions, viz, in the expenditure of the Army and the Navy. That could be done without effecting the efficiency of the forces. From the answers given to Questions in the House lately, it appeared that our expenditure on the Navy was £39,000,000, whereas that of France, Russia, and Germany combined was only £36,000,000. During the last nine years the tonnage of English ships had increased by 9,331,000 tons, while those of France,

  611
  Russia, and Germany combined had only been 8,475,000 tons. Roughly speaking, the tonnage of the three Powers he had named was 10 per cent. less than our own. In spite of that, they were told by the Admiralty authorities that they only estimated their strength against that of two other Powers. They all deseed to have a strong Navy which was capable of dealing with any two other Powers, but he suggested that they were relying too much on the opinions of naval experts. Experts opinions were excellent in their way, but they ought to be kept in check by those who were in control of affairs—the Government and especially the Prime Minister. Of late years the Government had been giving their head too much to experts without exercising a reasonable control over expenditure. If the experts were told that we required a fleet superior to others it was natural that they, having no responsibility for the Estimates, should take care that their calculations were on the right side. It was for the Government, and especially the Prime Minister, who was the head of the Defence Committee, to see that the Estimates were reasonable and sufficient for the exigencies of the country without permitting extravagant expenditure. If that was the case with the Navy, what of the Army? The figures for the past ten years showed that the Army expenditure had increased from £18,000,000 to £34,500,000, while the increase on the Navy had been about the same. In the case of the Army they were all agreed that they had not enough to show for that enormous increase. Certainly, so far as the Boer War was concerned, it did not show that the largely increased expenditure was met by a proportionate increase in efficiency. This was not a time when we need pursue a course of extravagance. At this moment we were on better terms with the great sister nation of America, and we were thankful to find ourselves on the threshold of a better understanding with France. He congratulated the Government most heartily on the French Treaty, although he was inclined to think that the French might have got a little the best of it, at any rate in respect to Morocco. Personally he did not mind that, because he believed that the increase of friendly relations with that
  612
  country would pay us over and over again for any concession which might be rather extravagant. He admitted that the extravagant Estimates for the Army and Navy might be necessary if certain hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in that House had their way, for if those promoting so-called tariff reform got their way the country would find itself waging financial wars with various countries. But so long as they remained a free-trade country—and he was happy to say he did not see any prospect of change—and so long as they remained on good terms with the trading nations of the world he did not think they needed to pursue the extravagant course of expenditure on the Army and Navy they were now following.
  Coming to the new taxation proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to impose an additional tax on tea. He sincerely regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not seen his way to finance the country without an addition to that tax. It was already 6d. per pound, and a serious tax on what was becoming more and more a necessity of consumption for the working classes. When they got a duty of 8d. per pound they practically made the duty equal to the value of the tea itself. Such a large increase on an article of consumption was a serious thing indeed for the poorer inhabitants of the country. They had heard that afternoon the very eloquent and touching speech of the Leader of the Irish Party as to the effect it would have on the poorer classes in Ireland who were large consumers of tea. So were the poorer classes in England. The tax would not conduce to temperance. Further, it was hard upon the poor Indian. It was the fashion to take very little notice of India in discussing tariff reform. India was a part of the Empire, and it was a little hard that a tax of this sort, which would press hardly on the people of that country, should be proposed. He objected to the tax most strongly because it was not the time to put further indirect taxation on the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was only fair that, as 1d. had been added to the income-tax, the indirect taxpayer should bear part of the

  613
  burden on the ground that the income-tax had been put up during the war. But a large amount of indirect taxation was also imposed during the war. For the purposes of the war £17,500,000 of direct taxation was imposed, representing 7d. in the £ on the income-tax, and £15,000,000 of indirect taxation was imposed. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought he could remit some of the taxation, and he took £10,000,000 off direct taxation, but only £2,500,000 off indirect taxation, so that, instead of the indirect taxpayer owing anything to the Exchequer at this moment, it was the direct taxpayer who was in its debt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposed to put £2,000,000 for this year on direct taxation and £2,500,000 on indirect taxation. If the incidence was unequal before its inequality was now to be increased, and therefore he protested against the consumers, who were largely poor people, being made to bear taxation whilst those who benefited thereby were the income-tax payers. They had been told for many years past that the income-tax ought to be held in reserve for emergencies. Unfortunately the elasticity in the taxation in this country had practically come to an end, and if we were to maintain our direct and indirect taxation at something like half and half he was afraid there was very little prospect indeed that the income-tax could be largely reduced in the future. We had come to the end of our resources, at any rate in direct taxation, and, if we were to broaden the burden of taxation, it ought to be broadened equally on direct and indirect taxation.
  He was very glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not propose to broaden the basis of taxation, because he had observed when hon. Gentlemen opposite talked of broadening the basis of taxation they always meant the putting of further burdens upon the poor by indirect taxation. We were, as he had said, coming to the end of the elasticity of taxation, and the only way we could raise our direct taxation was by the income-tax. We had got to get accustomed to a shilling income-tax as a regular source of revenue, and we should have to find other resources for
  614
  cases of emergencies. In the great French wars at the beginning of last century the income-tax was as much as 2s. in the £, and, if we had emergencies again, this was the sort of thing we should have to accustom ourselves to. If we had emergencies, we should have to levy taxes not only on poor people, but in the form of taxation which would bear hardly or the springs of industry, and the only recompense for that was that possibly people would realise what it meant for Governments to get into trouble and that these emergencies would perhaps be less likely to occur. So far, the Government in its extravagant course of five years had been saved by the death duties; these had been the salvation of the Government, but, unfortunately, we had come to the end of that, and ho ventured to suggest that in place of the tea tax, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have found other sources of income, which would have fallen upon the direct taxpayer. He ventured to suggest that he might have dealt with the question of the licence duties on public-houses. It was possible the Prime Minister might apply that on the morrow, but it was a means by which, in the opinion of experts, by altering those duties, from £1,000,000 to £l,500,000 might very easily be raised without doing any injustice or putting any undue burden upon anybody. At present those duties were levied in a most unfair manner, bearing very heavily indeed on the owner of small public-houses and very lightly indeed upon the owners of large public-houses. This was quite a different question from the beer duty? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them, as the Member for West Bristol told them before, that we had taxed beer to its utmost capacity and that if we taxed it any more it would be taken out in watering the beer. He dared say this was the case, but the tax on beer was levied on the customer, and, to a certain limited extent, on the brewer also. This tax upon licences of public-houses was a tax paid not by the brewer or the consumer, unless the brewer happened to be an owner, but by the owner. He did not think it would be any great hardship to extract from the owner of the public-house

  615
  some considerable sum for the privilege of having a licence. He suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might in this way, instead of putting 2d. further on tea, have got almost as much money, if not quite, without bearing hardly on the consumer. He might also have dealt with the house duty The house duty was levied only on houses of £20 and upwards. The hon. Member thought there was a great deal to be said for lowering the value of the house subject to duty to £10, by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have got a good deal of money. It was extremely desirable, if possible, to bring home to the working man as well as to the wealthier classes the amount of taxes placed upon the country, and he thought in this way they might do so as they could not do by taxing food.
  He would impress upon the Government the very serious character of the burden which was now laid upon the community by the vast expenditure and taxation. The position had become acute, largely in consequence, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them, of the trade of the country at present being in a somewhat depressed condition. The trade within the bounds of the kingdom was undoubtedly poor; the people were pressed by heavy taxation and rates, and also by the very considerable taxation on food that had had to be imposed. These were things that were bound to tell upon the prosperity of the people; it was a very serious question, and called for earnest consideration, and it was largely on this ground that he suggested that the only method by which we could put matters on a better footing was by reducing taxation.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAG-GREE: wished to associate himself with the compliments deservedly paid to the right hon. Gentlemen who had presented his first Budget to the House upon the very lucid financial statement he had made. But he could not conceal from himself or the House the great disappointment he felt at the increased duty he proposed to put upon tea. It was, he thought, about two years ago that his hon. friend the Member for Central Hull and himself
  616
  protested against the maintenance of the duty upon tea at 6d. per pound. In 1901, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, who was then Chancellor for the Exchequer, said that tea was already taxed up to 75 per cent. of its value, that it was produced now mainly by our fellow-subjects in India and Ceylon, that it was, owing largely to over-production, in a by no means satisfactory condition, and that, therefore, he did not think they ought to increase the duty on tea. Hon. Members on this side of the House who shared his opinion that 6d. was too high, did not go into the lobby then against the Government on the distinct assumption that the very first opportunity possible would be taken to reduce that duty. They were told that the increase of the tea duty from 4d. to 6d. was mainly due to the exigencies of the war, and, believing as they did in the necessity of the war, and the necessity of raising a larger revenue that year, they denied themselves the opportunity of protesting as strongly as they might have done against the maintenance of the increased duty on tea on that occasion. And now in this year of peace and in an essentially peace Budget they were told that the duty on tea would have to be increased by a further twopence per pound.
  He considered this question from two points of view—one, that of the consumer here, and the other that of the producer in India and the Colonies. In regard to the consumer, he spoke on behalf of a very large working-class population whom he had the honour to represent. He believed it was a very unjustifiable tax. It struck mainly at a staple article of food of the working classes, and he was perfectly sure that the effect of this increased duty on tea would be, to a very large extent, to increase the burden on those classes. Another point of view was that there were £30,000,000 of British capital embarked in the tea industry, and 70 per cent. of the companies paid no dividend. From that point of view also the determination of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to impose a further duty on tea was, to his mind, an unwise one. He trusted that the time was far distant when the interests of India would prove a negligible quantity in the deliberations

  617
  of this House. India, as he had stated over and over again, had very few productive industries left. She was really suffering from the want of industries. He believed that the great cause of almost all the evils which India was afflicted with, and all the apprehensions which were felt consequently from time to time as to the loyalty of her people, were due to her poverty, and anything that struck a further blow at her productive industries ought to be regarded with great concern by this House. Besides the planter, who was generally a British settler, there were engaged in the production of tea a large number of the labouring population of India. He was afraid that the imposition of a larger duty upon tea would have a very distressing effect upon their future. He was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have come to the conclusion that tea this year could bear an additional duty better than any other article of food. Considering the present fiscal situation and programme for the future which had been so much talked of recently throughout the country, he thought one of the first things that would be borne in mind by British statesmen was that no blow should be struck at any large industry in our dependencies and colonies which might greatly modify its future prospects.
  He was prepared to admit that it might fairly be asked how the necessary revenue was to be raised to meet the deficit if this increase upon the tea duty was not adopted. He had always believed that those who complained of an evil would do well to suggest a cure, and he was prepared with an answer to this query. He thought that one way of raising the necessary revenue either in this or in future years would be to adopt the economic policy which had been successful in India, and that was, after every source of legitimate and tolerable taxation had been exhausted, to have recourse to the imposition of a revenue duty upon all imports. Of course such a duty might run the risk of being regarded as a protective duty, but in India, which had followed the fiscal policy of Great Britain always, and which was dependent for her economic arrangements on the sanction and control of the Imperial Government,
  618
  this policy had been pursued with success. There a 5 per cent. ad valorem duty had been imposed for the last seven or eight years upon all imports, and he did not see why that policy could not be adopted in this country. It was done in India with our sanction and there was no vestige of protection about it. The additional duty of twopence on tea was, after all, a burden on the consumer here, and a very serious addition to the domestic expenses of certain classes of society which made it extremely unfair in its incidence. Take for instance a rich man who buys a house in Park Lane or builds a palace. He furnishes it with marble from Italy and furniture from France, and he does not pay a penny of duty on these articles, whereas a poor man, who must, as a necessary article of food, buy tea, has to pay the additional duty of twopence in every pound. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought out some other means of obtaining the necessary revenue he would have done better, and he himself should not have been driven to the necessity of disagreeing with the proposal of the Budget on this particular point.
  There was another consideration to which he wished to direct attention of the Committee. He was informed that a large amount of Chinese inferior tea went to America and was not allowed to be landed there or passed into the market, because it was regarded as an article which would injuriously affect the health of the people. He was told that that tea mostly came to this country, and was allowed to go freely and without any prohibition into consumption by the people. Under this increased taxation that would be still more the case, so that regarded from the point of view of the health of the population even, the tax was a very objectionable one. He was sorry that he could not vote for this increase of duty on tea. The right hon. Gentleman would have been carrying out the promises of the former Chancellors of the Exchequer if he had done something this year to reduce the duty on tea. It was now, on the contrary, going to pay more than 100 per cent. of its value. From whatever point of view he looked at this proposal to enhance the duty on tea he could

  619
  only regard it with grave disapproval. He trusted it was not too late for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider his decision. If it was too late to do so this year he trusted that the protests of himself and others now would have their effect in future years. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see that no further increase took place and would effect a steady reduction in the near future he would do an act of justice to the people both here and in our Indian Empire. A great deal had been said in the course of the debate as to the increased expenditure of the country and the necessity for retrenchment. He for one thought the time had arrived when a strict inquiry should be held into the causes of this large increasing expenditure, and for devising means whereby extensive reductions in several large Departments of the State could be effected. If that were done he was perfectly sure that such staple articles of food as tea would not have to bear additional burdens year after year.
  MR. MCCRAEsaid he joined his congratulations to those already given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who. in presenting the Budget, certainly made a most lucid statement. The right hon. Gentleman had also been congratulated on refraining from dealing with the Sinking Fund. He had, however, departed to a certain extent from the principles of sound finance by doing what he thought had been rather cunningly undisclosed in his statement. The right hon. Gentleman had really met the deficit of last year entirely from borrowed money. If the Committee would keep in view the £3,000,000 Transvaal contribution and also the borrowed money remaining in Exchequer balances, he thought he would be able to show that the whole of the deficit of last year had been met from that source, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman had only to budget for increased taxation for the deficit of the present year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he felt himself in a difficult position. Mr. Lowe, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, said he felt he was in a difficult position because millions were pouring into the Exchequer which he did
  620
  not know what to do with. The difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to day had been of a different kind. He had not only had to face increasing expenditure and stationary revenue, but he had had to suffer from the too sanguine expectations of his predecessor in office. But, after all, the matter went deeper than that. He was the victim of the system of plunging in expenditure which had characterised the present Government from the time that it assumed office. That was no new feature of a Conservative Government. The only new feature was that on this occasion they had remained long enough in office to reap the harvest of their own sowing. Hitherto it had been the experience that a Liberal Government had come in and reaped the harvest of tares, had cleaned the ground for a new crop, and after things were set on a sound footing a Conservative Government had again come into power. That was a matter of history which the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew very well although he assumed otherwise. For the first time a Conservative Government was faced with the problem of discharging its own liabilities. He had had to contend with the aftermath of the war expenditure.
  But the ordinary expenditure had assumed a progressive proportion hitherto unparalleled in the history of this country. It reached a culminating point in the period 1900 to 1903. Mr. Gladstone in 1879, referring to the extravagant Conservative Government from 1874 to 1900, stated that in five years that Government had increased the expenditure of the country by £8,000,000. What had the present Government done under the cover of war expenditure in one year? The ordinary expenditure in 1900–01 was increased by £9,000.000. During three years it was increased by £20,000,000. During the years 1901, 1902. and 1903, there were deficits which were covered up by war expenditure amounting to £3,000,000,£ll,800,000,and £ll,000,000re-spectively. Chancellors of the Exchequer had made attempts to stem the tide of this extravagance. The right hon. Gentlemen the Member for West Bristol had called attention to it again and again. The previous Chancellor of the Exchequer

  621
  the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon went so far in his Budget speech of last year as to complain of the recklessness in regard to the ordinary expenditure, and he added that it was only by being a little less reckless that they would be able to keep money out of the hands of the tax collector. In 1894–5 the actual expenditure was £94,000,000 and last year it was £147,000,000—an increase of' £53,000.000. To this had to be added £2,000,000 for the reduction of the Sinking Fund and £2.700,000 for the increase in local taxation grants. That was exclusive of capital charges for Naval and Military Works, etc. He was only dealing at present with revenue expenditure. In round figures there was an increase for 1901–5 of £50,000,000, without taking into account the £4,500,000 Interest on War Debt. Truly this was a great achievement. The natural increase in the produce of the revenue, a large proportion of the war taxation, and the great increase of taxation resulting from the death duties had all disappeared into this awful gulf of profligate expenditure.
  It had always been contended on that side of the House that too little had been paid out of taxation for war expenditure. The policy which had been pursued in that matter was an uneconomic and short-sighted one. What had been the result? It had enormously increased the National Debt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had to-day stated that the aggregate liabilities of the nation amounted to £794,498.000, being a decrease of only £3,850,000 since last year. In 1894–5 the National Debt was reduced by nearly £8,000,000, and no sum of £10,000,000 fell to be added, as would be the case this year, in respect of capital charges not included in the revenue expenditure of the country. The Funded Debt in 1898–9, the year before the war, was £627,000,000 as compared with £762,000,000, being an increase of £135,000,000. If hon. Members would analyse these figures they would see that really no Sinking Fund whatever had been provided to meet the war expenditure. In the year before the war the charge for the National Debt was £23,000,000, but the sum now laid aside for that purpose was £27,000,000. In that sum £4,500,000 was included, the interest for the war
  622
  indebtedness, so that really the Sinking Fund was rather reduced than increased, the difference being met by the reduction in interest which took place last year. In 1898–9 there was a Sinking Fund amounting to £5,800,000 and the charge for interest and management was £17,200,000, while for the year just concluded the amount was £6,600,000 Sinking Fund and the charge for interest and management was £20,400,000. According to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day that estimated sum of £6,(500,000 had not been applied because he stated that the Sinking Fund last year was £5,149,000. And they still went on borrowing for Naval and Military Works. These capital charges amounted this year to £10,000,000. He wondered what was now thought of the glowing picture which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer drew last year of the National Debt disappearing in the next fifty years. That right hon. Gentleman started with the calculation that it was to be reduced by £40,000.000—£30,000.000 from the Transvaal contribution, £4,000,000 repayment for advances; and £6,000,000 from the China Indemnity. Of these £40,000,000 we had received last year the sum of £3,000,000, and for this year out of £17,000,000 to be received we only received £6,000,000! Then the Floating Debt had not been mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, it Was.
  MR. MCCRAE: It was only mentioned, but the right hon. Gentleman did not endeavour to make the House realise the serious danger of having such a large amount of Treasury Bills floating. He must compliment the Chancellor of the Exchequer in refraining from dealing with the Terminable Annuities falling out in 1906. There was a great temptation for him to deal with them in the same unsound way as the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had done with similar annuities in his 1899 Budget.
  He would now come to the question of the Exchequer balances. He had said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had really paid for the deficit of last year out of money borrowed. In 1899 the Exchequer balances, exclusive

  623
  of the capital issues which were in the hands of the Exchequer, reaching £1,861,000, amounted to £7,058,000. In the last completed year these balances were stated at £4,263,842; but in this latter sum there was no less than £2,880,000 of borrowed money. He thought the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would admit that; so that the real Exchequer balances only amounted to £1,383,842; and the whole of the deficit of 1903–4 had been met by borrowed money. The same objection might be taken to the proposal of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to strengthen the balances by taking £1,000,000 this year from the unclaimed dividends. He had always observed since he came into the House that if any Chancellor of the Exchequer had an unsound argument to lay before the House, he always quoted Mr. Gladstone, and then proceeded not to do what Mr. Gladstone did, but to do something very different. Now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer that day had stated that he was going to strengthen his balances by doing what Mr. Gladstone did in 1866 by taking similar unclaimed dividends; but what did Mr. Gladstone do then? He reduced the National Debt by the amount of the unclaimed dividends appropriated; but what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was proposing to do was to relieve taxation to the amount, by applying the proceeds to revenue purposes. However, with the exception of these two points, he congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the way he had faced the financial situation, with one other exception as to his proposals to meet the deficit of the present year. The right hon. Gentleman was going to impose £4,500,000 of new taxation, and he had very distinguished precedents to refer to, so far as the increase in the income-tax was concerned. An increase of expenditure in 1859 was met by an increase of the income-tax, and again in 1893 the same course was followed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth. So far he approved. But in 1859 Mr. Gladstone, in making his Budget speech, said—
  "It would be an act of gross injustice towards the consumer to make an imposition on tea or sugar."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What was the duty then?
  MR. MCCRAEsaid it was a very large duty compared with what it now was, but the principle was the same, although they were dealing with a different situation at present. He maintained that a proposal by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to impose an additional sum of £2,000,000 on an article of domestic consumption like tea, in a peace Budget, was a course which, if not condemned by the House, would be condemned by the country. What was the position in regard to taxation? £33,000,000 were put on as war taxes. Last year there was a reduction of £13,000,000, leaving an increase of taxation of £20,000,00(1, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that day proposing to add £4,500,000. How was that enormous sum to be raised? By Customs and Inland Revenue to the extent of £14,500,000; by income-tax £9,500,000; and therefore he maintained that the indirect taxpayer had good reason to complain. There was a remission last year of the corn tax, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that that tax did not fall on the consumer. Why then was it taken off professedly for his relief? It had been suggested that there was a source of revenue lying ready to the hand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the licence duty, from which it was estimated that an additional sum of £2,000,000 could be raised without putting any great hardship on anyone. He had another suggestion to make to the right hon. Gentleman, and it was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should take a lesson from Japan. The Japanese Finance Minister—and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General who smiled would agree with this—said last year that—
  "In order to provide for the work of carrying to completion the programme of national armament, it was of the utmost importance that the necessary funds should be obtained from the most reliable and unfailing source, and there was none better suited for this purpose than the land tax."
  He recommended that to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They on that side of the House were twitted some time ago for proposing a tax on land values; but he believed that recent circumstances

  625
  brought that source of revenue appreciably nearer. He rather disagreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the reference which the right hon. Gentleman had made to municipal indebtedness. That had amounted to such a sum, said the right hon. Gentleman, as to cause serious reflection; but the right hon. Gentleman ought in fairness to have given the proportion between remunerative and unremunerative municipal indebtedness. It ill became the pot to call the kettle black. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would show an example in economy, he was sure it would be followed by the municipalities.
  He would conclude by saying that he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had really missed a great opportunity. They had been promised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, that after the war was over they should have a full consideration of the financial position of the nation. That they had not yet got. He had hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have taken this opportunity to deal more fully with the financial situation, and to put the finances of the country on a broader basis. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman's voice had not been raised that day more effectively in favour of economy. What was wanted was courage to grapple with the demon of extravagance, and to initiate a policy of retrenchment all along the line. Greater control over expenditure was required. It was a maxim in military strategy that the enemy should be beaten in detail. The Estimates were taken separately for the different departments and expenditure increased by detail. There was no occasion when the House could have a full review of the whole expenditure of the year before taxation was imposed. This colossal expenditure was attaining such proportions that it was exceeding their capacity to bear taxation. That responsibility, they, on that side of the House contended, lay with the present Government. The hon. Member for Exeter said that that responsibility rested also with the Opposition. He repudiated that argument. The responsibility rested with the present Government alone. He would quote an excerpt from a speech delivered by Mr.
  626
  Gladstone in 1879, which showed how history repeated itself. Mr. Gladstone, in speaking of the Beaconsfield Administration, then said—
  "They began the great development of that new method of Government policy and finance under which we were told our country is at length to assume its true position in the world, a position founded on a new creed with a variety of articles, the first of which is uniform financial deficiency."
  That was very much the position today. They had a deficit last year, deficits in the previous years, and now they had another deficit this year. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had boldly faced the position, and availed himself of new sources of revenue, he might have relieved the poorer classes of the community from an undue share of the burden of taxation.
  MR. McKENNAsaid he wished to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his Budget, if for nothing else than that from beginning to end it represented the pure orthodox doctrine of free trade. The right hon. Gentleman had found that the tobacco duties were in accordance with Cobdenite doctrine, and therefore he had increased them. There was a time when the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer was regarded as the drum of the Protectionist Party opposite; but now they must look upon the Prime Minister as a hostage for the good behaviour of the Party behind him, and so long as he was in his present position it was a pledge that the country would be perfectly free from protectionist tariffs. In spite of the mystery in which the Prime Minister wrapped up his views, it was evident that the Government did not intend, and apparently had not the slightest wish, to introduce protectionist legislation now. Under these circumstances it was a wise thing to retain as Chancellor of the Exchequer a Minister who publicly advocated doctrines entirely different from those taught in that House by the Prime Minister, although it seemed rather like appointing a practitioner who dispensed quack medicines to be President of the College of Physicians. There was a reason why he thought it was a doubtful advantage to have a protectionist Chancellor of the Exchequer at this moment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he really believed that by taxing the foreigner he

  627
  could get all the revenue he required, could have no inducement for that economy which this Committee ought to insist upon. It was bound to affect the right hon. Gentleman's mind in the long run, that if they were a little extravagant, that would help him in the policy which he wished to carry out. That was a real danger which the Committee ought to face. On the other hand, the Committee ought to find satisfaction in the fact that the Budget now introduced was a sure indication to the country that the whole tariff reform agitation was a mere sham. It was hardly conceivable that, if hon. Gentlemen opposite really believed that millions could be brought into the Exchequer, that our trade could be revived and brought to a state of great prosperity, that the Empire would be no longer in danger, but would be linked to us by firmer bonds than ever by a mere stroke of the pen, they would be prepared to postpone that change indefinitely—not for this year only, but indefinitely—for the convenience of the present occupants of the Front Bench.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of the alarming increase in local indebtedness, which for England and Wales alone, he said, amounted to £197,000,000. He would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee how much of that was due to the good example of the municipality of Birmingham. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the admirable work done by the Birmingham Corporation by means of money raised from the public, and the right hon. Gentleman must confront the late Colonial Secretary and convince him that the admirable work which he did when Mayor of Birmingham was a mistake from beginning to end. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that municipal indebtedness had increased to £197,000.000, he did not remind the Committee that the greater part of that was raised for remunerative undertakings, which provided not only for interest, but sinking fund. He ought to have told them how much had been paid off by the local authorities during these twenty years. They were every year paying off fully as much as was necessary to keep up their credit at the highest point, and
  628
  the credit of the London County Council stood at this moment actually at a higher point than the credit of the State. His hon. friend was, he thought, a little unfair on the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the Sinking Fund in referring to the debts which were incurred on account of public works. The sinking fund of these Public Works Loans was, he thought, met each year out of the Estimates, and, consequently, when his hon. friend spoke of the Sinking Fund as if he, were going to include the amount of the Public Works Loans in it, he should also have included the amount of Sinking Fund raised on the Estimates for the purposes of meeting those loans; and, if he did include them, he would find the provision made in the Sinking Fund for the Public Works Loins and public debt would be sufficient if it were allowed to remain intact. He agreed entirely, however, that, as a matter of fact, the deficit of this year was, with the possible exception of £800.000, being paid exclusively in the shape of a £1,000,000 from the unpaid dividends. He did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer had quite come up to the level of his other work in the Budget when he only made a possible provision of £800,000 to cover any Supplementary Estimates, which from past experience would be far in excess of that amount, and would therefore have to be met out of loan. He deplored the tea duty upon every ground, upon British and upon Indian ground; and he was bound to say. that, although he agreed with the rest of the Budget, he should feel constrained on that, account to vote against it.
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid the way in which the Budget had been received was the best compliment the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have. Everything seemed peaceable and quiet, despite the idea that the Budget, was to be a serious matter for the Government. He agreed that the financial condition of the country and the growing expenditure were matters of enormous importance; but he thought, instead of talking about increases in millions, they should look and see in what the money was spent. There were really four item in which

  629
  large increases had occurred during the past ten years, viz., the Army, the Navy, education, and the wages paid to State employees; the other items were very much as they were ten or twenty years ago. Would anyone get up and say the Navy was to be reduced largely and substantially? ["Hear, hear!" and "Yes."] He could not conceive any responsible section in the House really saying the Navy must be so reduced as to bring the Estimates back to their state of a few years ago. They would all like it, and be glad if the expenditure could be cut down; and, having regard to the Treaty initiated in high quarters between England and France, they hoped it would, before many years were over, be possible to substantially decrease the standard of all this enormous expenditure upon armaments. He knew nothing of the Army, but, looking at the state of Europe, and of the world, and at what was going on both in the Far and Near East, they could not say that this was a time when an enormous reduction could be made in the Army expenditure. During the last ten or fifteen years the Vote for education had increased by nearly £10,000,000 or £12,000,000; but he was satisfied there was not one single Member, who, on the platform would say that the expenditure on education should be reduced, and he did not think there were many who would say so in the House; and he did not think any Member would dare to reduce the fourth item, the wages paid to the employees of the State. Indeed, he did not think there was any hon. Gentleman opposite, who would go all over the country talking about the extravagance i of the Government, who would dare to say there was one of these items he would reduce. He was as anxious to see as much economy as he could, and he rejoiced extremely that the right hon. Gentleman had maintained the Sinking Fond, because to his mind it was the only substantial means they had of pressing some sort of economy upon the attention of the House. He always regarded the great cause of increased expenditure as being not the Government bat the desires of the House, which continually pressed the Government, whether Conservative or otherwise, for increased expenditure; and he said emphatically that why he always
  630
  objected to the reduction of the Sinking Fund, and still thought it not sufficient, was because he looked upon it as a sort of indirect or private way really tending to economy. The great subject of local taxation had also been brought up. He looked with the greatest apprehension at the enormous increase of the local taxation, a comparatively small part only of which was remunerative; and he said they were building up an enormous debt and risk in this large expenditure. Of course, they had representative government in each locality, and each locality was allowed to borrow; but he thought some such rule as was in force in America, where there was a limit to the borrowing power of each locality, would be beneficial here. He again emphasised the necessity of looking into the items before talking about increases of millions to see which they could honestly say they intended to decrease. He thought, the Army and Navy might be ultimately decreased, but at present there was no section of the House which, if in office, would dare largely to decrease those great spending Departments in any way.
  SIR WILLIAM HOLLANDsaid he wished to associate himself with the stand hon. Members and right hon. Members on the opposite side of the House had made for economy. He thought, if those Members, who were pretty numerous, were to band themselves together and decide on some joint action they would be able to speak with authority and in time enforce their views. The features of the Budget were the colossal scale of our national expenditure and the magnitude of our deficit. It appeared to him that deficits were becoming chronic in the Budgets. In the period from 1888 to 1898 every Budget with one exception, when there was a slight deficit, showed a surplus, but since then we had witnessed appalling deficits. He hoped they were getting to the end of such a sad record. He congratulated the Chancellor on his admission that there were signs that the extreme depression in our trade of the past few years was passing away. This was good news. He thought it was absolutely true, and he called the attention of the House to the fact that it was taking place without the assistance

  631
  of their friends from Birmingham who were advocating new and drastic remedies.
  He should also like to acknowledge the accuracy of the Chancellor's diagnosis as to the ailments which just now attended the cotton trade. These troubles were to be assigned to the scarcity of raw material and the speculation which had taken place in the raw material. He hoped the Chancellor would stick to these views, because he considered it likely there might he an attempt to attribute them to other causes, and to advocate a fiscal remedy instead of the true and accurate remedy, viz., to increase the supply of raw material. He 'lid not claim to be an expert in the tobacco trade, but it did strike an outsider that if import duties were to be levied on any manufactures imported into this country which at the same time were made on an extensive scale in this country pro tanto those duties, unless coupled with a corresponding Excise duty, must afford protection to those engaged in the trade. He considered the increased tea duty would come as a surprise to everybody. It would hit a class already hard hit by taxation and particularly by the sugar tax imposed within the last few years. He supported the appeal to the Chancellor to remove the duty from alcohol required for manufacturing purposes. The effect of the removal would be infinitesimal on the Budget, because the industries were non-existent; but, by removing this barrier, we should, he thought, soon have a rush from foreign countries and new industries would be established, improving employment. Chambers of commerce throughout the country had passed resolutions in favour of some such action, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would therefore take the matter into his careful consideration. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had not seen his way to remove the coal tax, which had led to the loss of contracts and had diminished employment, lessening the ability of those concerned to pay other taxes. Contrasting England's growing indebtedness with the financial condition of the United States, Germany, and Italy, he quoted from a report with respect to the latter country,
  632
  which stated that there had been five surplus Budgets, that the Debt was being steadily reduced, and that the high quotation of Italian stock testified to the estimate formed of the soundness of Italian credit. He was afraid the converse must be true with regard to the estimate formed of the credit of this country. All these facts, he said, confirmed his view that we had lost ground in comparison with other nations; but he hoped we had now turned the corner and that the days of deficits were past.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he would direct the attention of the House to one specific subject, viz., the effect the increased tea duty would have upon the constituency he represented, or rather the county of Donegal. Of all portions of the United Kingdom the county of Donegal would be the most detrimentally affected; it was largely poverty-stricken, the people having the greatest difficulty to sustain existence at the best of times. They rarely took any meat; and they did not eat bread as they, in England, knew it; they ate Indian meal. In one family of five, where the income amounted to £10 a year, £3 was expended on tea, and in another family, where the income was £25 a year, £7 was expended on tea. Tea with them was an article of food, and these family budgets showed the enormous effect the increased duty would have on the life of the inhabitants of his constituency. He could not imagine anything more atrocious than this increase. The incidence of taxation as regarded tea between England and Ireland was not fairly proportioned, for in Ireland more tea was drunk than in England. Ireland, moreover, stood in a very different position to England, and if the whole hundred Irish Members voted against this duty, including the Loyalists and the Members for Dublin University, it would not affect the tax. Ireland was unconstitutionally placed, and if the tax could be resisted by force it would be proper to do it. He had no wish to draw a contrast between the present free-trade Chancellor of the Exchequer and the free lance who appeared on a platform at

  633
  Birmingham approving the transgressions of an erring father, but he did assert that there was reason to doubt the spirit of the Budget, and to look on it as a clear indication of the principles advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham of putting a tax on the food of the people, and, as such, he hoped it would be strenuously opposed.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I feel that I must make one or two observations in answer to what has fallen from hon. Members in the course of the debate. First, I desire to acknowledge the great kindness with which I have been received by Members of the Committee on both sides of the House. I am very sensible of the personal kindness they have shown me. It is, I suppose, more than I can hope that any Chancellor of the Exchequer should carry a Budget without coming into active controversy with some section of opinion in the House, but at any rate, I desire to postpone that stage until a later date in our discussions. I think it has been generally admitted that, under difficult circumstances, the Government have faced the position with courage, and have made proposals which are worthy of the nation and worthy of the acceptance of this Committee. My right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol has cautioned me as to the estimates I have prepared, and has expressed the hope that I have taken a warning by the results of the last two years and been moderate in the expectations I have formed. He alluded in particular to the fact that last year contained an extra day, and asked whether I had remembered that fact in forecasting the revenue of the current year. Yes, Sir, I have taken that into account, and, I believe, after taking the best opinion that I could, that the estimates of revenue which I have presented are moderate and are more likely to be exceeded than to result in a deficiency.
  My right hon. friend asked me for some further explanations of exactly how I propose to deal with the realised deficit of the past year. I have made very full and ample provision for the estimated expenditure for the current year—that deficit, at any rate, I have filled. The ques-
  634
  tion is, what exactly have I done with the realised deficit which we inherited from the year which has just closed. I think my right hon. friend was somewhat confused by mixing up the repayment which we have received from the Transvaal with the amount by which the balances were swollen owing to excess borrowings beyond the actual expenditure during the course of the war. The balances were actually swollen out of money borrowed for war charges, but not at the time expended in war charges, to the extent of nearly £3,000,000. I had a realised deficit on the past year of, roughly, £5,500,000 to deal with. To the extent to which the balances were abnormally swollen in the years of war by borrowings intended to be devoted to the purposes of war, but not at the time required for war, I now allow the war charges of last year to fall finally and definitely upon balance—that is to say, that the money which was borrowed for the war charges but not at the time required for war charges I now apply to meet to that extent the war charges which have since accrued. The war charges which have since accrued have indeed exceeded the excess of our borrowings, but it is only to the extent to which our borrowings exceeded the immediate demands for war charges that I propose that those war charges shall now be thrown upon the excess borrowings of past years. That gives me a sum of a little less than £3,000,000. Then I propose to obtain, by the utilisation of a part of the sum standing unused in the unpaid dividend account, a further sum of £1,000,000, which will go to make good that deficit, and to replace the draft which has been made upon the balance. My right hon. friend very naturally said that he presumed these sums were remaining invested, and invested in Consols, and hoped I should be cautious how I became a seller of Consols at the present moment. Yes, Sir, that is a matter which has had my most careful attention, and I shall be most careful as to the time and the manner in which I realise this asset. I think the services of the National Debt Commissioners will be most useful in this connection. All that I will say at present is that the difficulty adumbrated by my right hon. friend has not escaped my attention, and

  635
  I shall have careful regard to the interests of Consols. I thus obtain from the excess borrowings the sum of £2,800 000, and from the realisation of the asset of the unclaimed dividends £1,000,000, or a total of a little short of £1,000,000. The deficit being in round figures, £5,500,000, or a little under, I have still a little more than £1,500,000 to make good. My right hon. friend I think, wished me to explain exactly what I propose to do in regard to that £1,500,000. As I have already stated, I believe the estimates of revenue which I have laid before the Committee are framed with great moderation. I am hopeful that they will be exceeded and that the actual surplus revenue will be larger than the sum I have named to the Committee. From that surplus revenue, after allowing for the unforeseen contingencies of the year, I shall make good a considerable portion, not improbably the major portion of the £1,500,000 which will still remain after my other proposals have been adopted. It is to the surplus I look to make further provision towards the restoration of balances, and if I cannot restore the whole of the £1,500,000 by which the balances are depleted, then the remainder must wait for restoration in the subsequent year. That is a course in accordance with precedent, and a course that is dictated by the circumstances of the moment to any one in my position. Taxation is very high, and I am obliged to raise it still higher. An emergency has to be met, and to the temporary nature of the emergency I must have regard in making provision, not disturbing any trade or industry or burdening the present year out of all proportion to the permanent needs of the country. I ask the Committee to support me in what I feel is no popular task in imposing fresh taxation to the extent that is necessary fully to cover the anticipated deficit of the current year and to leave a large margin towards wiping out the remaining deficit of last year. But a Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be justified in asking the Committee at a moment like the present to impose a very much larger addition to taxation in the current year with the knowledge that it would not be required for the ordinary expenditure of the subsequent year.
  My right hon. friend went on to express a hope that I should secure
  636
  from the tea duty the revenue anticipated. He said very truly that there is no article which more lends itself to anticipatory clearances from bond in expectation of increased duty than tea. My right hon. friend will be glad to learn that tea this year has been less sensitive than in some previous years, and I have the satisfaction of knowing that clearances in the last week or two have not been such as to show there has been anticipation. On the other hand, there might, in expectation of relief from taxation when the next Budget statement is made, be a disposition on the part of dealers to hold back clearances, but by moving the Resolution in a form that will continue the duty up to August, 1905, I hope to secure the revenue I anticipate. My right hon. friend indulged in some good-natured chaff upon the choice of tea as a subject for increased duty. He referred to the difficulty he had when raising the duty, and pictured to himself with some satisfaction the present Chancellor of the Exchequer replying to the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield and others who are in favour of preference being given to Indian and Colonial products when they attack him for increasing a duty on what is mainly an Indian product. I do not think the Indian Government will complain, for from an interesting despatch I gather that they are satisfied with the assurance that whatever duties are put on are paid by the British consumer. I assure my hon. friend the Member for Bethnal Green that I personally regret to have to choose this subject for taxation. I do not think the increase in the tea duty which I propose will check to any material extent the consumption of tea. Duty or no duty, it is impossible that the increase in the consumption of tea per head of the population can continue at the same rate at which it has progressed for the past half-century, because, to employ a picturesque phrase which has been supplied to me by an authority on the subject, the British people have very nearly reached saturation point in the matter of tea drinking. But I hope I can count upon the able and influential support of my right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol in proving to my hon. friend the Member for Bethnal Green that his Indian constituents—if I

  637
  may use the phrase—will not have to suffer the whole of the burden of the increased duty on tea, but that it will be borne by the taxpayers of the United Kingdom. I do not pretend that to raise the tax on tea is a popular course. No one is more alive than I am to the objections that can be raised against it. But, after all, I have to provide a sufficient sum of money to balance the national accounts and to leave a margin on the right side; and if the use of tea for this purpose is condemned, hon. Members must find for me some other source of revenue less objectionable.
  The hon. Member for Bethnal Green suggested that I should have recourse to a general duty on imported goods and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford urged that if I must raise money by indirect taxation some article of luxury rather than an article of universal consumption should be employed. I will not enter to-night into any elaborate examination of the subject, but I venture to defy any hon. Gentleman who holds that view to frame a satisfactory method of realising their aspirations without a revolution in our fiscal system, and the Government are precluded by the pledges they have given from attempting any fundamental change in our fiscal system at the present time. There is, of course, another suggestion which is equally certain to be advanced in the debate on the Budget, and that is economy. It is not for me to defend the expenditure of a Cabinet of which I was not a member against the criticisms of my right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol. But I confess I think there is some inconsistency, in my right hon. friend, of all men in the world, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the years of greatest expenditure, admonishing me, of course in the kindliest spirit—
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: No, no! I have not said a word, and certainly never intended to say a word, which would hold my right hon. friend responsible for the expenditure of which I complained. Of course, my right hon. friend was not then in office, and consequently was not responsible for the expenditure.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am most anxious to avoid entering into
  638
  a personal controversy with my right hon. friend, but I do submit that it is a little hard that my right hon. friend, now he is free from the responsibility of office, should criticie so freely the expenditure of the days when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and one of the most influential members of the Cabinet which incurred that expenditure. Every Chancellor of the Exchequer in turn has the strongest interest in reducing expenditure, and every Chancellor of the Exchequer will use every effort to is cure economy, subject only to his sense of what is necessary for the safety of the country. The test which must be applied is not whether the expenditure is large or small, but whether it is more than is needed for the wants of the country. Would any hon. or right hon. Gentleman on the Government side have been prepared, at any time during the nine years that our Party have been in power, to save a million or two millions of increase of taxation by a corresponding reduction in the building programme of the Fleet? What are they willing to give up? Our financial reserves are as important as our military or naval reserves; the three must be considered together, and in any particular year we must weigh the demands of the one against the demands of the other and strike a balance between them. I do not think it right, having assented to certain programmes of military and naval expenditure, having felt it impossible to refuse assent to those programmes, now to complain of that expenditure. I venture to say that the expenditure on the Navy in the years for which we have been responsible has been a great insurance for the nation, and that if we had not year by year assented to the sacrifice, heavy as they were, which the country has been asked to make, at moments: such as those we passed through last autumn and winter, there is no limit to the panic expenditure into which we might have been forced. I will say no more on that subject at present, as I understand it is to be raised again in the course of subsequent discussions.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Haddingtonshire expressed his desire that we should arrive at some more accurate and scientific determination of the actual incidence of taxation upon

  639
  different classes or individuals in the community. That was the very first thought that occurred to me when I entered upon office. I have taken a good deal of pains to obtain information on the subject, but I will tell the Committee frankly that every calculation I have made or seen I am advised by those most competent to advise me is a matter of pure speculation on which I should be unwise to base any arguments or conclusions. I do not say I have finished my inquiries, and I can promise that the subject shall not escape my attention. The burden of the debate has been, after all, not a criticism upon the particular proposals of the Budget, but an attack on the alleged extravagance of the Government, and a demand that there should be greater economy in the future. I deny the extravagance. The Government have spent largely, but we have spent on purposes of the first importance to the country. We have got value for the money and as long as that is the case we cannot be fairly accused of extravagance. I do not profess to hope that there can be any great reductions in the Navy Estimates, but I do hope that the great exertions we have made in recent years in meeting not only current liabilities, but the deficit we inherited, have placed the country in such a position of naval strength, that the Navy Estimates will not grow in the next few years as they have done in the past. And I also hope that by modifying and improving the Army system, which has been the accepted Army system for thirty years past of both Parties in the country, the. Secretary for War, in particular, may obtain a more, efficient Army and yet make some reduction in our great military expenditure. But if there is to be a real economy there must be some change, in the House, itself, and that change must be as marked on the Benches opposite as on the Benches on this side of the House. Hon. Members come forward with a cheap and easy cry against large expenditure, when the bill has to be paid, but how much support can I count upon from any hon. Members opposite in resisting any popular demand for increased expenditure?
  MR. MCCRAE: Give us the opportunity.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Hon. Members have enjoyed the opportunity often enough, and what did they do? Some of them stayed at home; some of them walked out; and the rest went into the lobby in favour of increased expenditure and justified it to their consciences and constituents by the statement that they were voting against a Government in which they had no confidence. That is an easy way of treating the difficulty; but it is idle to talk of economy as long as that irresponsible feeling exists among many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who ought to have some responsibility because they profess to have a real knowledge and appreciation of the difficulties which confront the Government. I am afraid that I have adopted a more controversial tone than I had intended. But amid interruptions I find a little difficulty in restraining myself within those limits of moderation and calmness which I laid down for my guidance when meditating my remarks. I conclude as I began, by expressing my genuine thanks to the Committee for the kindness they have shown to me, and with an appeal to hon. Members to come to a decision upon this Resolution, which it is absolutely necessary to take this evening. I must also take the Resolution as to the changes in the tobacco duties. The only result of not passing the Resolutions would be that certain Gentlemen would be enabled to procure goods to a considerable extent to-morrow, and that is in the interest neither of the public nor of the trade generally. I hope, therefore, those Resolutions will be passed to-night, and I shall not then ask the Committee to proceed further.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid that what was wanted was not so much a change in the Committee or in the House as a change in the spirit which had animated the Government towards foreign and colonial affairs during the last four or five years. Throughout the debate, with the exception of a remark by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, hardly a reference had been made to the main cause of the present financial

  641
  difficulties. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, the military expenditure had been practically dictated by the late war. Whether that war was right or wrong, it was at the bottom of the present difficulties, and it was only reasonable that the House of Commons should recognise the fact. Without a complete change in the spirit which brought about that calamity, and similar calamities on a smaller scale, there was little prospect of economy in the future, on the part either of the present or of any Government.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the answer to the inquiry of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol with regard to the deficit of £1,500,000 left over from last year was extremely unsatisfactory, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would even now give the matter further consideration. The question he desired to mention had reference to the tea duty. If they merely voted against the Resolution which had been put from the Chair, it would seem as if they were obstructing the general Budget; whereas what they wanted to do was something quite different. They wanted to take a clean issue with regard to the proposed increase in that duty. He would therefore move an Amendment to substitute "sixpence" for "eightpence" in the Resolution. The effect of this Amendment would be that the tea duty would continue to be levied at sixpence. He was amused at the light way in which this matter had been treated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol. With regard to this duty he might say that they had had a good deal of experience of the kicking downstairs treatment when the right hon. Gentleman himself was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he was sorry that he had not adopted milder ways in dealing with people. He wished the Committee to consider how the tea growers were being treated. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol said that tea was not a raw material, but to India and Ceylon tea was practically a raw material for it was the most important product of those countries. Probably the Committee did not realise the difference to those countries
  642
  between a sixpenny and an eightpenny tea duty. The sixpenny duty on tea was carried in the year 1883 and it continued to 1899 when it was reduced to four pence. In the year 1863 all the tea used in the country was sent from a foreign nation, but since then tea had become a great British product and they were not only supplying the English-speaking people with tea at the present time, but their tea growers produced 80,000,0001bs. a year for export to other countries. This duty would strike a deadly blow at an important British industry which was now suffering under very great disabilities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to consider these tea growers, who had already pointed out to him that the consumption of tea was kept under a heavy disability by the 6d. duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would not find it a pleasant thins to tell the tea growers that the country was saturated with tea, and that it did not matter what it did to them. It was practically admitted that this was suggested with the idea of punishing India. The right hon. Gentleman did not like the attitude of India with regard to tariff reform because they were too much free-trade for him, and consequently he was going to put a tax upon their tea. The tea growers ought to be considered in this matter and so ought the wants of their own people. The people of this country might be saturated with tea, but what was the reason? They could not afford more expensive drinks. It was the poor who took tea, and yet this article of consumption was to be treated worse than any other article. The duty on tea had been doubled, for it used to be 4d. and now it was 8d. The Government did not propose to double the duty on beer, and why did they not increase the beer and spirit duty in something like the same proportion as they had done the tea duty? Why not double the beer duty before they doubled the tea duty? The Government had punished India, and now were going to punish the temperance people too. To-morrow the process would be carried a step further when they were considering their friends the publicans and the brewers. Tea was not the first article but the very last upon which a heavy burden of this kind should be laid. The Chancellor of the Exchequer

  643
  had received many compliments that evening, but he assured the right hon. Gentleman that his path would not be easier as this Budget went on, and he warned him not to take those compliments too seriously The right hon. Gentleman seemed to him to be like a man who had sat down on a wasps' nest. He would have a great deal of trouble with tea and tobacco before the Budget was finished with. He begged to move his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 5, to leave out the words 'Eight pence,' and insert the words Sixpence.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'Eight pence' stand part of the proposed Resolution."
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon Member has chosen rather unexpectedly to take a division upon an Amendment to this Resolution, and I should like to say one or two words upon that Amendment, although I will detain the Committee for only a short time. I listen with the greatest pleasure and satisfaction to everything which falls from the hon. Member for West Islington on a financial subject, especially if that financial subject has anything to do with tea. But to-night, Sir, I have listened with greater pleasure even than ordinarily, because what he has said affects not merely the question before the Committee, but also certain other controversies in which I have taken great personal interest. I am led to believe that the hon. Gentleman has made a mistake and that he has moved unwittingly a different Amendment from that which he ought to have moved in order to carry out the objects he has in view. The hon. Gentleman on this occasion, as on all other occasions, is disinterested. He does not speak for himself; he does not speak for his constituency; he does not speak even for his country. He speaks for what he calls two great Colonies. Sir, he and I are in the same boat. I have been speaking for the Colonies for a good number of years, and I rejoice to find that I am to have the co-operation of the hon. Gentleman. He speaks for these two great dependencies, and he asserts
  644
  that in his opinion the increased duty on tea will most materially injure them. It is not the consumer here in the first instance who is concerned, but the producer there. It is the external producer who is injured by a duty placed upon the importation of an article into this country. I accept the theory of my hon. friend, my coadjutor in the future, and I assure him that I share the anxiety which he feels. I am most anxious that no injustice should be done to the Colonies or the dependencies of the Empire. But surely in these circumstances the minimum which the hon. Gentleman should have moved should have been a preference Amendment.
  MR. LOUGH: I leave that to you.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That shows a lack of courage on the part of my hon. friend. My hon. friend is perfectly well aware that so far as I am concerned I have put forward certain views, which have been contemptuously rejected on the other side—[Several HON. MEMBERS: And on your own side]—for discussion and consideration, and not altogether without some sucess. But I have distinctly declared from the very beginning that I have no intention whatever of bringing them forward as practical subjects for the consideration of the present Parliament. But, although I should be guilty of almost a breach of faith if I were to introduce a subject of that kind into the House at the present time, no such limitation applies to my hon. friend, and I say, according to the theory which he has so admirably developed to the. House, he, as the saviour of the two Colonies of India and Ceylon, ought to have proposed an Amendment not to reduce the taxation of tea, but to give a preference to those Colonies upon the tea which they supplied. In that case the growers for whom he is so deeply moved, and whose condition he has represented in such affecting terms, would have been infinitely indebted to him. No doubt they, on their part, would have been willing to make some reciprocal concession.

  645
  That is the first thing for which I am indebted to my hon. friend the Member for West Islington and in which I find myself in entire agreement with him. But there is another point. There is almost always, I observe, a slight inconsistency in the argument of those who call themselves free-traders. They always want to eat their loaf and have it. They always want to represent that their scheme benefits inconsistently all classes of people, and that our scheme injures inconsistently all classes of people. But what does the hon. Gentleman say to-night? He says the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to ruin the producers in India and Ceylon, because the whole effect of the duty is to fall upon them. He said it would be a deadly blow. That is the first thing; that is the speech for the big meeting. Then comes the speech to the overflow, which, as we know, is always entirely inconsistent, and the speech to the overflow is that this increase in the duty which is to ruin the producer in India and Ceylon, which it can only do by reducing the price which he obtains for his production is also a deadly blow at the poorest of the poor, who consume tea as an article of food, to whom it is of more importance than anything else. Again I am interested. amused, delighted at the support which is being afforded to certain theories of mine upon the subject by the hon. Member for West Islington. I am in the recollection of the House when I say that in pursuing the discussion to which I have referred I suggested that it would be some compensation to the poorest of the poor if a reduction was made in the cost of tea for any increase they might have to pay on some other article. In making that statement I was scornfully entreated by the friends of the hon. Gentleman. But no longer can that be the case. The next time it is said:—"Oh, you are insulting the poor when you propose to reduce the price of tea. Babies are not fed upon tea."' [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh," and cheers.]"The loaf, and the loaf alone, is the staff of life. "When that is said in the future I shall be able to say, "No," for I find a person of great authority [some OPPOSI-
  646
  TION cries of "Divide," and MINISTERIAL cries of "Order"], a person of great financial authority in the Liberal Party, the Member for West Islington, in accord with me in thinking that the cost of tea is of as much importance as the cost of any other article. We have gained something incidentally from the dicussion of this matter, and, although I shall vote against the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, I can assure him I shall give the greatest consideration to the arguments by which he supported it.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken did not often suffer from want of imagination, but on the present occasion he had quite excelled himself in throwing at the advocates of free trade the very charge they so often made against him. The hon. Member for West Islington had told them that the consumer of tea in this country and its producer in India were both to be injured by one operation, whereupon the right hon. Gentleman sought to make it appear that because the producer would lose, the consumer would be saved that loss. He thought the theory that had been put forward in such a bold and broad manner should be answered at once. The consumer by the extra charge he had to pay for his article would reduce his consumption of it, not only to his own disadvantage, but to that of the producer also. It did not follow at all that the producer in India and Ceylon could reduce his price, but if he did it would only be temporarily, until the checking of tea production made it remunerative again. The mere fact of the annual consumption being restricted by this tax was a permanent injury to the producer, without any corresponding gain to the consumer. As a result of this addition to the tea duty not only would consumers have to pay the whole of it, but our Eastern tea producing dependencies would suffer from diminished trade. Let the House remember too the extent of this duty. On a large part of our tea consumption it was already an ad valorem tax of 75 per cent. and this

  647
  extra 2d. would make it 100 per cent. Was it right to impose a tax of this magnitude proportionately injurious to both consumer and producer?
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 265: Noes, 193. (Division List No. 84.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Doughty, George

  Keswick, William

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Kimber, Henry

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Rain, Colonel James Robert

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

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

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

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

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

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

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manch

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

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

  Beckett, Ernest William

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bignold, Arthur

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bigwood, James

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bond, Edward

  Forster, Henry William

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex

  Gardner, Ernest

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Brodrick, Rt, Hon. St. John

  Garfit, William

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool;

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

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

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Bull, William James

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

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

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

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Butcher, John George

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Campbell, J.H.M. (Dublin Univ

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Malcolm, Ian

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston -Manor)

  Greene. W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Gretton, John

  Milvain, Thomas

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Groves, James Grimble

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Chapman, Edward

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.;

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

  Hardy, L. (Kent. Ashford)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Heath. James (Staffords., N.W.

  Murray, Rt, Hon. A. G. (Bute

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Helder, Augustus

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Henderson. Sir A. (Stafford, W

  Myers, William Henry

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Hope, T.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Denny, Colonel

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Percy, Earl

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Dickson, Charles Scott

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

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Plummer, Walter R.

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

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Randles, John S.

  Smith, Abel H. (Hert'ford East)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Smith, H.C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

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

  Remnant, James Farquharson

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

  Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.

  Renwick, George

  Spear, John Ward

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton and. Lyne

  Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas Thomson

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

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

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Stock, James Henry

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Rothschild, En. Lionel Walter

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

  Wyndham-Quin. Col. W. H.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Thornton, Percy M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland- Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Tuff, Charles

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, X.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Joyce Michael

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Allen, Charles P.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Asher, Alexander

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Langley, Batty

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

  Dunn, Sir William

  Layland- Barratt, Francis

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Edwards, Frank

  Loamy, Edmund

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Eli bank, Master of

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Ellis. John Edward (Notts.)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Leng, Sir John

  Black, Alexander William

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Levy, Maurice

  Boland, John

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Fenwick, Charles

  Logan, John William

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Lough, Thomas

  Brigg, John

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Lundon, W.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  M'Crae, George

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Grant, Corrie

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Caldwell, James

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Hammond, John

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Harcourt, Lewis.(Rossendale

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Harcourt, Rt Hn. Sir W (Monm't

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Mooney, John J.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Harwood, George

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Mayden, John Patrick

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Murphy, John

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Crean, Eugene

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Norman, Henry

  Crooks, William

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Cullinan, J.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Jacoby, James Alfred

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

  Delany, William

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

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

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Malley, William

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Mara, James

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Shee, James John

  650

  651

  Parrott, William

  Shackleton, David James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Partington, Oswald

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Ure, Alexander

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Perks, Robert William

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Wallace, Robert

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Sheehy, David

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Price, Robert John

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Slack, John Bamford

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Rea, Russell

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Reddy, M.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Redmond John E. (Waterford)

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Sullivan, Donal

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Rigg, Richard

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk. Mid.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Tennant, Harold John

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

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Woodhouse. Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  Rose, Charles Day

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Young, Samuel

  Runciman, Walter

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Russell, T. W.

  Thomas, J. A (Glamorgan, Gower

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

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

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

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Tomkinson, James

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Toulmin, George

  Main Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 259; Noes, 188. (Division List No. 85.)

  CUSTOMS—TOBACCO.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the duties of Customs payable under section one of The Finance Act, 1898, on manufactured tobacco shall, on and after the twentieth day of April, nineteen hundred and four, be increased, in the case of cigars, by six pence per pound, and in the case of cigarettes by one shilling per pound, and the duties payable under the same section on un-manufactured tobacco shall, on and after the same date, be increased, in the case of stripped tobacco, by three pence per per pound":—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. BROADHURSTasked whether he would be in order to move the omission of that part of the Resolution which referred only to the increased tax on unmanufactured tobacco, not touching that part referring to cigars and cigarettes.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid it was quite open to I he hon. Member to do so.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In line 5, to leave out from the word 'pound' to the end of the proposed Resolution."(Mr Broudhurst.)
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Resolution."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 228; Noes, 135. (Division List No. 86.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Give, Captain Percy A.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Forster, Henry William

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Arrol, Sir William

  Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C.R.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Garfit, William

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Gore, Hn G. R. Cormsby-(Salop.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Balcarres, Lord

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Denny, Colonel

  Gretton, John

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir Mich. Hicks

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Groves, James Grimble

  Beckitt, Ernest William

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Bignold, Arthur

  Dimsdale, Rt.Hn.Sir Joseph C.

  Hamilton, Rt Hn. Lord G (Midd'x

  Bigwood, James

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Bond, Edward

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Doughty, George

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Bull, William James

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Helder, Augustus

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Butcher, John George

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Fisher, William Hayes

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

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Chapman, Edward

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Mount, William Arthur

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

  Johnstone, Hey wood (Sussex)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Keswick, William

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

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

  Kimber, Henry

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Spear, John Ward

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Myers, William Henry

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow.

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M ' Taggart

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

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

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Stock, James Henry

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

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Percy, Earl

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

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

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

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

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Lowe, Francis William

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Tuff, Charles

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Randles, John S.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth)

  Ratcliff, R, F.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Renwick, George

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

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

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburg) W

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Ropner. Colonel Sir Robert

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

  Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Milvain, Thomas

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Edwards, Frank

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Carvill, Patrick Geo.0 Hamilton

  Elibank, Master of

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Emmott, Alfred

  Asher, Alexander

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Fenwick, Charles

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herb. Henry

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Crean, Eugene

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Cremer, William Randal

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Crooks, William

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire

  Cullinan, J.

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Black, Alexander William

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Boland, John

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Delany, William

  Grant, Corrie

  Brigg, John

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny N.)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Hammond, John

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Harwood, George

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Helme, Norval Watson,

  Caldwell, James

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  654

  655

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Norman, Henry

  Slack, John Bamford

  Humphreys Owen, Arthur C.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Smith, Jamuel (Flint)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Scares, Ernest J.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Joicey, Sir James

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

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

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

  Sullivan, Donal

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Malley, William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Mara, James

  Tennant, Harold John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Shee, James John

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Parrott, William

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Partington, Oswald

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Langley, Batty

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Perks, Robert William

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

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Pirie, Duncan Y.

  Tomkinson, James

  Leamy, Edmund

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Toulmin, George

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Price, Robert John

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Priestley, Arthur

  Ure, Alexander

  Leng, Sir John

  Rea, Russell

  Waldron. Laurence Ambrose

  Levy, Maurice

  Reddy, M.

  Wallace, Robert

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Logan, John William

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Lough, Thomas

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Lundon, W.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Rigg, Richard

  Weir, James Galloway

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Robson, William Snowdon

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  M'Crae, George

  Runciman, Walter

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Russell, T. W.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Woodhouse. Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Shackleton, David James

  Young, Samuel

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Mooney, John J.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Murphy, John

  Sheehy, David

  AYES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Arrol, Sir William

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (EdiuburghW

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Forster, Henry William

  Majendie, James A. H

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Malcolm, Ian

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Garfit, William

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Balfour Rr. Hon. G. W. (Leeds

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

  Milvain, Thomas

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

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

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Bignold, Arthur

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Bigwood, James

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Bond, Edward

  Gretton, John

  Mount, William Arthur

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Groves, James Grimble

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

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

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Bull, William James

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hamilton, Marq; of (L'nd'nderry

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Butcher, John George

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Campbell, J. H.M. (Dublin Univ.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

  Percy, Earl

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Harwood, George

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.(Birm.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

  Heath, A. Howard (Hauley)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Chapman, Edward

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Randles, John S.

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Helder, Augustus

  Ratcliff, R. F.

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

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Renwick, George

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hoult, Joseph

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bothnal Green

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

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

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Oust, Henry John C.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Keswick, William

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Denny, Colonel

  Kimber, Henry

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Russell, T. W.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rutherford W. W. (Liverpool)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N. R

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Doughty, George

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

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

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lowe, Francis William

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerse

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lane

  658

  659

  Stewart, Sir Hark J. M'Taggart

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Stock, James Henry

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. ft.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Welby, Sir Charles G.E.(Notts.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton and. Lyne

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

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

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

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

  Tuff, Charles

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Priestley, Arthur

  Allen, Charles P.

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Rea, Russell

  Asher, Alexander

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Reddy, M.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Johnson. John (Gateshead)

  Redmond. John E. (Waterford)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Joicey, Sir James

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Black, Alexander William

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Rigg, Richard

  Boland, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Brigg, John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Brown, George M. (Eidnburgh)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Runciman, Walter

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Kitson, Sir James

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Langley, Batty

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

  Caldwell, James

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Shackleton, David James

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leng, Sir John

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Charming, Francis Allston

  Levy, Maurice

  Sheehy, David

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Crean, Eugene

  Lough, Thomas

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Cullman, J.

  Lundon, W.

  Slack, John Bamford

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

  Delany, William

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sullivan, Donal

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  M'Crae, George

  Tennant, Harold John

  Dobbie, Joseph

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  K'Kenna, Reginald

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Thomas, J.A (Glamorgan Gower

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Tomkinson, James

  Dunn, Sir William

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Toulmin, George

  Edwards, Frank

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Elibank, Master of

  Mooney, John J.

  Ure, Alexander

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Murphy, John

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Norman, Henry

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Freeman- Thomas, Captain F.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fuller, J. St. F.

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

  Grant, Corrie

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

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

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

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

  Woodhouse. Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

  Hammond, John

  O'Malley, William

  Young Samuel

  Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

  O'Mara, James

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Shee, James John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Broadhurst and Mr. Flavin

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Parrott, William

  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that this tax was one in which he had always taken considerable interest, and in regard to which he had year a ter year made representations to the right
  660
  hon. Gentleman's predecessors in office. The present proposal was, to a considerable extent, identical with a suggestion which he made on 26th March, 1900, as recorded in Hansard. Possibly that was the source from which the right hon. Gentleman derived his inspiration, but at

  661
  that time the suggestion was received with derision. So far as the present proposal went it was a good one, but it ought to have been accompanied by a remission of duty on the ordinary common tobacco used by the masses of the people. He would have been in favour of imposing all the taxation necessary on the expensive forms of tobacco used by the wealthy people who were able to bear the additional impost without feeling the burden. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether he could not make some reduction in the tax upon the tobacco of the masses of the people and increase the tax upon the expensive forms of tobacco used by the wealthy people. By doing that he would meet the views of many hon. Members upon the Opposition side of the House. If he did not do so, he did not see how the right hon. Gentleman could expect his proposals to be acquiesced in by hon. Members from Ireland. The tobacco tax fell heavily upon the people of Ireland, where they had a good many tobacco manufacturers, and they would be severely hit by this proposal to tax the common kind of tobacco. He suggested that they should be relieved at the expense of foreign imported cigars and cigarettes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had already gone some distance in that direction, but not far enough, and he ought to give some further remission of the duty on the common kind of tobacco which was used so largely by the working people of this country and also of Ireland. He had only intervened in this debate to show that occasionally he was right in the House of Commons. He looked forward to the day when there would be sufficient tobacco pro-
  662
  duced in Ireland not only to meet the demands of Ireland, but also to a very large extent the requirements of the people of this country. When that day arrived, he would be in favour of taxing even to a greater degree foreign imported tobacco. The Government had promised to encourage tobacco growing by offering a remission of the tax on tobacco grown in Ireland for the next five years, and that was very good so far as it went. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give further consideration to the suggestions and speeches he had made from time to time on this subject. He had no doubt that as the right hon. Gentleman became more familiar with the tax on tobacco he would see more clearly the justice of the position he had taken up and insist upon following up in a more liberal manner the suggestions which he had made from time to time.
  SIR BRAMPTON GURDONasked if the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to put a corresponding Excise duty upon home-made cigarettes, because they were those nasty things which little boys smoked, and this was a practice which he was sure all Members of the House would like to see stopped.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he proposed to treat the additional duty on imported cigarettes exactly as the additional duty on imported cigars was treated by his right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol. He did not propose to put any further duty on cigarettes manufactured in this country. The tobacco from which they were manufactured had already paid import duty. The hon. Member for East Clare had pointed out that four years ago he endeavoured to secure the adoption of

  663
  the suggestions now made. Perhaps if the hon. Member would give him his continuous and loyal support for a further period of four years he might be able to follow him further on the path of reform.
  MR. ROBSONsaid the House ought to make a careful note of the admission just made by the right hon. Gentleman. It had been said again
  and again that the right hon. Gentleman's proposals were on the old fiscal lines and that there was nothing about them in the nature of protection. They had now a distinct admission that in this Budget they had for the first time introduced a distinctively protective tariff.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 200; Noes, 106. (Division List No. 87.)

  AYES.

  Anson. Sir William Reynell

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Doughty, George

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Arrol, Sir William

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

  Atkinson, St. Hon. John

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Keswick, William

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kimber, Henry

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm,

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Balcarres, Lord

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

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

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N., R

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. 6. W. (Leeds

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lee, A. H. (Hants. Fareham)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Bignold, Arthur

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

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

  Bigwood, James

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bond, Edward

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

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

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Bull, William James

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Butcher, John George

  Graham, Henry Robert

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Campbell, J.H.M. (Dublin Univ.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Malcolm, Ian

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

  Gretton, John

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Chapman, Edward

  Groves, James Grimble

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Milvain, Thomas

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Hambro, Charles Erie

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

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

  Hamilton, Marq, of (L'nd'nderry

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C.R.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tvnem' th

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

  Mount. William Arthur

  Cremer, William Randal

  Harwood, George

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

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

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Heath, A. Howard (Hanley)

  Newdegate, Francis A. N

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Denny, Colonel

  Helder, Augustus

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Percy, Earl

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

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

  Pryce-Jones, Lt-Col. Edward

  Pym, C. Guy

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Randles, John S.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Tuff, Charles

  Ratcliff, R. F.

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Renwick, George

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir William H.

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

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

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Russell, T. W.

  Stewart. Sir Mark. J. M'Taggart

  Wyudham, Rt. Hon. George

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Stock, James Henry

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES,—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Abraham, William (Rhondda

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rea, Russell

  Ainsworth, John Sliding

  Joicey, Sir James

  Reddy, M.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Redmond, John E (Waterford)

  Asher, Alexander

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Joyce, Michael

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rigg, Richard

  Boland, John

  Kitson, Sir James

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Brigg, John

  Langley, Batty

  Rose, Charles Day

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Runciman, Walter

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Caldwell, James

  Leng, Sir John

  Shackleton, David James

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Levy, Maurice

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Crean, Eugene

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Sheehy, David

  Cullinan, J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Shipman, Dr. John G

  Dalziel, James Henry

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Slack, John Bamford

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  M'Crae, George

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Delany, William

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Mansfield, Horace Kendall

  Thomas, J A (Clamorgan, Gower

  Doogan, P. C.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Toulmin, George

  Dunn, Sir William

  Mooney, John J.

  Ure, Alexander

  Edwards, Frank

  Murphy, John

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Elibank, Master of

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Evans, Samuel I. (Glamorgan)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  White, Luke (York, E. R)

  Fenwick. Charles

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

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

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

  Fuller, J. M. F.

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

  Woodhouse, Sir J T(Huddersf'd

  Grant, Corrie

  O'Malley, William

  Young, Samuel

  Hammond, John

  O'Mara, James

  Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

  O'Shee, James John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Thomas Esmonde and Mr. Patrick O'Brien

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Parrott, William

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  Resolutions to be reported upon Thursday.
  Committee to sit again to-morrow.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  An Amendment made.

  DISTURBANCES AT LISBURN.
  On the Motion for the adjournment of the House,
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLINdesired to bring to the notice of the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant a matter of urgent moment. It was reported that last night an organised

  667
  Orange mob assembled in the town of Lisburn, county Antrim, attacked the Catholic presbytery, smashed the windows of Catholic traders, and behaved in a most scandalous fashion towards the inhabitants of the town. He desired to know what was the nature of the police arrangements on that occasion, and whether the Chief Secretary would give some promise that the police would be instructed to prevent the recurrence of such disorder, and that adequate protection would be given to peaceful and law-abiding citizens from organised mobs of Orange roughs.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WINDHAM,)replied that he had seen a newspaper report stating the facts mentioned by the hon. Member, but he had no other information and it was necessary for him to make inquiries. No doubt there had been very regrettable incidents connected with the playing of the game of hurley on Sundays. Some people thought it right to take recreation on Sundays, and others thought, it was wrong. Both were entitled to their views, but it was certain that nobody was entitled to interfere with the liberty of other subjects of His Majesty, and whoever did so broke the law. He should not care to enter into the matter to-night, but he would press investigation further.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLINdesired to know whether the Chief Secretary had received any official report on the matter and, if so, what it contained.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid he had only seen a report of last night's disturbances in the Westminster Gazette, but in reference to Questions asked by the Member for South Tyrone he had collected information respecting the disturbances on Sunday. He had no official information on last night's disturbance. If the facts were as reported there had been an unwarrantable attempt to interfere with the liberty of some of His Majesty's subjects to spend Sunday as they pleased. He would see that adequate police protection was afforded.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid these disturbances were a serious matter. People on both sides were entitled to a quiet life, and unless there was adequate police protection these riots would go on with serious results.
  MR. FLAVINasked what steps had been taken to send an adequate police force to Lisburn. In his opinion nothing had been done to secure the preservation of the peace, and he would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that had similar disturbances been created by Catholics in the South of Ireland, thousands of police would have been sent down to break their heads. Yet in the North no protection was given to Catholics when they desired to indulge in a game of hurley.
  MR. SHEEHYregretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not given the House more information.
  Adjourned at twenty-six minutes before Two o'olock.

The Lord Abinger sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
South Shields Gas Bill. Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Kettering Improvement Bill. Read 2a, and committed.
Barrow-in-Furness Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Southport and Lytham Tram-road (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill. Brought from the Commons.
Birkdale Improvement Bill; Brixham Gas Bill; Soothill Nether Urban District Tramways Bill; Southend-on-Sea Gas Bill; St. Marylebone Electric Lighting Bill; Acton Improvement Bill; Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill; Colney Hatch Gas Bill; London and North-Western Railway Bill; Midland Railway Bill. Brought from the Commons; read la; and referred to the Examiners.
London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Bill [H.L.]; Young and Bell's Patents Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Wild Birds Protection Acts Amendment Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Ulster Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Lancashire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Lothians Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Belfast and North-East Ireland Electricity and Power Gas Bill [H.L.]; Clyde Valley Electrical Power Bill [H.L.]; Buxton Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Derwent Valley Water Board Bill [H.L.] Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Ellenborough be proposed to the
478
House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Estcourt; read, and agreed to.
Bridlington Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Bristol Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Ebbw Vale Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]; Harrogate Waterworks Tramroad Bill [H.L.]; Leeds Corporation (Waterworks) Railway Bill [H.L.]; Llanelly Harbour Bill [H.L.]; Belfast Corporation (Tramways) Bill [H.L]; Holywood Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan District Railway Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Barry-more be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Boston; read, and agreed to.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [H.L.]. A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Education under the Education Acts, 1870 to 1903, to enable the School Board for London to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts—Was presented by the Lord President (The Earl Vane [M. Londonderry]); read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 43.)
Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill. Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 44.)

PETITIONS.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
  Petitions against restriction of the discretionary power of magistrates to grant licences; of Manchester, Salford, and District Temperance Union; Eccles Free Church Council; Eccles Congregational Church. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL [H.L.]
Petition in favour of; of the St. Pancras Corporation. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM) BILL [H.L.]
Petitions in favour of; of the Town, City, and County Councils of Bethnal Green; Beverley; Bootle; Burnley; Cardiff; Chester; Croydon; Dewsbury;

479
Dover; Gateshead; Longton; Middles-borough; Neath; Poole and others; Reading; Richmond (Surrey); Rochdale; Scarborough; Shoreditch; Stoke Newington; Swindon; Worcester; Fulham; St. Pancras; Wiltshire; Edinburgh School Board; Sheffield Federated Trades Council; Ramsgate and District Incorporated Chamber of Commerce; Edinburgh and Leith Licensed Grocers Association; Chambers of Commerce, etc., signing; Persons signing. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the following Papers having been commanded to be presented to this House by His Majesty had been so presented on the following dates by delivery to the Clerk of the Parliaments, pursuant to Standing Order No. CXI., viz:—
POOR LAW MEDICAL RELIEF (SCOTLAND).
Report of a Departmental Committee, appointed by the Local Government Board for Scotland, to inquire into the system of poor law medical relief, and into the rules and regulations for the management of poor houses; with supplement. (March 30.)
COOLIE IMMIGRATION.
Immigration Ordinances of Trinidad and British Guiana. (March 30.)
JUDICIAL STATISTICS (ENGLAND AND WALES) 1902 (PART. I. CRIMINAL STATISTICS).
Statistics relating to criminal proceedings, police, coroners, prisons, reformatory and industrial schools, and criminal lunatics, for the year 1902. (April 7.)
EDUCATION.
Lists of public elementary schools and training colleges under the administration of the Board, 1903–4. (April 7.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
Annual Report for the year ended March, 1903. (April 7.)

TRADE REPORTS—I. MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.
No. 604. Belgium (Canals and other navigable waterways).
No. 605. Italy (Changes in the distribution of works of art in the Royal Galleries of Florence). (April 7.)
No. 606. Africa (Prospects of growing cotton in the East Africa Protectorate). (April 9.)
No. 607. Africa (Country produce traffic on the Uganda Railway). (April 13.)

II. ANNUAL SERIES.
No. 3135. West Africa (Report on the trade of Liberia). (April 9.)
TRINIDAD.
Further papers relating to the disturbances at Port of Spain, Trinidad, in March, 1903. (In continuation of [Cd. 1661], July, 1903.) (April 8.)
EGYPT, No. 1 (1904).
Reports by His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General on the finances, administration, and condition of Egypt and the Soudan in 1903. (April 8.)
PRISONS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1877.
Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, being the Sixty-fifth Annual Report on Prisons in Scotland. (April 12.)
PRANCE, No. 1 (1904).
Despatch to His Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, forwarding agreements between Great Britain and France of 8th April, 1904. (April 12.)
LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1903.
Tables showing the constitution of county, district, and burgh licensing courts. (April 13.)
LUNACY (SCOTLAND) ACT.
Forty-sixth Annual Report of the General Board of Commissioners in Lunacy for Scotland. (April 13.)
ROYAL OBSERVATORY, EDINBURGH.
Fourteenth Annual Report of the Astronomer Royal for Scotland. (April 13.)
AGRARIAN OFFENCES (PROVINCES) (IRELAND).
Return for the year ended 31st December, 1903. (April 13.)
INDIA (LAND REVENUE).
Statement showing the number of processes issued against land revenue defaulters during the year 1901–1902. (April 13.)
BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES, AND VACCINATION (SCOTLAND).
Forty-ninth Annual Report of the Registrar-General in Scotland for the year 1903, and Thirty - ninth Annual Report on Vaccination. (April 13.)
POOR LAW MEDICAL RELIEF (SCOTLAND).
Report of Departmental Committee appointed by the Local Government Board for Scotland; Volume II. containing minutes of evidence, appendices, and index. (April 15.)

CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1897.
Sixth Report of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Board to the Secretary for Scotland. (April 15.)
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
No. 3136. Netherlands (Amsterdam).
No. 3137. Germany (Pomerania).

CHARITY COMMISSIONERS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Fifty-first Report.
INDIA (OFFICIAL SECRETS).
India Official Secrets (Amendment) Act, 1904.

EXPLOSIVES.
(Explosion at the Factory of Messrs. Curtis and Harvey, Limited, Faversham, Kent). Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Captain M. B. Lloyd, His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, on the circumstances attending an explosion of gunpowder which occurred in the mixing house of the factory of Messrs. Curtis and Harvey,
482
Limited, at the Marsh, Faversham, on the 2nd February, 1904.
(Explosion at the Factory of Messrs. Curtis and Harvey, Limited, at Cliffe, Kent). Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Captain A. P. H. Desborough, His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, on the circumstances attending an accident which occurred in the drying house for nitro-cotton at the Factory of Messrs. Curtis and Harvey, Limited, at Cliffe, Kent, on the 4th February, 1904.

EMIGRATION STATISTICS (IRELAND)
Report and Tables for the year 1903.
BRITISH COTTON CULTIVATION.
Report to the Board of Trade on cotton cultivation in the British Empire and in Egypt, by Professor Wyndham Dunstan, F.R.S., Director of the Imperial Institute at South Kensington.

LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
Orders, made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade:—

I. Authorising the construction of light railways—

(1.) In the parishes of Arkley, Barnet Vale, Chipping Barnet, Bushey Rural, Bushey Urban, and Watford Urban, in the county of Hertford.

(2.) In the urban and rural districts of Rugby, in the county of Warwick.

(3.) From St. Osyth to Clacton-on-Sea, in the county of Essex, in the rural district of Tendring, and the urban district of Clacton.

(4.) In the Borough of Leicester and in the rural districts of Barrow-upon-Soar, and of Market Bosworth, in the county of Leicester.

II. Transferring to the mayor, alder men, and citizens of the city of Bradford the powers conferred upon the Nidd Valley Light Railway Company by the Nidd Valley Light Railway Order, 1901, and amending that Order.

BOARD OF EDUCATION (COMMITTEE ON THE MODEL COURSE OF PHYSICAL EXERCISES).
Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the model course of physical exercises.
Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN ENGLAND).
Return of all loans raised in England, under the provisions of any Act of Parliament chargeable on the revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ended on the 31st March, 1904, with the rates of interest and total amount payable thereon, etc.
TRINIDAD.
Amended prison rule relating to indentured immigrants sentenced to hard labour.
DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 TO 1903
Hull (Channel Islands Animals) Landing Place Order of 1904.
BOARD OF EDUCATION (WELSH INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT, 1889).
Report to the Board of Education on the administration of schools under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889.
GOVERNMENT INSURANCES AND ANNUITIES.
Account of all moneys received on account of contracts for the grant of deferred life annuities, and for payments on death, under the provisions of the Acts 27 and 28 Victoria, chap. 43, 45 and 46 Victoria, chap. 51, and 50 and 51 Victoria, chap. 40, and of the disposal thereof, and of the contracts made for the year ended 31st December, 1803.
POLLING DISTRICTS.
Orders made by the county councils of Hertford, altering certain polling districts in the Western or Watford Parliamentary Division; and Lancaster, altering certain polling districts in the Clitheroe and Westhoughton Parliamentary Divisions.

LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS ACT, 1896; MOTOR CAR ACT, 1903.
The Motor Cars (Use and Construction) (Scotland) Order, 1904.
The Motor Car Registration and Licensing (Scotland) Order, 1903.

FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS ACT, 1893.
Amended regulations made by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland.
SEA AND COAST FISHERIES FUND (IRELAND).
Order transferring to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland the powers and duties of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland in respect of the portion of the fund placed at the disposal of the Department by the Agriculture and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act, 1899.
LOCAL BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) ACT, 1888.
Order in Council, dated 24th March, 1904, adding the county of Armagh to the district assigned to the Belfast Local Bankruptcy Court.
LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
Report of the proceedings of the Board of Trade up to the 31st December, 1903, and of the proceedings of the Light Railway Commissioners up to the same date.
EGYPTIAN GUARANTEED LOAN OF 1885.
Account up to 31st March, 1904.
GREEK LOAN OF 1898.
Accounts up to 31st March, 1904.

SUPERANNUATION.
Treasury minute, dated 13th April, 1904, declaring that David Gray, leading hand of fitters, Royal Gun Factory, War Office was appointed without a Civil Service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the head of his Department.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI. be considered in order to its being suspended for this day's sitting (The Earl of Hardwicke); agreed to, and ordered accordingly. Then it was moved that the Motion on East Indian Revenues (Tibet) do have precedence of the Order of the Day which stands before it (The Earl of Hardwicke); agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

ANGLO-FRENCH AGREEMENT.
EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I have given private notice to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House of a Question which I wish to put to him before the ordinary business begins. As a rule, by the custom of this country, the duty of the Opposition is to criticise generally the acts of the Government. It is not often that an Opposition can give unstinted congratulation on any action it may take. I rejoice to think there are exceptions to this rule, and the present is an occasion when we may offer this congratulation, because I believe your Lordships will all rejoice to accept as a great achievement what the noble Marquess has lately done in certain very important negotiations. In my speech on the opening night of the session I was able to congratulate His Majesty's Government on the passing of a Convention as to arbitration between this country and France, and, speaking on that occasion, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs used these words—
"I do not think you will find either here or in Fiance that too much credit is taken to themselves by the diplomatists of either country for this happy condition of things. It is due, no doubt, partly to those courtesies which have recently been exchanged, and to which reference has been made; but I believe it to be due mainly to a deep-seated conviction on the part of the peoples or the two countries that there is no real divergence between our interests, that the greatest of our common interests is peace, and that there is no greater security for the peace of Europe than that it should be desired both by France and Great Britain."
We heartily concurred in those sentiments, and are glad that the noble Marquess has followed that up by further action in the interests of friendship between the two neighbouring countries.
486
It is a matter of the utmost importance to us to have friendly relations with France. It is the best pledge of peace for this country. One of the noblest aims of any statesman is to put peace on a profound and good security. We all know and appreciate the beneficent and admirable influence which the action of His Majesty the King has had with regard to this matter. His visit to Paris and the return visit to London of the President of the Republic had most excellent results. The noble Marquess has carried these results further, and has secured, by his negotiations, a Convention of the greatest possible importance. We thank him on this side of the House, and if I I may be allowed to speak not only for those I represent on this Bench, but for the whole House, all your Lordships thank him for what he has done in the interests of peace and conciliation. I cannot help hoping that the same success which has marked his negotiations with France may in the future attend further negotiations with other countries with which we have differences. He has removed many differences which have been causes of trouble, irritation, and even of danger between the two countries | in Asia, America, and in Africa. I beg to ask whether he proposes to present any further Papers on the recent negotiations, and whether any Resolution or Bill relating to the Convention will be brought before Parliament.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, before I attempt to answer the Question of which I the noble Earl has given me private notice, I must be allowed to offer him the thanks of His Majesty's Government. and I hope I may add those who support His Majesty's Government, for the manner in which he has referred to the Agreements we have recently concluded with the French Republic. I am using no idle phrase when I say that there is no one in or out of this House whose commendation we would on an occasion like this sooner receive than that of the noble Earl opposite. In the conduct of foreign affairs the Government of the day always has this advantage, at any rate, that they may look forward to the transaction of their business with a certainty that they are not

487
likely to be impeded or obstructed by anything like captious criticism or opposition on the part of those who sit on the other side of the House. That is an honourable tradition always respected in this House, and one which, I trust, will never cease to be followed. But upon this occasion we can say rather more than this. For throughout the long months during which these negotiations have been continued, we had the absolute certainty that we had behind us the general public feeling of this country, and that that public feeling would be grievously disappointed if we had had to bring those negotiations to a close without finding a friendly and satisfactory solution of these international questions.
And now that the Agreements have been concluded we have no occasion to be disappointed, for their reception has certainly been, so far as their general principle is concerned, all that we could possibly have expected or desired. The documents are in your Lordships' hands, and we have published with them a despatch, in which we have endeavoured to explain both the nature of the Agreements themselves and also some of the considerations which weighed with us in concluding them. I do not, therefore, think it necessary upon this occasion to add any further explanations, but I will make this one observation only. Because these Agreements have been well received at the outset, we shall not for an instant allow ourselves to run away with the idea that they are likely to escape criticism. They cover a very extensive ground, they deal with interests of the most complicated description, and it will not surprise us if, upon close examination, we should be told that we might have made a better bargain for this country, or that we have left certain weak points, which we had not at first detected; but we may, at any rate, say this, that the general principle which underlies these Agreements does find favour with the people of this country; and when I speak of the general principle which underlies these Agreements I mean the principle that it is good for two great nations to examine frankly and fully all points of difference that exist between them, and to endeavour to dispose of these points upon a basis of mutual consideration and mutual appreciation of
488
each other's aspirations. May I add that if this principle is a sound one in regard to our foreign relations generally, it is in my belief especially sound when it is applied to our relations with the French Republic? I only add that I desire to echo what was said by the noble Earl at the close of his observations, and to express the hope, which I share with him, that the arrangement come to in this case may form a precedent which may be usefully followed in our dealings with other Powers.
Answering the two Questions which the noble Earl has put to me I have to say that, as at present advised, we have no intention of laying further Papers. As to his other inquiry, we have come to the conclusion that part, at any rate, of the arrangement which has been effected between this country and France cannot be properly carried out except by means of legislation. We shall therefore introduce a Bill dealing with the subject, and when that Bill comes before your Lordships, your Lordships will certainly have an opportunity of discussing the question. That, of course, does not preclude any Member of this House from raising points connected with the Agreements at any convenient moment. It remains for me to thank the noble Earl once more for the tenor of his remarks, and in particular. if I may say so, for the personal friendliness towards myself, by which those remarks were characterised. If I do not deserve all he said of me, I shall none the less cherish for a long time to come the remembrance of the kind words which he has used with reference to me.

TIBET (EAST INDIAN REVENUES).
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of HARDWICKE): My Lords, having very recently dealt, on the Motion of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Reay) for further Papers on Tibet, with the object and policy of Colonel Younghusband's Mission to Tibet, I do not propose, in asking your Lordships to agree to the Motion on the Paper, to deal at any length with the political aspect of this question. I might describe the policy of the Mission in the very words I used as recently as February last, with only this difference,

489
that whereas Colonel Younghusband was then on his way to Gyangtse, he has now arrived at that post, and also there has taken place that occurrence at Guru which we all so much deplore, and which is the real reason of the Motion now before the House. I, therefore, propose to confine my remarks to the substance of this Motion. As your Lordships are aware, the Government of India Act, 1858, contains this clause, which I believe was inserted in the Act at the instance of Mr. Gladstone—
"For preventing or repelling actual invasion of Her Majesty's Eastern possessions, or under other sadden or urgent necessity, the revenues of India shall not, without the consent of both Houses of Parliament, be applicable to defray the expenses of any military operation carried on beyond the external frontiers of such possessions by Her Majesty's forces charged upon such revenues."
The only criticism which suggests itself on the Motion, as it seems to me, is the question, Why did not His Majesty's Government make this Motion before? The answer to that question, as explained by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State in another place, is very plain. By doing so we should ipso facto have defeated our own object. We should have turned what we earnestly desired to be a peaceful Mission into a military expedition, and I can say that had it fallen to me to come down to this House and to have asked your Lordships to agree to this Motion a few months ago, I should have felt that I was giving the lie direct to all the professions that His Majesty's Government had made with regard to this Mission. It would certainly have shown that His Majesty's Government had very little confidence or faith in the pacific nature of Colonel Younghusband's movements; and I think we are entitled to ask, what would have been the effect on the minds of the Government of China and of the Lamas of Tibet, whose apprehensions we were most anxious not to arouse, had we taken such a course? I would also venture to ask what the impression would have been on the sensitive consciences of noble Lords opposite had we taken this course.
The necessity for this Motion depended not on His Majesty's Government, but on the action of the authorities at Lhasa, and had they not allowed their troops
490
to attack Colonel Young husband's escort, we should not have had to come to Parliament with any Motion of this kind. Moreover, my Lords, the very insistence of His Majesty's Government on the pacific character of this Mission unfortunately conduced to the injury of the Tibetan people. The recent encounter with the Tibetans must be fresh in your Lordships' memory. General Macdonald forced an advance to take the Tibetan position, but the troops were under the strictest injunction not to fire. They advanced towards that position with fine, I would almost say with extraordinary, self-restraint. They approached the position and were literally face to face and actually in touch with the Lama's troops. Not a single man of the force employed forgot the injunction not to fire, and no blood would have been shed had it not been that a Lhasa general, by discharging his pistol at an Indian sepoy, gave the signal for an attack which does not require a very large stretch of the imagination to realise would in all ordinary circumstances have resulted, if not in the destruction of the British force, at any rate in a very serious disaster. No one can wonder that our Indian soldiers used their arms with energy and with deadly effect. Nor can we wonder that they made the Tibetans pay the penalty for the rashness of that Lhasa general. They paid far more dearly than they would have paid had those pacific instructions of His Majesty's Government not been given. Had General Macdonald advanced to the attack in the ordinary course he would, the moment that he knew the Tibetans intended to oppose our advance, have given the order to commence firing at long range. It is evident that the Tibetans would not have stood fire, and that when the position had been occupied by his forces the Tibetan losses would have been counted by less than tens instead of, as unfortunately happened, by hundreds. This encounter having taken place, the only course open to His Majesty's Government was to come to Parliament with this Motion, which I ask your Lordships to accept. I have only to add that Papers of political import additional to those already published do not exist, but such Papers as there are, relating to the advance of the Mission

491
from Tuna to Gyangtse and up to Colonel Younghusband's arrival there, will be laid on the Table in the course of a few days.
Moved to resolve, "That this House consents to the revenue of India being applied to defray the expenses of any military operations which have or may become necessary beyond the frontiers of His Majesty's Indian Possessions, for the purpose of protecting the Political Mission which has been despatched to the Tibetan Government."—(The Earl of Hardwicke.)
EARL SPENCER: My Lords. I do not propose to follow a different course from that of the noble Earl the Under-Secretary for India in dealing with this subject. I am quite aware that it has been very fully discussed already in your Lordships' House. It was alluded to by myself in the debate on the Address. My observations were replied to by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House; and subsequently a lengthy debate took place upon the subject on the initiation of my noble friend Lord Reay, a former Governor of Bombay. My noble friend was supported by my noble friend Lord Ripon, an ex-Viceroy of India, and others also took part in that debate. All I will say with regard to the question of policy is this, that we on this side of the House adhere to the views we put forward on that occasion, and I do not think it necessary to repeat them. I ventured in my speech on the Address to refer to the 55th Section of the Government of India Act, 1858, and I expressed considerable surprise that His Majesty's Government had not then brought forward a Resolution in accordance with that section. I stated that it seemed impossible to conceive that a Mission with an escort of such dimensions, with all the arms connected with a formidable army of attack, could be considered wholly a peaceful Mission, and I fear that what I said then has been fully borne out. The noble Earl the Under-Secretary stated that if the Government had come forward then and asked for that Resolution, they would have given contradiction to all that had been
492
I stated as to the pacific nature of this Mission. I cannot help thinking that, knowing as we did the position of Tibet and the very strong views always expressed, and the strong action taken by the Tibetan Government against the admission of foreigners, His Majesty's Government were over-sanguine and self-deceiving in their view.
I maintain now, as I did then, that the Government ought to have asked for this Resolution at once, and that it was impossible, in view of all the circumstances connected with it, to describe this Mission as altogether a peaceful one. I quite understand the wish of the Government that it should be so considered, but I know full well what the views were of all those who understand this subject. With hardly an exception, they were of opinion that the Tibetans would not alter their usual policy, but would oppose, by force if necessary, a Mission which proceeded into their country. We know the very melancholy circumstance that has occurred in consequence of the progress of this Mission. I do not for a moment wish to contradict the noble Earl, or to contend that there was not full self-restraint on the part of the troops: but the consequences were disastrous. There was heavy slaughter of these unfortunate men, who, no doubt, did attack us, and invited reprisals from our arms. They are an ignorant people: they seem to be not only ignorant of civilisation, but absolutely ignorant of the horrors and dangers of warfare. It is, I am sure, a matter of deep regret to the Government, as it is to everybody, that under such circumstances His Majesty's troops had to inflict severe punishment, not once, but, as I understand, twice, on these unfortunate people.
I will say no more upon that. I shall not, I need hardly say, now oppose a Resolution which I think ought to have been proposed to Parliament long before; but I should like to ask what the future policy of His Majesty's Government is to be. I think the policy set forth succinctly in a despatch of 6th November, is very complete, but I should like to ask His Majesty's Government whether they

493
adhere to that policy. The policy initiated in that despatch was contained in these words—
"In view of the recent conduct of the Tibetans, His Majesty's Government feel that it would be impossible not to take action, and they accordingly sanction the advance of the Mission to Gyangtse. They are very clearly of opinion that this step should not be allowed to lead to occupation or permanent intervention in Tibetan affairs in any form. The advance should be made for the sole purpose of obtaining satisfaction, and as soon as reparation is obtained a withdrawal should be effected. While His Majesty's Government consider the proposed action to be necessary, they are not prepared to establish a permanent Mission in Tibet, and the question of enforcing trade facilities in that country must be considered in the light of the decision conveyed in this telegram."
That is a very important statement of policy. It is a statement of policy which, I need hardly say, I, and those who sit with me, heartily support, and we are most anxious to hear from the noble Marquess whether that policy is to be adhered to now in Tibet, and whether the Government, who have at present only authorised the advance to Gyangtse, intend to give permission to go further. If we can be told that there is every prospect now of a settlement of the grievances we shall rejoice, but I think it is of the utmost importance that we should have clear and satisfactory assurances on the points that I have mentioned.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: My Lords, I should not like this Resolution to pass your Lordships' House without a few words from me on a different aspect of the subject from that touched upon by the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition. The function which your Lordships have to perform to-day is one of very grave importance. It is to give the sanction of this House to the application of the revenues of India to an expedition sent beyond the frontiers of that country. This is one of those occasions on which the Parliament of this country has the responsibility put upon it of protecting the interests of the people of India against the improper application of the revenues of that Empire. No man can have a stronger opinion than I have of the importance of economy in the administration of the finances of India, and of the desira-
494
bility of reducing taxation in that country, and I think I may say that since I left India I have taken great pains on every occasion that has presented itself to advocate the interests of India in this House. With those feelings I have to inform your Lordships that in my opinion you can accept this Resolution with perfect propriety. This Mission is undoubtedly taken in the interests of India. The relations between India and Tibet only remotely affect this country, and therefore it seems to me that the application of the revenues of India which your Lordships are asked to sanction is a proper application of those revenues.
I wish, my Lords, on this occasion to go somewhat further, and to say that I have read the Papers connected with this Mission with attention and interest, and it has given me great satisfaction to observe the moderation with which His Majesty's Government and the Government of India have treated this question, which is one of great difficulty. The treaty with China on the subject of Tibet was not made at the instigation of the Indian Government or of the Government of this country. My noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was then Viceroy of India, and it was the Chinese themselves who urged upon the Government of India the conclusion of the treaty. At the same time they informed the Government of India—and this has been the origin of all these difficulties—that China was ready to undertake that the Tibetans carried out the provisions of that treaty. My noble friend opposite, the then Viceroy (The Marquess of Lansdowne) treated the matter with the greatest caution. I think he allowed three years to pass before a supplemental convention was concluded. He gave way upon several points which the Chinese Government asked him to give way upon, and nothing could have been more gentle or moderate than the course he pursued. The same course was taken by his successor the Earl of Elgin, and by Lord Curzon, the present Viceroy.
It fell to the Government of India and the Government of this country to take some steps to see that the provisions of the treaty were carried out. I think eight years must have passed since the

495
treaty was concluded, yet not one single provision of that treaty has been carried out by the Tibetans or the Chinese. The matter then was brought before Lord Curzon by the Secretary of State for India, Lord George Hamilton. He asked—and it was very natural that he should have asked—what the condition of things was, eight years after the treaty had been made, in respect of the trade between Tibet and India and the demarcation of the frontier. The answer was most unsatisfactory. The place selected was found to be quite unsuitable for a trade mart. The Tibetans prevented any trade taking place with their country. Surely some step was necessary to be taken to remedy that condition of things. For three years Lord Curzon treated this matter with the greatest moderation. He went so far as to prohibit the erection of any pillar posts on the frontier—a proceeding which would naturally have created opposition on the part of the Tibetans; and his conduct appears to me to have been marked by great moderation. At last, however,—I think it was in the beginning of 1903—he made suggestions that a Mission should be sent to Lhasa and a Resident appointed in that country. With those suggestions His Majesty's Government did not concur, and Lord Curzon. having received the opinion of His Majesty's Government, accepted it with perfect loyalty, and from that time on wards carried out the views of His Majesty's Government. I naturally feel sympathy with anyone in the position of Viceroy of India, and I wish your Lordships to be in full knowledge of Lord Curzon's views on the matter. Writing on 5th November last year, Lord Curzon said—
"We (the Government of India) share the reluctance which His Majesty's Government have hitherto entertained to embark upon strong measures. We have no quarrel with the Tibetan people, and we have no desire to invade or permanently to occupy their country. Even now all that we solicit is sanction to transfer the scene of our negotiations to a locality in Tibet more suitable for the purpose than Khambajong and better calculated to impress the Tibetan Government with a sense of our earnestness and power."
That is the view with which Lord Curzon has been carrying out the despatch of this Mission. Those being the
496
circumstances of the case as they present themselves to me after reading the Papers, I have no hesitation in supporting the Motion which has been moved so clearly by the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for India. I feel sure that His Majesty's Government will act in the future with the same forbearance and with the same moderation.
My noble friend behind me has alluded to a despatch which was sent by the Secretary of State for India to the Viceroy on the subject of the future policy with regard to Tibet. There are two other despatches which strike me as of much greater importance as committing the Government than the despatch sent to the Viceroy. There was a despatch sent by my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to Mr. Spring - Rice for communication to the Russian Government. In that despatch, after explaining the reason for sending the Mission, the Secretary of State wrote that—
"This step must not be taken as indicating any intention of annexing or even permanently occupying Tibetan territory."
That was to the Government of Russia. There is another despatch, still more important, which was sent to the Government of China—the suzerain Power over Tibet. That despatch contains these words—
"In view of the recent conduct of the Tibetans His Majesty's Government feel that it is impossible not to take action, and they have, therefore, sanctioned the advance of the Mission. As soon as reparation is obtained the Mission will be withdrawn, as this step is to the taken purely for the purpose of obtaining satisfaction,"
and so on. I feel satisfied with those assurances. It hardly needs a statement from the Secretary of State to satisfy your Lordships as to the future policy of His Majesty's Government, for these miserable attacks by Tibetans upon our troops can hardly be a serious reason for changing the policy of the Government in this matter. I trust that His Majesty's Government will be very cautious in respect to the sanction of a permanent Resident at Lhasa. No one will deny that the presence in a native State such as Tibet of an English Resident cannot but be a great advantage to the country in which he is placed, as well as to the

497
Government sending him there, and no one can dispute the advantage of being able to communicate with such a Government in a diplomatic manner. But, at the same time, in these States, the people of which have very strong prejudices—and probably the prejudices are nowhere more strong than they are in Tibet—against foreigners, and where also, there may be religious fanaticism, it would be in my opinion a dangerous thing to have a resident Minister unless with the thorough assurance on the part of the State to which that Minister has been sent of the desire to receive him and to be responsible for his protection. The time may arrive when Tibet, like other countries, will be more open to us, and when we may be able to send Residents into that country; but I hardly think anyone will assert that that time has yet arrived. There is another smaller matter which I would venture to suggest to His Majesty's Government, namely, that great caution should be enjoined on those in charge of this Mission not to send parties all over the country for the purpose of surveying the tops of the mountains and making maps, for there is nothing more likely to alarm ignorant people like the Tibetans than such proceedings.
I cannot conclude my remarks without assuring my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that I read with great satisfaction the language he used to the Russian Government in respect to certain communications which passed on the subject of Tibet. I hold that, while any military danger to India from Tibet is perfectly preposterous on account of the nature of the country, yet circumstances justified the remarks made by my noble friend the Foreign Minister. It has always been my opinion that plain speaking to Russia is the right way to treat affairs of this kind. I believe that difficulties, and, perhaps, even war, might have been avoided if we had spoken perfectly plainly to Russia in former years in somewhat similar circumstances. Therefore, I am glad that my noble friend used that language, and I will say also that I cannot conceive that the use of that language ought to be prejudicial to the friendly relations
498
between Russia and this country. Russia must perfectly well understand our position with regard to Tibet, and must have received, without surprise, and I should say without any adverse feeling, the remarks of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I heartily concur with what has fallen from my noble friend behind me, the Leader of the Opposition, with respect to the Anglo-French Agreement, and I trust, with him, that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs I may be enabled, perhaps at some more favourable time than the present, to enter into a similar arrangement with the Government of Russia with respect to those matters which he referred to on a former occasion in this House and in which our interests may not appear to be altogether identical.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords. the speech just delivered must have had the effect of removing from the minds of your Lordships any lingering doubts as to the propriety of this Resolution. This Mission has been undertaken in the interests of India, and the only question is at what moment that Mission ceased to have a political complexion and acquired a military complexion. We have been taken to task for not recognising from the first that the Mission was likely to acquire the character of a military operation. We desired in all sincerity that the Mission should have a political and not a military complexion, and as far as we were concerned there was no reason whatever why the Mission should not have achieved its object without firing a single shot, and why it should not have maintained its political character to the last. But the unfortunate collision which has taken place left us nothing to do but to regularise the matter by bringing it before Parliament in accordance with the 55th Section of the Government of India Act. If we had taken the other course, and had at the outset described this Mission as a military Mission we should, in the first place, have mis-described its true aim and purport; and by proclaiming the fact that it was an invasion of Tibet we should have increased the chances of collision and

499
diminished the chances of peace. We were, therefore, amply justified in preserving for the Mission its political complexion as long as we could. As to what was said by Lord Northbrook on the manner in which these negotiations have been conducted, I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl for his speech, for no one speaks with more knowledge than he does in regard to Indian affairs. I therefore rejoiced when I heard him give credit not only to Lord Curzon's Government but to other Governments before his for having dealt cautiously and considerately with this question. There, I am convinced, is no case on record in which a strong civilised Power has dealt more considerately with a weak and semi-barbarous Power.
I was glad to hear what fell from the noble Earl opposite in regard to the manner in which Lord Curzon has handled this question, because an attempt has been made to represent Lord Curzon as having from the first taken up an attitude of antagonism to His Majesty's Government—an attempt which is based on a misrepresentation of the facts. If your Lordships will look at Lord Curzon's despatch of 8th January of last year, you will find in it a full and complete account of the principles upon which Lord Curzon proposed to deal with the Tibetan question. What were they? In the first place, Lord Curzon insisted that it was necessary to resort to more practical measures in dealing with the Tibetans, measures more likely to be productive of results than the policy of friendly representation upon which we had so long relied. Then Lord Curzon proposed that, instead of attempting to deal with Tibet through China as the suzerain Power, we should deal directly with the Tibetans on Tibetan territory, and for this purpose he proposed a Mission with a sufficient military escort. Besides this, Lord Curzon laid down—and I ask your Lordships' particular attention to this point—that there was in the mind of the Government of India a complete absence of any political designs upon Tibet, and that we did not desire to establish a Protectorate or anything in the nature of a permanent occupation of the country. In all this His Majesty's Government and the Viceroy were completely at one, and the only point of
500
difference of opinion was that which arose when we came to consider whether negotiations should or should not be conducted at Lhasa, and whether a British agent should be left at that place, and upon this point Lord Curzon loyally accepted the policy of His Majesty's Government and has given effect to it. You will find that we applied this policy cautiously and considerately, and that it was not until the Viceroy represented to us that there was absolutely no prospect of bringing the negotiations which were in progress at Khambajong to a satisfactory result, and when all other means had failed, that we authorised the advance of the Mission to Gyangtse. It is not the case, as has sometimes been represented, that there was a kind of "Rake's Progress" on the part of His Majesty's Government, egged on by a militant Viceroy; our policy was deliberately adopted after very careful discussion, and after a complete accord had been arrived at between the Government in India and the India Office at home.
The noble Earl has expressed a hope that upon one point I would make an announcement to your Lordships' House. He asked me whether His Majesty's Government still adhere to the general line of policy indicated in the telegram sent to the Government of India on 6th November last. My Lords, we do adhere to the policy laid down in that despatch. I do not by that mean to say that, whatever happens, we are never to move an inch beyond the limits therein laid down, but the policy was adopted after the fullest consideration, and by it we shall be guided in dealing with the future aspects of the question. So far as we are able to understand the situation in Tibet, there seems now to be a better prospect than there has ever been before of arriving at a satisfactory settlement upon the basis of that despatch. Up to the present time the Tibetans have been induced to offer persistent resistance to our diplomatic overtures and to any attempt to send a Mission into their country by their reliance on the inaccessibility of their country and the stupendous difficulties to be encountered by an advancing force. These obstacles have been successfully surmounted by the gallant body of troops

501
which Colonel Young husband has led into Tibet, and, although we may speak with more regret than pride of the actual collision which took place between Colonel Young husband's soldiers and the badly armed and badly disciplined body opposed to them, I think we may speak with unmitigated pride of the energy and endurance displayed by our troops under great privations and the severe climatic conditions which they have experienced during protracted operations conducted at an altitude exceeding that of Mont Blanc. We have reason to know that the result has not been without effect on the minds of the Tibetan people.
But there are other considerations which are likely to have an effect upon the Tibetans. The noble Earl who spoke last referred to the relations between Russia and Tibet. We have received from the Russian Government official statements which are recorded in the Blue-book; we have received them without in the least calling in question their absolute sincerity, and I would rather not attempt to add anything on the point during the present discussion. But we have to consider not only the attitude of Russia towards Tibet, but the attitude of Tibet towards Russia, and there can be no doubt, because we are so informed by those who have the best means of knowing, that the comings and goings which have taken place, and which have not unnaturally taken place, between the monks of Lhasa and the Buddhist subjects of the Tsar in different parts of Asia have resulted, or had resulted, in creating in the minds of these extremely ignorant and superstitious people a belief that they might rely on Russian sympathy and assistance. That belief must by this time have been rudely dispelled by events which have taken place. Therefore I think we may fairly assume that the result of these events may be, and probably will be, to bring the Tibetans to a sense of reason, and we may hope before long to find them ready to accept the moderate and neighbourly terms we are ready to place within their reach. Meanwhile it is satisfactory to know that the Mission, after undergoing immense hardship and privations, appears to have arrived at a point where the conditions are much less rugged and unfavourable,
502
and where we can afford to wait, at any rate for a time, and see whether some ray of reason will steal through the solid darkness which appears to characterise the Tibetan mind.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SEA FISHERIES BILL, [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order).
Clause 1—
LORD TWEEDMOUTH, in rising to move the Amendment standing in his name, said that one of the commendable objects of this Bill was to do something to prolong the life of a large proportion of the vast number of small flat fish which were year by year destroyed in the North Sea. With that object he was entirely in sympathy, and he could assure their Lordships that if they accepted the Amendment standing in his name it would make the provisions of the Bill clearer and more acceptable to the fishermen of the country, and it would also make the Bill itself more efficient in practice. In all questions of sea fisheries there were certain considerations which should be clearly kept in mind. The first was the fact that. come what might, they could not help catching small fish, especially in trawling. When the trawl was down everything. big and small, went into it, and very little escaped out. The small fish were included in the general catch, and were brought up and taken on board the trawler. It was said that something could be done by means of enlarging the size of the mesh, but that could not be: effective to any very great extent, I because directly they enlarged the mesh to such a size as to allow of an appreciable escape of small flat fish, they also allowed round fish to escape, and the catching power of the net was thereby largely reduced. When a trawl which had? been down for a considerable time dragging along the bottom of the sea was brought up and the fish released, it was generally found that a large proportion of the smaller fish were dead, and those that were not dead got trampled upon whilst the bigger and more marketable

503
fish were being selected on deck. When they necessarily had so many of these fish destroyed, was it not better to let them be used rather than be thrown back into the sea and altogether wasted 1 His first point was that they could not by any legislation prevent the catching and destruction of a great many small fish in the course of fishing operations.
The next consideration he would impress upon their Lordships was this, that it was a very moot question as to how far any operation of man could make any impression on the number of fish in the sea. Anything that man could do bulked very small in comparison with the destruction of fish caused by other fish, by birds, by whales, porpoises, and so forth. Many scientific observers held the opinion that the operations of man among fish were almost a negligible quantity. That certainly was the opinion held by the late Professor Huxley, who calculated that all the food fish caught by men of all the nations of the world did not amount to more than 5 per cent. of the whole of those fish living in the sea. He (Lord Tweedmouth) did not go so far as to say that he thought the operations of man were of no effect, but he did say that, so far as he was able to judge, those operations were of no effect in limiting the reproductive powers of the sea. He did believe that the operations of man might, temporarily, and in certain places, diminish the number of fish in a particular part of the sea, especially in limited areas where there was more difficulty for the sea to recuperate itself from the supply of fish outside. That was the reason why he had always strongly supported the prohibition of trawling in the territorial waters.
The third consideration he would press upon their Lordships was that they should realise the enormous reproductive power of the fish themselves, and also their methods of spawning. An ordinary sized sole would have about 50,000 eggs, and a good sized turbot would have 2,000,000 or upwards of eggs in it. The whole process of the hatching out of spawn was carried out with the spawn held in suspension in the water. It was carried about by the winds, the currents, and the waves. The same thing applied
504
to the young fish after they were first hatched; they were all carried about in the water, and were the prey of every sort of fish and bird. The destruction of spawn by being used as food by all sorts of creatures that inhabited the sea was something enormous. It had been conclusively proved that in the course of this operation a large quantity of the spawn and the young flat fish were carried across to the other side of the North Sea, to the comparatively shallow water bordering on the coast of Holland and to the east side of the North Sea, where there were great sandbanks which seemed to have become very favourite nurseries for these young fish. Again, too, he would remind their Lordships that when these fish were hatched out of the eggs they were not flat fish, but round fish, and did not become fiat fish until they reached a certain size and settled at the bottom. That operation went on to a very large extent in the eastern waters of the North Sea, and at certain seasons of the year these waters were perfectly swarming with small fish.
These grounds were open to the fishermen of every other nation just as they were to the fishermen of this country, and they would see it stated in the Report of their Lordships' Committee that the ideal method would be to have a convention between all the Powers in the North Sea which would deal with this subject and prevent the catching of small fish on the banks. That, however, might be a counsel of perfection. As he understood, Lord Onslow desired to do what he could at any rate to protect these nurseries of small flat fish from the operations of the fishermen of this country. They must all recognise that they could not prevent fishing there. They could not say that these men should not fish there. The only thing they could do was by some means or other to secure that it should not be worth their while to go there. That was the method which had been adopted in the Bill, but the Bill gave the fisheries authorities the power to forbid the landing of small flat fish in this country from all vessels. He thought that was going too far. It was giving a power that was not necessary and a power which the Department

505
would say themselves they did not intend to use. They only wanted to have it in case they might like to use it. What they wanted to do was to prevent those vessels which fished at certain seasons of the year on these particular grounds from landing small fish, in the hope that they would not find it worth their while to go there during the months in which the landing of the small fish was prohibited. The clause, as at present drafted, read—
"The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may, if they think it expedient so to do for the purpose of preventing the destruction of undersized flat fish, make orders for prohibiting, either absolutely or subject to such exceptions and conditions as may be prescribed, the landing of any flat fish not exceeding the prescribed length."
He proposed by his Amendment to omit all the words after the word "prohibiting." and to insert in their place the following words—
"the landing from steam trawlers, steam carriers, and sailing smacks with auxiliary power or of 65 tons and upwards, of turbot and brill not exceeding 13 inches in length, and of soles and plaice not exceeding 11 inches in length."
He believed those were the only vessels which could possibly fish in these particular waters, and that if they limited it to them they would get all the good they could out of their proposal, and would make it perfectly clear to the owners of. and the fishermen working in. the smaller fishing-boats that it was not intended to at all interfere with them. He desired to limit the powers of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to dealing for this purpose with only certain vessels. With regard to the second part of his Amendment fixing the size below which fish should not be landed, the Bill at present left the limit to be laid down absolutely to the discretion of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. He did not see any necessity for that at all. He thought a size should be definitely named in the Bill, and that the Department should not be allowed to go above that size, though they should have power to fix a size below the maximum laid down. He moved his Amendment in all friendliness towards the Bill, believing that, so far from injuring the measure, it would make it sounder and more efficient.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 1, page 1, line 7, to leave out from the word 'prohibiting' to the word 'pro-
506
vided 'in line 10, and to insert the words' the landing from steam trawlers, steam carriers, and sailing smacks with auxiliary power or of sixty-five tons and upwards, of turbot and brill not exceeding 13 inches in length, and of soles and plaice not exceeding 11 inches in length."—(Lord Tweedmouth.)
LORD HENEAGEwas afraid he could not agree with his noble friend that this Amendment would be of any assistance in passing the Bill. He thought it would have a contrary effect. The point they had before them was an extremely narrow one—namely, whether they were going to put a limit into the Bill with regard to the size of the fish and the boats. They had had various Bills before them at different times, and they had all been wrecked on exactly this point when they got to the House of Commons. The proposal now was to give powers to the Department so that they might use them in an experimental way in order to prevent the destruction of small fish. He believed that if they placed in the Bill the limits proposed it would meet the same fate as previous measures. He could not help regretting that after the exhaustive discussion that had taken place in Committee, and after the Amendment had been defeated there by six to one, his noble friend should have thought it necessary to bring it forward again in their Lordships' House. Wishing, as he did. to see the Bill passed through the other House, he strongly opposed the Amendment being inserted. He also objected to it on a second ground. As his noble friend had said, the ideal state of things was a convention of all the nations concerned, and he believed that to put an Amendment of this kind into the Bill and thereby prevent the Government from having a free hand in experiments, and in joining other nations in experiments, would be a fatal mistake. He did not believe that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries would want to exercise undue powers; he did not believe that they would desire in the slightest degree to injure the trade. Of one thing, however, he was quite certain—that the trade at this moment was pretty well able to take care of itself, and the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries would have a bad time if he attempted to go beyond the requirements and necessities of the case. It was

507
for these reasons that he strongly opposed taking away from the Department the power of exercising a free hand. Moreover, if they adopted the Amendment they would be going in the teeth of their own Report, which declared that it was very desirable to give the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries a free hand.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (The Earl of ONSLOW)said he welcomed the friendly spirit in which the noble Lord opposite had greeted the Bill. He quite understood that the Amendment which had been suggested to their Lordships was couched in terms which the noble Lord believed might facilitate the passage of the Bill in another place. But he would venture to point out to the noble Lord that there were many classes of persons engaged in the fishing industry, and it was quite possible that if they passed an Act preventing interference with trawlers of sixty-five tons or under a great many who now took a lively interest in the passing of this measure would cease to do so. They must recollect that the very large steam trawling industry would strongly object to a possibility of sailing-vessels coming in and fishing where they were either prohibited from going or where it would be useless for them to go if they could not land fish under a certain size limit. The noble Lord had quite correctly described the object of the Government in introducing the Bill. It was not proposed to prevent the destruction of every small flat fish in the North Sea. There were a very large number of His Majesty's subjects who exercised a calling which provided them with a somewhat precarious living and which necessitated the capture and even the sale of a number of small fish. The Bills which had been introduced in former sessions had invariably been directed at the act of sale. The object of this Bill was to protect not the whole, but a large portion of the small fiat fish in the North Sea. The idea was that by an order of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries it should be made no longer worth the while of the large steam trawlers to go to the eastern grounds where small fish most abounded. But if it was to be limited exclusively to steam trawlers and to the very large sail-
508
ing trawlers, the day might come when the smaller vessels of sixty-four tons and under might say that here was a rich ground to which the large steam vessels were debarred from going, and they would go there and reap the harvest which was denied to the larger vessels. He did not think it would be necessary for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to put in operation an order which would affect any other vessels than those described in the Amendment of the noble Lord. At the same time he thought it would be rash if Parliament were to deprive the Department of elasticity of powers in regard both to the vessels and the size of the fish. As regarded the latter point his noble friend was well aware that the evidence given before the Committee tended to show that there was considerable variation in the size of small fish at different periods and at different times, and that a size limit which would be perfectly efficient to-day might not be so ten years hence. Again, the North Sea was not the only part of the coast of these islands where it might be desirable to protect undersized fish. He had received a representation only the other day from the Solway Firth in which he was strongly urged that a limit of eight inches for plaice and soles would be heartily welcomed by all those who fished there. He did not say that the moment had arrived when that should be done, but he thought that where there was a general consensus of opinion in I favour of adopting a size limit in any part of the territorial waters the Department over which he presided ought not to be debarred from giving effect to the wishes of those who fished in the particular waters concerned.
It was quite true that his Board had only recently taken over the Fisheries Department, but they had exercised powers of a very similar nature for many years past in the interests of agriculturists. They had had to impose orders which no doubt at first were considered somewhat onerous and vexatious, but ho ventured to think that the Board of Agriculture had never gone beyond the mature opinion of the agriculturists of the country, and that the orders had always been framed in the interests, and with the general consent, of those for

509
whom they were acting. He therefore asked their Lordships to believe that in the matter of fisheries the Board would not act in any manner different from that in which they had acted in agricultural matters. He would have no objection to accepting the Amendment if he thought that it would be easy to persuade Parliament next session, or in any succeeding session, to give such further powers as experience might prove to be necessary, but the fishing industry had been suing at the doors of Parliament for years past, and many Bills had been introduced not only by private Members but by the representative of the Board of Trade in both Conservative and Liberal Administrations, but none of those measures had ever passed into law. With that experience before them it would, he thought, be most unwise to tie the hands of the Department in the hard-and-fast manner proposed by the noble Lord, more especially as the Select Committee, of which the noble Lord was a member, had added a clause to the Bill which so far curtailed the powers of the Department in this direction as to provide that no order of the Board should come into force until it had been laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament and every opportunity given for its consideration, and, if necessary in the interest of the fishing industry, its alteration. With that safeguard given to Parliament he thought they might safely entrust to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries elastic powers, especially in view of the fact, as already stated by Lord Heneage, that the fishing industry was well organised, and that it would be very difficult for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to fly in the face of the expressed wishes of that industry.
LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid this demand for a limit with regard to the taking of flat fish was purely a North Sea demand. This Bill had arisen out of a desire that there should be some such arrangements made in regard to the North Sea. The mass of these small fish were on the far side of the North Sea. Unless they could somehow or other induce the nations on the other side of the North Sea to prevent their men fishing on those grounds, His Majesty's Government never would be
510
able to enforce it against their own people. The noble Earl himself, in the Report which he drafted, had made it clear that he looked upon this Bill as a method of giving a lead to other nations. The noble Earl hoped other nations would take a similar course, and that the result would be that the larger vessels of all nations would be induced not to fish in those waters at the time they were so full of small fish. For his part, he would like to see a close time in those waters against all nations. If they thought that by any legislation in this country they were going permanently to exclude the trawlers of Great Britain from fishing there while the waters remained open to French, Danish, and Dutch trawlers, they were mistaken. Therefore he held that it was best to show clearly to foreign nations that they meant only to put a certain restriction on the wholesale catches of fish. Foreign nations, when they saw that it was not proposed to interfere with their small fishermen, would be much more likely to agree to some restriction on their bigger fishing boats. He did not propose to place any limitation whatever on the powers of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to make whatever regulations they thought fit as to the size of fish to be prohibited from being landed, except that he wished to provide that they should not prohibit the landing of turbot and brill above thirteen inches in length and of soles and plaice over eleven inches in length, at which size they were quite marketable
THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid the bulk of the evidence went to show that there was practically very little market for small fish on the Continent. Of course, it would be in the power of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to prohibit the landing of undersized fish from foreign ships of any tonnage.
LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid that in his opinion the evidence on the first point was conflicting.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Verbal Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid that the next Amendment standing in his name

511
was merely to enable the Board to make use, for the purposes of carrying out the Act, of the officers appointed by the fisheries committees round the coast.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 1, line 23, after the word 'or' to insert the words 'any fishery officer appointed under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888, or, in England or Wales, any officer appointed in that behalf.'"—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWexplained that there were a number of different kinds of soles, and he proposed to insert the scientific title of the common sole—namely, solea vulgaris—for the purpose of avoiding any possible misdescription.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 1, page 2, line 10, after the word sole' to insert the words solea vulgaris'."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid the object of the next Amendment standing in his name was to apply the Act to Scotland.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 1, page 2, line 21, after the word 'Fisheries' to insert the words 'and a reference to the Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Act, 1895, shall be substituted for the reference to the Sea Fisheries Resulation Act, 1888.' "—( The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid his next Amendment was drafted with the object of giving to the City of London the same powers as were possessed by the county councils, the City Corporation having, within its jurisdiction, the only fish markets existing in the Metropolis.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 1, page 2, after line 21, to insert the words 'In the application of this section to the administrative county of London references to the "mayor, aldermen, and commons of the city of London in common council assembled" shall be substituted for references to the council of a county or borough.'"—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:—
LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid that in his last Amendment he had endeavoured to limit the powers of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, but in the Amendment which he now moved, he desired to extend those powers. If the opening words of Clause 2, which he proposed to delete, remained in the clause the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries would be limited, so far as this clause was concerned, to matters affecting the prevention of the destruction of undersized flat fish. He desired these words cut out because he thought the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries should have power over every kind of fish in the sea all round the coast. Already they had in different parts of England a number of sea fisheries committees, which had done an immense amount of useful work, especially those in Lancashire and Northumberland; and he thought it would be a great advantage if the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries had the power of securing uniformity wherever possible between the action of; the various fisheries committees. He thought it would be a good thing for the Board to have concurrent powers with those committees as to regulations, which would enable them to fill in the gaps where fisheries committees did not exist at present, or where they might fall in in the future. The noble Earl would be well advised in taking this additional power for his Board, and he, therefore, trusted ho would see his way to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 2, page 2, line 33, to leave out the words 'for the purpose of preventing the destruction of any undersized flat fish'."—(Lord Tweedmouth.)
THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYhoped that His Majesty's Government would see their way to accept the Amendment. It seemed to him that to confine the Bill simply to the prevention of the destruction of immature fish was rather a timid action on the part of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and he thought it would be a good thing if opportunity were taken of this Bill to enable the Board to secure the powers which the noble Lord proposed should be given to them. At

513
the present time there were many anomalies existing. Foreign trawlers, for instance, that fished in the Moray Firth were allowed to land the. fish in English ports, whilst they were precluded from landing them in Scottish ports. This Amendment would give to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries power to assimilate the various by-laws. He understood that the same thing was going on in the Clyde, where waters which were closed to home trawlers by the order of the Fisheries Board were being fished by trawlers under a foreign flag, and the fish were being landed in Lancashire, where a very extensive market was being got for them. That was an anomaly which was creating very great heartburning in Scotland. Their experiments were useless as long as foreign vessels were allowed to go there and catch fish and land them in England. Therefore he thought it would be wise for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to take the powers which the Amendment would give them to remove this anomaly. Lord Tweedmouth had been told that the Committee were six to one against him in regard to his first Amendment, but on the subject which their Lordships now had before them the Committee were unanimously in favour of something being done, for in their Report they declared that it was desirable that so far as possible there should be greater uniformity of bylaws round the whole of the coast, and they expressed the opinion that Clause 2 of the Bill would tend in that direction. It was true quite that the clause would tend in that direction, but, if the words which the noble Lord proposed to strike out were left in, it limited the Bill to the prevention of the destruction of undersized flat fish. He hoped that if the numbers in the House were sufficient the noble Lord would divide on the Amendment, and that if there were not a sufficient number of noble Lords present to go to a division, he would bring it up at a future stage.
LORD HENEAGEsaid his noble friend had apparently forgotten that by international law foreigners were entitled to fish at a distance of three miles from the shore outside the territorial waters, and that neither any by-law in Scotland or
514
any where else could possibly prevent them. Having that right, the noble Lord asked the House to deprive them of the right of selling their fish in English ports, which they had always up to the present time enjoyed and which was hoped—and hoped sometimes in vain—would encourage them to give to British trawlers the same right in their ports. The Bill, as introduced and read a second time, was to prevent the destruction of undersized fish, and it had been thoroughly thrashed out before a Select Committee on that principle. Witnesses were never called with regard to any other question except to the best way of stopping the destruction of undersized flat fish. To now put in the Bill a clause which would be a red rag to every fisherman round the coast would be a great mistake. He hoped uniformity might be promoted amongst the various fishery committees, but he did not wish to see this Bill turned into one for enforcing by-laws which the English fisherman objected to so much.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid he did not know which to admire most, the solicitude of the noble Lord opposite to protect the fishermen of the country from the tyranny of the Board of Agriculture or the confidence which he reposed in that Board in his desire to give it power to make by-laws on any subject connected with fishing round the whole of the coast. He viewed with some misgiving the idea of throwing open the Bill to other purposes than that of the prevention of the destruction of undersized flat fish. A great deal of what his noble friend aimed at in regard to the uniformity of by-laws was already provided, for there was power given to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to make bylaws themselves in cases where there were no fishery committees, and to assimiliate the by-laws which existed so far as they applied to undersized fish. The noble Marquess opposite had alluded to the anomaly of foreign vessels not being permitted to land fish in Scotland but being permitted to land them in England. He admitted that that was an anomaly, but he did not think it would be proper to deal with it in a Bill of this sort. It should be dealt with in an entirely separate measure. He had considerable

515
sympathy with the views of his noble friend, though he was afraid he had not quite as much sympathy with the policy which closed the Moray Firth to British trawlers. But, be that as it might, he did not think it would be wise to extend the scope of the Bill.
LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid he did not wish to force powers on the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries which they did not wish to possess, and he would not, therefore, persist in his Amendment. But he thought it was an anomalous state of things that all round the coast they had fishery committees able to deal with all sorts of fishing in their jurisdiction, whilst the principal Department in London had only power in regard to the prevention of the destruction of undersized flat fish. Surely they might have equal powers with the sea fishery committees to deal with the catching of round fish as well as flat fish.
Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Standing Committee negatived.
The House adjourned at five minutes before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.