Sitting of 19 July 1904

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz:—Belfast and North East Ireland Electricity and Power-Gas Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Various Powers) Bill; Thurles Urban District Council Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  Scarisbrick Estate (Amendment) Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill. As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Hamilton Gas Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.

  RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 9).
  Sir EDWARD STRACHEY reported from the Committee on Group 9 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned until Friday, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  Leeds Corporation (Consolidation) Bill. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure {Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Greenock Corporation." [Greenock Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Glasgow Corporation (Tramways, etc.)." [Glasgow Corporation (Tramways, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
  Greenock Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 27th July, and to be printed. [Bill 277.]
  Glasgow Corporation (Tramways, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 27th July, and to be printed. [Bill 278.]

PETITIONS.
  ALKALI, ETC., WORKS BILL.
  Petition from Dublin, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Clevedon; Dewsbury; Dudley; Edinburgh; Foss Bridge; Frodsham (two); Hawick; Huntington (two); Jarrow-on-Tyne; Long Benton; Lennoxtown; Mortlake; Port-bury; Portishead; Scotswood; Seaton Delaval; Skelton; Strewsall; Sunderland; Tyneside; and Withernsea; to lie upon the Table.
  SHOP HOURS BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  STREET BETTING BILL [LORDS.]
  Petition from West Ham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS ACT, 1897.
  Petition from Felling, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  AFRICA (No. 9, 1904).
  Copy presented, of Return of Concessions in the East Africa and Uganda Protectorates (in continuation of Africa (No. 7, 1903) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AFRICA (No. 10, 1904).
  Copy presented, of Memorandum on the State of the African Protectorates administered under the Foreign Office [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3221 to 3224 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Copy presented, of Regulations for Evening Schools, Technical Institutions, and Schools of Art and Art Classes, from 1st August, 1904. to 31st July. 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1887 (EVICTION NOTICES).
  Copy presented, of Return of Eviction Notices filed during the quarter ended 30th June, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (EXCEPTIONS TO KING'S REGULATIONS).
  Copy presented, of List of Exceptions to the King's Regulations as to Pay, Non-effective Pay, and Allowances during the year 1903–4 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [LORDS].
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 18th July; Mr. Bonar Law]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 270.]

  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL.
  Copy ordered, "of Memorandum explanatory of the Wireless Telegraphy Bill." —(Lord Stanley.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 271.]

  AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS (EXPORTA-TION) (UNITED KINGDOM AND CONTINENTAL COUNTRIES).
  Return ordered, "showing the total value, and the value per head of the population, of the exports of the following agricultural products, viz.: (1) Principal descriptions of grain; (2) Principal descriptions of meat and live stock; (3) Dairy produce; (4) Eggs; (5) Potatoes, from the following Countries, viz.: United Kingdom, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary. Italy, Russia, Denmark. in the years 1890,1895,1900, and 1903."—(Mr. Crombie.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Evicted Tenants—Compensation for Vacation of Holdings by Present Occupiers.
  MR. CULLIN AN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in a case where the occupier of an evicted farm has purchased it under the Ashbourne Act and is now willing to surrender it on receiving moderate compensation, so that the evicted tenant should be reinstated, the Estates Commissioners will be prepared to enter into negotiations for that purpose.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The possibility of carrying out the suggested
  408
  arrangements will, I think, in most cases depend on a point decided by Mr. Justice Meredith in a recent case as to the proper construction of Section 9, Subsection 4, of the Act of 1891. The learned Judge's decision has been or is about to be appealed against. Pending the result of the appeal a definite reply cannot be given to the Question.

  Refusal of Loan to Boyle Town Commissioners for Erection of Cottages.
  MR. TULLY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state on what grounds a loan has been refused to the Boyle Town Commissioners for the completion of their scheme for the erection of cottages under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts; and whether, in computing the total borrowing power of the Town Commissioners, regard was had to the incidence of the town rate and of the county council rat e as affecting houses and lands.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) At my hon. friend's request I will reply to this Question. The reasons for refusing this loan were explained by me in answer to the hon. Member's similar Question of the 13th August last.†

  Claim of Mr. W. B. Watson for Goods Commandeered during South African War.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the claim of Mr. W. B. Watson in respect of goods commandeered at the commencement of the South African War has been disallowed solely on the ground that he is non-resident in South Africa; and, if so, what is the authority for restricting compensation in this way.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I would refer the hon. Member to Article 10 of the Terms of Surrender, from which he will observe that the sums voted by Parliament were for the restoration of the people to their homes, and that commandeering notes were only to be accepted as evidence of war losses in connection with such restoration. Persons non-resident in South Africa have therefore not
  †See (4)Debates. cxxvii, 1173.

  409
  been considered to be entitled to assistance out of repatriation funds.

  Swine Fever in Midlothian.
  THE MASTER OE ELIBANK: To ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the representation addressed to his Department by the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture on the subject of swine fever in Midlothian, he now proposes to take steps to remove the grievances of Midlothian farmers and stockowners in this connection.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) The Board could not, at the present moment, advise the counties adjoining Midlothian to alter the local regulations they have recently adopted for the protection of their districts. Should, however, the present favourable position as regards swine fever in the south-eastern counties of Scotland be maintained they would be prepared to consider favourably any representations which might be made to them by the counties concerned to impose the Swine Fever (Regulation of Movement) Order over a group of those counties in place of the different local regulations now existing. By this means the area in which free movement was possible would be enlarged to the extent of the counties absorbed in the combination.

  British Ships stopped by Russian Cruisers in the Red Sea.
  MR. YOUNGER: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the ss. "Dragoman" of the Bedouin Steam Navigation Company, was stopped off Perim, in the Red Sea, on Friday last; and if he proposes to make any protest to the Russian Government for the action of their cruiser.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) The question of stoppage of certain British steamers in the Red Sea by armed Russian vessels is one of grave importance and is receiving the earnest consideration of His Majesty's Government. Careful inquiries are being made into the circumstances.

  Summer Uniforms for Irish Rural Postmen.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Postmaster-General whether light uniforms for summer use are supplied to all postmen in rural districts in Ireland.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) All established rural postmen in Ireland, and all auxiliary rural postmen doing five hours work or upwards a day, are supplied, in accordance with the general regulations, with light uniforms for summer use.

  Postal Arrangements in the Gweedore and Bunbeg Districts, County Donegal.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can now say what arrangements are being made for an improvement of the postal service in the districts of Gweedore and Bunbeg, county Donegal.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The question of improving the postal arrangements at Gweedore and Bunbeg has been under consideration for some time, but difficulties have presented themselves and it has not yet been possible to arrive at a definite result. I will, however, endeavour to expedite a settlement of the case.

  Petition of Sivasulramania Nadan.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, having regard to the fact that on the 3rd February last a petition from Sivasulramania Nadan for the redress of grievances was laid upon the Table of the House, will he state what action has been taken in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) So far as I am concerned no action has been taken in regard to this petition, which was not addressed to me. I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Special Report of the Select Committee on Public Petitions, ordered by this House to be printed on 29th June last.

  Marine Works in Ireland.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the works to be carried out under the Marine Works Act at Gortnasate, Portnoo, and Cladnageerah

  411
  will be commenced during the present summer; and if he can say whether any arrangements have been math with respect to the balance of £1,500 required for the construction (under the revised estimate) for a pier and breakwater at Falcorrib.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Commissioners of Public Works have accepted a tender for the work at Gortnasate, which will shortly be commenced. The report of the Commissioners in the case of the works proposed at Portnoo and Cladnageerah is about to be submitted to the Treasury. When Treasury approval has been signified tenders will be called for without delay. No decision has been arrived at with respect to the question of the expenditure of money at Falcorrib.

  Army Boot Contracts—Fair Wages Resolution.
  MR. SHACKLETON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has satisfied himself that all the contractors, both inside and outside the United Kingdom, who have contracts with the Government for the Army boots are complying with the conditions of the Fair Wages Resolution passed by this House; and will he say what proportion of these orders were given inside and outside the United Kingdom for the years 1902 and 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) All contracts made by the War Office for boots contain the usual clause stipulating that the wages paid shall be those generally accepted as current for competent workmen in the district where the work is carried out. There is no reason for supposing that this condition is not being complied with. With the exception of some local purchases made by the troops in South Africa and Somaliland, all orders for boots during 1902 and 1903 were placed in the United Kingdom. An arrangement was, however, made in 1901 with the India Office under which the latter Department agreed to supply the Army with 220,000 pairs of ankle boots. The reasons for this arrangement, which will shortly be completed, have already been explained in the House.

  Education of Tamil Children on Ceylon Estates.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Commission appointed to consider the best means of securing the education of the children of Tamil labourers employed on the various estates in Ceylon have yet made their Report; and, if not, will he state the cause of the delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I am informed that the Report was forwarded to me by the mail which left Ceylon on the 14th instant.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  The "Cat" in the Navy.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether cat-o'-nine-tails and birches, approved by the naval authorities in accordance with the King's Regulations, weighing nine ounces, and canes likewise similarly approved, of a half-inch in thickness, three feet in length, and two ounces in weight, are supplied from the dockyards and form part of the equipment of ships of war and naval training ships for the flogging of men and boys.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): The Answer is "Yes," but the use of the cat has been suspended by regulation since 1881.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: But are these instruments kept as a matter of precaution on every ship of war.
  MR. PRETYMAN: I have already answered that Question.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: What was the Answer?
  MR. PRETYMAN: "Yes, but their use is suspended."

  The Convict Witton.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is yet able to

  413
  state what is the decision of His Majesty's Government upon the case of the convict Witton.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): No, Sir. I am not yet in a position to give a reply to this Question. I have been for some time past in communication with the Colonial Office and hope to be able to announce a decision shortly.

  Pay of Junior Army Officers.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is prepared to recommend to the House a scale of payment for junior officers in the Army under which such junior officers would receive an increase of pay, and a slight decrease of pay when they reach higher ranks, and thus enable the sons of poor persons an opportunity of entering the Army.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am not prepared at the present time to recommend any increase in the pay of junior officers. The matter is one which affects both the Navy and the Army, but I consider it to he of great importance that both the rate of pay and the scale of living should be such as to enable officers of small means to continue in the service. I cannot admit that the pay of officers in the higher ranks is excessive.

  Army Reorganisation Scheme.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will lay before the House a Statement of the estimated financial results of his Army Reorganisation Scheme when in full operation, noting both increases and decreases of charge.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER; Yes, Sir. I will shortly lay such a Statement before the House, but the figures will depend on the extent to which Parliament approves of the scheme in part or as a whole.

  Sir Percy Girouard.
  MR. BUCHANAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Halifax, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will lay the Papers relating to the resignation of Sir Percy Girouard before the Colonial Vote is taken.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): Pending the receipt of a despatch which Lord Milner has promised I am not in a position to lay any Papers on this subject.

  Life of the Gold Mines in South Africa.
  MR. BUCHANAN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Halifax I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he can state on whose advice the life of the gold mines is taken as fourteen and a half years for the purpose of the profit tax; and how it is that the profits on which the tax is paid are less than half the profits declared to the shareholders.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The hon. Member will see on referring to Section 5, Subsection 2, of the Profits Tax Proclamation 1902, published at page 165 of Cd. 1163 that the period of the life of the mines is determined by the Commissioner of Mines. The profits on which the tax is paid do not include the allowance for exhaustion of capital.
  MR. MARKHAM: Is it not the fact that the life of the mines is based solely on one reef of the mines—the south reef, and that no account is taken of any ore n any other reef.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I' must communicate with the Commissioner before I can arrive at what was in his mind.

  Convicted Soldiers in Pretoria.
  MR. JOYCE; I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been lately called to the cases of the five soldiers of the Leinster Regiment—John Roche, J, Maher, J. Barrett, A. Dunn, and Edward Roche, now in penal servitude in Pretoria for being concerned in a not in which a soldier named Casey lost his life; and whether, in view of the circumstances of the case and the character of the evidence given against these men, he will have an inquiry made with a view to their sentence being mitigated.
  MR. LYTTELTON: No, Sir. No grounds have been submitted to me on which I should be justified in intervening in the administration of justice in this case.
  MR. JOYCE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the time has not arrived when the sentences passed on all young soldiers in South Africa should be gone into?
  [No Answer was returned.]
  MR. JOYCE: Well wait until after the general election. They will be reversed then.

  Petitions from India.
  SIR CHARLES DALRYMPLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he has observed a Special Report of the Select Committee on Petitions in reference to Petitions presented to this House from India; and if he will call the attention of the Government of India to the Report, in order that the Petitioners may be put upon their guard and may better understand the limited effect of Petitions.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): A copy of the Report will be forwarded to the Government of India with instructions that, so far as is possible, steps may be taken for carrying out the recommendations of the Committee.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Are we to understand, then, that the Petitions addressed to this House by the people of India do no good?
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Not a bit.

  Royal Niger Company—Purchase by the Government.
  MR. BAYLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the purchase by the Imperial Government in 1899 of a dividend-paying concern (viz., the Royal Niger Company) for £865,000; what is the amount that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received from the purchase of those shares up to the present time for the relief of Imperial taxation; and, if no amount has been received, what has become of the income from steamers, land, and mineral rights promised at the time of purchase by the Government.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The considerations, for which the payment referred to by the hon. Member was made, are set out in the preamble of the Act 62 and 63 Vict., Cap. 43. They covered the transfer to the Imperial Government by the Royal Niger Company of the administrative powers possessed under its Charter, which was then revoked. No shares passed. The Imperial Government did not look to be recouped the £865,000, until such time as the Northern Nigeria Protectorate's revenue exceeded the administrative expense, and this is not yet the case. Such receipts as are derived from the mining and land rights, etc., taken over from the Royal Niger Company, forms part of the current revenue of the Protectorate, but the amount is not large at the present time.
  MR. LOUGH: Is there any objection to a Report being issued on the exact financial result of this transaction. The House has never heard anything of it before.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I should say the exact financial results are fairly obvious.

  Aliens in British Prisons.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state how many aliens are now undergoing penal servitude or imprisonment, or are awaiting trial in His Majesty's prisons.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLA S,): As I stated a few days ago in answer to my hon. friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds† the number of aliens in convict prisons on the 23rd April last was 182, and I had previously stated that the total number of alien prisoners on that date was reported to be 635. It is not possible to give further or later information without calling for a special Report, which it would, I think, be an unreasonable burden upon the prison authorities to demand after such a short interval.
  †See (4) Debates, cxxxvii., 1207.

  Use of Foreign Cement for Government Works.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the authorities are aware that the Portland cement being used for the General Post Office, Sunderland, and the General Post Office, Darlington, and supplied by an English firm, is manufactured in Belgium; and whether, in future, orders will be given for the use of the best English cement on Government works.
  LORD BALCARRES: The cement was supplied by an English firm, and was of Belgian manufacture; it was of very good quality, meeting the tests applied to it. The Board have under consideration the expediency of prescribing that cement made in the British Isles only shall be used in future, except in special cases.

  Initial Salaries of Irish Teachers and Constables.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the initial salary at present paid to teachers in Irish national schools; and also the salary, together with all allowances for lodging, clothing, etc., paid to constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The initial salaries tries of teachers vary from £61 to £71, for four hours' secular instruction daily. Where the teachers give instruction in extra branches, or conduct evening schools, the emoluments are much higher. The initial pay of a constable is £39, and his allowances are at rates shown in the Estimates. His uniform is supplied at the public expense.

  Irish Teachers' Salary Grievance.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that tine principal teacher of a school in District 17 (Roll No. 1215) left the Board's service on the 1st January, 1904, owing to the inadequacy of his salary, after being trained at a cost to the Treasury of about £100.
  418
  whether he can state the number of teachers paid at the rata of £56 per annum who have resigned since 1900, and whether he will recommend that the initial salary for all teachers shall be raised.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No cause was assigned for this teacher's resignation. 104 male teachers, whose grade salary was £56, have left the service since 1st April, 1900. Of these fifty-nine had been trained. The abolition of the old system of payments has resulted in an increase of the actual payments to teachers generally of more than £40,000 per annum. I cannot hold out any hope that further burdens will be imposed on the Vote for Public Education.

  Irish Teachers and the Civil Service.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there is a Treasury rule prohibiting trained teachers from entering the Civil Service unless they refund to the State the sum expended on their training, and that a number of teachers, who had previously served five years as monitors under the National Board, so signed an agreement under that rule in the years 1898 and 1899, while the old rules obtained, are now paid lower salaries than they would have been entitled to under the old rules; and, if so, whether he will urge the Commissioners of National Education to consider favourably the claims of these teachers to be paid salaries according to the rule in force when they signed such agreements.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Under Rule 162 of the Code candidates for training must sign a declaration that they intend bonâ fide to adopt the profession of teacher, and under Rule 169 they mast repay the cost of their training before they are allowed to enter the Civil Service, in accordance with Treasury requirement. But no right is conferred on such teachers to any special rate of salary on appointment to national schools. The regulations are intended to prevent waste of public money by persons who might make the training colleges mere stepping-stones to the Civil Service Teachers,

  419
  as a rule, receive higher incomes now on being appointed to national schools than they received under the old regulations.

  Carnane Estate, County Limerick.
  MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that within the past few months some sixty labourers and farmers in the parish of Fedamore, county Limerick, petitioned the Estates Commissioners, requesting them to purchase the Carnane Estate in that parish from the owners, the representatives of the late E. J. Synan, with the view of re-selling it in small lots to the labourers and the small farmers around; and whether, since the districts adjacent, Shale and Cloghadooloorta, are for the most part cut-out hog and are highly congested, he can hold forth any hope to the parties interested that the Estates Commissioners will endeavour to buy this estate in their favour.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This estate is administered in the Court of the Master of the Rolls. There is a perpetual annuity of £700 charged on the lands, and the owners, I understand, receive nothing from the estate. It is questionable, under the circumstances, if the provisions of Section 7 of the Act of 1903 apply. No originating request has been received by the Commissioners under Section 6, but they will make inquiry as to the expediency of moving in the matter.

  Irish Local Government Tenders,
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if it is always an instruction of the Local Government Board to unions and other bodies under their supervision that the lowest_ tender must be accepted, even when the union finds that the quality of the article offered by the lowest tenderer is inferior.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No sir; there is no such instruction or rule. Where rural district councils or proposals committeees do not accept the lowest tender they are obliged to adopt the procedure
  420
  laid down in Section 18 of the Local Government Act, 1902. Where boards of guardians do not accept the lowest tender they must be prepared to satisfy the auditor that they acted in the best interests of the ratepayers.

  Irish Lunatic Asylums—Assistant Resident Medical Officers.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will explain why one of the Privy Council rules for the regulation of lunatic asylums in Ireland prescribes as one of the qualifications for the office of assistant resident medical officer that he shall be unmarried, in view of the fact that no such condition is prescribed in the case of the resident medical superintendent; and whether, if such a condition is not prescribed by any asylum committee of management which may make new rules, the Lord-Lieutenant will insist upon its inclusion amongst such rules.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The rule prohibiting a married man from being appointed to the position of assistant medical officer of a district lunatic asylum is of universal application throughout the United Kingdom. It is embodied in an Order of the Lord-Lieutenant in Council dated 28th April, 1898. The object of the rule is to secure for the position the services of men who are more likely to devote their whole attention to learning the special duties of their office. A resident medical superintendent must be a man of experience and must have served as assistant medical officer for at least five years. The rule has been adopted by every asylum committee in Ireland which has drawn up regulations, save the Ballinasloe Asylum Committee. A departure from the rule will not be sanctioned in the case of that asylum.
  MR. HAYDEN: How many asylum committees have drawn up rules? Is it not a fact that only one has?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not think so, but I should like notice of the Question.
  MR. CLANCY: Is there anything to prevent an officer who is unmarried, when appointed, from

  421
  getting married the day after his appointment?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that. My view is that in Ireland, and throughout the United Kingdom as well as throughout Europe, the assistant resident medical officer is expected to be an unmarried man.

  Salaries of Irish Poor Law Medical Officers.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in cases in which the salaries of Poor Law medical officers in Ireland have been increased since the passing of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, or may be increased in the future, the whole of the increase is to be borne out the local rates, or whether, as used to be the case, half is to be borne out of the rates and half out of the Parliamentary grant-in-aid.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Under Section 6 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1902, the total amount to he recouped to the guardians of any union in pursuance of Section 58 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, cannot exceed the amount recouped in the year ended 31st March, 1902. The necessity for the provision was explained by me in the Committee stage of the measure.

  Appointment of Medical Superintendent at Ballinasloe District Lunatic Asylum.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord - Lieutenant of Ireland if, after the selection by the Ballinasloe District Lunatic Asylum Committee of Dr. Kirwan over the herd of the Protestant assistant medical superintendent, Dr. Mills, and before His Excellency approved of such selection, communications passed between the Under-Secretary and the Roman Catholic Archbishop or Bishop, or either of them, who were members of the committee, with reference to the supersession of Dr. Mills; if so, by whom was the Under-Secretary authorised to enter into such communications; and did such communications affect the decision of the Irish Government in sanctioning the
  422
  appointment; and, if not, for what purpose were they invited; was any expression of opinion invitad from any Protestant resident in the neighbourhood; and will copies of such communications, if in writing, be laid upon the Table.
  MR. WYNDHAM: All communications issued from my office to the Asylum Committee or any of its members on this subject have passed before me, and were, in my opinion, of a suitable nature. I am not prepared to discuss the existence or non-existence of unofficial communications. The decision of the Government was based exclusively on the terms and intention of Section 81 of the Local Government Act of 1898, after a careful consideration of its provisions, for reasons which I explained in the Committee of the House on 7th July. I have nothing to add to the explanation which I then gave.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of laying on the Table the letter addressed to him by the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Certainly not, unless the right hon. Gentleman informs the House that he desires it to be published.
  MR. SLOAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider the communication from the Under-Secretary to be unofficial?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not follow the Question.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Were the communications which passed between the two gentlemen named in the Question and the Under-Secretary official or unofficial?
  MR. WYNDHAM: All official communication pass before me, and I am not prepared to discuss the existence or non-existence of any unofficial communications.

  Mayo County Council Appointments.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that at a meeting of the Mayo County Council, held at Castlebar on 27th January, 1904,

  423
  a resolution was passed that after the 1st January, 1905, no position or post in the gift of the Mayo County Council should be given to anyone who does not possess a knowledge of the Irish language; and, if so, will he state what action, if any, they have taken or will take in the matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A resolution of the character indicated has been received by the Local Government Board. I assume that the last query applies to the Local Government Board and to the county council? If so, my reply is that the Local Government Board must be satisfied that candidates for the offices of secretary, surveyor, assistant surveyor, and poor rate collector, must be fully qualified for those posts.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it necessary that these officials should have a knowledge of the Irish language?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Veterinary Branch of the Irish Agricultural Department.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, with reference to the communication, dated the 13th December, 1900, made to the Catholic clerks in the Veterinary Branch of the Agricultural Department, intimating that they had no right to expect any acknowledgment of their applications for advancement, and that the repetition of such applications would raise the question of removing them from the service altogether, he will state if this communication was made with the knowledge and concurrence of the Secretary of the Department.
  MR. WYNDHAM: A semi-official note was sent, with the knowledge and concurrence of the Department, to one of the temporary clerks on the date mentioned. It was made in the interests of the several temporary clerks in the Veterinary Branch, all of whom expressed their thanks for the advice given to them and their deep gratitude for the personal interest shown in their cases. They were subsequently made permanent members of the Civil Service.

  Castlerea Rate Collector,
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have received a resolution passed unanimously by the Roscommon County Council asking their sanction to the payment of the arrears of poundage to Rate Collector Hanson, Castlerea, on the ground that his status as poor rate collector was altered when he was transferred to the county council; and, if so, whether the Local Government Board have granted their sanction to this payment.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Board is not prepared to grant any further extension of time to this collector in respect of the years 1902 and 1903. The Board has granted an extension of time for the year ended 31st March last.

  Keadew (Carrick-on Shannon) Catholic School Teacher.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Commissioners of National Education has been directed to the eviction of the Roman Catholic teacher, Mr. Callogy, from the Roman Catholic School of Keadew, Carrick-on-Shannon, by the Protestant patron; what were the grounds for this eviction; and whether be can state what rights, if any, Mr. Callogy has to pension or compensation, in view of his period of service as a teacher.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Commissioners have no knowledge of the alleged dismissal of this teacher, but are making inquiry in the matter. He has not reached the age for voluntary retirement, and unless it can be shown to be due to bodily or mental infirmity he would have no right to pension, beyond the refund to him of the premiums paid to the pension fund.

  Students in Irish Queen's Colleges and Royal University Scholarships.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, for some years past, the students of Queen's Colleges, who hold exhibitions, scholarships, and prizes in those institutions

  425
  which are not open to competition to any other students, have been permitted also to compete for and to hold, without any deduction, the exhibitions, scholarships, and prizes of the Royal University; and, if so, whether, in view of Section 9 of the Act of Parliament founding the Royal University, he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: When a student of the Royal University gains an exhibition, scholarship, or prize in the University, a deduction is made in respect of any exhibition, scholarship, or prize of which he is at the time the holder in any of the Queen's Colleges. The Senate are advised that this practice is in accordance with the provisions of the Statute. A special committee of the Senate has been appointed to consider the question of making more stringent the regulations in this respect.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is any deduction made in the scholarship where the student fails to pass the ordinary examination for the University in the very subject for which he was elected to the scholarship.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I must ask for notice of that.

  Galway Harbour Lighting Contract.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why the Board of Works refused to sanction the acceptance by the Galway Harbour Board of a tender by the Galway Gas Company for the lighting of the Harbour, seeing that this tender was accepted because the electric light in use had proved a failure; and will he say if the inspector of the Board of Works reported that the electric lighting had been a failure.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): The gas company's tender was much higher than the tender of the electric company. Gas was abandoned in favour of electricity five years ago. There have been occasional failures in the electric lighting, but the inspector reports that the electric com-
  426
  pany are in a position to remedy the defects in the lighting and to guarantee satisfactory working in the future.

  Galway Harbour Lights,
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the inspector who recently visited Galway Docks for the purpose of examining the lighting of the harbour made his examination during the day, or whether he examined the lights at night; and had he before him the complaints of captains and pilots.
  I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the attention of the Board of Works was called by Mr. Burbidge to the defects of the wires used in connection with the lighting of Galway Docks; whether complaints have been made by captains and pilots of the defective lighting; and whether it was for these reasons that the tender of the gas company was accepted.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The inspector did not examine the lights in the harbour at night, as his purpose was to ascertain why the light occasionally failed, and whether the condition of the electric light works, the distribution of the current, and the guarantees of the company, gave reason to believe that the contract would be properly carried out. He inspected the works of the electric company at night The inspector had before him the complaints of Mr. Burbidge and the pilots. He had also before him a letter from a firm of shipowners trading to Galway stating that in the opinion of their agent at Galway the docks had never been better lighted. The only defect appears to be the occurrence of failures from time to time, and arrangements are being made which will, I am assured, prevent these in future.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: Did the inspector examine the lights at night?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: He examined the works at night.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: Did he see the lights working?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: Yes.

  The Dogs Bill.
  MR. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what arrangements he intends to make in the time of the House for facilitating the passing into law of the Dogs Bill during the present session.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I wish well to this Bill, but I am not in a position to make any statement about it.

  Army Corps.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he intends to ask the House of Commons to rescind the Resolution of 13th May, 1901, pledging the House to maintain six Army Corps.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Answer is in the negative.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: Does the Prime Minister mean us to infer that the Army Corps scheme still holds the field.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: May I ask whether the Prime Minister intends that the scheme which was sanctioned three years ago is still to remain in existence?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. The hon. Member must not interpret my Answer in that way.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Then what does it mean?
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Why does the right hon. Gentleman depart from the precedent he set on the last occasion?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Question has been answered.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Does the Prime Minister desire to let down the Secretary for India lightly?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  The Vote of Censure.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I wish to ask the Prime Minister when the vote of censure will be taken.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand it has been arranged through the usual channels that it shall be taken on 1st August. The first order on that day will be the suspension of the twelve o'clock rule for the rest of the session, and the second order the vote of censure.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Is it intended to take both those matters on the same day?
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: The alternative I suggested would have enabled the censure Motion to be taken on Thursday, but it did not seem to meet with favour.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Is it not usual to have a discussion on the state of business on the Motion for the suspension of the twelve o'clock rule, and does the Prime Minister think it fair that we should be precluded from discussing the state of business.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should have much preferred the other arrangement. I did not desire this.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Is there any precedent for putting a vote of censure in any position but that of first order of the day?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I doubt if there is any precedent for refusing to make such arrangements as would permit of a vote of censure being taken within three days of the time it was suggested.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As a somewhat interested party, I would like to point out that that was a perfectly futile offer, owing not only to the nature of the business, but also to the fact that a private Bill occupied a long time at the evening sitting.

  LORD DUNDONALD— MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the conduct of Major-General Lord Dundonald, late Commander of the Militia in Canada, in taking part, whilst still an officer in the British Army, in a political agitation against His Majesty's Government in the Dominion of Canada.
  MR. J. F. HOPE: On a point of order, asked if this was not covered by a Motion on the Paper (standing in the name of Colonel Wyndham Murray)—as follows:—"To call attention to the dismissal of Lord Dundonald from the command of the Militia in Canada, and to move that in the opinion of this House a Court of inquiry should be convened to investigate the allegations against Lord Dundonald."
  MR. SPEAKER: That notice of Motion has not escaped my attention, but it is clear that the present Motion does not raise the same point. It must be understood, however, that the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs will not be at liberty to go into the dismissal, but must confine himself to the subsequent action of Lord Dundonald.
  Mr. SPEAKERcalled on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly arisen:
  The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, till this Evening's Sitting.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures— Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Cochrane, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Lambert, and Mr. Wolff; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Wyndham, Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Condon, Mr. Farrell, and Sir James Haslett.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  TUBERCULOSIS (ANIMALS) COMPENSATION BILL.
  Special Report from the Select Committee on the Tuberculosis (Animals) Compensation Bill, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.

  TUBERCULOSIS (ANIMALS) COMPENSATION BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment.
  Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 272.]

  COUNTY OF SUFFOLK BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 273.]
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 273.]
  Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 4.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
MR. J. F. HOPEasked for an explanation of the reason why 1st August was the date fixed upon. [The hon. Member's observations were inaudible in the Press Gallery.]
THE CHANCELLOR of THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)said the same question was discussed on Clause 1, when he accepted an Amendment substituting 1st July for 1st August and he should have been ready to accept a similar Amendment to this clause if it had been moved. He did not think it desirable to accept an earlier date, as it would tend to destroy the revenue of the current year if it were known that the duty was likely

431
to expire as soon as the financial year came to an end. Where there was reason to expect a reduction of duty, clearances were held back and stocks duty paid were reduced to a minimum. It was necessary that the taxes should be carried over to a date late enough in the succeeding year to prevent the withholding of duty in the expectation of a reduction.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that as the Member who moved the alteration of the date to the 1st July, he must express his pleasure that the right hon Gentleman was prepared to accept a similar date in the present clause. Could he move it now?
THE CHAIRMAN: No, I have now put the Question that the clause be read a second time.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEYthought it very regrettable that the right hon. Gentleman should thus express his willingness to accept an Amendment which had not even been moved. Only the previous day the right hon. Gentleman removed, quite unnecessarily as he thought, a tax upon goods on the high seas. He had always thought that these duties were fixed with a considerable amount of care. He took it that the 1st August was originally decided upon for some definite reason, and the action of the right hon.
Gentleman in altering the date seemed rather to throw doubt upon it.
SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsubmitted that ever since 1863 it had been the custom to allow a proper interval of something like four months to elapse between the end of the financial year and the date when the duties ceased to operate, in order that traders might accumulate stocks, and thus obviate violent fluctuation of market rates. For this reason and also because the shortening of the interval would make forestalling of the market common and further interfere with the market, he ventured with great respect to direr from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to think this interval of four months should be preserved.
MR. SCOTT-MONTAGUasked if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way to make some concession in regard to spirits used for motive power, lighting, and heating purposes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That must be raised on the new clause standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesborough.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 188; Noes, 129. (Division List No. 248.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bull, William James

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

Fardell, Sir T. George

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv.

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

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Arnold-Forster, RtHn.HughO

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Arrol, Sir William

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Fison, Frederick William

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Bigot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Chamberlain Rt Hn.J.A(Worc.

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Chapman, Edward

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Baird, John George Alexander

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

Flower, Sir Ernest

Balcarres, Lord

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Forster, Henry William

Baldwin, Alfred

Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.)

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

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

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Galloway, William Johnson

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

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Gardner, Ernest

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Garfit, William

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Davenport, William Bromley

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby

Bigwood, James

Dickson, Charles Scott

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Bill, Charles

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Graham, Henry Robert

Bingham, Lord

Dorington, Rt.Hn.Sir John E.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Doughty, Sir George

Greene,Sir EW(B'ry S Edmnds

Bond, Edward

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Gunter, Sir Robert

Boulnois, Edmund

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Bowles,T. Gibson (King's Lynn

During-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Brassey, Albert

Dyke, Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart

Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Heaton, John Henniker

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

Sharpe, William Edward T

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Hobhouse,RtHn H(Somers't,E

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Horner, Frederick William

Milvain, Thomas

Smith,HC (North'mb.Tyneside

Houston, Robert Paterson

Mitchell, Edw.(Fermanagh,N.)

Smith RtHn J.Parker(Lanarks

Howard, Jn.(Kent, Faversham

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

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

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

Montagu, Hn. J. Scott(Hants.)

Spear, John Ward

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

Hunt, Rowland

Morpeth, Viscount

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Morrison, James Archibald

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Thomas,J A(Glamorgan,Gower

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Mount, William Arthur

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Tollemache, Henry James

Kerr, John

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

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Tuff, Charles

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Myers, William Henry

Tufnaell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Valentia, Viscount

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

Parker, Sir Gilbert

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

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

Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Pemberton, John S. G.

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Percy, Earl

Webb, Colonel William George

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Pierpoint, Robert

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

Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

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

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Lowe, Francis William

Pretyman, Ernest George

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

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Purvis, Robert

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

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Ridley, Hon. M. W.(Stalybridge

Wylie, Alexander

Macdona, John Cumming

Ridley, S.Forde(Bethnal Green

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Younger, William

Maconochie, A. W.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

M'Iver,Sir Lewis(Eadinburgh,W

Robinson, Brooke

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Majendie, James A. H.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Donelan, Captain A.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Daoogan, P. C.

Leaese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Allen, Charles P.

Edwards, Frank

Levy, Maurice

Atherley-Jones, L.

Ellice,Capt E.C(SAndrw'sBghs

Lewis, John Herbert

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Lloyd-George, David

Bell, Richard

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Lough, Thomas

Boland, John

Fenwick, Charles

Lundon W.

Brigg, John

Flynn, James Christopher

Lyell, Charles Henry

Broadhurst, Henry

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Fuller, J. M. F.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Burt, Thomas

Gladstone,Rt.Hon.Herbert Jn.

M'Crae, George

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Caldwell, James

Gordon, Sir W. Brampton

M'Kenna, Reginald

Cameron, Robert

Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

M'Killop, W. (Sligo North)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Hayden, John Patrick

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Healy, Timothy Michael

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Causton, Richard Knight

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Cawley, Frederick

Higham, John Sharpe

Mooney, John J.

Channing, Francis Allston

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

Murphy, John

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Holland, Sir William Henry

Nannetti. Joseph P.

Clancy, John Joseph

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

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

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Crombie, John William

Jacoby, James Alfred

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Cullinan, J.

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Joicey, Sir James

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

O'Dowd, John

Delany, William

Joyce, Michael

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

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Kennedy,Vincent P (Cavan,W.

O'Malley, William

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Lambert, George

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Langley, Batty

Parrott, William

434

435

Partington Oswald

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Toulmin, George

Paulton, James Mellor

Sheehy, David

Tully, Jasper

Pirie, Duncan V.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Price, Robert John

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Rea, Russell

Spencer, Rt.Hn.C.R(Northants

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Strachey, Sir Edward

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

Roberts, John H.(Denbighs.)

Sullivan, Donal

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Tennant, Harold John

Woodhouse,Sir J.T(Huddersf'd

Runciman, Walter

Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan,E.)

Young, Samuel

Russell, T. W.

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Shackleton, David James

Tomkinson, James

Trevelyan and Mr. Soares.

Question "That the word 'July' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Clause 5—
MR. GIBSON BOWLESmoved to leave out "August" in order to insert "July."
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 30, to leave out the word 'August' and insert the word 'July.'"—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
Question proposed, "That the word August' stand part of the clause."
MR. MCKENNAhoped the Committee would have an opportunity of discussing the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Cork in favour of substituting April or the end of the financial year for August. The point he wished to impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that these duties were intended originally to be only temporary, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he did not think the time had now come when they should be permanently incorporated with the duties which already existed.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is hardly relevant to the Amendment.
MR. MCKENNAagreed that it was not relevant to the July Amendment, but it was to the April one. He strongly objected to the false pretence of continuing these duties from year to year as temporary duties when from long experience they knew that they were permanent duties. Did not the right hon. Gentleman now regard them as permanently part of our fiscal system. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, in introducing the duties, said he would remove them at the earliest possible moment. There had since been opportunities of removing them but they still remained.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESobjected to making the duties permanent. He preferred that they should be brought under the review of the House year after year.
MR. BUCHANANasked if, providing this Amendment were carried, it would not also be necessary to make a corresponding alteration in the date of the expiring of the drawbacks.
MR. FLYNNpointed out that in imposing these duties the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol explicitly promised that they would only be put on temporarily, but four years had since elapsed and they were still imposed. Personally he held that these duties should expire at the end of the financial year, and he should vote against their continuance one day longer than was necessary.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid it was true that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol imposed the duties he expressed the hope that they would be temporary, but a year later he warned the House of Commons that he feared he would not be able, when the war terminated, to remit the additional taxation he had imposed. For himself, having to find a larger revenue, he was obliged to continue the existing taxation. The additional duties were continued as an annual tax simply in order that they might be brought under the review of the House every session, and he thought the House would prefer that. He hoped hon. Members would treat with reasonable brevity the renewal of these taxes, which were necessary for the finances of the year. Some margin must be left, or else merchants and traders would not replenish the stocks, but would keep them as low as possible. The consequence would be

437
that there would practically be no duty paid during the last quarter. He thought the period of three months which had been suggested was sufficient to safeguard the revenue, and he accepted that suggestion in order to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for East Perthshire put a Question to him in regard to the date of the expiration of the drawback. His attention had not been called to that point before and it certainly deserved consideration. He hoped the hon. Member would allow him to defer any definite answer upon that point until the Report stage, because he should not like to deal with it until he had had an opportunity of consulting the Treasury officials.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he understood that the right lion. Gentleman had practically accepted the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. A very important point had been raised by the hon. Member for Perthshire in regard to the drawback, but the right hon. Gentleman had promised to look into that matter.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he would inquire whether such an alteration was necessary, and, if it was, he would make it upon the Report stage.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he thought the House ought to have a larger annual control over these taxes, and he should like to see them made annual taxes and put into the Finance Act. It was ridiculous to continue these little remnants of taxes year by year when there was no probability of repealing them. Perhaps next year the right hon. Gentleman, if they still had the advantage of his services, would bring some of these taxes into the annual taxation, and restore to the House the control which it used to have over these taxes.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid it seemed to him very unfortunate that this change had been made. Changing the dates during the passage of the Bill through the House was confusing, and now he understood that there was some doubt in regard to the drawback.
438
These things ought to be settled from the first, and it would save a good deal of friction if they were settled at the outset and stuck to.
MR. BUCHANANsaid he objected to this alteration, because pro tanto the Chancellor of the Exchequer was making these additional duties permanent. They were imposed in 1900 for temporary purposes, and he viewed with great jealousy any step in the direction of making these taxes part of the ordinary annual permanent taxation. He should certainly divide the Committee upon this question.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he objected to the attitude taken up by the hon. Member for East Perthshire in regard to making these taxes permanent. It should be the policy of those who sat on that side of the House to impose upon intoxicants as much taxation as they could fairly bear. These taxes were imposed temporarily to pay for the war, but they should attempt to make them permanent for the purposes of peace, and therefore he entered his protest against the argument of the hon. Member and he should support this proposal.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that although the right hon. Gentleman had promised to consider this point, he felt confident that after he had done so he would find that there was absolutely nothing in it.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid he did not think a case had been made out for this proposal. To alter these dates would, as the hon. Member for North Islington had pointed out, cause confusion. Surely it was premature to make a concession, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, in order to artificially facilitate business, by accepting a date like 1st July, instead of 1st August. The case of annual control over the tax could be covered as it had up to the present. Anticipating the taxes was an evil they ought to avoid as far as possible, and they had a greater safeguard by adopting August 1 as the date than they had by adopting 1st July. He would like to know how far the dates were harmonious, He understood that they were working on the principle of

439
separate dates, and the case which had been made out for the alteration from August to July might equally apply to other matters. It was bound to lead to confusion, and it would have an effect upon the Exchequer [MINISTERIAL cries of "Divide."] of which hon. Gentlemen opposite had no conception. It was a little indecent now for hon. Members to cry "Divide" when a short time ago they were endeavouring by every means to avoid a division.
Question put, and negatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
MR. FLYNNsaid the clause referred to the additional duties of Excise on beers and spirits imposed by the Finance Act, 1900. The hon. Member for King's Lynn had stated that a clause of this kind gave the Committee certain power over the Treasury. That was a very fragmentary power indeed; the real power of the Committee consisted in the power it had over the tax as such. The additional duty put on beer was comparatively small—6d. on 36 gallons—and he would not be inclined to quarrel with it. But the additional impost on spirits by which the duty was raised to 11s. per proof gallon was one which penalised a most important Scotch and Irish industry. He made bold to say that much of the drunkenness and insanity, end many of the evil consequences which they unfortunately had to deplore at the present time as the result of the consumption of spirits, were due to the enormous tax put on spirits. If spirits were to be consumed at all, whether in the form of whisky, gin, or other commodity, it was desirable that they should be taken as a pure and wholesome fluid; but by imposing a duty of this kind they encouraged the production of the impure and vile kinds of spirit which unfortunately were to be found in whisky. That was entirely in consequence of the tax of 11s. per proof gallon on spirits. He did not know whether the House realised that
this tax was equal to between two-thirds and three-fourths of the cost of production of a good Highland or Irish whisky. There were some classes of whisky which took a long time to mature, and he was informed that in the higher class the tax of 11s. represented no less than five-sixths of the cost after allowing for storage charges, loss of bulk, and interest on capital. That was surely out of all reason. At one time the tax was 2s. 3d., and then it was 3s. 6d. There was an old saying in regard to the good whisky on whichthat amount of duty was paid that "There is not a headache in a hogshead." It was impossible that distillers could produce a healthy spirit, and put it on the market at a price that would pay, if the State persisted in imposing this crushing tax. It put a premium on dishonesty. He opposed the clause.
MR. MCKENNAsaid the hon. Member for King's Lynn had entirely misunderstood what he said. He should have supported the tax as heartily as the hon. Member, if it had not been expressly declared when it was imposed that it was to be temporary, and that it was intended to be withdrawn. It was because it was a war tax, and a war tax only, that he wished to have it set aside now for good and all. He agreed with the hon. Member for Poplar that this tax, if it was to be continued, ought to be incorporated in the general Excise duties on beer and spirits. The Excise duties on beer and spirits ought to be made annual duties, in order that the Committee might have the opportunity of reviewing the whole range of the imposts on these articles of consumption. What they got now was a half-hearted debate on a mere fragment of these duties, while the whole scope of policy of the duties was withdrawn from their discussion. That, he thought, was a mistake. Either the duties should be made permanent, or else they should in their entirety be made annual. It was on that ground that he wished to support his hon. friend who had spoken against the clause.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 217; Noes, 141. (Division List No. 249.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Arrol, Sir William

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Graham, Henry Robert

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

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Greene,Sir E.W(B'rySEdm'nds

Myers, William Henry

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Grenfell, William Henry

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Baird, John George Alexander

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Balcarres, Lord

Gunter, Sir Robert

Pease, HerbertPike(Darlington

Baldwin, Alfred

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Pemberton, John S. G.

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

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Percy, Earl

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

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Pierpoint, Robert

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Beach, Rt.Hn.Sir MichaelHicks

Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Heaton, John Henniker

Pryce- Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Purvis, Robert

Bigwood, James

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Reid, James (Greenock)

Bingham, Lord

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hobhouse,Rt Hn.H(Somers't,E

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Bond, Edward

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Boulnois, Edmund

Houston, Robert Paterson

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Bowles, T.Gibson(King'sLynn)

Howard, Jn.(Kent, Faversham

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Brassey, Albert

Howard, J. (Midd.,Tottenham)

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Bull, William James

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

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

Hunt, Rowland

Samuel,Sir HarryS.(Limehouse

Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv.

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Smith,H C(North'mb.Tyneside

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hn. Col.W.

Smith,Rt Hn.J.Parker(Ianark

Chamberlain,Rt Hon. J.A(Woro.

Kerr, John

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

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Kimber, Sir Henry

Spear, John Ward

Chapman, Edward

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

Stroyan, John

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

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

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead

Thompson,Dr.E.C (Mon'gh'n,N

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.)

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Thornton, Percy M.

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Long, Col.Charles W.(Evesham

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

Tuff, Charles

Davenport, William Bromley

Lowe, Francis William

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Dickson, Charles Scott

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Valentia, Viscount

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Dorington, Rt.Hn. Sir John E.

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Doughty, Sir George

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Webb, Colonel William George

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Macdona, John Cumming

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

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.

Dyke, Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart

Maconochie, A. W.

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

M'Iver,Sir Lewis(Edinburgh,W

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Fardell, Sir T. George.

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

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

Majendie, James A. H.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

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

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

Fison, Frederick William

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Milvain, Thomas

Wylie, Alexander

Flower, Sir Ernest

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh,N.)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Forster, Henry William

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

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

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Galloway, William Johnson

Morpeth, Viscount

Younger, William

Gardner, Ernest

Morrell, George Herbert

Garfit, William

Morrison, James Archibald

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

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

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Alexander Acland-Hood an

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Mount, William Arthur

Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

442

443

NOES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Harwood, George

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Hayden, John Patrick

Parrott, William

Allen, Charles P.

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Partington, Oswald

Asher, Alexander

Healy, Timothy Michael

Paulton, James Mellor

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Higham, John Sharpe

Pirie, Duncan V.

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

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

Power, Patrick Joseph

Bell, Richard

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Price, Robert John

Boland, John

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Rea, Russell

Brigg, John

Jacoby, James Alfred

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Broadhurst, Henry

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

Rickett, J. Compton

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Joicey, Sir James

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Burt, Thomas

Joyce, Michael

Runciman, Walter

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Labouchere, Henry

Russell, T. W.

Caldwell, James

Lambert, George

Schwann, Charles E.

Cameron, Robert

Langley, Batty

Shackleton, David James

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal,W.)

Shaw, Thomas.(Hawick B.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Causton, Richard Knight

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Sheehy, David

Cawley, Frederick

Leese, Sir JosephF.(Accrington

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Clancy, John Joseph

Lewis, John Herbert

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lough, Thomas

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

London, W.

Soares, Ernest J.

Crombie, John William

Lyell, Charles Henry

Spencer, Rt.Hn.C.R(Northants

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Strachey, Sir Edward

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

Sullivan, Donal

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

M'Crae, George

Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan,E)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Hugh, Patrick A

Thomas, D Alfred (Merthyr)

Donelan, Captain A.

M'Killop, W (Sligo, North)

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

Doogan, P. C.

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Tomkinson, James

Edwards, Frank

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Toulmin, George

Elibank, Master of

Markham, Arthur Basil

Wallace, Robert

Ellice,Capt E.C(SAndrw'sBghs

Mooney, John J

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Evans,SirFrancisH.(Maidst'ne)

Morley, Rt.Hn.John (Montrose

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Nannetti, Joseph P.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Fenwick, Charles

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

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

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

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

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Woodhouse,Sir J.T(Huddersf'd

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Young, Samuel

Grant, Corrie

O'Dowd, John

Grey, Rt.Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

O'Malley, William

Flynn and Mr. M'Kenna.

Clause 6:—
THE CHAIRMANsaid that the next Amendment which was in order was that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Barnstaple, relating to incomes arising from colonial investments.
MR. J. H. LEWISsaid that he quite understood that in reference to the Amendment which stood in his name at the top of page 16, a considerable portion of it would come under a previous ruling of the Chairman, on the ground that it would involve an additional charge. He, however, wished to move his first
444
Amendment in conjunction with the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Elland lower down on the Paper, which, he understood, had been discussed on former occasions and ruled in order. This was by no means the first occasion on which the question of a graduated income-tax had been raised in the House.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member seriously mean to move only half of his proposed Amendment.
MR. J. H. LEWISsaid he wished to move his first Amendment so as to graft on it that of the hon.

445
Member for Elland "to leave out 'one shilling,' and insert 'ten pence, and every person whose total income from all sources, upon which income-tax is now paid, exceeds £5,000 shall pay an additional tax upon the following scale, etc.'" That was an Amendment which had been under discussion formerly and had been ruled in order.
THE CHAIRMAN: Has the hon. Member received the sanction of the hon. Member for Elland?
MR. J. H. LEWIS: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member put his scheme down only yesterday.
MR. J. H. LEWISsaid that the scheme had been put down for some weeks, and it had only been starred because of a slight alteration he had made in it the previous day. However, he did not propose to lay that scheme before the Committee, but to move his first Amendment in connection with that of the hon. Member for Elland. In fact, the object of the hon. Member for Elland and his own were substantially identical. They wished to have a discussion on the general principle of a graduated income-tax. Opinion in favour of such a tax was growing in favour in the House and certainly in the country. He himself had received a considerable number of letters from Unionists on this subject, and there was a very large class of persons outside the House who were very deeply interested in the question. The princple of graduation had practically been settled by the imposition of estate duties, and in various other ways in which it already existed. Considerable abatements were allowed in respect of smaller incomes, and they submitted that it was desirable to extend the system. Owing to the great increase in indirect taxation within recent years, it had become necessary to revise the scale upon which income-tax was charged. At the present time the burden of taxation fell much more heavily upon persons of small means than upon rich men. A rich man had only to deny himself luxuries, but a poor man had to deny himself comforts and
446
even necessaries in order to pay rates and taxes. The Government had refused over and over again to graduate the Customs and Excise duties. The most expensive tea was charged at the same rate as the cheapest tea that entered into the British market, aid the same rule obtained in the case of wines and cigars. As the right hon. Gentleman was not able to graduate duties in that way he should proceed in some other direction, and could best do so in connection with the income-tax. It was essential that the tax should be adjusted to the capacity of the individual bearing it. They had been told that the estate duty did what was necessary in the way of graduated taxes on property. He denied that entirely. When the estate duty was proposed it produced £15,000,000, whereas now it yielded £30,000,000 a year, so that it was obvious that the time would come for heavier incomes to contribute more largely than they did at the present time. It was monstrous that a man with an income of £800 should pay just exactly the same rate of income-tax as a man with £8,000 or £80,000, as obtained under the present system. He ventured to think that the time would come for the extension of a principle which, was admitted to ho both sound and equitable. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Mon-mouthshire had said that the object was a good one, and every sound argument was in its favour.
He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not raise any technical objection because they were trying to raise a discussion on a great question of principle, and desired to brush aside all technical difficulties. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to make a concession on this subject, they on their side were willing to wait for another year. There were objections on practical grounds, such as the difficulty of aggregating a man's income, but with the aid of Somerset House there ought not to be much difficulty in ascertaining any particular income, or testing whether a man's aggregate of income was correct. The only labour required for testing income front companies and investments in public stocks and securities could be performed by a clerical staff of the lowest grade. There were firms in the City at the present time able, for a consideration, to give a list of anyone's investments,

447
and surely the Inland Revenue authorities would have no difficulty in testing the accuracy of returns of incomes derived from stocks and shares. One of the objections raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Second Reading of the Bill was that graduation could not begin at a lower point than an income of £5,000 a year, because he would otherwise have to inquire into the income of a great number of persons. He (Mr. Lewis), failed to see how the difficulty would arise. The present system of taxing profits at the source was the most convenient that could be devised, according to the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman, and he recognised a certain amount of force in that line of reasoning, but he thought it was desirable that the people should know they were being taxed. A great deal of extravagance prevalent in this country was due to the ease with which the taxes were raised, but with a graduated system of income-tax the people would realise the fact that they were being mulcted in a considerable portion of their income, and he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider that part of the question, seeing that it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to encourage economy. If, as it might be contended, a graduated tax would be inconvenient to the authorities of Somerset House, it surely followed that the present system caused an infinitely greater inconvenience to payers of income-tax. In advocating a graduated income-tax he did not wish to impose on any class, however wealthy, an unfair share of the national burdens. All he asked was that taxation should be apportioned to taxable capacity. He was sorry the Government would not grant an inquiry into the subject in order that the country might know on official authority what the difficulties were, and whether they were insuperable. In moving the insertion after "tax" of the words "at the graduated rates hereinafter mentioned," he proposed to adopt the scale placed on the Paper by the hon. Member for the Eland Division. That scale provided that "tenpence" should be substituted for "one shilling," and that "every person whose total income from all sources, upon which income-tax is now paid, exceeds £5,000, shall pay an additional tax upon the following scale:—Incomes over
448
£5,000, up to £10,000, at the rate of Id.; incomes over £10,000, at the rate of 2d." He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 2, line 37, after thewords 'income tax to insert the words `at the graduated rate s hereinafter mentioned.'" (Mr. J. H. Lewis.)
Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he understood that the hon. Member had adopted the scale of the hon. Member for Elland, not because he thought that on its merits it was an improvement on his own, but because it brought him within the scope of the rules of the House. The hon. Member would be the first to admit that if the principle for which he had argued was adopted, the proposal of the hen. Member for Elland would be inadequate to apply it in practice. The hon. Member based his argument on the fact that they ought to tax the superfluity of this world's goods, which a man might possess, more highly than the necessaries of life. Within moderate limits that principle was already embodied in the income-tax, but the hon. Gentleman proposed to give it an extension hitherto unknown. The hon. Gentleman would find it extremely difficulty to define what was superflous and what was necessary with regard to the income of any class or any invidual. Surely, if it was on that basis that the tax was to be collected, they must distinguish not merely between the incomes of different, men, but between the claims upon them. Two men might each have £1,000 a year, but one might have a large family, while the other might have no one dependent upon him. Could they say that the same amount was necessary in each case for subsistence, and that the same balance remained in each case for luxuries? It was difficult to estimate how much revenue the Exchequer would lose through the adoption of any of these schemes. Under the scheme which stood in the hon. Member's own name, in which he proposed to raise the maximum of the income-tax to double its present amount, the loss would be from £7,000,000 to £10,000,000; and under the proposal of the hon. Member for Elland the loss, would be probably between £3,000,000 and £4,000,00.
MR. TREVELYANsaid his Amendment really meant that the existing tax should remain untouched, and that another tax should be levied over and above it. Lower figures had been introduced because the rules would not allow him to submit a proposal which imposed a higher tax upon a single individual. He invited the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss his Amendment on the basis of a tax over and above the existing income-tax.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid it was difficult to discuss a proposal which was not before the Committee.
MR. TREVELYAN: It was discussed on that basis two years ago, as a question of policy.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not, know what the hon. Member's scheme was. All he knew was that it was out of order. It was not reasonable to ask that he should give figures showing the effect of a scheme which had not been described. It would be very difficult to recover from the higher incomes the amount which would be subtracted from the lower incomes. The hon. Member for Elland's proposal was that the present rate of income-tax should be limited to incomes over £10,000. But he supposed the idea was that there should be an additional tax on incomes which exceeded, say, £15,000.
MR. TREVELYANsaid his proposal, as it stood on the Paper, was that the existing tax should be levied as at present only at a rate 2d. lower. What he desired was that rich men having £5,000 a year and upwards should declare their incomes, that an extra tax should be placed upon them, and that the income-tax should be graduated after that amount. That was a proposition which the right hon. Gentleman himself discussed and gave figures bearing upon a few days ago.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not complain of the hon. Member's raising the question in the only way in which it was open to him to raise it; but surely the hon. Gentleman could not ex-
450
pect him to give figures about a plan which could not be discussed.
MR. TREVELYAN: You gave the figures on the proposal the other day.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that being so he hoped the hon. Gentleman would accept the figures he gave the other day, which would be found in the report of his speech. Those figures tended to show the very serious effect which any proposal of this kind in reference to the income-tax would have upon tho revenue. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that under a system requiring every man to declare his income the Exchequer would be likely to obtain a larger return from the income-tax than under the present system of collecting the tax at the source of income. Experience was wholly against that theory. The additional yield from the income-tax in recent years was largely due to so many undertakings becoming public companies and publishing balance-sheets, and to the tax being paid at the source where the income was made instead of it being dependent upon a return furnished by each individual. When the income-tax was first proposed by Mr. Pitt it was based on individual assessment. In 1803 it was put upon what was practically the present basis of calculating it at the source of income, and, immediately, a shilling tax under the new system gave almost exactly the same yield as a two-shilling tax under the old system. The fact of the matter was that it was exceedingly difficult to ascertain the income of individuals. Every Member of the Committee must have known men whose great incomes no one suspected until after their death. How was the Inland Revenue to trace the incomes of men of that kind? He ventured to say that to alter the present basis of the income-tax would be to strike a serious blow at the yield, and would be a most retrograde step in our financial system. Complaints had been made that abatements and exemptions were not always enjoyed by the persons they were supposed to benefit. That was the point which would be considered by the Committee at present sitting under the presidency of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon. The more exemptions and

451
abatements there were, the greater was the burden thrown upon the authorities. The work at certain periods of the year was exceedingly severe, and, though errors might occasionally creep in, they did not spare themselves in their efforts to give satisfaction to the claimants of abatements. Certainly the heads of the Department, as well as the men, would be most glad if they could make the system more efficient.
MR. J. H. LEWISsaid he made no attack whatever upon the officials of the Department. He knew they were doing their very best in the matter. What he meant to convey was, that the evils of which he spoke were inherent to the system, and that in consequence a large number of people, particularly those unaccustomed to business ways such as widows and spinsters, did not receive the abatements to which they were entitled.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that in times past there had probably been many cases of the kind referred to, but he thought that with the greater publicity now given they were a diminishing number. All the schemes which had been suggested depended for their efficiency upon self-assessment, but hon. Members were altogether mistaken if they thought that by closely scrutinising registers at Somerset House, or by other inquiries, the Government could ascertain the individual incomes of all the wealthy men in the country. Any inquisitorial attempt to get at men's incomes would endanger the existence of the tax altogether, because it would render it intolerable to the public. Under the circumstance he could give no countenance to the Amendment. He admitted that a high income-tax pressed more heavily upon certain sections of the community than upon others. That was true of any tax. But the remedy was not to be found in any attempt to graduate the tax. It was rather in compensatory taxes of other kinds, such as the death duties, and in reducing the income-tax to a lower figure whenever their resources allowed them to do so.
MR. LAMBERT: When will that be?
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that was a Question he was unable to answer, but he hoped it would not be so long postponed as the hon. Gentleman would wish.
MR. LAMBERT: I should like to see it done at once.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was glad to have from the other side of the House an assurance of support when he should propose a reduction of the income-tax. In his opinion it was by keeping the income-tax at a moderate figure that the evils inherent in the system could best be met, and not by altering the basis on which it had been collected with such efficacy for so many years.
MR. TREVELYANsaid he was very sensible of the awkwardness of the form in which a Motion for the graduation of income-tax always had to be moved. The advocates of the system would much prefer to propose higher taxation upon the very rich, leaving the present tax approximately as now for separate discussion. The Amendment standing in his name did not in any way affect the tax now levied. There was no interference with the present tax whatever under the proposal they were discussing. All that was proposed by the Amendment was to have an additional tax upon those who had an income of over £5,000, graduated from that point upwards. He had for over three years taken part in pressing for some method of graduating the income-tax, but, like his hon. friend, he had never dogmatised about the practicability of it. What they had been doing was to press for a practical inquiry by practical people who had the matter at their fingers' ends; and he thought they had been sour oily treated in the matter. In 1902 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol held out hopes that in the Committee he was then appointing to inquire into the income-tax he would leave room for this to be considered. On this he (Mr. Trevelyan) withdrew his Amendment to the Budget Bill. In the next year, 1903, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon again took the official Treasury view

453
against graduation, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, whom he was going to appoint chairman of the Committee, told them that he would see that the discussion of this question was not prevented. Upon that they again withdrew this Amendment. Now, this year, from the present Chancellor, who, in his turn had become Chairman of the Committee, they could get no promise, and they were left in the position that they found this question of graduation was omitted from the reference to the Committee. He did not say that the right hon. Gentleman was bound by previous statements of other Chancellors, but he did think they had had a reasonable expectation, which, had they been licensed holders, would certainly have entitled them to some equitable compensation. In spite of this, the question had made some progress, for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol at an earlier stage in the Budget discussions warned the Members opposite that, if the income-tax were going to remain as high as it was in peace time, they would find this question come very much to the front; and he actually went so far as to say—
"I have never seen any objection in principle to a movement of this kind. We have graduation in the death and house duties, I confess the difficulties and doubt its practicability."
But he went on to press that "this question of the practicability of abatements and graduations should be examined by a practical, skilled Committee. He could not but think that this was the moment they might fairly make the claim." Then the present Chancellor, in spite of what he had said, had begun to take the matter more seriously. In the speech he made at an earlier stage of the Budget Bill he discussed in a more thorough way than to-day the proposition of extra taxation being levied on large incomes, and he went so far as to go into figures. The first objection he raised was that it would offend powerful interests and would be unpopular; of course, it would be unpopular with the very rich; every tax was unpopular with the people taxed.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The point of my observation was that the
454
successful working of the system would depend upon the co-operation of the people taxed.
MR. TREVELYAN,proceeding, said that, in the calculation the right hon. Gentleman made as to the result of additional taxation upon incomes of over £5,000, he cited the Inland Revenue to the effect that only one-fifth of the whole income-tax would come under the head of "Incomes of over £5,000." This, of course, was a large sum of the whole money; and if the large incomes upon which this additional taxation would be levied were held by a few individuals, it was perfectly obvious that, regarding the income-tax as a whole, the effect of making the tax unpopular would be very small. It would be a tax upon the luxury and superfluity of a few individuals and, as far as it went, might be a relief to the ordinary income-tax payer and make the tax as a whole more popular; in fact, this was the argument of the Member for West Bristol, who urged that the question of the graduation of the income-tax necessarily forces itself to the front when you are making the income-tax more unpopular by levying it at a higher rate in times of peace. It was alleged that this tax would be very unpopular among the people paying it and that it would be very difficult to discover the incomes which would have to be taxed under this proposal. He admitted that he saw no way in which they could be assessed except originally by the declaration of those who possessed them. Publication was a very important part of it, because there would be a fair number of people whose human nature would lead them to declare in order to have the credit of having big incomes. His hon. friend said they could to an extent test what rich men's incomes were by' public records. If a man was living in this country and was in a high and important position, he would be chary of doing anything which would hold him up to public opprobrium by avoiding the tax, and the fact that they would be able to check the returns that were made would make it very unlikely that any large number of rich men would seriously try to avoid the tax. He did not, therefore, think there was any insuperable objection to raising the tax in this way.

455
The last time the right hon. Gentleman spoke about this tax he said that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue put the amount of incomes subject to graduation at one-fifth of the total incomes subject to taxation, and he calculated, taking the average graduated tax at 6d. on incomes of over £5,000, that the tax would yield £3,000,000 additional. They then advised him that they would have to deduct £750,000 for evasions. He could not understand the rest of his speech, because later on he said that, making these deductions, the possible gain would be reduced to £1,500,000.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I said in the first place that you would have to allow £750,000 for legitimate avoidance and that then you would have to allow for evasions, illegitimate avoidance of the tax. The yield of the tax would then be reduced to £1,500,000.
MR. TREVELYANsaid this meant that actually half of the tax would not be declared, if the sum left would be an additional tax of £1,500,000. Of course, without further technical evidence he did not in the least accept this statement. But the Chancellor further argued that there would only be an addition to the total returns of £1,500,000, and added "That is a trifle not worth having." He (Mr. Trevelyan) objected to that attitude altogether. Surely £1,500,000 was worth having in the present financial straits. What he desired to insist upon was that they ought not to be prepared to take as final, in so important a case, calculations which had been put forward and which the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to justify by investigating. Why did he burke inquiry if he was so certain of his position? The truth of the matter was that the right hon. Gentleman knew it would be a very serious thing for himself and the Party opposite, because it would upset the financial coach. He avoided the question because it was opposed to the policy to which he was friendly. The right hon. Gentleman urged that they must go on under this excessively high standard of indirect taxation because he wished it to go forth that the Government could not get anything more from higher direct taxation. The one point upon which their financial policy turned was
456
the availability of sources of direct revenue. They were bound on the Opposition side of the House to seek new sources of direct revenue, and every source of revenue ought to be probed before they resolved to go in for permanent taxation upon the food of the people. They ought to be certain that they had tapped every source of revenue from vested interests and monopolies before adopting a policy which the Government had secretly befriended.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid he regretted that the hon. Member for Elland had brought into the subject a question of Party.
MR. TREVELYANsaid he had only brought it in with regard to the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to hold an inquiry.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid he had raised the question of this system of taxation on many occasions, and he had always felt that the poorer classes paid more in proportion to their incomes than the rich. This was unavoidable so long as they taxed alcohol, and so long as people drank alcoholic liquors excessively. With regard to the income-tax in recent years there had been many changes,and although he used to think that the rich ought to pay a larger share a great difference had been brought about by the introduction of the death duties. Incomes might be divided as being derived from two great sources. The first class was the industrial incomes representing the amounts earned from day to day. He did not think it was desirable to put an excessive tax upon any income that a man earned by his own industry. The great thing they all wanted to do was to promote industry. It was desirable to encourage persons by their industry to earn large incomes, because in that way they would be promoting the prosperity of the community. The second great source of income was what he called spontaneous incomes derived from investments which were distributed in a variety of ways over the community. Many years ago he urged that there should be a different tax upon spontaneous and industrial incomes. The man who obtained his income as a doctor, a barrister, or a lawyer, had to pay

457
he same tax as the man who derived his income from investments, and that was unfair. He had frequently urged that there should be a different tax for those two great classes of incomes, but he had never been able to get any Chancellor of the Exchequer to agree with him. If a man inherited £1,000,000 he paid, calculated at 8 per cent., the sum of £80,000, and if he enjoyed his inheritance for twenty years the tax at 4 per cent. worked out as if he paid £5,888 a year for his life, and that worked out exactly at 3s. 2d. in the £ income-tax upon the balance of the income derived from that £1,000,000. Roughly speaking the man was paying 3s. 2d. of income-tax in addition to the income-tax of 1s. claimed under this Budget. He thought that was the best and wisest form of graduating the income-tax. It did not burden the man who was engaged in the promotion of enterprise, but when he left his fortune it was taxed in this way, practically amounting to a large income-tax. He would take the other extreme. If a man succeeded to £10,000 there would be £300 paid to the State in death duties. In the course of twenty years, instead of paying 3s. 2d. income-tax he would pay, of course, a very much smaller amount. It would work out at 1s. 2d. in the £ in addition to the ordinary income-tax. This indicated that the present system worked very fairly, and had adjusted to a great extent many anomalies which were certainly prominent before the passing of the Act.
He did not wish to enter into the great difficulties connected with a graduated income-tax. He agreed that theoretically there was a great deal to be said for it, but he was satisfied that there were practical difficulties in the way of carrying it out. Substantial justice had, he thought, been done by the death duties. He did not for a moment say that the necessity might not some day arise for revising the scale formed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Mon-mouthshire. Millionaires were becoming so common that they should be looked after more carefully. Still he thought the principle was fair, and it would be a mistake to introduce any system of graduating the income-tax which would
458
lead to great evasion, to harassing inquiries, and to the tax becoming objectionable and disliked by different classes of the community, because they would have to investigate everybody's means, and by so doing they would do harm by making the tax more unpopular than it was under the present system. He was anxious to see the burden of taxation more fairly adjusted on the shoulders of different classes and individuals, but he thought this scheme would not be so beneficial as perhaps a more careful system of death duties would be.
SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that those of them who were in the House in 1894 might all feel that it was worth while living ten years more if only to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for North Islington. It was the best example he had ever heard of the proverb that it was never too late to mend. The hon. Member in his interesting and non-partisan speech had examined the relation of the existing death duties to the question of the graduation of the income-tax. The graduation as between earned and unearned incomes was, however, only one part of the question, and he thought there was a further case still for examination. The speech of the hon. Member had indeed rather strengthened the feeling that was in his mind before, that the time had really come for some public inquiry into this subject. Of course the Chancellor of the Exchequer and any Government started from the principle that graduation was not desirable. From their point of view the case against any inquiry was complete, but he thought that a very large number of people started from the point of view that graduation was desirable if practical means of carrying it into effect could be found. A number of methods of graduating the income-tax could be suggested. They had heard four that afternoon, including that mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of greatly extending the system of exemptions and abatements. The right hon. Gentleman said that it would involve more hard work upon an already hardworked department, but, though that was true, it would be possible to increase the staff. The extension of exemptions and abatements was clearly practicable without

459
altering the present system of collection at the source, and the plan proposed by his hon. friend the Member for Elland was also practicable. He admitted that he was impressed, as every one must have seen impressed, by the fact that all who went to the Treasury came out strongly impressed by the practical difficulties in the way of graduating the income-tax, but he did not see why these objections should not be brought into the open. He did not see what objection there was to having a Committee of inquiry which would really go into the whole question. It was true that some anomalies might be created if they distinguished between earned and unearned incomes; but they had all these anomalies at present, and what weighed with him was the question, not whether they would get rid of all anomalies, but whether they could not lessen the existing anomalies. The present system admittedly created tremendous anomalies and in many cases very great hardship, and, at any rate, by an extension of the system of exemptions and abatements, or by some such system as the hon. Member for Elland advocated, they might lessen those anomalies. The sooner the Government of the day agreed to some Committee of inquiry the better it would be for the future of the income-tax. If the Committee reported adversely they would know that it was only after a more complete investigation of the subject than had ever been held; but his opinion was that such an inquiry would result in a Report which would show that more than one scheme of graduating the income-tax was feasible and might be desirable.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that the hon. Member for Islington and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had quoted the death duties as being an answer to the contention of hon. Members on that side of the House. The death duties were on the whole exceedingly well calculated to make the necessary differentiation between earned and unearned income. But the question of graduation was a very different thing. On both sides of the House they were agreed that differentiation was necessary and desirable. A man who had an earned income, more or less precarious, dependent on his health and capacity,
460
was in a different position from a man whose income was derived from land or from capital and was a continuous income. And the former had to lay by money for future eventualities and for his children, while the latter had his land or his capital behind him and was not obliged to save. It was necessary that the income of the first should be taxed less than the income of the second. That was done by the death duties. A man who inherited an estate which had paid duty to the extent of 8 per cent., had lost 8 per cent. of his capital, and. therefore 8 per cent. of his income. This was equivalent to an income-tax of 1s. 7d. in the £, so that practically he paid 2s. 7d. in the £ on his income while the recipient of an earned income of an equal amount paid only 1s. The death duties, no doubt, applied the principle of graduation. But the principle of graduation ought to apply to earned incomes just as much as to unearned incomes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had used an argument which did not carry conviction. The right hon. Gentleman said that if they wished to carry this principle to its logical conclusion they must have one tax on the man with a large family and another tax on a man with a small family. Of course, any proposal could be met by a reductio ad absurdum; but because they could never secure exact justice in the incidence of taxation that was no reason why they should tolerate a gross injustice. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also agreed that the proposals of his hon. friend would result in a loss of revenue rather than in an increase. But this, of course, was due to the fact that the rules of the House forbade a Private Member proposing an increase in the total of taxation. But the right hon. Gentleman would not dream of asserting that it was impossible to devise any graduated scale which would increase the revenue. This Amendment was put down merely in order to raise discussion, and to take the opinion of the Committee on the principle of graduation of the income-tax. They were not tied to details. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, at any rate, carried conviction when he said it was impossible to give up the collection of income at the source. If that system were abandoned it would cause a considerable loss

461
of revenue, but it would be quite possible to adopt the system of graduation without abandoning that of collection at the source. At the present time, through the system of abatements, they had a carefully graduated system of income-tax. A man with an income of £150 paid nothing whatever; the tax on £250 was 1·8 per cent.; on £350 it was 2·7 per cent.; on £450 it was 3·3 per cent.; on £550 it was 3·9 per cent.; on £650 it was 4·5 per cent. and on £700 and over it was 5 per cent. There they had a graduated scale of income-tax, ranging from nothing to 5 per cent. Why should it be impossible to extend that scale still further.
When the income-tax was first proposed in England it was violently opposed, because it was said that it would led to inquisitorial inquiry, to fraud, and to great expense in collection. They now found the disadvantages so small in comparison with the importance of the revenue raised that these objections no longer carried weight. Similarly in the future they might find the hon. Member for North Islington as loud in praise of this graduation as he now was in the case of the death duties, which he formerly opposed so strenuously. Graduation of income-tax existed in many other countries. It was successful in Prussia and many other German States, also in Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Victoria, South Australia, and New Zealand, and if in all those countries it was found practicable to levy a graduated income-tax, why should they believe, on the ipse dixit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Treasury, that such a scheme could not possibly be enforced. It was highly important that an effort should be made, if possible, to overcome the difficulties which might attach to this, as they necessarily attached to all forms of new taxation. If there was any desire to do justice in matters of taxation on the part of that Committee and the House of Commons, it must be recognised that the present system fell far short of what was desired. The impositions which Parliament laid upon the nation ought to be adjusted as closely as possible to the principle of financial equity, and the only principle that could guide them was that of equal sacrifice of ability to pay. An arithmetical equality in the rate of tax
462
did not secure an equality of burden. Surely it was obvious that if they were to tax at the same rate in the £ incomes of £50, £500, £5,000, and £50,000 they would have no equality of burden. The man with £50 would be taxed upon his necessities, the man with £500 upon his comforts, the man with £5,000, would pay upon his luxuries, and the possessor of an income of £50,000 would be taxed nothing at all, except perhaps upon the pleasure of accumulating fresh stores of unused wealth. On a previous occasion during these discussions he had shown on official and other sound authority that the average amount paid by the working class in indirect taxation was at the rate of 1s. 7d. in the £ on their incomes, whilst on the higher incomes the rate was only 1s. in the £. We now had graduation, but it was graduation in the wrong way, and if hon. Members approached this question with an unbiassed mind and examined the problem of the comparative incidence of taxation they would see there was an overwhelming primâ facie case for an expert inquiry both as to the incidence of taxation on the various classes of the nation and also as to the practicability of a graduated income-tax.
MR. SOARESregretted that the hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs had received so unsympathetic an answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was, to his mind, a matter of the greatest importance, and he sincerely hoped before the debate concluded the right hon. Gentleman would be able to see his way to alter the line he had taken up and give the inquiry which was asked for. When considering the imposition of a new tax or when reconsidering an old tax the Committee ought to be guided by two main ideas. They ought first to consider whether the tax when imposed would be regarded as a fair and just tax by those who had to pay it, and, secondly, they should consider whether the burden would fall equally on all. Unless the income-tax was graduated neither of these principles would apply to it, and they did not apply to it in its present condition. In its present form the income-tax could not be said to be fair as between an income of £1,000 a year and an income.

463
of £10,000 a year, nor could it be said to be fair as between a struggling professional man and a millionaire. The question of differentiation would however be brought up later in the debate on a different Amendment and the only question now under discussion was a question of the graduation of income-tax—whether it was right that there should be a graduation of the income-tax as it existed at the present time, or whether a man with £800 a year should pay the same tax as a man with £80,000 a year. He would remind the Committee that during the war the income-tax amounted to no less than one-sixteenth of the income. Most of the Committee knew what a burden that was on an income of £800 a year. A man with an income of £800 a year had to pay £50 income-tax, whilst a man with £80,000 paid £5,000. They knew in the case of an income of £800 such a tax as £50 meant many sacrifices as, for instance, inferior education for one's children or the foregoing of the annual holiday at the seaside, but it was a very different thing in the case of rich men. The income-tax of 1s. 3d. in the £ at the time of the war made no difference to them; some might have taken a grouse moor instead of a deer forest as being cheaper, or curtailed their subscriptions to the Party funds, but they had not to go without necessaries; their wives and children did not suffer, nor did their own health.
The fact of the matter was that a graduated income-tax would mean a tax on luxuries. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had some time ago expressed the opinion that it was impossible to have a tax on luxuries under our present fiscal system, but although he was being shown that it was quite possible, the right hon. Gentleman would not even grant an inquiry into the matter. It was said that if a graduated income-tax was put in force it would mean that a declaration of income would have to be made by every man before a committee. It might not be the pleasantest thing to do, but it must be remembered that business men now had to make a declaration of income and they usually made that declaration in the town in which they carried on their business, and the disclosure of the fluctuations of the income of a business
464
man was of infinitely more importance than the disclosure of the income of a man who lived on the produce of his investments. He did not think the Committee ought to be so very over-scrupulous in their dealings with wealthy men. It must be remembered that this Amendment, if accepted, only affected in its present form incomes of over £5,000 a year, and as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol had said when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer that there were not more than 10,000 people with incomes of over £5,000 a year, it would not throw a great amount of work on the department. Doubts had been expressed as to the practicability of the scheme, but it had been pointed out with truth that a similar scheme was actually in force at the present time in many European countries and in Australia, and no doubts ought to be expressed, nor any condemnation passed, on a scheme as being impracticable which was, as a fact, in force and working at the present time. At any rate, a case for inquiry had been made out.
The history of this matter was that the hon. Member for the Elland Division brought in a similar proposal in 1902, and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, expressed the opinion that there was a great deal to be said both in favour of graduation and against it. The right hon. Gentleman, however, promised to consider whether there should be an inquiry or not and upon that the hon. Member for Elland withdrew his Amendment. In 1903 the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs brought forward a similar Amendment, which, however, received very little sympathy from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, who had then succeeded the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol as Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon thought the difficulties in the way were insuperable. In that debate, however, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol intervened, and stated that he considered the question a fair subject for discussion, and he expressed himself as being anxious that the inquiry of the Committee to be appointed should extend not only to the question of abatements but to the question

465
of graduation generally. The subject was pre-eminently one for inquiry. Not only was there the high financial authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol in favour of inquiry, but there was a practically unanimous demand from the Opposition in the matter. If the inquiry did no good it could not possibly do any harm. Should the proposal be proved impracticable the matter would be at an end, whereas if the decision were the other way a new scheme could be introduced by which the income-tax would be placed on a fair and equitable footing.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that he was not at present convinced that the income-tax could be graduated from top to bottom, but he would like to see it done if possible, and therefore he would welcome an inquiry in order to ascertain whether, without destroying the basis of the income-tax, the impost could be graduated to a much greater extent than at present, if not indeed from top to bottom. He did not believe that any Committee would report in favour of altering the present general system of collecting the tax at the source, but it was very possible that means might be found of some further graduation than was now made. The present income-tax had been in force about sixty years; it was introduced by Sir Robert Peel purely as a temporary measure for three years, and the wording of the Act of 1803 was adopted almost without alteration. The income-tax was thus being worked under an Act 100 years old, and practically no changes had been made. Consequently there was room for, and a probability of great advantages accruing from, an inquiry. In June, 1902, when an inquiry was suggested, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol gave a sympathetic reply, and, at a later stage used the words—
"The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries referred to what he and others had said as to the practical difficulties—he might use even a stronger word—of a graduated income-tax. He asked if some inquiry might not be instituted into the matter. That seemed to him a suggestion well worthy of consideration, and he promised to give it that consideration."
After this sympathetic speech the Motion of his hon. friend was withdrawn. Last year, on 22nd June, 1903, the ques-
466
tion again arose on the Motion of his hon. friend, and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Member for Croydon, gave a fairly sympathetic answer, stating that it was intended to appoint a Committee of the House and that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol would be chairman of that Committee. In the course of the debate, the right hon. Gentleman said he was anxious that the inquiry should extend not only to the question of abatements but also to the practicability of graduation. He did not himself feel that it was practicable but, if it were, it would be a good thing for everybody. Again, on the strength of those words the Motion was withdrawn. Naturally the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not bound by these words, but in view of the fact that a gentleman of such pronounced financial authority as the Member for West Bristol was in favour of a Committee of inquiry by which either some practical scheme might be discovered or satisfaction given, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would view the matter favourably.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid this matter was one on which he felt strongly, and on which he should not like to give a silent vote. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol had been directly appealed to on the strength of a former debate in which he stated his extreme desire to arrive at a juster principle of administering the income-tax and his sympathy with the principle of graduation. He said he thought it was practicable in the case of the death duties and house tax, but he did not think it was practicable in the case of the income-tax. Then followed those expressions of desire for inquiry in order to prove whether he was right or not. This was a very weighty pronouncement, but in all the allusions made that afternoon to the practicability of dealing with the income-tax by graduation, the actual difficulty had been rather suggested than faced. The reason for having it in their minds was that it affected not only graduation in the higher portions of the scale, but the same difficulty affected abatements at the present time; and if some of them were right in thinking that

467
the practical difficulty of getting at the income at the source, so far as it affected graduation in the highest scale, was a real one, it was a real one also with regard to the abatements now being made. It was a difficulty which arose with regard to the man not very well known personally; it did not arise in the case of Peers and men of well known names, but in the case of men bearing common names—there were three or four—shopkeepers in London, who also owned farms in Wales and had investments. The difficulty, of course, was to find out whether these were the same person. It could only be proved by the man's own declaration; and the man's own declaration could not be taken unless it were accompanied by publication. But this difficulty existed with regard to abatements at the present time; and, if it were a real difficulty, they must be being defrauded on the lower portion of the scale in the case of these abatements, and they would be still worse defrauded if the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Berwick Division were adopted, and these abatements were extended. This in itself formed a case for inquiry, because it was no speculative proposal which raised the difficulty; the difficulty was already before them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, with his great authority, knowledge, and consideration of his subject, saw that it was raised by the matter of abatements, and that it ought really to be a portion of the inquiry of the present Committee. It had not been, and he was afraid ought not to be, because although his right hon. friend was on that Committee, it was a small Committee to which a matter of this sort could not be referred with that satisfaction they would wish to see. Therefore, it must be a fresh and a larger Committee. They had come not only very nearly to pledges, but in the nature of the case there was ground for inquiry.
The question of graduation had lately been discussed by all those Continental countries where it was now proposed to introduce the income-tax for the first time, and they had discussed the question of the man's own declaration or collection at the source. Those who attached the highest importance to collection at the source
468
knew the necessity of not tampering with that principle unless there were to be publication. But in the United States during and immediately after the war the principle of a graduated income-tax was pushed very far indeed; and it was accompanied by universal declaration. Unless they published the figures they could not have a graduated income-tax; but the time had come when they would have to make up their minds either to increasing the death duties or to increased taxation on large incomes. As regarded revenue, the American experiments showed that they would get a larger revenue than expected. He was convinced that the difficulty could and would be faced either by increasing the death duties or by public declaration, as in the United States; and, unless they were prepared to inquire into the matter, they would find that the same difficulty affected abatements and that they would be defrauded at the lower scale.
MR. BROADHURSTsaid that owing to his incapacity to deal with figures to the extent necessary he was unable to formulate his views in detail, but for many years he had advocated the adjustment of the income-tax according to the means of the citizen. Some years ago the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs produced a scheme which seemed to be perfectly reasonable. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer never turned a deaf ear to his appeals, and it was from the right hon. Gentleman that they got a promise that the matter should be investigated by a Committee which the present Chancellor had appointed. From that Committee he had great hopes that a considerable measure of justice would follow. There was no doubt that a great body of people at present complained of the unequal system of taxation. Every man should make a contrtribution equal to his ability to pay. In the case of the workman who earned £100 a year they could levy a direct tax of 5 per cent. upon his income. He would like to see a 5 per cent. tax levied upon all incomes, whether it be £1,000 or £10,000. Incomes from investments should be taxed at a higher rate than incomes derived from industry. He could not understand for the life of him why the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not

469
agree to the appeal for a Committee or Commission to go exhaustively into this question of taxation in order to see whether it could not be adjusted so as to place the burden more equally than it was at present. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to the appointment of this Committee, because he could obtain the services of the highest authorities in the country upon finance, and he could call experts from the Board of Trade, Inland Revenue, the Treasury, and other Government Departments, all possessing great knowledge of our system of taxation. Let them have a full, free, and impartial inquiry, which would give satisfaction to that large body of the community who complained of the injustice of the present basis of taxation. He thought that the time had arrived when an exhaustive inquiry should be held into this question.
MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid that whatever scheme was adopted must be some scheme which did not alter the present method of collection. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean was of opinion that it was impossible to achieve this without the publication of the names of all persons who claimed abatement, and he should regret any such publication, which would be open to the insuperable objection that the number would be so large. The opposition to publication would come quite as much from persons with small as with large incomes. Take a person with an income under £400 derived from incomes in public companies. It was perfectly obvious that it was impossible for the secretaries of companies to make proper deductions in the case of persons who were entitled to abatements, because they did not know the income of the various shareholders. One shareholder in a company might have £20,000 a year, and the income of another might amount to £390. The first was not entitled to an abatement, the second was. The abatement was obtained by making a private representation to the Treasury authorities, and only the person demanding the abatement was put to inconvenience and trouble. He failed to see that there was any substantial difficulty in this matter. If a Committee were appointed
470
to make an investigation of the subject they could see what the practical difficulties were. The same arrangement for allowing abatements would apply in the case of a person deriving his income from land. It would, in his opinion, be a practicable and a successful method.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the principle of a graduated income-tax seemed to him to be not only eminently false, but really to suggest to the State to enter upon a career of plunder with the avowed object of preventing people earning more than a certain amount of income. Yes, because when they had earned more than a certain amount of income the tax was to increase progressively, a shilling here and two shillings there, and the result of that would be practically to prohibit by a process of taxation on the part of the State the earning of more than a certain sum. That was entirely contrary to public policy. Their policy should be to encourage people to earn by honest means as much as they possibly could. [Cries of "Oh."] Certainly. He did not know whether that was applause or jeers. If they were jeers they were greatly misplaced, for surely it should be the object of the State to develop the energies of all its citizens. He did not know a better means of developing them than by giving the people the opportunity of earning as much as they honestly could. It was extremely presumptuous to propose in this House a system of graduated income-tax in the face of the repeated declarations of the Inland Revenue authorities, who knew what they were talking about, and of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, that the system was impossible. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] He thought it was impossible.
The Committee was no doubt aware the two-thirds of the whole of the income-tax was levied by deductions. In 1901–3l the total yield of the income-tax was £41,000,000, and of that sum £27,500,000, as nearly as possible, was levied by deductions. How were they going to apply any graduated scale to the system of deductions? If they were going to, graduate at the source, as they collected at the source, they would require an army of clerks to ascertain, assuming that they had the means of ascertaining, what the exact income of each person was and

471
what was the exact deduction which should be made from each dividend warrant or certificate. There were £27,500,000 levied by deductions. Assuming that the maximum was 3s., they would have to levy not £27,500,000, to which they were entitled, but £80,000,000. That was to say, they would he levying £80,000,000, knowing that they were levying £50,000,000 more than they were entitled to. Was that a conceivable state of things? And what would happen? Each person who had paid more than he ought to have paid would come to the Inland Revenue Office,where there would have to be another army of clerks, in order to make his case good for relief. This was really a fantastic proposal, only worthy of a comic opera, and which the country would not endure for a year. The system of abatements which applied to the income-tax between £160 and £700 cost the country in the year 1901 no less than £5,799,000—which was a much larger sum than most hon. Members of the Committee were aware of.
The theory of a graduated income-tax was not only impracticable but it would be unjust. Why should they alter the rate that must be applied to the income-tax? It was the amount of the income that was the test of the amount of the tax that should be paid. A consistent single percentage was the true measure of the tax. Where the unfairness was in that he had never been able to perceive. If they were to charge a man who had £10,000 a year ten times more than a man who had £1,000 a year, that he should call unfair. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean suggested that everybody should make a declaration. He presumed that even then the right hon. Gentleman would not countenance a scheme whereby the maximum of tax should be levied from everybody. As he understood the right hon. Baronet's proposal, if they first went to everybody for a declaration of their income, that would knock on the head the system of deductions. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that the people of this country would be willing to accept such a system? This was a commercial country. Competition was exceedingly keen, and there was a necessity for keeping secret commercial men's incomes.
472
Any betrayal of a business man's income might be ruin to that business. The right hon. Baronet knew how strong the objection was felt in France to the publication of a man's income. Such a system had never been introduced in France and never would be. It was the very rarest thing in the world for the Inland Revenue to get a real declaration of a man's total income. He believed that the present system of the income-tax was the only true and possible one, and that any scheme of graduation would result in serious injustice to the individual and a very great injury to the Exchequer.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid he could not agree with the hon. Member that a heavier tax on larger incomes discouraged the earning of those larger incomes. Let them take an arithmetical proof. He took it that a man who had an income of £10,000 a year, and who paid 1s. income-tax, would have £9,500 a year to live upon; and a man with £20,000 a year with the graduated tax would have £16,000 left to live upon. He could not imagine for one moment that that would not be a sufficient inducement for a man to increase his income if he elected to do so. What they wanted to consider at the present moment was the view which the Chancellor of the Exchequer took of this case. The right hon. Gentleman had not made it clear whether his objection to an inquiry was based on the principle of graduation or on the method and the difficulties of applying that principle. He could not imagine for one moment that the right hon. Gentleman was of opinion that the income-tax, as it at present stood, was perfect. He understood that the hon. Member for King's Lynn thought it was perfect.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Oh, no! On the contrary, he thought it was imperfect in many respects, especially in regard to abatements.
MR. RUNCIMANsaid he was sorry he had misunderstood the hon. Member. What they wanted to know was whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so satisfied with the present system of levying the income-tax that he did not

473
wish an inquiry such as had been suggested that afternoon, not for the first time in the House of Commons. The reference to the Committee that had been appointed was extremely narrow. It dealt practically only with abatements and evasions. These were of importance, but the proper method of procedure was to consider whether they should make the income-tax on the present basis produce as much as possible before they adopted another basis. Surely they might ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not a broader basis of inquiry to suggest than that suggested by the officials at the Treasury. As a matter of fact the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, had a more open mind on the matter. As he understood the case, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol was prepared to make an inquiry and did not close the door to the possibility of graduation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol was not unsympathetic to an inquiry being held, although he himself stated that he thought it would not produce any good result. Why should there be a difference on this matter between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon was also prepared for an inquiry. He gathered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not taken into his calculation the success which this system had earned in other parts of the world. Really in the Australian Colonies he was perfectly sure there would be no change from the system of graduation so far as the broad principle of graduation was concerned. In Victoria they not only had graduation, but differentiation. In Queensland and New Zealand a distinction was also drawn between incomes derived from personal exertions and those derived from property, and finally, the best example of all of success in graduation was to be found in Prussia, where a declaration had to be made, and yet the system had been so successfully adopted that they graduated to an enormous extent, from ·6 per cent. to 4·0 per cent. The machinery which was adaptable to Prussia was not altogether adaptable to the
474
United Kingdom. But why on earth should not an inquiry be made on the merits of the subject?
The tax should be made remunerative and be relieved of its unpopularity. He would not vote for any change which would abandon the collecting of the tax at the source. An extension of the present system might be made popular, and that was what they were aiming at. The unpopularity of the tax was a great consideration, and he ventured to say that its unpopularity was one of the gravest dangers this country had to face, that being chiefly due to its inquisitorial character. The men who objected most strongly were those whose incomes were derived from their personal exertions. The people who felt the tax most were those with small incomes, and professional men who dared not admit that their incomes had fallen from say, £5,000 to £1,000, because of the fear of ruining their reputations. He had no doubt that declarations had sometimes been made on the American system of overstating incomes in order to preserve status. A man with an income in excess of £5,000 very seldom felt any personal inconvenience from the addition of one penny or twopence to the tax. The same problem as was now before the House had to be met last year, but an enormous amount of information not then available had now reached them, and they had been able to compare the methods of other countries with their own. On these grounds the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be well advised to grant the desired inquiry.
MR. CHARLES ALLENsaid that according to the view of the matter put forward by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, we had been unconscious blunderers for a number of years. That being so it was necessary to have an inquiry in order to show where we had been ruined. On both sides of the House there was a very strong feeling that the burden ought to be graduated for the back that had to bear it. In the country there was a similar feeling that the income-tax ought to be further graduated. A former Chancellor of the-

475
Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, had declared himself in favour of it, and from his own point of view for his own sake, and for his own popularity, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to grant this inquiry. If he yielded to this demand he would find that his Budgets would find more favour with the House and would pass through much more quickly.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he was one of the Members who pressed this question in 1903, and he fully recognised the difficulties surrounding the proposal. Those difficulties had been overcome in other countries, and on his side of the House they were not asking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should swallow the Amendment just as it stood. They only wanted a complete inquiry into the incidence of the tax, and they wanted the
rich man to hear a rather larger proportion than the poor man had thrust upon him. It was not that they wanted to penalise the rich man, but that he was better able to bear the tax than was the poor man and because the latter in an indirect way paid much more in proportion than the rich man. The question of the extent of the graduation was a matter for future inquiry, and he appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accede to their request.
MR. J. H. LEWISsaid had the right hon. Gentleman assented to the request made to him by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House and acceded to an inquiry, he would gladly have withdrawn his Amendment, but under the present circumstances he was compelled to press it.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 165; Noes, 234. (Division List No.250.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork,N.E)

Donelan, Captain A.

Joyce, Michael

Arbaham, William (Rhondda)

Doogan, P. C.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Duncan, J. Hastings

Kitson, Sir James

Allen, Charles P.

Dunn, Sir William

Labouchere, Henry

Asher, Alexander

Edwards, Frank

Lambert.George

Atherley-Jones, L.

Elibank, Master of

Langley, Batty

Barlow, John Emmott

Ellice, CaptEC(SAndrew'sBghs

Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal,W.)

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Emmott, Alfred

Leamy, Edmund

Bell, Richard

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Boland John

Evans, SirFrancisH(Maidstone

Levy, Maurice

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Eve, Harry Trelawney

Lloyd-George, David

Brigg, John

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Lough, Thomas

Broadhurst, Henry

Fenwick, Charles

Lundon, W.

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Lyell, Charles Henry

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Flynn, James Christopher

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Burns, John

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Burt, Thomas

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Gladstone, Rt.HnHerbertJohn

M'Crae, George

Caldwell, James

Goddard, Daniel Ford

M'Kean, John

Cameron, Robert

Goulding, Edward Alfred

M'Kenna, Reginald

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Grant, Corrie

M'Killop W. (Sligo, North)

Causton, Richard Knight

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Cawley, Frederick

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Markham, Arthur Basil

Channing, Francis Allston

Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

Mitohell, Edw.(Ferinanagh., N.)

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Harwood, George

Montagu, Hon J.Scott(Hants.)

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Hayedn, John Patrick

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Cremer, William Randal

Healy, Timothy Michael

Moulton, John Fletcher

Crombie, John William

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Murphy, John

Crooks, William

Higham, John Sharpe

Nannetti, Joseph, P.

Cullinan, J.

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

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Holland, Sir William Henry

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

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

Delany, William

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Devlin,Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

Hutchison, Dr. Charles Fredk.

O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.)

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Kelly, Sames(RoscommonN.

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Johnson, John (Gateshead)

O'Malley, William

Dobbie, Joseph

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Shaughnessy. P. J.

O'Shee, James John

Russell, T. W.

Tomkinson, James

Parrott, William

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Toulmin, George

Partington, Oswald

Schwann, Charles E.

Ure Alexander

Paulton, James Mellor

Shackleton, David James

Wallace, Robert

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Satfford)

Walton, JohnLawson(Leeds,S.)

Pemberton, John S. G.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Philipps, John Wynford

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Sheehy, David

Wagon, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Power, Patrick Joseph

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Whiteley, George (York, W.R)

Price, Robert John

Soares, Ernest J.

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Priestly, Arthur

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Rea, Russell

Strachey, Sir Edward

Woodhouse,SirJ.T.(Huddersf'd

Rickett, J. Compton

Sullivan, Donal

Young, Samuel

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Tennant, Harold John

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan,E.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr

Herbert Lewis and Mr.

Rollitt, Sir Albert Kaye

Thompson, DrEC(Monagh'n,N.

Trevelyan.

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Craig Charles Curtis (Antrim S.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Heaton, Arthur Howard(Hanley

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cross, Herb,Shepherd(Bolton)

Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Crossley, Rt.Hon. Sir. Savile

Heaton, John Henniker

Arnold-Forster, Rt.HnHugh O.

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Helder, Augustus

Arrol, Sir William

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Davenport, William Bromley-

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Denny, Colonel

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Dickson, Charles Scott

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Baird, John George Alexander

Dimsdale,Rt. Hon.SirJosephC.

Hobhouse,RtHnH (Somerset E

Balcarres, Lord

Dixon-Hartland, SirFredDixon

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Baldwin, Alfred

Dorington,Rt. Hon.Sir John E.

Horner, Frederick William

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

Doughly, Sir George

Hoult, Joseph

Balfour,Rt.Hn.GeraldW(Leeds

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Hozier, Hon.JamesHenryCecil

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Duke, Henry Edward

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Hunt, Rowland

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Dyke,Rt.Hon.Sir William Hart

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Bigwood, James

Fardell, Sir T. George

Kenyon, Hon. Geo.T.(Denbigh)

Bill, Charles

Fergusson,Rt. Hn Sir J (Manc'r

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon.Col. W

Bingham, Lord

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Bond, Edward

Fisher, William Hayes

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Boulnois, Edmund

Fison, Frederick William

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Bousfield, William Robert

FitzGerald, SirRobertPenrose

Lawrence,Sir Joseph (Monm'th

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

Fitzroy, Hon.EdwardAlgernon

Lawson, JohnGrant(Yorks.N.R

Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Lee, ArthurH(Hants.,Farehamn

Brassey, Albert

Flower, Sir Ernest

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Forster, Henry William

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Bull, William James

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

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Galloway, William Johnson

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col, A. R.

Butcher, John George

Gardner, Ernest

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

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

Gibbs, Hon. A G. H.

Long, Col. CharlesW(Evesham

Campbell,J. H. M.(DublinUniv.)

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

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

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby

Lowe, Francis William

Cautley, Henry Strother

Gorst, Rt. Hon.SirJohnEldon

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Cavendish,V.C. W. (Derbyshire

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Lucas, Co. Francis (Lowestoft)

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Graham, Henry Robert

Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Greene,Sir E W(B'ry SEdm'nds

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Greene,Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Macdona, John Cumming

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

Gretton, John

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Chapman, Edward

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Maconochie, A. W.

Charrington, Spencer

Groves, James Grimble

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Clare, Octavius, Leigh

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

M'Iver, Sir Lewis(EdinburghW

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

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

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Majendie, James A. H.

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem 'th)

Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Maxwell,W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

478

479

Milner, Rt. Hon.SirFrederickG.

Ridley, S.Forde(BethnalGreen)

Valentia, Viscount

Milvain, Thomas

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Vincent,Col.SirCEH (Sheffield)

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Webb, Colonel William George

Morpeth, Viscount

Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

Morrell, George Herbert

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

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

Morrison, James Archibald

Samuel,Sir Harry S(Limehouse

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Mount, William Arthur

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Wills, Sir Frederick

Murray, Rt Hn A Graham(Bute

Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Smith,HC(Northumb.Tyneside

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Myers, William Henry

Smith, RtHnJParker(Lanarks)

Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Stanley, EdwardJas.(Somerset)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Nicholson, William Graham

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Wortley,Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Peel, Hn.Wm.RobertWellesley

Stroyan, John

Wylie, Alexander

Percy, Earl

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Pierpoint, Robert

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Thornton, Percy M.

Younger, William

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Tollemache, Henry James

Pretyman, Ernest George

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Pym, C. Guy

Tuff, Charles

Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Ratcliffe, R. F.

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

Tuke, Sir John Batty

Bill read a second time.

MR. LAMBERT,on behalf of the hon. Member for Barnstable, moved to substitute 11d. for 1s. in order to leave the income-tax as it stood during the past year. He was sure that he had the sympathy of a good many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, for nobody could but believe that 1s. income-tax in time of peace was a monstrous and intolerable burden upon the taxpayers; in fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech said that in the opinion of His Majesty's Government 11d. was too high, leaving too small a margin in case of war, but he promptly put on another 1d. and made it 1s. He should have thought he would have taken the directly opposite course judging from his speech. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had really been long enough under the tuition of the Treasury officials, and that he should now take a few lessons from his relative the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who only a few weeks ago said that he thought it was still possible with scientific taxation to secure ail the money the country required without anybody being the wiser or worse for it. Surely this was the opportunity for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise the taxes on a scientific basis with-
480
out anybody being the worse or wiser for it! He could not but think that, if he persisted in this old-fashioned, crude income-tax, and put it up to an intolerable height, and did not take the system offered to him upon the highest possible authority, enunciated by his illustrious relative at the Institute of the Bankers of the City of London, he was guilty of something like Parliamentary cowardice. This was his (the hon. Member's) first point; but he went farther, and said that to increase the income-tax at the present time was undoubtedly to curtail the investible capital of the country and to thereby check enterprise. The income-tax had been increased from 8d. to 1s. since the last Liberal Government was in office, and he would like to ask what they had got for this enormous increase. Could anybody point to anything in our financial situation, or our political situation abroad. or in the general strength of the country. which would warrant this large increase in the income-tax? He did not think anybody could show that they were getting something like £10,000,000 worth of security more than before because of the existence of the present Government. The hon. Member for West Monmouth, who proposed the death duties, said that

481
in his opinion they were a sort of deferred income tax, so that they had not only an increase of 4d. in the £income-tax, but they had this £6,000,000 additional deferred income-tax.
He did not think anybody ever anticipated when they entered upon the South African War that they were going to have a permanent income-tax of 1s. in the £. Only two years ago the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol stated very & early and explicitly that if they kept the income-tax at 1s. in time of peace, they would lose their reserve of financial energy for time of war. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think they wanted to increase the income tax. He did not want to increase it at all; he did not think they were getting value for it, and he had not sufficient confidence in the Government to give them any increase of taxation. He wished to compare the right hon. Gentleman's finance with that of Sir Robert Peel, one of his predecessors. He brought in the income-tax to relieve the springs of industry. He took the tax of 750 articles of universal consumption. The right hon. Gentleman increased the income-tax and increased the tax also on one article of consumption, namely, ten It seemed to him that by piling up this expenditure in a time of peace and increasing the income-tax to such an enormous degree, they were destroying their greatest strength, and their financial reserve in time of war. In 1855 Mr. Disraeli, whose authority the right hon. Gentleman would recognise, protested, as they were now protesting, against keeping up larger military establishments than were necessary for the country; and another great Member of the House, Mr. Gladstone, agreed with him. He was perfectly certain that they were squandering their reserve at an alarming rate, and were destroying that which was their principal strength.
And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  ADJOURNMENT (UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 10) (LORD DUNDONALD AND THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT).
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he moved the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—viz., "the conduct of Major-General Lord Dundonald, late Commander of the Militia in Canada, in taking part, whilst still an Officer in the British Army, in political agitation against His Majesty's Government in the Dominion of Canada." He was sorry, he said, to do anything which appeared like attacking an officer of very great distinction who had rendered great service to the Empire in South Africa and elsewhere. But the matter was of very great importance as affecting our relations with our Colonies; and it was the duty of the Imperial Parliament to make it perfectly clear that it repudiated the conduct of Lord Dundonald. There was a great and serious agitation going on in Canada and it centred round a British officer who was himself taking a prominent part in it. After his dismissal from the command of the Militia, Lord Dundonald wrote to Sir Frederick Borden, the Minister of Militia, as follows—
  "I enclose a copy of a memorandum which I have sent by bearer to Colonel Hughes."
  The document referred to was a manifesto to the people of Canada charging the Government with political corruption in its management of the Militia. Colonel Hughes was a leading Conservative who took a prominent part in attacking Sir W. Laurier's administration. The manifesto was published in the leading Conservative paper in Canada, and in its comment upon the document that journal said—
  'Sir Frederick Borden lied, lied from his seat in the House; lied in an official statement to the House."
  That showed the temper which had been aroused. The whole Opposition had taken up the case, and undoubtedly they relied upon it as a means of turning out the Liberal Government. A raging, tearing propaganda had been started in connection with the manifesto; it

  483
  was like the manifesto of a political leader. On Friday night a meeting was held at Toronto, ostensibly to give Lord Dundonald a send-off. Lord Dundonald made a fierce attack upon the Government. They had, he declared, deplorably neglected the Militia, but he had tamed the searchlight on; there was nothing some people hated so much as the truth. The audience, it was stated, frequently announced their partisanship, Sir W. Laurier's name being hissed by some and cheered by others. Nothing could be more mischievous than for an Imperial officer to start an agitation against a Colonial Government; and if ever there was a case where conduct of that sort should be denounced, it was the case of Lord Dundonald. What would happen if Lord Dundonald went to Montreal? He might as well go to Belfast. The people of Montreal were divided both racially and religiously, and it required all the discretion, restraint, and judgment of the Imperial officers and of the rulers of the people to prevent bitterness from breaking out occasionally into disturbance. Lord Dundonald proposed to go to a city of that sort, where there was all the material for a conflagration, and set a match to it. There never was conduct more pernicious or more dangerous on the part of an Imperial officer; and he trusted that the Secretary for War would warn Lord Dun-donald that he should not go there, and that he would be no longer an officer of the British Army if he went there and attacked the Government.
  He would not quote many precedents. But there was the case of Sir Redvers Buller, who made a speech attacking nobody, but simply defending his own conduct, and who was dismissed. Lord Dundonald took part in a violent agitation against the Government; Sir Redvers Buller did nothing of the sort. Therefore, whatever difference there was between these two cases was all in favour of Sir Redvers Buller. Then there was the case of the speech by Sir Neville Lyttelton on the new Army scheme, which was recently brought under the notice of the House of Lords. Lord Lansdowne declared that he agreed with Lord Spencer that speeches on such subjects by Imperial officers holding high position were not desirable, and so
  484
  far as possible ought to be avoided. Then why should there be a distinction drawn between military officers in this country who made speeches embarrassing to the Government, and a military officer in a colony who made a speech, not only embarrassing to, but violently attacking, the Government of the colony? This matter had created a very bad and dangerous feeling in Canada. They all knew of the sensitiveness of the Colonies with regard to Imperial interference. Therefore if an officer of the British Army were allowed to interfere in colonial politics, the Colonies would be touched on a raw spot and mischief would ensue. But the incident in Canada had not merely aroused the colony's feeling of independence in their own affairs. It had created a great racial feud in Canada. He had the best authority for saying that it had aroused strong feelings among the French Canadians and among the ultra-British against the French. Under these circumstances it would be very mischievous if Lord Dundonald were allowed to run loose in the Province of Quebec. He trusted that the Government would see their way to prohibit the visit of Lord Dundonald to Montreal, and, going beyond that, that they would severely reprimand him for the conduct he had pursued. He begged to move.
  Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER and Mr. WINSTON CHURCHILLrose at the same time, and the former was called on by the SPEAKER, but was received by the Opposition with cries of "Churchill."
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I rise to a point of order. Is not the hon. Gentleman entitled to second the Motion? I very well recollect that when I moved the adjournment of the House in 1899 you asked me whether I had a seconder.
  MR. SPEAKER: If I had known that the hon. Member intended to second the Motion I should have called on him.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: He does.
  MR. SPEAKER: Let the hon. Member speak for himself.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Yes.
  MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Churchill.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he seconded the Motion for adjournment moved by the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in order to call attention to the speeches of Lord Dundonald in Canada. There had been, he said, a good many Motions for adjournment this session, but he ventured to think there had been hardly any one which it would be admitted in all quarters of the House had greater claim, apart from Party politics, to consideration. The question to which it referred had excited a great amount of interest throughout this country and Canada, and if the British House of Commons was to preserve its position as a place where discussion of great questions took place, and was not to be merely a machine to register the decrees of the Government, it had a right to consider a subject of this importance. He had not the slightest wish to make a personal attack upon Lord Dundonald, and he trusted the question would be debated without heat or ill-feeling on either side of the House. They were considering a constitutional infraction which had left certain grave consequences. What was the status of Lord Dundonald in Canada? He was the greatest political figure in that country at the present moment with the exception of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He was an Imperial officer appointed by the Imperial Government. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no!"] At any rate he was appointed with the sanction of the Imperial Government. He held an office which was the link between the colonial military system and the military authorities at home. He submitted to the House that whatever might be the legal or the technical aspects of this affair, in all ordinary practice, Lord Dundonald involved and compromised the Government in the action which he had taken.
  He thought there would be a great many people who would have a great deal of sympathy with the action which Lord Dundonald had taken. Everyone who knew him—and he claimed not only the honour of his acquaintance but of his friendship—would recognise that he was
  486
  not a man to be actuated by any other motive than that of zeal for the public service. Probably he was right on the merits of the question, but they were not entitled on the present occasion to go into that because it would be out of order, but it was quite unnecessary to his argument. But whether Lord Dundonald was right or wrong in his opinion about the Canadian Militia it had nothing to do with the case which was submitted to the House. The allegations he had made were probably only too true. He might have been right in making his protest, but that did not settle the matter. They could not have martyrdom without the accessories of the faggot and the stake, and if a man made his protest he ought to be prepared to pay the price. No doubt no one was more surprised than Lord Dundonald that he had not already been recalled from Canada.
  Passing from the motives that inspired him to make his protest he doubted whether the House would accord the same amount of approbation to his method. After all, Lord Dundonald was a soldier, but he enjoyed advantages and privileges which few soldiers possessed. He was a Peer of Parliament, and he could, perhaps with greater dignity and advantage to the public, have made his protest from his place in the House of Lords. When he read in the papers of the dismissal of Lord Dundonald by the Canadian Government and the memorandum he had published explaining his position, he naturally jumped to the conclusion that the very next day they would see a telegram published announcing that His Majesty's Government had recalled Lord Dundonald from Canada. It was clear that his utility as an Imperial officer absolutely terminated when the correspondence was published and when his dismissal by the Canadian Government had taken effect. It was impossible to say that the Imperial Government had no authority over him. But what had happened? Lord Dundonald had gone through a sort of triumphal tour through certain provinces of Canada, and they had read accounts of his appearance at banquets and public meetings, and of the scathing rejoinders he had made to the various Ministers of the Colonial Government. Two meetings had

  487
  been arranged, one of which had already been held at Toronto and the other was to be held in Montreal. At the meeting at Toronto, as the hon. Member for Carnarvon had already reminded the House, the name of Sir Wilfrid Laurier was hissed by the audience and expressions of partisan opinion naturally and necessarily took place. It seemed on the lace of it a matter for the grave consideration of the House that an officer who went to Canada as the King's officer should be the principal figure at a meeting where the King's Minister was the subject of a hostile demonstration. Toronto, of all places, was the centre of the opposition in Canada to Sir Wilfrid Laurier. They had in Toronto a very fine development of that full-blooded Imperialism which arose from great earnestness and perfect rectitude of motive, but which took the form of believing that everybody who did not agree with it must necessarily be a rebel or a traitor and a very unpatriotic and undesirable person. They had had some experience of that kind of thing at home, but in Canada it was a much more serious matter because there they had the French-Canadian element.
  He did not think anybody would cast any imputations upon the loyalty of the French Canadians, whose loyalty arose not so much from sentiment as from interest and conviction, but which was none the less precious thing to the British Empire. The French Canadians were of a different race and religion to the majority of the people of these islands, and they were loyal; but it was none the less true to say that they had not responded in the same enthusiastic manner to those patriotic and partisan impulses which had moved so many people in this country. To put it shortly, the French Canadians derived greater pleasure from singing "God save the King" than from singing "Rule Britannia," and he thought they ought to be well content with that. The French Canadians formed the principal part of the Party which kept Sir Wilfrid Laurier in power, and who had been made the object of a very hostile demonstration in Toronto. The Government ought to be grateful to Sir Wilfrid Laurier. In the long course of the last eight or nine years, when very difficult and delicate situations had arisen, Sir Wilfrid Laurier by his tact, skill, and loyalty, had been
  488
  of incomparable value to the Empire. But this speech-making by Lord Dundonald was not to terminate at Toronto. Montreal was the next fixture and a meeting was to take place there next week. Montreal was a very different arena for such a political discussion than Toronto. The people of Toronto were nearly all of the same way of thinking, but in Montreal there was a French and a British element coming into close contact, and there was in Montreal a sharp political division of opinion. After all, the Toronto meeting had passed off all right. But what about Montreal? [An HON. MEMBER: He has not been there yet.] That was why they had moved the adjournment. At Montreal, if Lord Dundonald excited the enthusiasm of one section of the population, he would by that very fact irritate extremely the other section. Suppose they made him the object of as hostile a demonstration as the Toronto one was enthusiastic. They might thin have the spectacle of an officer who had gone to Canada as an Imperial officer and who was a Peer of the Realm turned out of a tumultuous meeting amid the hoots, jeers, and missiles of a hostile demonstration.
  He noticed that a friend of Lord Dundonald had drawn attention in the Westminster Gazette to an aspect of this controversy which ought not to be overlooked. He pointed out that Lord Dundonald ought not to be taken as making an attack upon any particular Party in Canada, but as making an attack upon a bad system which had long prevailed. He thought that statement might be quite true. There was not much to choose between the two Parties in Canada as to the method of appointment to commissions. Canada was a country with high tariffs, and the commercialisation of their policy led them to view the appointment to commissions in the Militia or concessions in regard to tariffs from a different point of view to that held in this country. While he was prepared to admit that the charge against Lord Dundonald was not in substance, a partisan charge, and that it applied equally to all Governments and both Parties, and while he admitted that his motives had not been partisan motives, still the fact remained that Lord Dundonald did take part in a political

  489
  and Party demonstration of the highest public importance. Whatever might have been Lord Dundonald's motives, no one could deny that he was at present being exploited by the Opposition in Canada for Party purposes. The House had often expressed itself strongly on the question as to whether the soldier, and how much the soldier, should interfere in politics. It might be impossible altogether to exclude the soldier from interfering in politics, because high military matters were of themselves essentially political matters; but whatever opinion might be held on that point, no one would defend his intervention, wittingly or unwittingly, in the arena of Party politics as opposed to general political questions. It would not be defended even in this country, where people were allowed to talk to their heart's content, and where we were in the admirable position of having the freest and best Government in the world—the freest and best system of Government in the world.
  In a self-governing colony the position of an Imperial officer was one of particular delicacy and difficulty. Ho might have immense influence, but he had not a clear, definite, substantial authority. There was one great danger to which an Imperial officer, whether soldier or civilian, in Canada or South Africa was always exposed. If he became a Party man, attached himself to a local faction, or became a counter in the game of a local Party, his use and value were destroyed; he was of no good to the Empire, but an injury to it. The position of an officer in a self-governing colony should be like that of the function exercised by the Crown in politics at home. No one could recall the smallest hint or whisper of influence being exercised by the Crown in home politics; and it was that detachment from Party politics that added to the smooth working of our Constitution and to the increasing esteem in which the Crown was held. Was it too much to ask Imperial officers abroad who represented the Crown to imitate the example which the Crown had set in this country? What did the Opposition want in moving the adjournment that evening? [MINISTERIAL cries "To waste time."] They did not desire to induce the Secretary for War to abstract himself from the obligations of his office to inflict punish-
  490
  ment on Lord Dundonald. He did not desire that Lord Dundonald should be made the object of Government vengeance, for they had among the soldiers of the Army too few who were ready to expose official shams and to tell the truth to the public. They wanted the Government to make it clear, however, that they were not associated in any way with the campaign Lord Dundonald had been carrying on; and he urged on the Government by the immediate recall of Lord Dundonald from Canada to terminate what was already a constitutional scandal and bade fair in the near future to lead to serious Imperial embarrassments.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." —(Mr. Loyd-George.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension when he says that I view with disapprobation his intervention in this debate. That is not my point of view at all. We always welcome the hon. Member as the spokesman of the Opposition. I had motives which seemed to me to be adequate for intervening at the earliest stage in the debate. I felt before the hon. Member spoke, and I still feel, that this debate cannot contribute to the public advantage. Nothing that the. hon. Member has said in his leoture—
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Order' order!
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member for South Donegal cried "Order" a little less frequently there would be more order.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: With great respect, sir, I called out "Order" only twice. I called out "Order" because I thought that the word "lecture" was an improper description for a speech.
  MR. SPEAKER: There was nothing disorderly in what was said.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It was a sneer.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not call out so frequently. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Name."]
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I assure the hon. Member for Oldham that I entertain no feeling of disapprobation with regard to his speech. I do not think that I need dwell upon it. I do not think it is a good thing that he should speak of "jobs" in reference to the existing Government in Canada. I do not know that expressions of that kind tend much towards the object he has at heart, of harmonising the relations between this country and the Colonies. But I turn to what is, after all, the substance, as far as there is any substance, in this debate. There are two points involved. The first is the broad question of discipline with which I am charged as representative of the War Office; the other is the advisbility of raising this discussion at all. I should like to say a word on both points. I will remind hon. Members that yesterday, in my unavoidable absence from the House, a Question was put without notice with regard to this matter. I regret that I was not in the House to answer the Question. To-day no such Question was put, but without any notice whatever this discussion is forced upon the House. I fully admit that in the game of politics nearly all things are considered fair, and most things expedient; but I am not clear that it is wise to bring into the political game discussions of this kind. I can see no advantage whatever that can arise out of this debate, except to make bad blood between two great branches of our Empire. The hon. Member for Carnarvon spoke of the pain that was given to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who, he truly said, had shown himself to be one of the staunchest and most distinguished friends of the Empire in the time of its troubles. I do not remember that the hon. Member entertained that view very strongly or expressed it strongly at the time when Sir Wilfrid Laurier was standing by us. I should like to know whether the hon. Member for Carnarvon speaks as an agent or representative of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I speak as a Member of the British Parliament. I have as good a right as the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I ask in what capacity does he speak? Does he speak as a representative of Sir Wilfrid
  492
  Laurier? I can assure the House that no representation of any sort or kind has been made by the Canadian Government, and the Government of that colony is uncommonly well able to look after itself. I want to know what Canadian warrant he had for bringing this matter before the House. Then I take it for granted that he had none, that he brought it forward solely in the interest of harmony between the United Kingdom and the Dominion of Canada. Now I ask whether, as a contribution to the harmony between those two great parts of one Empire, the hon. Member should have raised this question in the way he did. What did he do? He quoted the most offensive terms which have been used about Dominion politicians. He quoted from the most violent expressions of Party newspapers. I ask what contribution to peace and good feeling is made by references of that kind? No, Sir, I believe that a discussion of this kind in no sense tends to that object which the hon. Member says he has at heart, the establishment of good feeling between this country and Canada.
  Now, let me say a word about Lord Dundonald. Well, I said that this question divided itself into two parts, and I adhere to that view. My first proposition was—and may I extend it?—that it is a most unfortunate thing, and one of the things which make me fear most the advent of hon. Gentlemen opposite to power, that they should invariably manage, or try to manage, to contribute to an aggravation of feeling between this country and the Colonies. That is a fact which I am sorry to say was too painfully established during the late war. [An Hon. MEMBER: We are thinking Imperially.] That is the point which I desire to establish. Nothing has been said about the Government in the course of this debate which has any tendency except that of bringing on the floor of this House the controversies of the Dominion and not adorning them in the process. Now, Sir, with regard to Lord Dundonald. I do not think the hon. Member quite understood what the position of Lord Dundonald is or has been. It is not correct to say that Lord Dundonald went to Canada as the representative of the Imperial Government.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I never said so.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: He went at the request of the Dominion Government to serve with a Canadian commission.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: By whom was he selected?
  Ma. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I believe, as a matter of fact, the request was made by the Dominion Government. But let me say this about Lord Dundonald, and I will do this full justice to the hon. Member for Carnarvon. I do not think anyone will suggest throughout the whole of this matter, and that anyone has desired to impute or has imputed, any misconduct other than that of want of judgment to Lord Dundonald. Lord Dundonald, as the hon. Member said, is a most distinguished soldier, who has come of a most distinguished family, which has served its country throughout the world in times of stress and difficulty. But what has taken place in Canada has created a difficulty to which the hon. Member has drawn attention this evening. Lord Dundonald, serving as a Canadian officer, has not found himself in agreement with the Canadian Government, and the Canadian Government has discharged him from his office. I would point out that when Lord Dundonald was discharged he became at once an officer, on half-pay, it is true; an Imperial officer on the active list. Since his dismissal by the Canadian Government he has been speaking at public meetings in Canada. I have my own opinion, a very strong opinion, as to the advisability of officers in the service taking part in any political demonstration at all. I have long entertained that opinion. Before I had any official responsibility I entertained it. I entertain it still; and I have not, as I shall show, been remiss in enforcing the belief which I entertain as to what is the duty of officers so long as they hold the King's commission.
  But I would remind the hon. Member that the position of an officer on half-pay is not quite the position which he seems to suppose. Lord
  494
  Dundonald had a perfect right, and has now, to stand for the Dominion Parliament and to become a Member of that Parliament; he would have a right, if he were a commoner, to stand as a Member of this Parliament. He has a right, which has been conceded over and over again to officers on half-pay—to express his views on political questions. [An HON. MEMBER: Not on the active list.] Yes, I have before me the Army Act, and I am speaking of what I know. He is an officer on the active list, but at the same time he is not deprived of the privilege of taking part in public life. Therefore do not let it be supposed that the somewhat Draconian code of military law prohibits Lord Dundonald from expressing his opinions on public questions as a half-pay officer. Whether it be desirable that any half-pay officer, in any particular set of circumstances, should take part in political controversy is another question altogether. I believe that it is undesirable. I believe that it was undesirable in this case. I do not pretend and I do not propose for a moment to go into any matter of controversy between the Dominion Government and Lord Dundonald. I believe that would be most unwise on my part. I do not feel that I am charged with Lord Dundonald's statement of the case as it presents itself to him, and I do not know that I am fully charged with the case as it presents itself to the Dominion Government. But even if I were charged with all that information, I should still positively decline to express an opinion as to any differences which may have occurred between the Dominion Government and their paid servant. But I have not been blind to the disadvantage which is likely to accrue from an officer, who has the great reputation and the position of Lord Dundonald, taking part, even with the best motives and with the most ample public support, in the controversies of a great colony. The hon. Member spoke of "deliberate opposition" and "engaging in angry altercation with the Ministers of the Dominion." I do not think that is quite a fair description of the meetings in which Lord Dundonald has taken part. I shall be corrected by hon. Members who know the constitution of the Canadian Government better than I do if I am wrong in saying that Lord Dundonald was

  495
  supported by the President of the Board of Trade.
  MR. LLOYD GEORGE: Of the Chamber of Commerce.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Then I am wrong on that point. I do not think there has been any angry altercation at all. I have before me exactly the same information as is open to hon. Members. I have a summary of Lord Dundonald's speech, and I can find no trace of any angry altercation at all. But I would repeat that I think it is not desirable that any officer should take part actively in political controversy. This matter has been dealt with throughout, I believe, patiently and reasonably by the War Office. We have demanded information, and we have acted upon that information. Long before the hon. Member gave notice to-day, the War Office had taken action in this matter. We have informed Lord Dundonald that we consider it is not desirable that he should continue to take part in public discussions in Canada, and we have requested Lord Dundonald to return in order to give an account of what has taken place. If the hon. Member had done me the favour of raising this question in any other way than the way in which he has thought fit to raise it, I could have told him, and should have told him, what I have told him now. I advance no opinion whatever upon the merits or demerits of Lord Dundonald's action, and absolutely decline, before Lord Dundonald has been heard, to express an opinion upon that question. As the person responsible for the discipline of the Army in this House, I felt it my duty to remove any cause of offence which might arise from the action of an officer holding the King's commission in the situation in which Lord Dundonald stood. Quite independently of the hon. Member and quite unaware of the intention of the hon. Member, I have taken the ordinary procedure open to the War Office. I have instructed Lord Dundonald to return home, and I have also instructed him not to take any further part in what appeared to be a political and controversial discussion. That is the sole reason why I desired to anticipate the hon. Member for Oldham in this discussion. I think that, if I had
  496
  been given an opportunity of stating at an earlier period in this discussion what I should have been able to say in answer to a Question to-day, I should have saved the appearance in the papers to-morrow of some of these wounding remarks which the hon. Member for Oldham in the discharge of his duty has thought it imperative to make.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The hon. Member has stated that the observations that he made towards the close of his speech constituted the reason why he wished earlier in the debate to anticipate the speech of my hon. friend the Member for Oldham. It would have been well if the right hon. Gentleman had also anticipated himself. He has made a speech—I appeal to everybody who heard it on either side of the House—which, for the first three-fourths of it, or more, indicated a determination to resist, which could be read in no other light, and was supported in no other light by the cheers of hon. Members behind him, than on the supposition that he was about to say non possumus to the request made by my hon. friend. But when he came to the point of the matter, when, after saying two or three times that he would turn to the question of Lord Dundonald, he at last got to Lord Dundonald, I do not think we have much complaint to find with the action which he says he has taken. If we drop the curtain of our memory over the first three-fourths of the right hon. Gentleman's speech and concentrate ourselves upon the last five or ten minutes, then I say that we on this side have very little fault to find with what he said. The case is an exceedingly plain one. We have not a word to say against Lord Dundonald as a distinguished officer and a gallant soldier. He was selected by the Imperial Government and lent to the Canadian Government to assist them in organising their Militia. He, rightly or wrongly, did not succeed in getting on with his superiors in that Government. We cannot inquire into that matter, because I believe there is some Gentleman in this House who is so anxious to condemn Lord Dundonald that he has put down a Motion to the effect that a public inquiry, or a Court of inquiry, or some other instrument of torture

  497
  should be resorted to in order to visit upon him the proper reprobation of the British Parliament. Because this hon. Gentleman,who sits on the other Benches, is fired with great zeal against Lord Dundonald, because he has put down this Motion we are debarred by these charming rules of the House, which we so much admire, from expressing any opinion on the subject whatever. I wonder how long that hypocritical farce is to be allowed to exist. As a matter of fact, even if we had the opportunity, I should myself shrink from and entirely refuse to pronounce any opinion upon the relations of Lord Dundonald with the Canadian Government, because we are not fully acquainted with the facts—we are partially informed on the subject. But what we find is that Lord Dundonald, having occupied this position of eminence, through the selection of the Imperial Government, in Canada, and having failed to conciliate his own views with the views of the Government under whom he served, and having incurred their dismissal, remains in Canada, receives banquets from admirers, and makes speeches in which he attacks the Government which he has served, and with it, I believe, other Governments which have gone before. I do not know that that really benefits him very much in the matter. But it is undoubtedly a grave piece of bad taste, as well as, I should think, a bad constitutional action, on the part of Lord Dundonald to go on allowing himself to be made an instrument for bringing these accusations against the Government that he has served.
  But the right hon.Gentleman apparently has taken the course it was his duty to take. I praise him for it. [MINISTERIAL laughter.] Why does an hon. and gallant Member laugh? I said when I began that the right hon. Gentleman had indicated a course in regard to this matter that met our views. He has remonstrated with Lord Dundonald, he has pointed out the irregularity in all respects of the conduct he was pursuing, and he has recalled him hone. I am not myself learned enough in military law to know whether he can recall home a half-pay officer, but I agree he is right if he has the power to do so. Of course, with Lord Dundonald's temperament and character, the slightest indication of a
  498
  wish on the part of the head of the Army Department in this country would be equivalent to an order. I feel that much we desired to guard against has been prevented by the action of the right hon. Gentleman, and I give him full credit for it. I only wish he had taken an earlier opportunity—not in debate, but in his own speech—as I began by saying. It would have spared us a good many hard words and a good deal of anxiety if he had said at the beginning what he said at the end; if he had said on this subject to which my hon. friend and the hon. Member for Oldham very properly called attention that he had done the thing we desired to see done. I hope we shall by that course be relieved from the fear we naturally entertained, that if this sort of thing, which has been going on for the last week or two, was allowed to go on, something very much to the prejudice of good feeling between the two countries and Parties in Canada—though we have little to do with that—might arise.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he wished to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he had telegraphed to Lord Dundonald to return home in consequence—he took it—of the statement by the noble Lord some time ago. Now the statements attributed to Lord Dundonald were made on 10th June, and it was six weeks since. Personally he found no fault with Lord Dundonald for attacking the War Office, it was a very natural thing for a Briton to do. His interest in the matter was purely Irish. He could imagine if at the time, not very far distant, when the Government of his country was Irish and largely Catholic, an officer from this country took the side, say, of Belfast Orangemen and accused the Government in office of corruption and jobbery, and of oppressing certain persons on account of their political or social connections, he could imagine the feeling that would be aroused. The Government had come forward and announced that they had recalled the officer whose conduct had been complained of; but Lord Dundonald, while he remained on Canadian soil, was an Imperial officer, and for six weeks the Government allowed him to

  499
  remain after he had outraged the feelings of the majority of the people. It was important to know at what moment it was that the Secretary for War dissociated himself from Lord Dundonald, and why he was not recalled at once. At what moment was this message conveyed to the noble Lord? The right hon. Gentleman had said that the reason why he bewailed the possibility of the return of a Liberal Administration to power was that they would act so unpatriotically. If so, there was all the more reason for haste in his message to Lord Dundonald, because he knew how unpatriotically the Opposition would act in seizing the first opportunity of stirring up bad blood between this country and the Colonies. His respected subordinate in office had not yesterday been acquainted with the fact that he had recalled Lord Dundonald. The Secretary of State had kept this important fact locked in the recesses of his breast. They all knew the great secrecy that prevailed in the War Department, but it would have had an assuaging effect on the minds of the House if yesterday somebody had been able to make the statement that had now been made. The conclusion he arrived at was that the haste of the right hon. Gentleman to rise to-night, and his desire to cut out the hon. Member for Oldham, was not so much due to his anxiety as War Minister for the disposal of this Motion as to his anxiety as Member for West Belfast for the fate of the Belfast Tramways Bill. Speaking in the same sense himself, he confessed that he had chiefly been moved to rise on this Motion because the name of the location in Belfast which he was interested in on account of that Bill was the Dundonald Cemetery. The House, which had heard him with unusual patience, would recognise, therefore, that he had a certain sympathy with the hon. Gentleman in rising as he did to take part for the first time in an Imperial debate.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman
  the Secretary of State for War he would withdraw his Motion. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."]
  Question put, and negatived.

  BELFAST CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS) BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER.)
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLINstated that both of the points for which he had contended had been conceded by the promoters, and he did not wish to press the Motion standing in his name. He did not think it necessary to read the agreement entered into by the promoters of the Bill and himself. It was sufficient for him to say that, now the promoters had conceded the two points, he was sympathetic to the scheme of a great and growing community tar municipalise and electrify the tramways system which had hitherto been a curse to the City.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he would like to get a little more information than had been vouchsafed by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He found en the paper something like sixteen or seventeen Motions against the Second Reading of the Bill. The hon. Member for Kilkenny stated that he did not consider it necessary to read to the House the terms of the agreement between himself and the hon. Gentleman who represented the Conservative Party in Belfast. He confessed that he was extremely interested to know what the terms of the agreement were. More than that, he thought the House was entitled to know from the hon. Gentlemen who sat for Belfast—all Conservatives—to what extent these hon. Gentlemen had been satisfied with the Motion which had been put down on the Paper? The hon. Gentleman had elected to say that he was judge in his own cause; that he was satisfied with the terms of the solution offered o him by the corporation and by the hon. Baronet who was in charge of this Bill, and who was, in general, a fair exponent of the Conservative Party in Belfast. What he contended was that whatever was done, as betwixt the Belfast Corporation and the learned Gentlemen representing the various con-

  501
  stituencies in Ireland, should be done open and above hoard. This House was not merely a debating Assembly. It was a great Court of Law, and parties engaged in this legislation were litigants who came to the bar and demanded for their own particular class and for the public outside, that they were entitled to know the length and breadth and substance of this agreement. He spoke on behalf of a considerable number of Catholics in Belfast; and he shared the views of hon. Gentlemen that it was now desirable that these tramways should be electrified for the benefit of the citizens of Belfast. But they were living in times when questions of municipal government in Ireland were keenly criticised, and by none others more than by the hon. Members who represented the northern constituencies. What he wanted to know was how the Belfast Corporation were going to exercise the great patronage they would have under this scheme. One-fourth of the population of Belfast was Catholic, but he found that in the town clerk's department of the 149 officers with high salaries only three were Catholics. The Protestant members of the establishment it were paid £29,129 a year and the Catholics only £293 a year Then take the rate collector's department. In the rate collectors' department, of £19,300 paid in Belfast, £19,260 went to Protestants and only £40 to Catholics. Turning to another department in Belfast —the board of guardians—he found that out of 211 officers employed, 205 were Protestants and only six were Catholics. Was that to be perpetrated in the tramway system?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! Many of these figures have no relevancy to the Second Reading of the Bill.
  MR.T. M. HEALYsaid he was told by an hon. Gentleman who had put down a Motion to oppose the Bill that a solution had been arrived at on this very question as to the manner in which these appointments were to be made, and, if that was so, surely they were entitled to know the nature of the arrangement. Although he was well aware that in a Bill of this nature the debate must be limited, he submitted that in regard to the transfer of patronage, wherever they extended the franchise in Londonderry or Belfast
  502
  oppression would result. This extension of the functions of the Belfast Corporation would operate in the same way. They proposed to get hold of this great system of tramways. He rejoiced that they were going to get it so long as they proposed to use it to the benefit of the population generally. He did not suggest that the Catholics of Belfast were entitled to more than their share of consideration, but he did ask for fairplay towards them in accordance with their number and ratepaying capacity. He objected to their being boycotted or, as he might term it, "Ballinasloed." He trusted that the people of Belfast, if this Bill passed into law, would see their way to insist, if they could do so, upon a large bonus being paid by some private firm rather than take this matter into their own hands. Such a step would be in the interest of economy and of the ratepayers. As an hon. Gentleman sitting behind him had thought fit to make an interruption he would state that he found that the Dublin Corporation within the past month had paid 16s. 7d. per yard for ripping up the streets for a particular purpose, when they were able to get the work done by contract for 5s. a yard. He was opposed to sweating.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I do not see what this has to do with the Belfast trams.
  MR. T. M. HEALYremarked that he was glad that the ruling of the Chair had, for the first time in history, been received with approbation from the Irish Party behind him. What was strictly germane to the Bill was a clause giving the corporation power, if they thought fit, to grant an option to lease the tramways to private individuals, and it was on that clause that he submitted he was strictly in order in suggesting that it would be far more profitable for the Belfast Corporation to lease these lines to a private company than to endeavour to work them themselves. The reason was plain. So long as the corporation had this system in their own hands there would be no criticism, but if it was in the hands of a private company the public would always have the protection of the corporation's criticism. He had no shares in either Dublin or Belfast trams,

  503
  but he had seen that pressure could be brought to bear on municipal representatives, and he knew that it would be much better if the authorities stood up for the interests of the ratepayers rather than yielded to the clamour of what was falsely cared public opinion. This Bill had gone to the House of Lords. A clause had been put in at the instance of the Great Northern Railway, and if this stage was passed sub silentio no further opportunity would be open to those who watched these developments with so much interest. All that they could hear was that a private arrangement had been come to between the hon. Baronet opposite and hon. Gentlemen on that side, and although he did not represent Belfast he thought an opportunity should be given for a further statement. With that object in view, and in order to give the hon. Gentlemen an opportunity to inform the House as to the nature of the concession which had been made, he begged to move that this Bill be read a second time this day three months.
  MR. TULLYbegged to second the Motion, as he had a great objection to things done in secret, and behind people's backs, especially on those Benches. In this case there had been another Star Chamber transaction; another Dunraven treaty like that which sold the tenant farmers of Ireland and put on 24½ years purchase.
  MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Gentlemen that the question before the House is the Belfast Tramways Bill.
  MR. TULLYsaid be merely wanted to show how hon. Members had been jack-jumping about on the Benches behind him in the interests of those whom they called Catholics. He was a Roman Catholic, and was not ashamed of his allegiance to Rome. Those hon. Gentlemen who professed to have the interest of the Catholics of Ireland at heart had, in a matter that affected the Catholics of Belfast, made a secret arrangement, with locked doors, in some Star Chamber. They were traitors, and he called them so to their teeth. The Corporation of Belfast were to get extended powers under this Bill, but the corporation had powers already over the Catholic cemetery in Belfast. If he had to draw any indication of what their manage-
  504
  meat of the tramways would be from the manner in which they had managed their Dundonald Cemetery, he had every reason to oppose the Bill. There was a meeting of Roman Catholics in Belfast, at which the bigotry and intolerant attitude of the Belfast Corporation was condemned in regard to the cemetery and a resolution passed that in consequence Parliament should not bestow upon the corporation the powers now sought to be obtained under this Bill. This resolution voiced the opinions of the Catholics of Belfast, and he wished to know, as a humble representative of the Catholics, whether their rights had been juggled away in a secret, Star Chamber manner. He supported the hon. Member for Louth in the action he had taken, and, so far as he could within the limits of Parliamentary warfare, he should oppose this Bill until equal rights and treatment were given to the Catholics of Belfast as were conferred upon other classes in that important city. Some hon. Members were in the habit of standing up in the House and asking questions about the wrongs done to the Catholics in other parts of Ireland, yet they were willing to allow the rights of the Catholics of Belfast to be done away by a Star Chamber proceeding and not even to receive the miserable privileges accorded to the Jews in that city. He had been reproved because he approved of certain sentiments of the hon. Member for Louth. He heard a remark from the Member for Kerry, who was a great spouter in the House but never went to gaol. He (Mr. Tully) always went to gaol. He put the question to the Member for Limerick—had not the Jews rights which ought to be given to Catholics?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member had better keep away from these irrelevant topics.
  MR. TULLYsaid he did not wish to trespass more on the patience of the House, and he would therefore second the Motion.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'this day three months.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. McKENNAsaid he found on the Notice Paper fifteen notices of Motions on this Bill. He did not wish to enter into the merits of the subject, but among the notices of Motions there were several purely blocking Motions; two of these were put down in the public interest of the inhabitants of Behest, and he thought they were justified in asking some hon. Member in charge of the Bill whether these notices of Motions had been sufficiently dealt with. They were in the names of the hon. Members for South Kildare and South Sligo. The first was a Motion that after the Second Reading of the Bill there should be an Instruction to the Committee to insert a clause providing that certain wages paid to all employees of the tramway system should not be less than the wages paid on tramway systems in places of an equal population in the United Kingdom.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is addressing himself to an Instruction that is not in the Bill.
  MR. MCKENNAsubmitted that if in a tramway Bill proper provision for the payment of the servants of the company was not made that was a reasonable ground for rejecting the Bill. It was on that ground that he proposed to vote against the Second Reading of the present measure, unless he had a satisfactory assurance from the promoters on the point.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether, since hon. Members had removed. Instructions from the Paper, because their views had been met, the House was not entitled to know what those views were, and what arrangements had been made.
  MR. SPEAKER: On the Second Reading the question is the principle of the Bill, and oil that discussion can take place without reference to whether this or that hon. Member is satisfied with the Bill as it stands. An hon. Member is quite in order is asking the hon. Member in charge of the Bill whether a ay concessions have been made, but it does not follow that every Instruction on the Paper could be debated on the Second Reading.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLINsaid he had already stated the nature of the concessions which had been made. The chief concessions met all the arguments adduced by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth with reference to clerkships and similar positions being thrown open to the competition of all citizens, irrespective of religion.
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether the concessions would be embodied in a clause.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: Yes.
  Question put.
  The House proceeded to a Division, and Mr. SPEAKER stated that he thought the Ayes had it; and, on his decision challenged, it appeared to him that. the Division was frivolously claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared the Ayes had it, Three Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Commitee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Pearith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 6.
  MR. LAMBERT,resuming his speech in favour of an Amendment to reduce the income-tax to elevenpence, said the present high rate of the tax was undoubtedly; due to the policy pursued by the present Government. The tax had gone up by 50 per cant., but had the country received value for the money? The Government claimed that their expenditure had tended to develop new markets and to maintain the honour of the Empire. Would the right hon. Gentleman contend that the new market in Somaliland was worth the penny in the £ represented by its cost? The contempt levelled at Mr. Gladstone's.

  507
  financial opinions and foreign policy had been amply avenged. In 1874 Mr. Gladstone, in consequence of the wise policy which he had pursued, was able to offer the country the total abolition of the income-tax, but he was not returned to power. What would be the position of the country, with an income-tax at 1s., should another serious war unhappily break out? Did the right hon. Gentleman imagine he would be able to increase the tax by sevenpence, as was done during the South African War, or to borrow on the same easy terms? The maintenance of taxation at its present high level meant the wasting of the potential strength of the country. The financial reserve which enabled the country to emerge successfully from the South African War had absolutely disappeared. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether the time had not come when there should be a revision of the income-tax. He was not suggesting that the richer classes should pay less, but that the burden should be differently distributed. The income-tax at 1s. pressed with extreme severity upon the professional classes; men with from £700 to £1,000 a year were the most heavily taxed in the whole community, and it was only fair that the burden should be so distributed as to place a larger share upon realised wealth. The alternatives before the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to practise a strict economy or to find some other method by which the pockets of the rich could be tapped, and in that direction lie suggested an increase of the death duties. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 39, to leave out the words 'one shilling' and insert the word 'eleven-pence.'"—(Mr. Lambert.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid there was nothing in the quotations from the previous speeches which the hon. Member had read that he wished either to withdraw or to modify, and he certainly shared the desire of the hon. Member to see the income-tax, which was the first financial reserve in case of war, reduced to a more moderate level. It was only with extreme regret that he
  508
  proposed to raise this tax, and it was only under pressure of great necessity that he had resorted to this expedient. After all, the hon. Member must remember that the Estimates of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon were not realised and that the revenue failed by a very large sum to reach the figure which he had felt justified, on the information then in his possession, in naming; and he (the speaker) was met with large demands, necessary demands, of expenditure at a time when the revenue was falling wed when the year that had just expired had resulted in a very considerable deficiency. Under those circumstances, he was obliged to have recourse to the income-tax among the other sources to which he lock d for the increased revenue necessary. Hitherto the criticism on the other side of the House had not been that he was wrong in raising the income-tax, but that he had failed sufficiently to raise the increased expenditure, or rather the additional taxation, from the income-tax payer. He did not know whether the hon. Member shared the arguments used at an earlier time, but at any rate he now looked at it from a different point of view and said that the income-tax had been raised too high. The hon. Member added that he ought to have increased the death duties. He would point out to him, and he thought he would see that there was force in the argument, that the death duties ought not to be moved up and down to meet the passing exigencies of the time. The death duties ought to be fixed with a certain firmness. There was no finality in finance any more than in other things, and he did not pretend to say that the death duties were to remain at one figure always; but what he did venture to put before the Committee was that the death duties were not a source of taxation which ought to he raised and lowered according to the exigencies of individual years. Every man who had an income of the taxable amount must pay the income-tax of the year. All of them happily did not die within a year, and, if they raised the death duties for the purpose of meeting balances of a particular year, they would hit those particular estates which then fell under the death duties; they would not spread an equal

  509
  burden upon all estates as they fell in. The death duties, therefore, should be fixed with some regard to firmness; they should not be used to meet any passing needs without, at any rate, greater urgency or necessity than there was. This was a general principle which he ventured to urge should be accepted by the House. He could not pretend to speak with authority as to what the future might have in store for them, but he adhered to what he had said in proposing this additional 1d., that he hoped that the additional sacrifices called for from the income-taxpayers this year might not be of long duration. No one would be more glad than himself, both on the ground of what was due to the income-tax payer, and on the ground, urged by the hon. Gentleman with considerable force—that of our own financial stability and reserve for greater emergencies —when it was within his power or within that of his successor to reduce this tax. It was not in his power to follow that course this year; he could not meet the obligations of the year without the additional 1d. which the hon. Gentleman proposed to strike off, gird he did not think that the Committee or any considerable section of the Committee thought it would be possible for him to dispense with this increase in the tax this year.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think there was some inconsistency on the part of his hon. friend and those who supported the Amendment in having previously urged that he ought to impose a larger amount of direct and a lesser amount of indirect taxation. They had already passed that portion of the Bill dealing with indirect taxation, though he endeavoured to persuade the Committee to postpone the clause dealing with indirect taxation in order that they might urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that direct taxation ought to bear a larger share of the burden. That was objected to, and they had already passed the tea duty, so that that was not in question at the present time. His hon. friend had moved his Amendment with a view of drawing attention to the enormous expenditure of the Government—not because he thought the income-tax ought
  510
  to be reduced rather than indirect taxation, but because he thought, and he agreed with him, that the only way to bring the Government to their senses with regard to the question of expenditure was to give them as big a drop as they could. When the present Government came into office the expenditure of the country was something like £69,000,000. It was now something like £142,500,000, which meant an increase of something like £8,000,000 each year. This was a perfectly monstrous expenditure to have incurred in something under nine years, and he for one should vote against the increase in the income-tax as a protest against the enormous expenditure of the present Government. The worst part of it was that they showed no signs of repentance, because, when they were discussing the matter some time ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave them to understand that he did not see his way to save very much on the Navy, but he did hope that under a new reformed system of the War Office and of the Army, that we should really have a substantial saving. They listened with interest to the speech of the Secretary for War, and he confessed the thing that struck him most about it was that they were getting rid of the extravagant old system, and putting in its place a system which the right hon. Gentleman admitted would practically save nothing, and that they would save infinitesimally compared with the expenditure on the War Office. He did not therefore look forward to any saving in the expenditure on our military forces, and he should support this decrease in the income-tax. They all agreed that they could not change the death duties from year to year according to the exigencies of the year, but he confessed he thought the time had come when the question ought to be reconsidered as to whether they ought not to be brought in better proportion to the income-tax. He should certainly heartily support the Amendment in the hope that, if they cut off this £2,000,000, they would induce the Government to reduce the expenditure by an equal sum.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that the strongest reason

  511
  for this Amendment was the extravagantly high income-tax proposed by the present Government. He agreed that if they supported his hon. friend it was not because they were in favour of increasing indirect as against direct taxation. On the contrary, they preferred that the proportion of direct taxation should he still greater. The income-tax payer was very heavily pressed at the present moment, wherever one went one heard complaints of the amount of income-tax paid by men who could really very ill afford it. He agreed that a good deal of the pressure would be relieved by the suggestions made for graduation and discrimination, and he hoped that when this came before them they would have an interesting discussion. He did not think, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had met the point raised by the hon. Member for South Molton. He uggested there were other means of direct taxation by which the Government could get the money they sought What answer did the right hon. Gentleman make with regard to the death duties? He said they could not have fluctuating death duties. Perfectly true. Why should they fluctuate? If next year he found he could remit taxation and he had increased the death duties, there were the sugar and tea duties, and there was the coal tax which he might get rid of. All these would be useful reductions. An hon. friend suggested that he might start something in the way of old-age pensions. He might, at any rate, do something in the way of remitting taxation that pressed upon the people of the country. The great advantage of the death duties was that they were paid by people who got more than they paid and who got something they did not earn. This was not the case with the income-tax payer. He was paying on an income earned with labour, toil, and anxiety on his own part. He was in a totally different category. There was another method of direct taxation the right hen. Gentleman had overlooked. The duty on licences was lower than in any other country, and if he had placed the duty on licences in the same position as, say, in New York, he would have got another £10,000,000 a year, which was considerably more than he wanted in order to reduce the income-tax by 4d. or 5d.
  512
  The right hon. Gentlemen had not given a satisfactory answer to the charge brought by his hon. friend with regard to the expenditure of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, after all, ought to have some sense of responsibility with regard to checking extravagant expenditure. He seemed to assume that his sole function was to take the expenditure for granted and then find the taxes and raise the money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was the guardian of the public purse. It was his business, if he thought that the expenditure was extravagant in any particular direction to check it, and check it ruthlessly. What had he done in that respect? He had talked a great deal about high expenditure, but he had never given the slightest indication that he had used his personal influence to check the expenditure in any direction. His hon. friend reminded him that the only thing he had done was to check the increasing expenditure on Universities; but in regard to the expenditure on the Army and Navy he had simply done nothing at all. And, as for as he (the hon. Member) could see, in the present scheme all hope of economy had been wrecked by somebody or other. He did not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was one of those responsible for that. At any rate, he ought to use his whole influence to check the wild,extravagant expenditure. No one who had examined the expenditure of the last few years could character it in any other way. A shilling income-tax in time of peace! Why it was a war tax in time of peace!
  Surely the right hon. Gentlemen ought to see that this sort of thing was ntt continued. They had gone on your after year piling up expenditure, a d nobody seemed to think it his duty to stop it—to use his influence, to risk his personal position in order to stop it. They had had three or four Chancellors each of whom had expressed pious opinions about expenditure but they did nothing. They had constant professions calling attention to the danger, and yet the peril was increasing, and no Chancellor of the Exchequer was attempting anything. He did not know why the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been able to reduce the expenditure this year. He himself must realise that

  513
  they were reaching a point it was difficult for the public to tolerate. They were spending money which was their reserve and which would be useful in case of war. Supposing they had a great European complication or a complication in the Far East—one never knew what might happen, especially if the present Government remained in power, for it was not strong enough to resist temptations of that character—what could they draw upon? Where could they plant another tax? They might put another 1d. or 2d on the income-tax, but what would it fetch? All the financial authorities in the country realised the position; they saw that there was no reserve. He did not say that they were in any way on the road to bankruptcy, but at any rate their credit was badly damaged. It was the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have the moral courage to stop this, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer did not seem to have it. He knew his difficulties. They were political difficulties, but, after all, that was an argument against a Government of that sort remaining in power. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not feel sufficiently assured in his position. He was balancing himself on one foot as it were, and the result was that he had no sure footing, and ho would do nothing. The War Office could do nothing. The Treasury could do nothing. There was no Government Department that could do anything, for the simple reason that the Government was in the position it was in. The country was suffering very seriously, and he supported the Amendment because it was a protest against this state of things. There had been a fall in public credit outside, but it was nothing to the fall of Government credit inside the House. Their consols had gone down in the market, and nobody would touch them, there they were going on trading without credit, and the public had to pay the balance. He thought this was a grossly unfair thing. The Government ought not to do it. As a protest against the continuation of this sort of thing he should support the Amendment.
  MR. SOARESsaid that they all admitted the sympathetic answer of the
  514
  Chancellor of the Exchequer, but still he did not propose to do anything. They had no distinct representation made to them that in the future there was going to be really drastic economy, and he felt bound, in the existing circumstances, although not one who objected to the income-tax, to vote for the proposal of his hon. friend. It was quite true that it would deprive the Chancellor of the Exchequer of about £2,000,000, but it seemed to him that the Government would then be compelled to economise in some direction. Without a doubt there were plenty of directions in which the Government could economise. They were told that the income-tax was a war tax, and the Government could say it was. It was a good description of the tax in their case because they were always at war with someone or another, but this was not the sort of thing he desired to encourage, and he should therefore support the Amendment. The Estimates this year had not been satisfactory. They had voted large sums for the Army Corps—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to review the whole financial situation.
  MR. SOARESsaid he would abandon the Army Corps as the Government had done, but he would point out there were many alternatives to this tax—the licence duties, taxation of land values, of mining royalties—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot review the whole fiscal field on this question. The questions he is now opening up seem to be boundless.
  MR. SOARESsaid he should record his vote in favour of the Amendment and against this additional tax mainly as a protest against the extravagant expenditure of the present Government.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he fully appreciated the motives of the hon. Member who had moved this Amendment, but he regretted that he did not feel able to support him in the division lobby. This Government had laid heavier burdens upon direct taxation than any other Government had ever ventured to

  515
  impose in time of peace. The income-tax had always been looked upon as the great reserve for war, and when it stood at one shilling in time of peace it was inevitable that the whole elasticity of their financial system was destroyed. Nobody could contend that the direct taxpayer had come out of the re-arrangement of the taxes very badly, because direct and indirect taxation were practically at an equipoise at the present time. A very large proportion of the extra expenditure was due to an increase in armaments, and it was only right that the income-tax payer should bear his fair share of that expenditure. The income-tax was not only a rich man's tax but it fell with severity upon a large number of persons who had to keep up a very considerable position on very slender means. He agreed that this had a disciplinary advantage, because it was only when people began to feel taxation that they became actively interested and vigorous crusaders in the cause of economy. Direct taxation was a great corrector of extravagance. The war was over, but taxation went on, and the great height at which military and naval armaments stood was sufficient justification for retaining the income-tax at its regrettable figure. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer had not shown the same zeal for economy as his predecessors, and they had not detected in his speeches the same advocacy of retrenchment as they found in the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, although he agreed that the result was the same no matter what professions were made. Nevertheless they would welcome those professions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer if only for the sake of appearances. Who were the classes who clamoured for this expenditure? They were on the whole the most wealthy classes in the community. The wealthy classes of income-tax payers advocated lavish expenditure upon all branches of government, and particularly on armaments. This was a democratic country, but it was a country in which the wealthy classes had immense influence, and when the people were told that the safety of the country and the honour of the Empire depended upon an Army scheme such as had been introduced, it was immediately
  516
  possible for extravagant demagogues to raise and mobilise a considerable force of voting strength. He would hold those people who exercised such influence responsible for their words. Whoever chose the tune should pay the piper. That was why, though he shared the hon. Gentleman's objection to the income-tax at that level, he believed in high taxation as the surest hope of our financial regeneration.
  MR. MCKENNAsaid there was one factor which the hon. Member for Oldham omitted from his calculation which would induce him to support the Amendment. The Committee were deciding now on the details of the financial scheme which was to meet the expenditure for the year ending next March. The scheme was based on the Estimates made by the present Government. It was true that four months of the current financial year had already gone by, but it was obvious to everyone that this was a moribund Government, and that it was eminently probable the Estimates made by this Government would not be carried into effect. There was no doubt that were another Government elected on principles to which it would adhere, that Government would immediately be able to effect a series of economies which would enable it to reduce the taxation which now pressed so heavily upon the people. There was no need whatever why the present great expenditure should be permanent, and if this Government, which had obviously lost the confidence of the nation at large, should at length awaken to its responsibilities and consent to appeal to the country which it had deluded, he was satisfied that no Government would be returned except one pledged to economy, and under that pledge it would not be necessary to continue an income-tax of 1s. in the £1. He would not vote for this tax of 1s. because he would not trust this Government with the expenditure of the nation's money. Its administration for a period of nine years had been admittedly extravagant.
  THE CHAIRMAN: This is not the proper opportunity for reviewing the expenditure of the Government. The hon.

  517
  Member must confine himself to the Amendment.
  MR. McKENNAsaid he had not the least intention of reviewing the expenditure of the Government. He was only referring to the fact that, judging by past experience, they could only anticipate that if the Government remained in office for another year its expenditure would be on the same extravagant scale, and it was because of that extravagance that he would not hand over to its charge
  public money. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, when no longer in office, stated that in spite of his continual protests he had been unable to enforce economies on the Cabinet. He was not quoting the right hon. Gentleman textually, but that was the substance of what he said. He should vote most heartily for the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 209; Noes, 101. (Division List No. 251.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Doughty, Sir George

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Aker

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Arnold-Forster,Rt Hn HughO.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lawson, JohnGrant(Yorks.NR

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dyke, Rt. Hon.SirWilliamHart

  Lee, ArthurH(Hants Fareham.

  Asher, Alexander

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Bagot,Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fison, Frederick William

  Long, Col.CharlesW.(Evesham

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

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

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

  Balfour,Rt Hn GeraldW(Leeds

  Fitzroy, Hon.EdwardAlgernon

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Forster, Henry William

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

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

  Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth

  Bill, Charles

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Bingham, Lord

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Bond, Edward

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Graham, Henry Robert

  M'Iver, SirLewis(EdinburghW.

  Brassey, Albert

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Greene, SirEW(B'rySEdm'nds

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Bull, William James

  Greene, HenryD.(Shrewsbury)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Butcher, John George

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Caldwell, James

  Gretton, John

  Maxwell,W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire

  Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Carlile, William Walter

  Groves, James Grimble

  Mild may, Francis Bingham

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Milner, Rt.Hon.SirFrederickG.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford

  Milvain, Thomas

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Harris, F. Leverton(Tynem'th)

  Montagu, Hon.J.Scott(Hants.)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Morgan, DavidJ(Walthamstow

  Chamberlain,RtHon.JA(Worc.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Charrington, Spencer

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Heath, James (Staflords. N.W.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Hobhouse,RtHn.H.(SomersetE

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Murray, Rt.Hn.A.Graham(B'te

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Howard,John(Kent,Faversh'm

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.

  Hozier, Hon.James HenryCecil

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Peel, Hn.Wm.RobertWellesley

  Crossey, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hunt, Rowland

  Percy, Earl

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Pilkington, Col. Richard

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Denny, Colonel

  Kenyon, Hon.Geo.T.(Denbigh)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon.Col. W.

  Price, Robert John

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Kerr, John

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward,

  Dorington,Rt.Hon.Sir John E.

  Keswick, William

  Purvis, Robert

  Pym, C. Guy

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Smith, HC(North'mb. Tyneside

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

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Smith, RtHnJParker(Lanarks.

  Welby, Sir Charles G E(Notts.

  Ridley, Hon.M.W.(Stalybridge

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

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Ridley, S.Forde(BethnalGreen)

  Spear, John Ward

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Williams, Colonel R.(Dorset)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth.

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

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B.Stuart

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Thompson, Dr.EC(Monagh'nN)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Royds; Clement Molyneux

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Sackville, Co.l S. G. Stopford

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Tuff, Charles

  Younger, William

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Valentia, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

  Shackleton, David James

  Vincent, Col.SirCEH(Sheffield)

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Warde. Colonel C. E.

  Mr. Ailwvn Fellowes.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork,N.E.)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Malley, William

  Allen, Charles P.

  Grey, Rt.Hon. Sir E.(Berwick)

  Parrott, William

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

  Partington, Oswald

  Bell, Richard

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Pirie, Duncan Y.

  Benn, John William

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Brigg, John

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Priestly, Arthur

  Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rea, Russell

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Joicey, Sir James

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan,W

  Sheehy, David

  Cawley, Frederick

  Langley, Batty

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.)

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Cremer, William Randal

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sullivan, Donal

  Cullinan, J.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Tennant, Harold John

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan,E.)

  Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tomkinson, James

  Delany, William

  Lloyd-George, David

  Toulmin, George

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lough, Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Tully, Jasper

  Edwards, Frank

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Ure, Alexander

  Elibank, Master of

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Elliott, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  M`Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Crae, George

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M`Kenna, Reginald

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

  Fenwick, Charles

  M`Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Woodhouse,Sir J.T(Huddersf'd.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Murphy, John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

  Lambert and Mr. Soares.

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  MR. MCCRAEsaid the object of moving this Amendment was to differentiate between income from realised property and income received from individual effort, and the result of personally productive industry. The technical terms might be stated on the one hand as permanent, and the other as a precarious income. The income of a professional man who was working for his livelihood was likely to cease at his death, or in the event of disability
  520
  consequent on the breakdown of health. These were matters to be taken into consideration, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he hoped, would look favourably on this proposal. Mr. Gladstone said in his great Budget speech in 1853 that the income-tax proposals were too hard on intelligence and skill, and not hard enough on property as compared with intelligence and skill. If that were true in 1853 it was much more true now. In 1853 the income derived from Schedule A

  521
  which related to property amounted to £2,400,000, whilst in 1903 it amounted to £9,703,000, so that it had increased four-fold; but with regard to Schedule D that in 1853 produced £1,200,000, in 1903 the income derived from trade and professions was £23,000,000, an increase of nearly twenty-fold. This year the amount was a little less, but the result was that whilst Schedule A produced double that of Schedule D in 1853, the position in 1903 was not only reversed, but the produce of Schedule D was two-and-a-half times greater than Schedule A. For many years the income-tax was a temporary tax, and the difference between A and D was very small, but now they should endeavour to act as fairly as they possibly could between the different classes of the community.
  It might be said that there were difficulties in the way of differentiation, but he did not think those difficulties were insuperable, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make a difference between the product of realised wealth and that of industry. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to the high rate at which the income-tax now stood, would make this differentiation between the produce of realised wealth and the produce of a man's industry. There were doubtless difficulties connected with limited liability companies, capital invested in businesses, and life annuities, but those were questions of detail which did not affect the merits of the case. Trade had been unfairly treated as compared with property, but that had been the method adopted all through by Parliament. Even Mr. Gladstone had said that the main question was between land and trade. An unequal contest had been carried on, and a land-owning Parliament had taken care that property should have not only its full share of rights but a little more. The method by which the proposed differentiation should be accompanied was not of much importance, but he suggested that the simplest method would be to give a rebate from the standard rate imposed. Abatements were the order of the day; the only abatement that was not proposed was an abatement of expenditure. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would
  522
  not shelve the matter by promising an inquiry by Royal Commission or Select Committee, as this was a long-standing grievance which imperatively demanded redress. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 39, after the words 'one shilling' to insert the words provided always that all incomes under Schedule D derived from trades and professions and not derived from investments shall,be subject to a rebate of fourpence per pound.'"—(Mr. McCrae.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid in view of the fact that the hon. Member proposed to base his proposal upon Mr. Gladstone's Budget speech of 1853, no one would suppose that Mr. Gladstone was the sternest and most able opponent of the very expedient suggested by the hon. Member. Every financial authority in the country held that the proposal of the hon. Member was absolutely disposed of in Mr. Gladstone's Budget speech of 1853, which speech a couple of years ago the right hon. Member for West Monmouth, in a discussion upon a similar scheme, called that "masterpiece of finance." To penalise investments in State securities would be a most injudicious proceeding for the State to engage in. This was what the hon. Member's proposal amounted to. As to its being a question between land and trade, was the landowner's income not dependent on personal exertions? Many Members of the House could inform the hon. Member that there was very great difference between the estate where the owner gave his personal interest and time to the management, and the estate where such conditions did not prevail. Mr. Gladstone said that the only person who could really be said to receive his income without personal labour was the Fund-holder. Surely this struck at the whole basis of the hon. Member's proposal. Mr. Gladstone, who was a responsible Minister of finance and a born man of finance, did not pass these details over so lightly, because he knew that in the accumulation of these numberless details of great complexity, involving the utmost difficulty in their solution, there was an absolute obstacle, an insurmountable obstacle, to the adoption of any such proposal. For

  523
  instance, let them say that a widow was left with an income of £800 a year, the proceeds of capital invested in the Funds or elsewhere, on which she had to maintain herself and a young family, was she to be taxed at a higher rate than a man earning £15,000 or £20,000 a year on the Stock Exchange, in the professions, or elsewhere? Did anybody think this would place the income-tax on a fairer basis, or leave less ground for criticism than the present system? Let them take one more illustration. Let them take the case of two industrial undertakings of a similar nature returning very large incomes to the parties who owned them. One was sold to a company, and small investors, people with little capital, put their savings into it. Were they to be taxed at a higher rate than the millionaire owner of the neighbouring concern, who retained the universal management of his business and pocketed profits out of all proportion to anything these poor people received? Without wearying the House by labouring the point, which was no doubt treated in a masterly manner, that no one could hope to attain, by Mr. Gladstone, he ventured to think that he had called their attention to enough of the difficulties and anomalies that would arise under any such a proposal to make it clear that it would be most unwise to adopt it.
  MR. McKENNAsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had adopted the plan of putting hard cases. He would put one to him. Did he suggest that the millionaire sleeping partner drawing his £50,000 out of the business was to pay no more income-tax than his hard-working manager with £800? This was not a matter to be decided by hard cases. They could find arguments for and against any tax they pleased by adducing cases from their own point of view. His hon. friend had made a proposal which had had wide and general acceptance. It was quite true that in the working out of his scheme in practice he would meet with considerable difficulties. The line of demarcation between incomes earned by labour and derived from capital upon which no labour was employed would be very difficult to draw; but he thought the Committee would agree that, if such a line could be suc-
  524
  cessfully drawn, and they could distinguish accurately between those incomes which died with the persons who earned them, and those which continued after the present holder had died, it would be a useful thing to impose heavier burdens upon incomes which continued for ever rather than upon the incomes which died with the work of the man who earned them. This was a very simple proposition to make, and was one which he submitted was not dealt with by Mr. Gladstone in his great speech of 1853. It was with other complications arising out of this question that he dealt—complications which still existed, and consequently made it very difficult to support the Amendment of his hon. friend in the actual form in which it stood. But he was sure he would have the sympathy of the Committee generally in the great idea underlying his proposal, and if it were possible to put it in a form in which it could be readily worked in any Finance Bill, he was sure that it would receive the general support of the Committee.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the Committee was in a somewhat amusing position. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown them that Mr. Gladstone was against the proposal in 1853, but he had not shown them that Mr. Disraeli was in favour of it in 1852, when he proposed to differentiate between earned and unearned incomes very much in the way now proposed by his hon. friend. It was amusing that they should have a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer invoking the authority of Mr Gladstone and his Liberal critics sheltering themselves behind Mr. Disraeli. He found himself unable to support the Amendment, because he thought the object his hon. friend sought to attain was obtained very much better by the present methods than that he proposed. There ought to be a differentiation between earned and unearned incomes, and there was a considerable differentiation through the Death Duties. For these reasons he would be unable to support the Amendment.
  MR. MARKHAMpointed out that if the Amendment were accepted South African

  525
  millionaires and speculators of all descriptions would be able so to divide their profits into salary and dividends as to get off with a reduction of 4d. in the£on the larger part of their incomes. He was not sent to the House of Commons to effect any such object, and he failed to see how Liberalism could claim reductions for these people. If the Amendment went to a division he should vote against it.
  MR. RUNCIMANregarded it as one of the principles of Liberalism that capital should pay a larger proportion of the cost of the upkeep of the State than was borne by labour. In view of the fact that when Mr. Cobden's views were quoted, his authority was discounted on the ground that he lived so many years ago, it was somewhat interesting to find the Chancellor of the Exchequer basing his arguments on the shibboleths held by Mr. Gladstone in 1853. Since that date the conditions of the financial and industrial world had greatly changed. One of Mr. Gladstone's reasons against differentiation was that land paid income-tax on gross receipts without deduction. That was no longer the case. Another reason was that under Schedule D there was a large amount of under-assessment, and, in that way, a certain amount of differentiation already existed. But not only had the system of land assessment been altered, but the immense extension of the limited liability system had placed capital very much in the same position that land was in in 1853. The division was no longer between land and trade, but between capital and industry. Certain incomes, drawn from investments and property, were more or less permanent; others, depending upon the health and life of the persons who possessed them, were precarious, and differentiation between the two classes, difficult though it might be, was certainly desirable. The principle had been successfully carried out in other countries, and might equally be laid down in the United King dom. The proposals were by no means new, having been made with tremendous force by John Stuart Mill, and Disraeli himself threw all the objections to the winds. Mr. Gladstone's views had been invoked; he would be quite satisfied if all the financial debates were conducted,on the principles of Mr. Gladstone, as
  526
  they had been wonderfully successful in the past.
  MR. SOARESdid not wonder there was a certain divergence of opinion on this question, as it doubtless presented many difficulties. Businesses were frequently turned into companies, with the former owners, holding many shares, as salaried managers. It would be difficult in such cases to say how much of a man's income was from investments and how much from his personal exertions. Then there was the case of small property owners who made a business of the ownership of property and who collected the rents themselves. There were doubtless difficulties, but surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not so soon forgotten that it was stated at the recent Albert Hall meeting that difficulties were made for statesmen to overcome. The difficulties in the present case were certainly such as statesmen ought to be able to overcome. There was, without doubt, a definite grievance in this matter. The income of a professional man and the income of a business man were in a very different positions from the income of a man who derived his living from permanent investments. The business man or the professional man had to save so much money every year, he had to insure his life, and to meet many other burdens cast upon him, whereas a man who lived on investments could spend every penny, knowing that he could leave to his descendants the full income he enjoyed. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer had refused to hold any inquiry whatever into the matter, he would support his hon. friend's Amendment.
  MR. McCRAEasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. McKENNAmoved to leave out Sub-section (2) of Clause 6. This was not an Amendment he proposed to divide the Committee upon, his object in moving it being to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact that the enactments referred to in the sub-section were, so far as his experience

  527
  had gone, exceedingly difficult to discover. They all knew the extreme difficulties arising from legislation by reference, but this really was reference gone mad. He asked whether the Attorney-General could suggest either that in place of the sub-section, reference should be given to the particular enactments included in the words "All such enactments relating to income-tax….," or that they should be made permanent once for all.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (2)."—(Mr. McKenna.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)said he did not think this sub-section was open to the charge of being legislation by reference. What the hon. and learned Member had said might possibly deserve consideration on some future occasion. The clause was very simple indeed, the object being to apply to the tax imposed this year enactments which had existed for many years.
  MR. McKENNAasked leave to withdraw the Amendment. The matter was not quite so simple as the Attorney-General had suggested.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The following Amendment was on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. MCCRAE:—
  "In page 3, line 4, after the word 'granted,' to insert the words "Provided that the following words in Rule 5 of No. 2, Schedule A, s. 60, 5 and 6 Vic., c. 35, Of all fines received in consideration of any demise of lands or tenements (not being parcel of a manor or royalty demisable by the custom thereof) on the amount so received within the year preceding by or on account of the party, provided that in case the party chargeable shall prove to the satisfaction of the Commissioners for General Purposes in the district that such fines or any part thereof have been applied as production capital on which a profit has arisen, or will arise, otherwise chargeable under this Act for the year in which the assessment shall be made, it shall be lawful for the said Commissioners to discharge the amount so applied from the profits liable to assessment under this rule' shall be read in so
  528
  far as relative to the duty of income-tax hereby granted as if the proviso therein coatained were omitted."
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, so far as I am able to understand it, is out of order. It increases the charge upon the people because it withdraws an advantage which they obtain under the section which the hon. Member is seeking to amend. By cancelling the proviso he imposes a fresh charge.
  MR. McCRAE,on the point of order, said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had impressed on the House the importance of the general Resolution which came later in the Finance Bill, giving power to amend. He thought that entirely covered this proposal.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am well aware of that Resolution. The object of that Resolution is to enable such matters to be dealt with as the abolition of the coal duty and, the reduction of the sugar duty or the purpose of relieving taxation. But the Amendment of the hon. Member, instead of relieving taxation, would impose a fresh charge upon the people.
  MR. McKENNAsaid his hon. friend was not proposing to extend or increase existing charges, but to withdraw an exemption which this Bill proposed to make. He submitted, therefore, that the Amendment was in order.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 5, to leave out Sub-section (3)."—(Mr. McKenna.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. McKENNAasked the Attorney-General why Sub-section 3 was in the Bill at all. It was not in the Bill last year.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the effect of the sub-section was that a continual valuation must be made from year to year. The valuation was for five years; and last year was the revaluation year.
  MR. McKENNAbegged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. McKENNAsaid that in the Act of 1853 there was a proviso that where existing valuations were incorrect the Commissioners of Inland Revenue might direct a revaluation. He begged to move an Amendment in that direction.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 10, after the word 'year' to insert the words "Provided that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may direct revaluation where existing valuations are incorrect.'"—(Mr. McKenna.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he did not think that any real hardship would arise under the present law, because the Inland Revenue Commissioners had at present the right to make revaluations. He hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.
  MR. McKENNAsaid a case had been brought to his knowledge of alterations having been made in the valuation of a house, the tenant had to pay an amount of income-tax beyond that which he could get from the landlord.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that this was an Amendment that ought to he accepted.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman did not seem unfair, and he would be glad to inquire into the matter before the Report stage.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid his hon. friend did not move his Amend
  ment with the view of damaging the principle of the Bill, and he quoted a case of hardship under the existing law which his Amendment would be the vehicle of averting in future. He joined in the appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept the Amendment. The words were harmless and actually appeared in the original Act. The right hon. Gentleman must know that there were a large number of properties which were at the present moment under-assessed. In these days they could not afford to forego revenue which could legitimately be claimed by the State. Therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should accept these words; otherwise he hoped his friend would persist in carrying his Motion to a division.
  MR. RUNCIMANtrusted that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to meet them on this very modest point.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLappealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the Committee some explanation.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he could not accept the Amendment, because the case was to a certain extent already covered by a sub-section. He promised, however, to make inquiries without delay and see whether there were any cases of hardship.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had listened very carefully to the discussion, and he had heard no attempt to explain why these words were omitted, and in the absence of such explanation he hoped his hon. friend would press for a division.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 80;, Noes, 171. (Division List No. 252.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Caldwell, James

  Fenwick, Charles

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Allen, Charles P.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Fuller, J. M. F

  Asher, Alexander

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn.Herb. John

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Haroourt,Lewis V.(Rossendale

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Delany, William

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Bell, Richard

  Doogan, P. C.

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Brigg, John

  Elibank, Master of

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Ellice,Capt.E.C.(S.AndrewBgbs

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Emmott, Alfred

  Joicey, Sir James

  Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Malley, William

  Sullivan, Donal

  Joyce, Miohael

  Partington Oswald

  Tennant, Harold John

  Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W.

  Price, Robert John

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

  Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Thomas,DavidAlfred(Merthyr)

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Rea, Russell

  Toulmin, George

  Levy, Maurice

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Walton,Joseph (Barnsley)

  Lloyd-George, David

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel,Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Shackleton, David James

  Whiteley,George (York,W.R.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Shaw, Charles Edw.(Stafford)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  M'Arthur,William (Cornwall)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

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

  M`Crae, George

  Sheehy, David

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Nanetti, Joseph P.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Soares, Ernest J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  'O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  M'Kenna and Mr. Runciman.

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  FitzGerald,Sir Robert Penrose

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Maxwell,W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire

  Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O.

  Forster Henry William

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Arrol, Sir William

  Foster,PhilipS.(Warwick,S.W.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Milner,Rt. Hn.Sir Frederick G.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Gardner, Ernest

  Milvain, Thomas

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Montagu,Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

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

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow

  Balfour,Rt.HnGeraldW.(Leeds

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Greene,SirEW(B'ry S.Edm'nds

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Greene,Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Mount, William Arthur

  Bingham, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Groves, James Grimble

  Murray,RtHn.A.Graham (Bute

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

  Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Brassey, Albert

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Bull, William James

  Heath,Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Peel,Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Heath, James (Staffords.N.W.)

  Percy, Earl

  Butcher, John George

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

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

  Hobhouse,RtHnH.(Somers't,E

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Carson,Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hope,J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cavendish,V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pym, C. Guy

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Jeffreys,Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc.

  Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hn.Col.W.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Kerr, John

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Keswick, William

  Ridley, S. Forde (BethnalGreen

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

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Roberts, Samuel(Sheffield)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.

  Lee, Arthur H.(Hants,Fareham

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Denny, Colonel

  Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Long,Rt.Hn.Walter (Bristol,S

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Smith,H.C(North'mb, Tyneside

  Dorington,Rt.Hon.Sir John E.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Smith,Rt.Hn.JParker (Lanarks

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lowther, C. (Comb., Eskdale)

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

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Spear, John Ward

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M,

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lucas,Reginald J.(Portsmouth)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dyke Rt.Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Thompson,Dr.EC(Monagh'n,N.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw M.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  M`Iver,SirLewis (EdinburghW

  Tuff, Charles

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M`Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Fison, Frederick William

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Valentia, Viscount

  532

  533

  Vincent,Col.SirC.E.H (Sheffield

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Wortley,Rt.Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

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

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON,in order to ascertain the intentions of the Government, moved to report Progress. The Committee had reached nearly the end of the income-tax clause; the points raised had all been of substance, and none had been discussed at unreasonable length. There still remained a considerable portion of the Bill and the new clauses to dispose of. Many matters of Considerable importance were involved, and under the circumstances he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree to report Progress, as soon as he had obtained Clause 6. Unless that course were agreed to it would be necessary to continue the discussion on the income-tax and other matters. He entirely failed to see why the Committee should be forced in this way when dealing with a Bill of such importance; therefore he begged to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." (Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)agreed that Clause 6 required very little further discussion, but he could not agree that the discussion on the whole of the Budget, so far as it had gone, had been of a comparatively brief character. Budgets involving taxation of a novel and important character had been dealt with in Committee in a shorter period of time than had already been devoted to the present Bill. He was able only to do his best to make arrangements of business convenient to the House, and in view of the period of the session at which they had arrived, of the absolute necessity of passing the Budget in proper time, and of the other work remaining to be dealt with, he thought the House ought to make some sacrifice on the present occasion in order to get on with the business. In these circumstances he was not in a position to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member.
  MR. JOHN WILSONdesired to make an appeal to the Prime Minister. Hon. Members representing the coal-mining districts had resisted the desire to take part in the discussion hitherto in the hope of getting a chance to debate the coal tax at length. To miners the coal tax was of very great importance, and, if anything useful could be done, they would like to put facts and arguments as they presented themselves to them before the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the House. He thought he would agree that it was not a fitting time to take the coal tax after all the other matters had been disposed of in connection with the Finance Bill. Therefore, in the most respectful manner he presented their case— that the right hon. Gentleman should give another day, at least, for the purpose of discussing the coal tax question. They thought that, if any abatement at all were made in the Finance Bill, having regard to one of the largest industries in the country, that it should be in the coal tax, and they were conceited enough to think they could convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the right of this. Speaking on behalf of himself and his colleagues, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision.
  MR. MCCRAEdrew attention to the fact that Clause 6 introduced an entirely new principle, viz., the question of dealing with the unclaimed dividends, and of applying the proceeds to revenue expenditure. This was a departure from sound finance, and he thought it would be quite unfair to consider a question of such importance at five minutes to two in the morning
  MR. EUGENE WASONstrongly urged the Prime Minister to accede to the request of his hon. friend. A great m my miners felt that this coal tax had done something to depress their wages.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid nothing could be more moderate than the form

  535
  in which the hon. Member for Durham put forward his plea, but he hoped he would remember one or two things. In the first place, he must know that, however valuable a discussion of this kind would be in informing public opinion, it would be quite impossible this year, however able a presentation of arguments be made to them, and however conclusive those arguments might be as to the general impropriety or disadvantage attaching to the tax, to reconstruct the present Budget to meet his views. In the second place, there would be an opportunity for discussion of the coal tax on the Report stage of the Bill. In those circumstances, he hoped he and other Gentlemen interested would feel that he was not unreasonable in adhering to his view.
  Sin EDWARD GREYcould not agree that the Report stage offered as good an opportunity as the Committee stage for the discussion of a matter of this kind. The coal tax was an important subject; and the Prime Minister himself admitted that discussion, even though it could not influence the present Budget, might be desirable with a view to future financial proposals. The tax was a modern one, exceedingly novel in principle, and the hon. Member thought it was desirable that such a tax should be annually reviewed. It was, he thought, admitted by its proposer to be one that would require to be closely watched in its working. There were in the Budget important matters that the Committee could not reasonably discuss at this period of the night, and he should support the Motion for reporting Progress.
  MR. FENWICKsaid they had already taken every opportunity afforded them of educating public opinion outside the House in regard to the coal tax, and they had succeeded so well that there was not a candidate, either Liberal or Tory, that dared stand for a mining constituency that was an export district without pledging himself to do all he could to repeal the tax. They now wanted an opportunity of educating public opinion inside the House, and an opportunity to inform the minds of the Government in reference to the question, for they
  536
  certainly thought there was a great deal of misunderstanding in their minds in regard to the coal tax, and that they were in a position to remove some of that misunderstanding if proper facilities were given them to debate the matter on the floor of the House. It was, however, impossible to have such full consideration of the question as its importance demanded at that hour; and therefore he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would consent to report Progress, so that they might have an opportunity given them.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid the Prime Minister had shown himself unreasonable, and even harsh, in his leadership, of the House and the conduct of public business by refusing to pay the slightest attention to the weighty appeals which had been addressed to him by the representatives of the great industry affected by the coal tax. Had public business been allowed to get into such a mess, that so great a subject was not to be discussed at all except at a time when the Committee were wearied and unable properly to consider the matter? Scarcely five hours had been devoted to the discussion of the income-tax clause, which involved so many millions of money; the Amendments were of substance, and the discussions had not been unduly protracted. Under these circumstances he submitted that it was a perfectly fair proposition that Progress should be reported when Clause 6 had been obtained. The Prime Minister had said it was essential to get the whole of the Committee stage to-night, otherwise the House of Lords might be involved in a Saturday sitting. But why was the Budget in its present position? Simply because of the interruption of the discussion for two or three weeks by the interposition of other measures of importance. Nobody had expected the Bill would be forced through at the present sitting. It was true the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said he intended to conclude the Committee stage, but everybody had regarded that as a piece of empty brag. Nobody imagined that the right hon. Gentleman seriously meant it, and still less that in the perpetration of so unprecedented and unfair an act the Prime Minister would be a willing accessory.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAMsaid the miners' representatives had preferred their modest request, honestly believing that the coal tax seriously affected the men they represented, and that they had a number of new facts to place before the Chancellor of the Exchequer which would tend to convince him that something ought to be done. Even if it was too late for any alteration to be made in the present year, they wished to put forward their case, so that something might be done at the earliest possible moment to redress the wrong from which many thousands of coal-workers were suffering. If the coal tax was to be discussed at the present sitting, the right hon. Gentleman would do well to order his breakfast, as he would require it before the discussion finished.
  MR. MCKENNA (who was received with cries of "Oh")said the shouts of hon. Gentlemen opposite were the most complete justification of the Motion to report Progress. Hon. Members who had not been in the House during the discussion had now attended in order to shout down those who had been sticking to their posts. He wished to state some reasons in favour of reporting Progress. His hon. friends who had spoken with regard to the coal tax had treated the subject with great delicacy. They had not referred toga fact which was patent to everybody, namely, that their arguments had no chance of being reported in the public Press, if the discussion took place now. What possible hope could they on the Opposition side of the House have that their arguments would have weight with the Government unless they had public opinion on their side? It was as surely muzzling the Committee to carry on a debate at that time or night (2.10 a.m.) as it was to introduce a muzzling order on the Licensing Bill. The Prime Minister said the case was hopeless for this year and that he would not alter the Budget. But if they could get public opinion on their side, they would get the tax taken off next year. This was their opportunity to get public opinion on their side in regard to the coal tax. The tax was imposed when the coal trade was prosperous, but since then there had been a series of reductions in the men's wages, and the
  538
  coal-owners were not deriving such good profits as before. This was a question affecting 100,000 men, and it was not reasonable that the Committee should be asked to discuss it at this hour. He appealed to the Prime Minister to allow Progress to be reported, in order that the coal tax might be discussed in the early hours of Friday's sitting when the debate could be reported.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsupported the appeal made to the Prime Minister by the representatives of the great mining industry. It was absolutely no use trying to convert the Government, but at any rate they should get the chance of educating public opinion. To say that they could educate public opinion by discussing the coal tax at three, four, or five in the morning was simply mocking them. Let the Prime Minister give them a chance of discussing the coal tax on Friday. How could the House of Commons discuss the question if they sat all night? [MINISTERIAL cheers.] Hon. Members opposite seemed rather to relish the idea. It was quite natural. They did not want to discuss anything. The appeal made to the Prime Minister by his hon. friends behind him was perfectly reasonable. What other business had the right hon. Gentleman got for Friday? [An HON. MEMBER: The Budget on Report.] Surely the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to take the whole of the Report stage of the Budget on one day.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never said that I hoped to finish the Report stage on Friday. What I said was that according to my forecast we should take the Report of this Bill on Friday, and as the coal tax is dealt with in a new clause it would come up early.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid financial business was work for Committee. When I the Prime Minister postponed discussions on everything important from the Committee to the Report stage, he was absolutely reversing the traditions of the House. It was not the first reversal, he was sorry to say, that the Prime Minister had initiated. The House of Commons was the only place in which this discussion could take

  539
  place. There were three speeches in 1853 which took five hours each to deliver; and the right hon. Gentleman ought to be grateful to hon. Members who had confined their speeches to the dimensions they had done. He really marvelled at the moderation of the discussion.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid it seemed to him that the proposal made was a most reasonable one, and if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to meet the views of those interested in the coal trade that would enable the Committee to get on to the new clauses. If the right hon. Gentleman would agree to that, he would withdraw his Motion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he understood that hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that discussion on the Report stage was of infinitely less importance than on the Committee stage. If so he would be willing to redistribute the time, giving more to the Committee and less to Report, but both stages must be finished on Monday. If assured that the Committee stage would finish on Friday, he would agree to give that day for the discussion of the coal tax.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he appreciated the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, but he did not think he was entitled to attach conditions to the proposals he had made.
  MR. FISONsaid that at the time the coal tax was introduced, he was very much opposed to it, and he had voted against it. Curiously enough, one part of his constituency which most approved of it was a mining centre. From his own personal knowledge, not having received one single complaint against it, he could say there was no real grievance in the coal tax.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that the general opinion was that the Report stage would be very much abbreviated if the discussion of the coal tax was then taken.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he wished to make a suggestion. His constituency had been very hard hit by the coal tax, and his suggestion was that the
  540
  House might sit on Saturday to discuss it. He was quite sure that all the hon Gentlemen who took an interest in the coal tax would be willing to sit then. while at the same time the object of the Prime Minister would be attained.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid he hoped that the Prime Minister's suggestion would be accepted, and that Friday should be given to the discussion of the coal tax. This tax directly affected over 4,000,000 of the inhabitants of this country, and he had received, both from colliery owners and others, communications of the strongest possible character to secure the repeal of the tax owing to the very serious injury which had been inflicted on the trade.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was prepared to accept the Prime Minister's offer to now report Progress and take the coal Resolutions and the rest of the Bill on Friday and to finish the Report stage on the following Monday. He thought, however, that the right hon. Gentleman was driving a very hard bargain.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURassured the Committee of his desire to meet their wishes consistently with the due progress of business. But in order that there should be no misunderstanding on a matter of public honour, he wished it to be understood that they were to finish the clauses of the Bill in Committee at that sitting and the remaining part of the Bill by half-past five on Friday. There might be some difficulty as to the reprinting of the Bill between Friday and Monday next, but he thought it would be possible to have the amended Bill printed and circulated on the Saturday morning.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked whether under those circumstances the Report stage could not be fixed for Tuesday instead of Monday.
  MR. LOUGHprotested that if the Report stage were to be taken on the Monday no time would be allowed in which to put down Amendments.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLagreed with the hon. Member for Poplar that the Prime Minister had offered them very hard terms. Everyone was anxious that the representatives of the great mining industry should have the opportunity of bringing their case forward at a fresh sitting when the House could properly consider the arguments. Could not the right hon. Gentleman confine the bargain to the Committee stage? It was unreasonable to desire to make a bargain upon the Report stage when they were only in the Committee stage.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid to comply with a request to confine the bargain to the Committee stage of the Bill would be the height of folly. He could not see how it was possible to devote a greater amount of time to the Bill than had been suggested. If it were difficult to take the Report stage on the Monday it might be possible to take it on the Tuesday.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he had often heard of bargains of this kind being made when Members were anxious to avoid an all-night sitting, but the bargains were always confined to one stage of the measure in question. To couple the Report and Committee stages was a very far-reaching bargain to attempt to drive in the middle of the night. The Committee were prepared to agree to conclude the Committee stage on Friday, but they were not unanimous about the Report stage. He suggested, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman should accept the undertaking with regard to the Committee stage, leaving the Report stage out of the question for the present.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the Committee would recognise the difficulty of collecting the opinion of hon. Members in two or three minutes. As far as he was able he endeavoured to ascertain that opinion, but apparently he did not obtain it correctly. Under these circumstances, it was clear that the proceedings must go on.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid it was evident from the cheers on the other side that there was an organised attempt to bully the Committee in this matter. If that was
  542
  the spirit abroad, the Opposition were quite prepared to fight. The suggestion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Northumberland was an essentially reasonable one, and, with a view to the rapid passage not only of the Bill before the Committee but also of other business, the Prime Minister would be well advised to fall in with the proposal.
  MR. TREVELYANpointed out that the sitting began with three quarters of an hour's obstruction by Ministerialists; then came the Motion for the adjournment—
  THE CHAIRMAN: We cannot fight all our battles over again.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid he was merely indicating that all the delay had not been caused by the Opposition. Most of the debate on the Motion for adjournment might have been avoided if any intimation whatever had been conveyed—
  THE CHAIRMAN: We cannot now go into the matter. I must ask the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Motion.
  MR. TREVELYANthought at any rate it would be in order to refer to the discussion on the income-tax clause. By far the greater part of that debate might have been avoided had the Chancellor of the Exchequer shown a more conciliatory spirit. When it could not be shown that the dilatory tactics of the Opposition had been worse than those of the supporters of the Government it was most unreasonable to ask the House to make such sacrifices as the right hon. Gentleman. demanded
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONhoped, in the interest of the dignity and efficiency of the House of Commons, the Prime Minister would agree to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Berwick Division. With his majority behind him the right hon. Gentleman could well afford to leave over the question of the conclusion of the Report stage, and the concession would probably save a double discussion on the coal tax. As they intended to act upon the Prime Minister's

  543
  suggestion that they should educate public opinion with regard to this iniquitous tax, it would be absolutely necessary to rediscuss it on the Report stage of the Finance Bill, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether that sort of arrangement was likely to facilitate and forward business.
  MR. EUGENE WASONthought it a thousand pities that when they were on the point of coming to an agreement negotiations were broken off; and he ventured to urge that the right hon. Gentleman might so far meet them as to agree to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Berwick.
  MR. EMMOTTsaid he should like to add one word of appeal. There
  were two matters which had prolonged the discussion and led to the breakdown of arrangements. The Prime Minister told them first of all that he must have the Bill on Monday night, and then they found it was not necessary to have it by Monday night at all. That was one thing. The other was this. Hon. Members opposite called out that they desired to sit all night. He thought, however, they on that side would be able to last out as long as hon. Members opposite. He really hoped the suggestion of his hon. friend would be accepted by the Prime Minister.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 75; Noes, 168. (Division List No. 253.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Harcourt Lewis V. (Rossendale

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Roberts, John H.(Denbighs.)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Runciman, Walter

  Asher, Alexander

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Shackleton, David James

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Bell, Richard

  Joyce, Michael

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Brigg, John

  Kennedy,Vincent P. (Cavan,W

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Law,Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Tennant, Harold John

  Caldwell, James

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas,Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas,David Alfred (Merthyr

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lloyd-George, David

  Toulmin, George

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Lough, Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Delany, William

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Doogan, P. C.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Elibank, Master of

  M`Crae, George

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Ellice,CaptEC(S Andrw'sBghs)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Whiteley, George (York,W.R.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Malley, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Partington, Oswald

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Price, Robert John

  William M'Arthur.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Priestley, Arthur

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E.(Berwick)

  Rea, Russell

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Brassey, Albert

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O.

  Bull, William James

  Craig,Curtis Charles (Antrim,S.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Butcher, John George

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

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

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Balcarres, Lord

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Davenport, William Bromley

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

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Denny, Colonel

  Balfour,RtHn.GeraldW.(Leeds

  Cavendish,V.C. W. (Derbyshire

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dorington,Rt.Hon. Sir John E.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Bingham, Lord

  Charrington, Spencer

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Dyke,Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ridley,S.Forde (Bethnal Green

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Faber,Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Loder, Gerald Wa0lter Erskine

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Long,Col.CharlesW. (Evesham

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  FitzGerald,Sir Robert Penrose

  Lowe, Francis William

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Fitzroy,Hn. Edward Algernon

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lucas,Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Foster,PhilipS.(Warwick,S. W.

  Lucas,Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Smith,HC (North'mb.Tyneside

  Gardner, Ernest

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Smith,RtHn J.Parker(Lanarks

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

  Maconochie, A. W.

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

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  M'Iver,SirLewis (EdinburghW

  Spear, John Ward

  Graham, Henry Robert

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Greene,SirEW.(B'ryS.Edm ndS

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Thompson, Dr. E C(Monagh'n,N

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Greene. W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Maxwell,W.J.H (Dumfriesshire

  Tomlinson, Sir. Wm. Edw. M.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Tuff, Charles

  Gretton, John

  Milvain, Thomas

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Groves, James Grimble

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hardy,Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Morgan, David J.(Walthamstow

  Vincent,Col.SirCEH(Sheffield)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Heath,Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Welby,SirCharles G.E.(Notts.)

  Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Hobhouse,RtHn H.(Somers't,E

  Murray,RtHn.A.Graham (Bute

  Williams, Colonel R.(Dorset)

  Hope,J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Howard,John(Kent,Faversham

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wilson,A.Stanley (York,E.R

  Hozier, Hon. James HenryCecil

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Wortley,Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Hunt, Rowland

  Percy, Earl

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Jeffreys,Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Kenyon-Slaney,Rt. Hn Col. W.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Kerr, John

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Keswick, William

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

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

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Lee,Arthur H.(Hants.,Fareham

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  MR. CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question, 'That the clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYspeaking seated and covered, said he had an important Amendment on the Paper which he had put down practically at the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman himself, and which he had heard the Government intended to accept. Was that to be shut out by this Motion? If so, it having been placed on the Paper at the invitation of the right hon.
  Gentleman, he thought it extremely harsh treatment on the part of the Government.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the point raised by the hon. Member was not a point of order. Moreover, the Amendment to which he referred was down in the wrong place.
  Question put, "That the Question That the clause stand part of the Bill' be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 167; Noes, 74. (Division List No. 254.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Balfour,Rt.Hn.GeraldW(Leeds

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.

  Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Bingham, Lord

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Murray,RtHn.A.Graharn(Bute

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gretton, John

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

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

  Groves, James Grimble

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Brassey, Albert

  Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

  O'Neill, Non. Robert Torrens

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Percy, Earl

  Bull, William James

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Butcher, John George

  Heath,James (Staffords.,N.W.

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

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

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hobhouse,RtHnH.(Somers't,E

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hope,J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Pym, C. Guy

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Howard,John(Kent,Faversham

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hozier,Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ridley, Hn. M.W.(Stalybridge

  Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Ridley, S. Forde(BethnalGreen

  Charrington, Spencer

  Kenyon-Slaney-,RtHn. Col. W.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Kerr, John

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  Keswick, William

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim S.

  Lawson,JohnGrant(Yorks,N.R

  Sackville,ColonelS.G.Stopford)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lee,ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Davenport. W. Bromley

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Smith,H.C.(North'mbTyneside

  Denny, Colonel

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Smith,RtHnJ Parker(Lanarks

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham

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

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Long,RtHnWalter (Bristol, S.)

  Spear, John Ward

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnE.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lowe, Francis William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Thompson.DrE.C.(Monagh'n,N

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Thornton, Percy, M.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lucas,Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Tuff, Charles

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Tufnell, Liout.-Col. Edward

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Valentia Viscount

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Vincent,ColSirC.E.H.(Sheffield

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(EdinburghW

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Fison, Frederick William

  M`Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Majendie, A. H.

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

  Fitzroy,Hon.Edward Algernon

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Forster, Henry William

  Maxwell, W.J.H(Dumfriesshire

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

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

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Milner,Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Gardner, Ernest

  Milvain, Thomas

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Morgan,David J(Walthamstow

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

  Greene,SirE.W(B'ryS.Edm'nds

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Greene,Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Mount, William Arthur

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Joicey, Sir James

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Elibank, Master of

  Jones,William(Carnarvonshire

  Allen, Charles P.

  Ellice,CaptEC((S.Andrw'sBghs

  Joyce, Michael

  Asher, Alexander

  Emmott, Alfred

  Kennedy, VincentP.(Cavan,W.

  Atherlev-Jones, L.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Levy, Maurice

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bell, Richard

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Brigg, John

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Lough, Thomas

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Grey,Rt. Hn. Sir E.(Berwick)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Caldwell, James

  Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

  M'Crae, George

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  M`Kenna, Reginald

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Delany, William

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  548

  549

  O'Malley, William

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Partington, Oswald

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Price, Robert John

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Priestly, Arthur

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

  Rea, Russell

  Sullivan, Donal

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Tennant, Harold John

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Runciman, Walter

  Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland

  Toulmin, George

  Herbert Gladstone and

  Shackleton, David James

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Question put accordingly.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 166; Noes, 70. (Division List No. 255.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Forster, Henry William

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Milner,Rt.Hn.Sir Frederick G.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Milvain, Thomas

  Arrol, Sir William

  Gardner, Ernest

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gordon,HnJ E(Elgin &Nairn)

  Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Balcarres, Lord

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Balfour, Rt HnA.J.(Manch'rE.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Balfour,Rt Hn GeraldW(Leeds

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Balfour,Kenneth R. (Christch.)

  Greene,Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Bathurst,Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.

  Murray,Rt HnA Graham(Bute

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Bingham, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Groves, James Grimble

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Bowles,Lt.-Col.H F (Middlesex

  Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashford

  Percy, Earl

  Brassey, Albert

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bull, William James

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Butcher, John George

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Campbell,J H M(DublinUniv.

  Hobhouse,Rt Hn H(Somers'tE

  Pym, C. Guy

  Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edward

  Hope,J F(Sheffield,Brightside

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Howard,John(Kent,Faversham

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Cavendish,V. C. W.(Derbysbire

  Hozier, Hon.James Henry Cecil

  Ridley,Hn. M. W.(Stalybridge

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ridley,S.Forde(BethnalGreen

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Kenyon-Slaney,Rt Hn. Col. W.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Chamberlain,RtHnJ.A.(Worc.)

  Kerr, John

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Keswick, William

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

  Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lawson,John Grant(YorksN.R

  Sackville, Col, S. G. Stopford

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lee,Arthur H(Hants.,Fareham

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Craig,Charles Curtis(AntrimS.)

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Saville

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Smith,H C(North'mb.Tyneside

  Davenport, W. Bromley

  Long, Col.Charles W.(Evesham

  Smith,RtHnJ. Parker (Lanarks

  Denny, Colonel

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

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Spear, John Ward

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Dorington,Rt. Hon.Sir John E.

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Doughty, Sir George

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Thompson,DrE.C.(Monagh'n,N

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Tuff, Charles

  Dyke,Rt Hon.Sir William Hart

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Vincent,Col SirC.EH(Sheffield

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  M'Iver,Sir Lewis(EdinburghW

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  M`Killop,James (Stirlingshire)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Fison, Frederick William

  Majendie, James A. H.

  FitzGerald,Sir Robert Penrose

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Wentworth,Bruce C. Vernon

  Fitzroy,Hon.Edward Algernon

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn.W. F.

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Maxwell,W J. H.(Dumfriesshire

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Grey,RtHnSir E. (Berwick)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

  Rea, Russell

  Allen, Charles P.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Asher, Alexander

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Horniman, John Frederick

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Shackleton, David James

  Brigg, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Shaw, CharlesEdward(Stafford

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Joyce, Michael

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Caldwell, James

  Kennedy,Vincent P(Cavan,W.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Tennant, Harold John

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas,Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr

  Delany, William

  Lloyd-George, David

  Toulmin, George

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Elibank, Master of

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Ellice,CaptE C(S Andrw'sBgbs

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Crae, George

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Freeman, Thomas Captain F.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilk enny)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Malley, William

  Lough and Mr. Runciman.

  Gladstone,Rt HnHerbert John

  Partington, Oswald

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Price, Robert John

  Clause 7—
  MR. MCCRAEsaid that with the exception of the tax on tea this was the most serious proposition in the Finance Bill. It went directly in the teeth of all principles of sound finance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had sheltered himself behind what Mr. Gladstone had done in regard to unclaimed dividends, but the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor had applied them to a reduction of debt instead of taking them for revenue purposes. This was an extraordinary proposal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was faced with a deficit of £5,140,000, and to meet that deficit he took £2,800,000 from the Exchequer which had been raised by way of loan, and was going to apply this £1,000,000 from the unclaimed dividends. This was not only a departure from the principles of sound finance, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not fairly and squarely meeting his liabilities by the imposition of taxation. The deficit of last year and this year ought to have been met out of taxation, but the right hon. Gentleman had taken a course which no financial authority would approve. The un-claimed dividends ought to be applied to
  552
  the reduction of the National Debt. He made bold to say that at no period in the history of the country was there greater necessity for reducing the capital indebtedness of the nation, not only because of its financial, but of its moral effect. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would seriously consider the Amendment and give an opportunity to apply the unclaimed dividends to the reduction of the National Debt.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 25, to leave out the words from the word 'shall' to the word 'out,' in line 26, and insert the word 'pay.'"— (Mr. McCrae.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he saw nothing financially unsound in the proposal to cancel the stock. The present time called upon the taxpayers to make great sacrifices, and they ought not to be called upon to raise extra taxation for this special purpose. Not only would he not call upon the taxpayer to make this extra sacrifice, but he would I not be a party to it.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put forward a most extraordinary plea. It was on the same footing as a householder who said, "I am so badly off that I must sell my furniture." That situation was characteristic of this Government, which had been driven into a corner. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must not be too sure that this money belonged to the State. This proposal could not be defended on the ground of sound finance. The effect of this expedient would be to mislead the public as to the amount of their expenditure. No really adequate explanation of the proposal had been given, and the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had dealt with the matter was a proof of the absolute folly and the farcical character of discussions taken at that hour of the morning. The proposal was absolutely unprecedented. The right hon. Gentleman was escheating the property of private persons, and Governments had done nothing of the kind since the time of Henry VIII.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid it was exactly the same as Mr. Gladstone had done.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it was exactly what Mr. Gladstone did not do. To apply the money to the repayment of debt was a very different thing from using it for current revenue. The proposal of his hon. friend was admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be a perfectly sound one; it had the authority of the greatest finance Minister the country had ever seen; and yet it was perfunctorily dealt with in a speech lasting less than two minutes. That was respectful neither to the House of Commons nor to the traditions of the right hon. Gentleman's own office, and it was the greatest condemnation of the action of the Government in forcing so important a measure through Committee at four o'clock in the morning. The Committee knew where this money was going to; it was going to pay for the extravagances of the Government. But where was it coming from? Why did not the Government admit that they had run into debt, and therefore were forced to find the money somewhere and some-
  554
  how? The Government had evidently come to the conclusion that all they had to do was to formulate their proposals, and that the House of Commons was not to discuss, but to pass them. It was time the Committee made it perfectly clear that that was a position they could not accept. The prime function of the Committee of the House of Commons was to discuss Supply and redress grievances. The right hon. Gentleman was forcing his proposals through, knowing that he could depend upon his majority, which was mechanical in more senses than one It was a monstrous and perfectly unparalleled proceeding that £1,000,000 should be taken from that money without the transaction being explained.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is wandering from the question before the Committee.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE,proceeding, said that if anybody could explain what this fund was he should be pleased to resume his seat. Could anybody tell him what the fund was, or where it came from? This conduct on the part of the Government was really quite in keeping with most of their legislation. The only defence they had was the defence the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave at the very start when he said:"We are poor and needy, and really we have got to get our cash somehow."
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid his hon. friend had shown the enormous disadvantages under which they were discussing the proposal. Here at that hour in the morning they were asked to discuss a totally new subject of great complication and difficulty, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had only condescended to give them two-and-a-half minutes explanation. He thought the hon. Member who moved the Amendment made out a strong case against the Chancellor of the Exchequer which he had not attempted to meet. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in these debates had been fond of quoting Mr. Gladstone, either correcting him or following his example. When he corrected him, he put a tax on stripped tobacco and lost all his revenue, because he gave it back in rebates, and now they had it stated that he was

  555
  following his example. But he was certainly not following his example when, instead of using the money for the extinction of the Debt, he used it for current purposes. The right hon. Gentleman defended his actions on the ground that he wanted money. That, of course, was the chronic state of the present Government, and surely it was no defence to say that he had such a large deficit in the last year as to frighten him, so that he dared not impose taxation to meet it. Had he wanted to follow Mr. Gladstone's example, he would have asked the House to allow him to propose taxation to meet his deficiency. There were two ways of dealing with this deficiency. One was to borrow this money, which ought to have gene to the extinction of the National Debt, and the other was to carry over the deficiency of £1,500,000. He was going to meet some of it by the surplus he expected to have in hand upon the taxation of the current year. It was not a sound transaction for a Government which had reduced the credit of the country to its present state to take £1,000,000 of Consols and sell them in the open market. The financial position as evidenced by this transaction was a very serious one, and the methods adopted for dealing with it would not redound to the credit of the Government.
  MR. RUNCIMANcomplained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not explained whether the money he proposed to appropriate would remain the property of the anonymous owners. He understood that it would, inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman himself had said that claims amounting to £4,000 or £5,000 were made each year upon this fund; therefore if any of this money was subsequently claimed it would be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to float new Debt. The likelihood of that contingency arising was doubtless remote, but it made no difference to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was meeting current expenditure out of a loan not yet raised and not out of current taxation. The assertion that to raise further taxation for the purpose of meeting the expenses of the year would be financially unsound was the most absurd statement ever made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  556
  to the House of Commons. The total expenditure of the year, amounting to £153,000,000, was being met by £140,000,000 of taxation and about £12,000,000 loans. That was a serious situation which had not been made clear to the country. The particular transaction under discussion, however, was only one of a series for which the present Budget was remarkable; it was one of the numerous makeshifts for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible; and it proved the Budget to be financially unsound, because it increased the burdens of the country and did not meet current expenditure out of current revenue.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that at first he was surprised that the Government did not want this discussion to be taken when it could be recorded in the newspapers, but he was surprised no longer. After the total lack of defence or justification it was perfectly clear why it was desired to hustle the matter through at such an inconvenient hour. The proposal to take £1,000,000 from the unclaimed dividends account was an astounding one in itself. Could the right hon. Gentleman state the total amount of the fund?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: About £1,750,000.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that that meant that the right hon. Gentleman was taking four-sevenths of the sum which had been laboriously accumulated during a long period of years and using it simply to pay the out-of-pocket expenses of the Government. In time of peace the right hon. Gentleman had by questionable methods produced £1,000,000 merely for the purpose of relieving himself from the necessity of imposing taxation. That was a discouraging fact and was not at all creditable to the right hon. Gentleman's financial principles. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly ready to allow spending Departments to spend on a scale that had never been permitted before, but when it came to paying the bill, instead of imposing fresh taxation which would have enabled the country to realise the true financial position, he secretly abstracted £1,000,000 from this

  557
  fund. The country at large did not realise how the Chancellor of the Exchequer had attempted to balance the account. Rather than impose taxation to meet current expenditure, he had abstracted £1,000,000 from the unclaimed dividends account for this special purpose. Taxation pressed hardly on the people of this country, but there was one thing about it which was healthy, and that was its disciplinary effect. It was unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman who had been called at an early age to fill a high office should have lamentably disappointed the hopes of his well-wishers. He could well imagine that an occasion might arise when it would be legitimate for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go to this reserve fund and to take some money from it. But during the South African War the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol refused to be a party to such a transaction as this. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how long this kind of thing was to go on. The right hon. Gentleman might get the proposal through this time, but what was his successor going to do? He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to think not only of himself but of those who would follow him. He was very anxious indeed that they should arrive at a compromise on this subject, and it was his intention to move that the amount should be £500,000 instead of £1,000,000. He urged the Committee to examine this proposal with the greatest attention. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had advanced no argument to justify it at all, and until the Committee got more information it was their duty to resist the proposal to the utmost.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he took part in the discussion as a business man who wished to see matters carried out on a businesslike footing. Hon. Members would agree with him that the chief characteristic of any business man should be the ability to distinguish between what was capital and what was revenue. One of the worst parts of the Budget was this particular clause now before the Committee. They had discussed the merits of stripped tobacco, and the merits of the tea duty, which was particularly obnoxious to the working people of the country.
  THE CHAIRMAN (who had at this point relieved Mr. JEFFREYS)said that the hon. Member was discussing everything but the Question before the House.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid that what he was trying to make good was that the particular features embodied in the clause they were now discussing were very much worse than any other in the Bill. Just think what a temptation there would be to any impecunious Chancellor of the Exchequer who had overstepped prudence in expenditure, to lay violent hands on these large sums of unclaimed dividends when his Treasury was empty. The right hon. Gentleman might do so by means of his pliant majority, but he was sure the right hon. Gentleman himself must have qualms of conscience. Was this particular sum of money to be regarded in the future as a kind of "Tom Tidler's ground"? The right hon. Gentleman had no right whatever to absorb any part of this money; but he was trying to dam the lade, and was practically dipping his hands into the fund which ought to remain for some critical national eventuality. His own contention was that these sums ought to go to the reduction of the National Debt. The right hon. Gentleman should find some other means of meeting the large and extravagant expenditure of the Government. Was it not wonderful that when this Government came into power Consols were higher than ever they were before, and now Consols were lower than they ever were before? He was sure that the Government and the country would look back with regret on this, the worst piece of finance the House had ever considered.
  MR. AINSWORTHwished to put the case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that these unused assets could only he employed in reduction of the National Debt. The country had been getting the benefit of these unpaid dividends all this time and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to use them in order to make up his deficit he could only do so by increasing the national indebtedness. The moment that dividends were unclaimed the stocks became dead and the nation

  559
  and the Chancellor of the Exchequer reaped the benefit of them. In this case the Chancellor of the Exchequer was acting in a way to mislead the public and the House of Commons. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take the whole matter into serious consideration and put himself in a position to give them a sufficient explanation on the Report stage.
  MR. McKENNAasked why the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not sell Suez Canal shares or mortgage Westminster Abbey in order to make up his deficit. The right hon. Gentleman was realising the country's assets in order to pay his debts, and if they allowed that form of realisation of assets to take place they would never have any assets in the country. This was an expedient to cover up the extravagant expenditure of the Government. It was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to clear off the burdens of each year out of the revenue of each year. He hoped that when the time came the right hon. Gentleman would at any rate go half way, and that he would accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for
  Oldham and be content with realising only £500,000 of public property.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLasked whether no answer of any kind was to he vouchsafed to the Committee. Under circumstances of great physical irritation the debate had been conducted with much good-humour and patience, but it was pushing the temper of the Committee to the extreme verge when the Chancellor of the Exchequer sat there and gave no answer to the Questions put to him. Were they to be confronted with the fact that the two representatives of the Treasury were perfectly unable to give practical reasons for this proposal. It would facilitate the proceedings if the right hon. Gentleman gave answers to the Questions put to him; but instead of that, he sat on the Treasury Bench with a stony glare, saying nothing. The course the right hon. Gentleman was taking would not add to his financial reputation.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 158; Noes, 65. (Division List. No 256.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Davenport, W. Bromley

  Heath,ArthurHoward (Hanley

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Denny, Colonel

  Heath,James(Staffords. N.W.)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hope,J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Doughty, Sir George

  Howard,John (Kent,Favers'm)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Hozier, Hon.James HenryCecil

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Hunt, Rowland

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

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Dyke, Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart

  Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hn. Col. W.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Kerr, John

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants.,W.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Bingham, Lord

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Blundell. Colonel Henry

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

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

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

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lee,ArthurH (Hants.,Fareham

  Brassey, Albert

  FitzGerald,Sir Robert Penrose

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edw. Algernon

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Bull, William James

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Locler, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Campbell, J.H. M. (DublinUniv.

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

  Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Galloway, William Johnson

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

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Gardner, Ernest

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

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

  Lowe, Francis William

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  ChamberlainRtHnJA(Worcest.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Lucas,Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Greene,SirEW(B'ry S.Edm'nds

  Lucas,Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Gretton, John

  Maconochie A. W

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Groves, James Grimble

  M`Iver,SirLewis (EdinburghW

  Craig, Charles Curtis (AntrimS.

  Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Massey-Mainwairing, Hn. W.F.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Thompson,Dr.EC(Monagh'n,N

  Maxwell,W.J.H (Dumfriesshire

  Pym, C. Guy

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Ratcliff. R. F.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Milner,Rt.Hn.Sir Frederick G.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Tuff, Charles

  Milvain, Thomas

  Ridley,Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Ridley,S. Forde (Bethnal Green

  Valentia, Viscount

  Morgan,DavidJ(Walthamstow

  Robert, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Vincent,Col.SirCEH (Sheffield)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Rutherford, W. W.(Liverpool)

  Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Williams, Colonel R.(Dorset)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Murray,Rt Hn.A.Graham(Bute

  Scott, Sir S.(Marylebone, W.)

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

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Smith,H.C(North'mb Tyneside

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Percy, Earl

  Smith,Rt.HnJ.Parker(Lanarks

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

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

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Spear, John Ward

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Talbot, Lord E.(Chichester)

  Mr. Ailwvn Fellowes.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Priestley, Arthur

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Rea, Russell

  Allen, Charles P.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Asher, Alexander

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Runciman, Walter

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Bell,Richard

  Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

  Shackleton, David James

  Brigg, John

  Joyce, Michael

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Sullivan, Donal

  Caldwell, James

  Levy, Maurice

  Tennant, Harold John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas,Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

  Delany, William

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thomas,DavidAlfred (Merthyr

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lough, Thomas

  Toulmin, George

  Elibank, Master of

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Ellice,CaptEC(S Andrw'sBghs)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Walton, Joseph(Barnsley)

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro(Leith)

  M'Crae, George

  Wason,Eugene(Clackmannan)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Gladstone,Rt.Hn. HerbertJohn

  O'Brien, Patrick(Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Grey,Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick)

  O'Malley, William

  Churchill and Mr. Emmott.

  Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

  Partington, Oswald

  MR. CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question, 'That the clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put.'"
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE,speaking seated, asked as a point of order if there was any precedent for the closure being moved on a new tax in Committee on a Finance Bill after only two and a half minutes explanation from a Minister.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid no point of order arose. The closure could be moved at. any time, and it was for the Chairman to accept or refuse the Motion.
  Question put. "That the Question, 'That the clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 157; Noes, 65. (Division List No. 257.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Balcarres, Lord

  Bingham, Lord

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

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

  Arrol, Sir William

  Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.

  Brassey, Albert

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Bull, William James

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv.

  Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Percy, Earl

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Howard, Jn.(Kent, Faversham

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cecil, Evelyn(Aston Manor)

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Chamberlain,Rt Hn.J.A(Worc.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pym, C. Guy

  Charrington, Spencer

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hn. Col.W.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Kerr, John

  Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Ridley, S.Forde(Bethnal Green

  Corbett, T. L.(Down, North)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.)

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

  Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

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

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Denny, Colonel

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Scott, Sir S.(Marylebone, W.)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Long, Col.CharlesW.(Evesham)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Doughty, Sir George

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

  Smith,H C(North'mb.Tyneside

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Smith,RtHn.J.Parker(Lanarks

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Lowe, Francis William

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

  Durning-Lawrence,Sir Edwin

  Lowther, C.(Cumb., Eskdale)

  Spear, John Ward

  Dyke, Rt.Hn.Sir William Hart

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Talbot, Lord E.(Chichester)N

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Thompson,DrE.C(Monagh'n,N.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Fison, Frederick William

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tuff, Charles

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  M'Iver,Sir Lewis(Edinburgh,W

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  M`Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Majendie, James A. H.

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

  Forster, Henry William

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

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

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Gardner, Ernest

  Milner, Rt.Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

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

  Milvain, Thomas

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Greene,Sir E.W(B'rySEdm'nds

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Wyndham-Quin Col. W. H.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Mount, William Arthur

  Gretton, John

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AXES—Sir

  Groves, James Grimble

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

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Nicholson, William Graham

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)

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

  Asher, Alexander

  Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Malley, William

  Bell, Richard

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Partington, Oswald

  Brigg, John

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Priestley, Arthur

  Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rea, Russell

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Joicey, Sir James

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Runciman, Walter

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Joyce, Michael

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Kennedy, VincentP.(Cavan,W.

  Shackleton, David James

  Delany, William

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Levy, Maurice

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Elibank, Master of

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sullivan, Donal

  Ellice,Capt E.C(SAndrw'sBghs

  Lloyd-George, David

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lough, Thomas

  Tennant, Harold John

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Crae, George

  Toulmin, George

  564

  565

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wason,Eugene(Clackmannan)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Walton, Josph (Barnsley)

  Whiteley, George(York, W.R.)

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  William M'Arthur.

  Question put accordingly.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 158; Noes, 65. (Division List No. 258.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Graham, Henry Robert

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

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gray, Ernest(West Ham)

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Greene, SirE.W(B'r ySEdm'nds

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Balcarres, Lord

  Greene, W. Raymond(Cambs.)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Percy, Earl

  Balfour, Rt Hn GeraldW(Leeds

  Gretton, John

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Hardy, L.(Kent, Ashford)

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bingham, Lord

  Hay, Hon, Claude George

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Pym, C. Guy

  Bowles,Lt.-CoJ.H F(Middlesex

  Heath, Tames (Staffords., N. W.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Brassey, Albert

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

  Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

  Bull, William James

  Howard, Jn.(Kent, Faversham

  Ridley, S.Forde(Bethnal Green

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Roberts, Samuel(Sheffield)

  Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv

  Hunt, Rowland

  Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col.W.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.

  Kerr, John

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)

  Scott, Sir S.(Marylebone, W.)

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

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

  Seely, Charles Hilton(Lincoln)

  Charrington, Spencer

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

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Lees, Sir Elliott(Birkenhead)

  Smith,H C(North'mb.Tyneside

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith,RtHn J.Parker(Lanarks

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

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

  Corbett, T. L.(Down, North)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Spear, John Ward

  Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.)

  Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

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

  Talbot, Lord E.(Chichester)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Thompson,Dr.E C(Monagh'n,N

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Lowe, Francis William

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Denny, Colonel

  Lowther, C.(Cumb., Eskdale)

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tuff, Charles

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Valentia, Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Darning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Dyke, Rt. Hn.Sir William Hart

  M'Iver, SirLewis(Edinburgh,W

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  M`Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Williams, Colonel R.(Dorset)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Maxwell. W.J.H. (Dumfriessh.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Fison, Frederick William

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Milner, Rt.Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Milvain, Thomas

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Forster, Henry William

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

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

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Bell, Richard

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Brigg, John

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Allen, Charles P.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Delany, William

  Asher, Alexander

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Doogan, P. C.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Caldwell, James

  Elibank, Master of

  Ellice,Capt E.C(SAndrw'sBghs

  Levy, Maurice

  Shackleton, David James

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lloyd-George, David

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Lough, Thomas

  Sullivan, Donal

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Tennant, Harold John

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan,E.)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  M'Crae, George

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Toulmin, George

  Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Trevelyn, Charles Philips

  Healy, Timothy Michael

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

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Higham, John Sharpe

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Malley, William

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Partington, Oswald

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Priestley, Arthur

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Rea, Russell

  Joyce, Michael

  Rickett, J. Compton

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W.

  Runciman, Walter

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  William M'Arthur.

  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I rise to a point of order. I desire to draw your attention to the fact that it is now broad daylight and to ask whether it would not be for the convenience of the Committee and in the interest of true economy that the top lights should be extinguished.
  Clause 8.
  MR. SOARESsaid he begged to move the omission of the words, "and the Acts amending that Act," his object being to enumerate each particular Act. They were not given any reference, marginal or otherwise, to the Acts with which this one was to be construed, relating to the duties of Excise and Customs. This was another very bad example of legislation by reference, which was growing up under the present Government. There was another example in reference to drawbacks. This matter was well worthy of the attention of the Attorney-General. The right hon. and learned Gentleman Might very well find time to codify these Acts. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 34, to leave out the words 'and the Acts amending that Act.' "—(Mr. Soares.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that the hon. Member had entirely misconceived legislation by reference. This was the invariable way of incorporating Acts of this kind—the ordinary form of drafting,
  568
  and it would be a childish waste of time to frame the clause in any other way.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid it would be a great pity if they had to listen to the hon. and learned Gentleman in these debates with any acerbity of manner. He was bound to say that the Government refused every proposal, however reasonable. It seemed to him that the Government could hardly object to the proposal of the hon. Member, which was not only a simple plan, but a very convenient one. There was a growing inconvenience caused by legislation by reference.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that the Attorney-General seemed to know all about the clause. Would his hon. and learned friend say how many Acts and amending Acts would be included in the operation of this clause.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid the hon. Gentleman would find the information he wanted in the Index to the Statutes.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred him to a book which he had never heard of before. He supposed he could go to the Library of the House of Commons and consult it there, bat he did not see why he should be forced to do that. Why should there be anything in these Acts which the ordinary person who had to obey them could not understand and would have to go through all these books in order to understand, although he might not have any means of access to the books? He thought the Attorney-General had

  569
  not met this matter in a proper spirit at all. He maintained that legislation by reference was a growing scandal.
  Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERALrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLasked if the Chairman had given the closure on
  the whole of the clause, or simply on the Amendment to this sub-section.
  THE CHAIRMAN: On the Amendment.
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 155; Noes, 65. (Division List No. 259.)

  AYES

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gosohen, Hon. George Joachim

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Murray, Rt.HnAGraham(Bute

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Greene,SirEW.(B'ryS. Ed m'nds

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Balcarres, Lord

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Percy, Earl

  Balfour,Rt.HnGeraldW.(Leeds

  Gretton, John

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Here, Thomas Leigh

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bingham, Lord

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col.Edward

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Heath,ArthurHoward(Hanley)

  Pym, C. Guy

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

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

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Brassey, Albert

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Reid, James(Greenock)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

  Ridley, Hon.M.W.(Stalybridge

  Bull, William James

  Howard,John(Kent,Faversham

  Ridley, S.Forde(BethnalGreen

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hozier,Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Roberts, Samuel(Sheffield)

  Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Robertson, Herbert(Hackney)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbyshire

  Kenyon-Slaney,RtHon.Col.W.

  Rutherford, W. W.(Liverpool)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Kerr, John

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Chambarlain,RtHn.J. A.(Worc.

  Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)

  Scott, Sir S.(Marylebone, W.)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lawson, JohnGrant(Yorks.N.R

  Skewes-Cox,Thomas

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Lee, ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham

  Smith, HC(North'mb.Tyneside

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

  Lees, Sir Elliott(Birkenhead)

  Smith,Rt HnJParker(Lanarks)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

  Corbett, T. L (Down, North)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Spear, John Ward

  Craig, CharlesCurtis(Antrim,S.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Long, Col.CharlesW(Evesham)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Long, Rt.HnWalter(Bristol,S.)

  Thompson,DrEC(Monagh'n,N.

  Davenport, W. Bromley

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Denny, Colonel

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tuff, Charles

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col.Edward

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lucas, ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth

  Valentia, Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Vincent, Col.SirCEH(Sheffield)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Dyke, Rt.Hon.SirWilliamHart

  11tIver, SirLewis(EdinburghW

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Williams, Colonel R.(Dorset)

  Faber, Edmund B.(Hants, W.)

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Maxwell, WJH(Dumfriesshire)

  Wortley, Rt.Hon. C.B. Stuart

  Fison, Frederick William

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  FitzGerald, Sir RobertPenrose

  Milner,Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon George

  Fitzroy, Hon.EdwardAlgernon

  Milvain, Thomas

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Forster, Henry William

  Morgan, DavidJ(Walthamstow

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

  Foster PhilipS.(Warwick,S.W.)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Allen, Charles P.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Asher, Alexander

  Bell, Richard

  Brigg, John

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Runciman, Walter

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Caldwell, James

  Joyce, Michael

  Shackleton, David James

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan,W

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Delany, William

  Levy, Maurice

  Sullivan, Donal

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tennant, Harold John

  Elibank, Master of

  Lloyd-George, David

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan,E.)

  Ellice, CaptEC(SAndrew'sBgh

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomas, DavidAlfred (Merthyr

  Emmott, Alfred

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Toulmin, George

  Fenwick, Charles

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  M'Crae, George

  Walton, Joseph(Barnsley)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wason, Eugene(Clackmnannan)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Whiteley, George(York, W.R.)

  Grey,Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Harcourt, LewisV.(Rossendale

  O'Malley, William

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Partington, Oswald

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Priestley, Arthur

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rea, Russell

  William M'Arthur.

  Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 156; Noes, 64. (Division List No.260.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Long, Col. CharlesW(Evesham

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Faber, Edmund B.(Hants, W.)

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

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Arrol, Sir William

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lowther, C.(Cumb., Eskdale)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fison, Frederick William

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  FitzGerald, Sir RobertPenrose

  Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Fitzroy, Hon.EdwardAlgern on

  Lucas, ReginaldJ(Portsmouth)

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

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Balfour, Rt Hn GeraldW(Leeds

  Forster, Henry William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.

  Foster, PhilipS.Warwick, S.W.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Bathurst, Hon. AllenBenjamin

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M`Iver, SirLewis(EdinburghW

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Killop, James(Stirlingshire)

  Bingham, Lord

  Gordon, HnJE(Elgin&Nairn)

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

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

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Maxwell, W.J.H(Dumfriesshire

  Brassey, Albert

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Brodrick, Rt. Bon. St. John

  Greene,Sir EW(B'rySEdm'nds'

  Milner, Rt.Hn.SirFrederickG.

  Bull, William James

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv.

  Gretton, John

  Morgan, David J(Walthamst'w

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Mount, William Arthur

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

  Heath, ArthurHoward(Hanley)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Charrington, Spencer

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

  Murray, RtHnAGraham(Bute

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

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

  Hope,J.F. (Sheffield,Brightside

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Howard, John(Kent,Faversha'

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hozier, Hon.JamesHenryCecil

  Percy, Earl

  Craig, CharlesCurtis(AntrimS.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Jeffreys, Rt Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hon.Col.W

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Davenport, W. Bromley

  Kerr, John

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Denny, Colonel

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lawson, JohnGrant(Yorks.N.R

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lee, ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Ridley, Hon.M.W.(Stalybridge

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Ridley, S. Forde(BethnalGreen

  Doming-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Dyke, Rt. Hon.SirWilliamHart

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Talbot, Lord E.(Chichester)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Rutherford, W. W.(Liverpool)

  Thompson,DrEC(Monagh'n,N

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

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wortley, Rt.Hon.C.B.Stuart

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Scott, Sir S.(Marylebone, W.)

  Tuff, Charles

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Valentia, Viscount

  Smith, H. C.(North'mbTynesid

  Vincent,Col.SirC.EH(Sheffield)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir

  Smith, RtHnJParker(Lanarks

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

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

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Spear, John Ward

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Harcourt,LewisV(Rossendale

  Partington, Oswald

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Priestley, Arthur

  Asher, Alexander

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Rea, Russell

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bell, Richard

  Johnson, John(Gateshead)

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Brigg, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Shackleton, David James

  Brown, George M.(Edinburgh)

  Jones. William(Carnarvonshire

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Joyce, Michael

  Sullivan, Donal

  Caldwell, James

  Kennedy, VincentP.(Cavan,W.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan,E.)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr

  Delany, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Toulmin, Charles

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Elibank, Master of

  Lough, Thomas

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Ellice, CaptEC(SAndrew'sBrhs

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Emmott, Alfred

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Wason, Eugene(Clackinannan)

  Fenwick, Charles

  M`Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  M'Crae, George

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Soares and Mr.Charles Allen.

  Gladstone, RtHnHerbertJohn

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E(Berwick)

  O'Malley, William

  Mr. CHANCELLORof the EXCHEQUER rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question, 'That the clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 155 Noes, 65. (Division List No. 261.)

  AYES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cavendish,V.C.W.(Derbyshire.

  Egerton, Hon A. de Tatton

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Faber, Edmund B.(Hants, W.)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Chamberlain,Rt Hn J.A(Worc.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Charrington, Spencer

  Fison, Frederick William

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Balcarres, Lord

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

  Fitzroy,Hon.Edward Algernon

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

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Balfour,Rt HnGeraldW (Leeds

  Corbett, T. L.(Down, North)

  Forster, Henry William

  Balfour,Kenneth R.(Christch.

  Craig,Charles Curtis(Antrim,S)

  Foster,Philip S(Warwick,S.W.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bingham, Lord

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Gordon,HnJ E.(Elgin & Nairn

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Denny, Colonel

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Brassey, Albert

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Gray, Ernest(West Ham)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Doughty, Sir George

  Greene, SirEW(B'ry SEdm'nds

  Bull, William James

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Campbell,J.H.M (Dublin Univ.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Gretton, John

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Dyke,Rt Hn. Sir William Hart

  Groves, James Grimble

  Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

  M`Killop,James (Stirlingshire)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Heath,Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Maxwell, WJH(Dumfriesshire

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir FrederickG.

  Smith,HC(North'mb. Tyneside

  Hope, J. F.(Sheffield,Brightside

  Milvain, Thomas

  Smith,RtHnJ Parker (Lanarks

  Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

  Hozier,Hon. James HenryCecil

  Morgan,David J(Walthamstow

  Spear, John Ward

  Hunt, Rowland

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Jeffreys,Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col.W

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Thompson,Dr E C(Managh'n,N

  Kerr, John

  Mount, William Arthur

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Murray,Rt HnA Graham(Bute

  Tuff, Charles

  Lawson,John Grant(Yorks.N.R

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Lee,ArthurH.(Hants,Farehain.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Vincent,ColSirC E H(Sheffield

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Percy, Earl

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Whiteley,H.(Ashton und. Lyne

  Long,Col.CharlesW.(Evesham)

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Long,Rt.HnWalter (Bristol, S.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C B. Stuart

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Lucas,Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Ridley. S. Forde(Bethnal Green

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  M'Iver,SirLewis(Edinburgh, W

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  NOES

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Harcourt,Lewis V. (Rossendale

  Priestley, Arthur

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Rea, Russell

  Allen, Charles P.

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Asher, Alexander

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Runciman, Walter

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Samuel,Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Bell, Richard

  Joicey, Sir James

  Shackelton, David James

  Brigg, John

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawic,k B.)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Joyce, Michael

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Caldwell, James

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Tennant, Harold John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr

  Delany, William

  Lloyd-George David

  Toulmin, George

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lough, Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Elibank, Master of

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Ellice,CaptE C(S Andrw'sBghs

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Crae, George

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Fenwick, Charles

  M`Kenna, Reginald

  Whiteley,George (York, W.R.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Malley, William

  Herbert Gladstone and

  Grey, Rt, Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)

  Partington, Oswald

  Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Question put, "That the Question, 'That the clause stand part of the Bill,' be now put"
  Question put accordingly.

  AYES

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

  Bowles,Lt.-Co1.H.F(Middlesex

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Balfour,Rt HnGeraldW(Leeds

  Brassey, Albert

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bathurst,Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Bull, William James

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Bingham, Lord

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  The Committee divided:—, 156; Noes, 65. (Division List No. 262.).

  Cavendish,V C W(Derbyshire

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hope, J. E. (Sheffield,Brightside

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Howard,John(Kent,Faversham

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc.

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. ArthurFred.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn.Col.W.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Kerr, John

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Ridley, Hn.M.W.(Stalybridge

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Ridley,S.Forde(Bethnal Green

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lawson, JohnGrant (YorksN.R

  Roberts, Samuel, (Sheffield)

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Lee,ArthurH.(Hants.,Fareham

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Denny, Colonel

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rutherford, W. W.(Liverpool)

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Doughty, Sir George

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Long,Col.Charles W.(Evesham

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Long,Rt.Hn Walter (Bristol, S.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Dyke,Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Smith,H.C.(North'mbTyneside

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Smith,RtHn. J. Parker(Lanarks

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lucas,Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Spear, John Ward

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Fison, Frederick William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  FitzGerald,Sir Robert Penrose

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Thompson,DrE C(Monagh'n,N

  Fitrzoy,Hon. Edward Algernon

  M'Iver,Sir Lewis (EdinbughW.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  M`Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Forster, Henry William

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Tuff, Charles

  Foster, PhilipS.(Warwick,S.W.

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Maxwell,W J.H.(Dumfriesshire

  Valentia, Viscount

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Vincent,ColSirC EH(Sheffield.

  Gordon,Hn.J. E (Elgin & Nairn

  Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir FrederickG.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Milvain, Thomas

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Morgan,David, L(Walthamstow

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Greene,SirEW (B'ry SEdm'nds

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Willoughby, de Eresby, Lord

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B.Stuart

  Gretton, John

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Groves, James Grimble

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Murray,Rt.HnA Graham (Bute

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Nicholson, William Graham

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Heath,Arthur Howard (Hanley

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Heath,James (Staffords. N.W.

  Percy, Earl

  and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  NOES

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick)

  O'Malley, William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

  Partington, Oswald

  Allen, Charles P.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Priestley, Arthur

  Asher, Alexander

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Runciman, Walter

  Bell, Richard

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Brigg, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Shackleton, David James

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Joyce, Michael

  Sullivan, Donal

  Caldwell, James

  Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W

  Tennant, Harold John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Thomas,Sir A(Glamorgan, E.)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas,David Alfred(Merthyr

  Delany, William

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Toulmin, George

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Elibank, Master of

  Lough, Thomas

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Ellice,CaptE C(S Andrw'sBghs

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Emmott, Alfred

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  M'Crae, George

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Soares and Mr. Russell Rea.

  Gladstone,Rt.Hn.Herbert John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  [Mr JRFFREYS (Hampshire, N.)took the Chair.]
  MR. JOHN WILSON,who rose at 6.10 A. M., said he thought this was a fitting time to make another appeal to the Leader of the House, and to ask him to agree to report Progress. So far as he was concerned he did not move to report Progress on account of his being tired, because every vote he had given had rather refreshed him. Nor did he move it because he wanted his speeches to be reported. He moved to report Progress because he was interested in the question of the coal tax, and he was rather sorry that an hon. Gentleman below the Gangway stated incidentally that if the debate took place now those interested in the question would not get their speeches reported. If they did wish publicity it was for the purpose of making their arguments known. They did not come to the House to seek popularity. The people they represented knew them very well. He attended a Royal Commission yesterday at eleven o'clock, and he had been in the House since half past three. They were all desirous of getting to bed for an hour or two before undertaking the labours of the day. He begged to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. John Wilson, Durham.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not think they need bandy words as to whether it would be agreeable or not to go to bed. He had no doubt they might occupy themselves more agreeably at this hour after the night they had spent, but he did not really see any ground for changing the decision which was arrived at three or four hours ago. He did his best according to his lights to give the hon. Member the opportunity for which he asked, and if the suggestion he made fell to the ground it was through no fault of his own. It might have been that the suggestion he made did not meet the circumstances of the case—he did not argue that—but it was the best he could make. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would feel that, though under rather unsatisfactory
  580
  conditions, they were still in a condition to argue the case in which he was interested. He would remind the hon. Member that on the Report stage on Friday he would have a full opportunity for discussing the coal tax. An hon. Member had said something about the desirability of the discussion taking place in Committee rather than on the Report stage. He did not see any special advantage in discussing it in Committee, but, of course, if the hon. Gentleman wanted to discuss the question twice this was the only way he could do it. What he wished to point out was that, so far as he knew, there was little, if any, advantage in taking a debate of this kind on the Committee stage rather than on the Report stage. There were cases in which it was very important to take the discussion on the Committee stage.
  MR. LOUGH: There are the questions of tea and sugar to be taken on the Committee stage as well as coal.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he had made the best suggestion he could.
  MR. FENWICKsaid several hon. Members had been sitting on a Royal Commission and on Private Bill Committees since eleven o'clock yesterday morning. He was sure the Prime Minister did not wish to unduly cut short the discussion on the coal tax, and if it was to be adequately debated it was bound to go on for some time. Those hon. Members who were due to sit on the Royal Commission and on Private Bill Committees might very well be excused from attending after their arduous labours in the House, running into two days. He asked the Prime Minister to consider what that meant. Witnesses were called from a considerable distance. Their expenses were running on. Counsel would have to be feed as if the Committee were meeting. All that meant not only considerable inconvenience to Members of the House, but very considerable inconvenience to those who were appearing before the Committees. He thought that if the right hon. Gentleman would give consideration to these facts, he would be inclined to allow Progress to be reported. This coal

  581
  tax could not be discussed adequately under two or three hours. He and his colleagues were justified in bringing this matter before the Committee. They knew that they would have this question of their own to bring before the Committee, and they had carefully abstained from obtruding themselves on the Committee in debating other questions. Therefore they appealed to the Prime Minister to agree to the Motion to report Progress.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that the Prime Minister knew—he had admitted it —that the coal tax was an important question, and that it ought to be adequately discussed. The House had already been sitting for nineteen hours, and he doubted whether the Government were prepared to discuss the coal tax at that hour of the morning. The hon. Member for Durham was perfectly prepared to discuss it, but he doubted whether under the circumstances there would he adequate discussion. All - night sittings never accelerated the business of the House; they led to a certain exacerbation of feeling and he regretted that the Prime Minister had insisted some four hours previously upon having the unanimous consent of the House, not only to a fixed date for closing the Committee stage, but also to affix a date for closing the Report stage.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that the proposal to report Progress was perfectly reasonable. and he protested against the manner in which the Prime Minister had received it. In the twelve years of his Parliamentary experience he had never witnessed a more reasonable Motion received with such indifference by the Government. He would remind the Prime Minister that they had to deal with all the new clauses which ranged over a variety of subjects. There was a review of the sugar tax, and several questions in regard to the tea tax which was the most important part of the Budget, as hon. Gentlemen opposite would find when they went down to their constituents. There was also the clause which dealt with the Sinking Fund. and now the Prime Minister asked the Committee to go into all these questions after sitting nineteen hours on end. He main-
  582
  tamed that it was a monstrous abuse of the forms of the House, and an act of tyranny which he had not seen equalled during the past twelve years. He had never seen such an abuse of the closure.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member was not in order in alluding to the closure.
  MR. LOUGHsaid there was an abuse of the closure on the part of Ministers. They had not arrived at that stage of the session when hon. Members might assume that the twelve o'clock rule was suspended. It was merely for the convenience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and was a totally unprecedented procedure. In the great Budget of 1894 there was no closure. He held that there had been no prolonged attempt to obstruct the business of the House, and yet in one case the Chancellor of the Exchequer had accepted the closure on a new clause practically without discussion. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have some feeling for the dignity of the House. He thought that some hon. Gentlemen opposite should give fairplay now if they themselves expected to get fairplay in the future.
  MR. JOHNSONasked the Prime Minister to give way and allow Progress to be reported.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid they had witnessed a most unedifying spectacle. The Prime Minister had not met in a friendly spirit the very generous proposals made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick. The right hon. Gentleman had not been listening to the debate and probably he had been preparing his speech for the British Association. [Cries of "Withdraw."] He would gladly withdraw. but he must remark that the lengthy sitting had not improved the temper of hon. Members opposite. He only hoped that it would not prove as detrimental to their health as it had been to their manners.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That remark is not in order.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid one result had been to secure that the coal tax would not be discussed in the

  583
  small hours of the morning at a time when discussion would not be noticed, but at a period when it would be published and an especial amount of interest would be added to the debate. The discussion would take place in broad daylight. The Prime Minister had treated the House in a merciless manner, but the right hon. Gentleman would have to sit there until the coal tax was discussed or the Speaker took the Chair to begin the business of the next day. The Prime Minister said truly that hon. Gentlemen did not want to discuss the whole matter over again, but on the Report stage they might wish to make a few additions to their previous speeches. It was most convenient to have a discussion when the House was in Committee as mistakes could then more easily be corrected and Members could rise more than once. He could not understand why the Prime Minister was so anxious to prevent the discussion on the coal tax taking place at an hour when it could be reasonably discussed. But, after all, the right hon. Gentleman was not a free agent. The feelings of his supporters had been ruffled, and therefore they would not allow the discussion to come on at a reasonable hour. As a way out of the difficulty, he suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should ascertain from those interested in the coal tax how long they would require for the discussion, fix the discussion for Friday, and let them have it in Committee or on Report as they preferred. The right hon. Gentleman would not be in any way the loser, because there would be a discussion on the coal tax on Friday in any case.
  MR. CLAUDE LOWTHERhoped the Prime Minister would not accept the Motion. He would suggest that the hon. Member for Old-ham was suffering, no doubt because of the great interest he took in Chinese labour, from the disease known as beriberi.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid he must ask the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Motion.
  MR. CLAUDE LOWTHERsaid he bowed entirely to the Deputy-Chairman's ruling, but he had made that remark because he had heard that the most
  584
  marked and characteristic symptom of the disease was a terrific swelling of the head.
  LYELL: On a point of order, may I ask you, Sir, whether the hon. Member is not precluded from discussing that subject by a Notice of Motion already on the Paper.
  MR. BELLsaid he understood that berai-beri was contagious. He wished to know whether the hon. Gentleman had caught it.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The Motion before the Committee is that Progress be reported.
  MR. CLAUDE LOWTHERsaid he thought they could have got on very well, he would not say without all, but without nine or ten of the speeches of the hon. Member for Oldham that night. He-hoped the Motion would not be accepted.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONasked the Prime Minister whether he intended to take this important discussion of the coal tax in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He submitted that he was gaining nothing whatever, and he was losing a great deal by forcing them to discuss the coal tax after the House had sat for over seventeen hours. It was entirely unprecedented and a violation of the regulation by which the Finance Bill could be discussed after twelve o'clock, which was only for the purpose of allowing a particular piece of business then under discussion to be finished. There was no reason whatever for refusing this Motion to report Progress. They did not wish to discuss the coal tax twice unless the Prime Minister forced them to do it. He was not only gagging the House of Commons, but he was also gagging the Press of the country, because he was forcing them to discuss it at a time when the Press could not report the matter. They would be driven to raise the question again on the Report stage and discuss it at a time when it could be reported.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I rise to a point of order to call your attention to the hon. Member for the Altrincham Division, who repeatedly interrupts, and to ask if these interruptions are orderly.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have not heard any disorderly remarks.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid he would appeal to the Prime Minister whether he was not dealing a blow at the prestige and political reputation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Where was the Chancellor of the Exchequer? In his absence, how could they have a proper and adequate reply?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He will be here when the coal tax is discussed.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER here again took the Chair.]
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid he should be glad if the Prime Minister would give them a distinct reply. He was deeply sorry the Prime Minister should be so obdurate? They were attached to the Prime Minister, but a small concession on his part would do a great deal to still more endear him to their hearts.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  MR. McKENNAasked, on a point of order, whether the closure should be accepted when the Chairman (Mr. Lowther) had not been in the House during the discussion. He was under the impression that the closure was given by the Chairman as a matter of discretion, and not as a matter of necessity whenever it was asked for by a Minister of the Crown. If it were given as a matter of discretion, he wished to ask how that discretion could be exercised when the Chairman had not been in the House.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I naturally informed myself of what had been done in my comparatively short absence.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Are we to understand that you adhere to your ruling?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 154; Noes, 65. (Division List No. 263.)

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriess)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Milner,Rt.Hn.Sir Frederick G.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Tuff, Charles

  Milvain, Thomas

  Ridley,Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Tuffnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Ridley,S.Forde (Bethnal Green

  Valentia, Viscount

  Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Vincent,Col.SirCEH (Sheffield)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Murray,Rt Hn.A.Graham(Bute

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Smith,H.C(North'mb Tyneside

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Percy, Earl

  Smith,RtHn.J.Parker(Lanarks

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

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

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Spear, John Ward

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Thompson,Dr.E.C.(Monagh'nN

  NOES

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Harcourt,Lewis V. (Rossendale

  Priestley, Arthur

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Rea, Russell

  Allen, Charles P.

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Asher, Alexander

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Runciman, Walter

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Bell, Richard

  Joicey, Sir James

  Shackleton, David James

  Brigg, John

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Joyce, Michael

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Caldwell, James

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Tennant, Harold John

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas,Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Thomas,DavidAlfred (Merthyr

  Delany, William

  Lloyd-George, David

  Toulmin, George

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lough, Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Elibank, Master of

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Ellice,Capt.EC(S.Andrw'sBghs

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Crae, George

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien,Kendal(Tipperary Mid

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Malley, William

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

  Grey,Rt.Hn.Sir E.(Berwick)

  Partington, Oswald

  William M'Arthur.

  Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Levy, Maurice

  Allen, Charles P.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Asher, Alexander

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Lough, Thomas

  Bell, Richard

  Gladstone,Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Brigg, John

  Grey,Rt.Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Harcourt,Lewis V. (Rossendale

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  M'Crae, George

  Caldwell, James

  Higham, John Sharpe

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid.

  Delany, William

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Jones,William(Carnarvonshire)

  O'Malley, William

  Elibank, Master of

  Joyce, Michael

  Partington, Oswald

  Ellice,CaptE.C.(SAndrw'sBghs

  Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W.

  Priestley, Arthur

  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 65; Noes, 155. (Division List No. 264.)

  Rea, Russell

  Sullivan, Donal

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Tennant, Harold John

  Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

  Runciman, Walter

  Thomas,Sir A(Glamorgan E.)

  Whiteley,George(York,W.R.)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Thomas,DavidAlfred (Merthyr)

  Shackelton, David James

  Toulmin, George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  John Wilson (Durham) and

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Walton. Joseph (Barnsley)

  Mr. Fenwick.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mount, William Arthur

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Murray,Rt.HnA.Graham (Bute

  Arrol, Sir William

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Greene,SirE.M.7.(B'rySEdmn'nds

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Balcarres, Lord

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Percy, Earl

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

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW. (Leeds)

  Gretton, John

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashford

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col Edward

  Bingham, Lord

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pym, C. Guy

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Heath,Arthur Howard(Hanley

  Ratcliff, R. F.

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

  Heath, James (Staffords.N. W.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Brassey, Albert

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Ridley,Hn. M.W. (Stalybridge

  Brodrick, Rt.Hon. St. John

  Hope,J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

  Ridley,S.Forde (BethnalGreen)

  Bull, William James

  Howard,John(KentFaversham

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hozier,Hon.James Henry Cecil

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Campbell,JH.M.(Dublin Univ.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hn. Col. W.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cavendish,V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Kerr, John

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A.(Worc.

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

  Seely,Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lee,ArthurH.(Hants. Fareham

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Lees, Sir Elliot (Birkenhead)

  Smith,HC.(North'mb Tyneside

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

  Legge, Col. Hon. Henage

  Smith,RtHn.J.Parker(Lanarks

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Llewellyn Evan Henry

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

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Spear, John Ward

  Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.

  Long,Col.CharlesW (Evesham.

  Stirling-Max well,Sir John M.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

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

  Talbot, Lord E (Chichester)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Thompson,DrEC(Monaghan,N.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Denny, Colonel

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Tuff, Charles

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lucas,Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col.Edward

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon Alfred

  Valentia, Viscount

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A.Akers

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Vincent,Col.SirCEH (Sheffield)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  M'Iver,SirLewis (EdinburghW.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Dyke,Rt.Hon.Sir William Hart

  M`Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Egerton, Hon. A. dc Tatton

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants,W.)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Finch Rt.Hon. George H.

  Maxwell,W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Fison, Frederick William

  Milner,Rt.Hn Sir Frederick G.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  FitzGerald,Sir Robert Penrose-

  Milvain, Thomas

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fitzroy,Hon.Edward Algernon

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow

  Forster, Henry William

  Morpeth, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  FosterPhilipS.(Warwick,S.W.)

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  MR. LOUGHmoved a new clause providing that the sugar duty imposed in 1901 should expire on the 1st of July this year. He said that so far as his observation went there had been no obstruction on this Bill. The Amend-
  590
  ment which he proposed was a very important one. It would have a very striking effect on one of the most important articles of commerce, and this was the only way in which they could call attention to the operations of the

  591
  sugar duties. The original sugar duty, which was a most oppressive tax, was accepted very hurriedly by the House, and although the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that it was to be a permanent tax, the House generally acknowledged that it was a war tax. In the first year of its imposition it produced £6,399,000; in the second year £4,898,000; and in the third year £5,426,000, so that the Committee would see that this tax was a most disappointing one. The tax was laid on one of the most important articles of food in the country, and an article which had been steadily increasing in use for manufactures. Since the tax had been imposed a check had been given to its use by the people as a food and as an article of manufacture. The sugar duties were now levied under an entirely new method from that employed in 1901, and he thought the Committee would see that if these changes were to be made they should have had new legislation. It was not enough for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say he got as much from the sugar duty as he estimated to get. This matter was a mere subject of calculation on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, but it was a very serious matter to the trade of the country. It was a very grave thing if the consumption of sugar was falling off as the Customs returns indicated. He asked if the downward progress was likely to be checked, and if the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the clause, he should tell them whether he saw his way to take any steps in that direction, or whether he thought it necessary to do anything whatever.
  New Clause (Amendment of Section 2 of Finance Act, 1901)—
  "On the first day of July, 1904, the duties on sugar, molasses, glucose, and other articles, imposed by Sections 2 and 5 of the Finance Act, 1901, and the drawbacks allowed under the Act, shall cease and determine."—(Mr. Lough.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that with regard to the alleged falling off in the consumption of sugar, and the inquiry whether he could hold out any expectation of a recovery having taken place, of being likely to take place, he would point out that the figures of the second year were much larger than those of the year before. Last year they got almost exactly the estimated amount. They had £5,750,000 instead of £6,000,000, and the difference of the £250,000 was due to the alteration in the duty that was charged. Sugar instead of being refined in bond was now refined out of bond, and but for that cause there would have been the anticipated £6,000,000. There had been, however, a very considerable falling off in other articles of consumption, such as spirits. Sugar held its own, and he had no reason to suppose that it would not produce the full amount estimated for the present year. As to the scale of duty imposed by the Act, it might be possible to make some alteration, but he was afraid it would have a rather disturbing effect on the trade. The hon. Member had asked whether he could hold out the hope of an early abolition of the duty. He was afraid he could not hold out any hope of that kind. When the duty was proposed by the hon. Member for West Bristol it was proposed as a permanent duty, and he could not make any pledges as to the future. He did not suppose the hon. Member expected the new clause to be accepted, and presumed it was only put down for the purpose of raising discussion.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the present discussion showed the difficulty that the House was put to in discussing these taxes which were permanent, and not annual taxes. He experienced considerable difficulty in discussing this matter at the present moment, because he did not think it would be taken that night. He appreciated some of the explanations given by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the consumption of sugar. It was clear that the tax was unwieldy and disorganised the trade, and as regarded the consumer the full weight of the tax had fallen on him and something in addition. There had been a considerable falling off in the consumption of sugar since the tax

  593
  was imposed three years ago, and it could not be wondered at. When the consumers had to pay five or six millions more of taxation on tea, tobacco, spirits, and beer, and six millions more on sugar, it naturally affected the consumption. The right hon. Gentleman had made no reply with reference to the basis on which the tax was levied. In the schedule there was a carefully arranged table under which the duty was to be charged according to different percentages of polarisation. In practice that scale had practically disappeared, and he submitted that before such an alteration was made the matter ought to have been brought before the notice of Parliament. He was glad the matter had been raised, though he admitted the Chancellor of the Exchequer could hardly be expected to give up the whole of the revenue under present conditions.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid sugar consumers had fared somewhat unfortunately at the hands of the Government, because, not only had there been a Convention under which the price of sugar had been raised, but a heavy tax had been imposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, by which an additional £3,000,000 a year was raised. That tax was a very real and severe tax, but it was a good tax, inasmuch as it reached the consumer, as all indirect taxation ought properly to do. It placed the burden on the backs Of consumers as a whole, and did not draw thousands of pounds out of the pockets of a few unfortunate individuals, as other proposals would do. But though he would like to see the duty removed, he agreed that it would be difficult for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept the clause. The principle of the original arrangement was that the whole of the burden should descend upon the consumer, and that the trade should not be injured at all. The calculations upon which that arrangement was based were so carefully made, that it would be difficult for any partial repeal to be effected without the concession being largely absorbed by the trade, and thus it would be some time before the consumers derived any advantage. It was not surprising that there had been a great decline in consumption, as that must necessarily
  594
  be the result of the imposition of a heavy duty upon an article in general use. The right hon. Gentleman also declined to embark upon an elaborate alteration of the duty. He was again bound to say that he thought he was right. There were, no doubt, some alterations some of them would like to see, but the sugar trade had been disturbed enough already. The double dislocation which had disturbed the sugar trade had made that trade highly feverish, sensitive, and in an irritable condition, and further alterations, excepting in the nature of reduction, were greatly to be deprecated. Sugar was a subject they should be particularly careful in dealing with, because it was not only an article of great importance as a commodity, but it was also a most important raw material which was the foundation of a large number of secondary industries which had increased the gross exports of the country, and had found employment for a great number of persons.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That has really nothing whatever to do will the Motion before the Committee.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he was only endeavouring to show the importance of the subject. The right hon. Gentleman said this tax was not imposed for the purposes of the war, but that it was imposed by the hon. Member for West Bristol as a permanent part of the taxation of the country. He was not sure that was the intention of the hon. Member. Of course, the excuse for the occasion was the war, and of course also there had been a steady rise in the permanent expenditure; but he did not think the hon. Member for West Bristol contemplated that the tax would stay on for ever, and that they would never have the sugar tax removed from the list of duties.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had never held that the sugar tax was not a just tax so long as the occasion was an adequate one to justify the Chancellor of the Exchequer in imposing it. He dared say that during the war it might have been a perfectly fair tax to impose. It was right that every class of the community should take its share of the burdens of

  595
  the war which the Government was carrying through. Nor had he ever taken the view that under no conditions should they impose a tax on sugar. For instance, if they had any great scheme of social reform it would be perfectly fair to impose a tax on sugar, among other things, so that the people who got the benefit should take their share of the burden. But the sugar tax was like the income-tax in this respect—that the income-tax had always been treated as a war reserve by every great Chancellor of the Exchequer and by every Government up to the present Government. He always thought that taxes like the sugar and tea taxes which involved the food of the people should be treated as special reserves. His objection to the sugar tax was the same as he had already raised to the tea tax. It was a tax imposed without any corresponding benefit at all. It was simply a tax to help the Government out of a difficulty they had brought upon themselves. He did not think that under those conditions they ought to continue a tax of that character as a permanent burden upon the people of the country. It added a burden to the poorer classes of the people, because sugar was an essential part of their daily food, and if they cut it down very largely, they diminished the comfort of the poorer classes of the community. It was a tax that the poor bore more proportionately to their incomes than the wealthy portion of the community, and therefore it ought not to be imposed without very good reason for doing so. The hon. Member for Islington had pointed out that one effect of the tax was to diminish the consumption. That must necessarily be so. The tax amounted to a considerable part of the income of a working-class family. If the country were confronted with great perils and had to put forth all its reserve and energy in order to go through those perils, then every section of the community, rich and poor, high and low, ought to take their share; but when that trouble was passed and the only difficulties were the difficulties of the Government, then he thought the poorer classes of the people had a right to say they really ought to release them from this burden.
  MR. RUNCIMANcalled attention to the fact that there were not forty Members present.
  A count having been made and a quorum formed.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEcontinued his remarks, and submitted that the Government had not really considered how their financial arrangements affected the great bulk of the people. They had only to look at the sugar tax to see how their taxation had depressed the standard of living. The consumption of sugar had so diminished that the amount derived from the duty had decreased from £6,400,000 in 1901–2 to £5,700,000 in 1903–4, a decrease which represented a prodigious diminution in the consumption of sugar, probably by the poorer classes of the community. He protested against the tax because it imposed a heavy burden upon the poorest of the poor, and because it was necessitated, not by any great national emergency but by the extravagance and mismanagement of the Government.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid it was only by such an Amendment as that under discussion that this duty could be brought before the Committee. But for the war with the Transvaal they would probably never have witnessed the birth of the tax, but the condition of the national finances was such that it had now to be regarded as a permanent part of their fiscal system. Sugar was one of the prime necessities of life.
  THE CHAIRMANintimated that the hon. Member was not entitled to go over the whole field of indirect taxation.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsubmitted that he was simply following a line of argument which had been pursued by others.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he had already stopped other hon. Members from taking that course.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he would not pursue that point further. According to the figures of the right hon. Gentleman the duties had not produced

  597
  the amount which had been estimated to come from them, but he thought the Committee ought to have statistics showing the present consumption of sugar as compared with the consumption when the duties were imposed, so that the actual effect of the duty might be seen. Figures might also be given showing the result of the duties upon prices.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member seems determined to go beyond my ruling. I must warn him that if he again infringes it I shall have to put the Standing Order into force.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he had no desire to contravene the ruling of the Chair, but it was somewhat difficult to know where the line had to be drawn. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that returns dealing with the taxes upon food gave evidence of a decrease in the purchasing power of the people. That was a very important statement coming from one in the right hon. Gentleman's position, and yet the right hon. Gentleman had increased the price of tea, sugar—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now dealing with matters which are wholly irrelevant to the Motion before the Committee.
  MR. McKENNAsubmitted that as the duty upon sugar affected the price the hon. Member was surely in order in discussing the price.
  THE CHAIRMAN: But the lion. Member was dealing with other matters, including tea.
  MR. McKENNA: Tea and sugar together.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid that at any rate the Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared that the purchasing power of the people was decreasing. That was a most grave statement, and he could only hope that next year the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give la better account of the financial position of the country.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid the objections to this tax were first stated when it was
  598
  proposed to impose it, and every prophecy which was then made had been fulfilled. The tax had increased the price of sugar so considerably that the consumption per head had actually gone down. The reduction was by no means insignificant, being no less than 10 per cent. in the course of three years. That was a serious drop, and the present Government were directly responsible for it. In order to arrive at what had been the decrease or increase in the consumption of commodities they were bound, of course, to depend upon the Customs figures which varied from year to year as revenue was anticipated or not anticipated. In regard I to the sugar tax they had now had three years in which to judge of the effect of it. The figures showed clearly that, so I far from this being a tax that would be easily absorbed by the trade without falling in any great measure on the consumer, the whole of the tax had fallen on the consuming classes. One of the great faults of this tax was that the graduation of the burden went in the wrong direction. Those who were the poorest had to pay the largest portion of the tax. Another objection was that it was not only a tax on an article of food but a tax on trade. He did not refer to subsidiary trades, but to some trades which had to use sugar in the course of their manufactures. He understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was pledged to a system which would not allow any tax to be laid on raw materials. The 10 per cent. tax proposed by the tariff reformers was not to touch raw materials. There was here a tax of 33 per cent. on a raw material, and it was having a serious effect on certain trades which were bound to use sugar in the course of their manufactures. If the right hon. Gentleman would not consider the poor, he hoped he would consider the case of the manufacturing classes and that this protest would have some effect on the Budget of next year.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his sympathetic answer stated that the duties which were imposed in 1901 required his attention. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that there was a serious falling off in the consumption of sugar. That was a matter of very grave significance, and he

  599
  thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do well during the year to turn his attention to it. The duties on articles which contained sugar were of the most complicated character. He thought they were entitled to point out that, while a great burden had been cast on the people, the sugar tax was rather disappointing as a source of revenue. He was sorry to hear the hon. Members for Carnarvon and Oldham rather approve of the tax. He thought they were both free-traders. The sooner the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or some of his successors, could turn their attention to the question how to get rid of the sugar duties the better it would be for the country.
  MR. McKENNAsaid the figures showed a total decline in the consumption of sugar amounting to 10 per cent., but the position was still more serious than appeared from that fact, because if they analysed the figures it would certainly be fair to say that the sugar duty had not affected the consumption of sugar in the case of at least half of the people of this country. What did that mean? It meant that the 10 per cent. decrease in consumption had altogether fallen on the remaining 50 per cent. If they were to analyse them further, it would be found that, so far from being a decline of 10 per cent. in the case of the poorest class, it would be 20, 30, or 40 per cent. That was a very serious matter. He was

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hammond, John

  Priestley, Arthur

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

  Rea, Russell

  Allen, Charles P.

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Asher, Alexander

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Runciman, Walter

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Bell, Richard

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Shackleton, David James

  Brigg, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jones, William (Cornarvonshire

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Caldwell, James

  Joyce, Michael

  Sullivan, Donal

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kennedy,Vincent P. (Cavan,W.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

  Delany, William

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Toulmin, George

  Elibank, Master of

  Lloyd-George, David

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Ellice,CaptEC(SAndrew'sBghs.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Emmott, Alfred

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro(Leith)

  M'Crae, George

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Lough and Mr. George

  Gladstone, Rt.Hn.HerbertJohn

  O'Brien (Patrick Kilkenny)

  Whiteley.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Malley, William

  Grey,Rt. Hon. Sir E.(Berwick)

  Partington, Oswald

  sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer realised how important it was for the health of children, at any rate, that they should have an adequate supply of sugar. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would turn his attention most seriously to the need of getting rid of this tax. If his hon. friend went to a division he would support the new clause.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid his hon. friend the Member for West Islington had been unnecessarily severe when he rebuked him for the way in which he had spoken of this tax. Everyone would like to see indirect taxation reduced to a minimum, but he believed this had been an exceedingly good tax for it had operated on the people in such a way as to make them feel it. He thought it ought to be felt. He did hope that the hon. Gentleman would pursue his Amendment to a division. He thought it was very important, although he regarded the tax as a valuable financial expedient. He protested against the way in which the Committee had been treated for the last seventeen or eighteen hours, It was so different from the manner in which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had managed his financial arrangements.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 66; Noes, 150. (Division List No. 265.)

  NOES.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Mount, William Arthur

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Murray, Rt.HnAGraham(Bute

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Greene,SirEW.(B'ryS.Edm'nds

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Balcarres, Lord

  Grenfell, William Henry

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

  Gretton, John

  Percy, Earl

  Balfour,Rt.HnGeraldW.(Leeds

  Groves, James Grimble

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Balfour,Kenneth R. (Christch.)

  Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashford

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Bingham, Lord

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bowles, Lt.-Col.HF(Middlesex)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Brassey, Albert

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Howard,John(Kent,Faversham

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bull, William James

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Ridley, Hon.M.W.(Stalybridge

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Ridley,S.Forde(Bethnal Green)

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

  Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon Col.W.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Kerr, John

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lawson, JohnGrant(Yorks.N.R

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Lee, Arthur H(Hants.,Fareham

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Smith, H.C(North'mb.Tyneside

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith,RtHnJ.Parker (Lanarks)

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

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

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

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Spear, John Ward

  Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Long, Col.CharlesW.(Evesham

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Thompson,DrE.C.(Monagh'n,N

  Davenport, W. Bromley-

  Lowther, C.(Cumb.Eskdale)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Denny, Colonel

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

  Tuff, Charles

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Valentia, Viscount

  Douglas, Rt.Hon.A.Akers-

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Vincent, Col.SirCEH(Sheffield)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Maclver, David (Liverpool)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Dyke,Rt.Hon.Sir William Hart

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne)

  Egerton, Hon. A. D. de Tatton

  M'Iver,SirLewis(Edinburgh,W.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Majendie, James A. H.

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

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

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

  Fison, Frederick William

  Maxwell,W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  FitzGerald, Sir RobertPenrose-

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Fitzroy, Hon.EdwardAlgernon

  Milner,Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Milvain, Thomas

  Forster, Henry William

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir

  Foster,PhilipS.(Warwick,S,W.)

  Morgan, DavidJ(Walthamstow

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Morrison, James Archibald

  MR. JOHN WILSONsaid he claimed to speak for the whole body of miners on the subject of the coal tax. He was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Doncaster say that he represented a very large number of miners, and that he thought if he spoke in favour this tax he was expressing their will and their wish. He (Mr. Wilson) had attended all the conferences which had been held by the miners of the nation and had seen on all occasions the representatives of Yorkshire miners there in very large force, although not in such
  602
  large numbers as they who were on the seaboard. They felt that their trade was jeopardised by this tax. If the hon. Member held the views he had put forward he was surprised that the miners had sent him there to represent them. No doubt when the next general election came the hon. Member would find a tribunal erected for him, and if he voted for this tax the condemnation of his of conduct would be most severe. The Prime Minister had said that they who represented miners were eager to get to the coal tax and had little, if any,

  603
  regard for the tea and sugar taxes. He hoped the Prime Minister did not believe that, because they took an interest in both the tea and the sugar taxes, as they felt that these indirect taxes were pressing very heavily upon the people, and were pressing still more severely on account of this coal tax. In discussing this question they took up the position that the smaller the income the heavier was the pressure of taxation. Taxation was simply like a burden, and when put upon a strong man was not nearly so heavy as when put upon a weak and delicate man. A miner whose income was only 15s. or 16s. a week found this imposition a dual evil because wages were lessened through the working time being limited and the burden upon his small income was enlarged. They had not taken any active part in the discussion on the tea and sugar duties simply because they tried to reserve their strength for this opportunity and did not desire to make themselves in any way a bore to the House. They reserved themselves for the question of which they had knowledge, and which they could state in such a manner as to give some enlightenment to the House. He and his colleagues wanted to discuss this matter in a friendly fashion. He liked to wear his heart on his sleeve, and he had some sympathy with the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer because he had seen the right hon. Gentleman do his best to pull through an obnoxious Budget. He was not a god, but he would like to put himself in the position of a god who sympathised with a good man who was struggling with adversity.
  This was a question which no man by any amount of abstract reasoning or theoretical statement could understand as well as the man whose life interests were touched. It was true that the Amendment recognised the principle of taxation, but that was simply as a matter of expediency. He was a "wholehogger" in the matter of the tax, but he had been informed that this was the only way in which they could bring up the matter. The tax was an outcome of the war into which the country rushed in 1899, but he believed that had the same conditions existed then as existed now no Chancellor of the
  604
  Exchequer would have dared to impose the tax. It had taken all the power of some of the leaders of the men to prevent a national strike. But they were then in the hey-day of circumstances and in the full flush of trade, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had tried to impose the tax under circumstances of trade such as at present existed there would have been a war within our own borders, because no power on earth would have prevented the men from going on strike. The wages of the miners had been and would be reduced; their working days had been and would be diminished; their opportunities for full and right living had been and would be restricted. The right hon. Gentleman might say that he sympathised with the men; in the words of St. James, "Let him show his faith by his works." There were other sources of taxation to which the right hon. Gentleman might have turned. The line of least resistance was not always the safest line to take. The line of right was the one that ought to be sought. Those who received the largest incomes from the nation's operations ought to hear the largest proportion of the cost of the upkeep of the State. It was necessary in this matter to distinguish between the consumer and the producer. They were pleading at present for the miner because he was a producer, although it was perfectly true that he was also a consumer. It was a direct tax and nothing more nor less. It was gathered at the port of shipment, a shilling for every ton. The tax had to be paid by the coal-owner, and therefore it was a direct tax.
  Another reason was put forward for this tax; it was urged that the coal was so precious to the life of the nation that it ought to be kept at home. This was a very unsound and dangerous argument. It was an argument which only a very bold man dared to advance so absolutely. If coal were so precious to their national life, why not absolutely prohibit any coal from being exported? Why be satisfied with a shilling, because there was a certain class of coal, most essential to their national life that they got outside that shilling? It was the superior coal that would bear the shilling. If this argument were logical, then, of course, having regard to their national life and prestige they should say

  605
  that this coal should not be exported at all. What did that mean? It meant that they had to deal with a trade now employing 842,000 men and boys, and with counties. which the hon. Member for Wansbeck and others represented, 80 per cent of whose trade in coal was export. They had to deal with Scotland on the East and with South Wales on the West, and, if it were logical that they should keep this coal at home because it was one of their best national assets, he said they should consider what to do with those men who had produced that 80 per cent., and those men who had produced the export coal in South Wales, Scotland, and Durham. It was unsound from the commencement, it was wrong in principle, and in practice it was dangerous to the best interests of the country. Let them see its ramifications and its effect upon the trade of the country. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol introduced the tax he felt that he was treading upon dangerous ground, and he said that, of course, he saw how their shipping enabled them to bring buck commodities at lower rates than otherwise would be possible. Every cargo of coal they restricted from exportation interfered with the free intercourse of trade, limited its operations, and raised the price of the commodity the ship was to bring back to the consumer in this country. It was equal to a tax upon imports.
  He was told, and a great deal was made of it, that Mr. Gladstone approved of this in 1845, but he ventured to say that if Mr. Gladstone had been alive in 1900, under the changed circumstances and conditions in their relations with other countries, and in the development of coal-fields in other nations, he would not have advocated it. In 1845 they were the coal-producing nation of the world; all nations turned to them for coal, and they could put what price they liked upon it. But now the thing was different. They were in direct competition with other countries—Belgium, France, and Austria on the Continent; and America. The same circumstances and conditions did not obtain as at that time. They were assured enough at the time the tax was imposed that certain things in their
  606
  minds were true, and experience had borne them out. They asserted that it was unsound economically and dangerous to trade to put a tax on coal, and they said that the real effect would not be seen until depression had gone some way down. In the first year or two after 1900 the downward tendency of the trade was not felt. Men's wages were comparatively high. He had, however, been surprised that newspapers such as The Times and others should have spoken of the fabulous wages the miner was receiving. The average wage of the miner in the highest times was not above 7s. 6d. a day, and would anybody say that 7s. 6d. a thy was too much for a man working in a two feet seam—he had seen them working in 18 inches—cramped, cabined, confined, in comparative darkness, wet and dirty, two or three miles underground in a noxious atmosphere surrounded by dangers? They asserted then, and asserted now, that the depression would be, and was, a long way ahead of what it was in 1900. All these objections were being accumulated and intensified, and to those immediately concerned they were becoming more regretful and urgent. A number of men who otherwise would have been employed had been discharged. As secretary of the Durham Miners Association he could say that there were over 1,000 men out of work more than was the case a year ago, and those men had been kept out of the workhouse only by grants from the organisation to which they belonged. The result of the tax had been to depopulate villages. There were districts in which the whole of the trade depended upon the mines; if through depression of trade and low prices the mine stopped, the whole district was depopulated, and that had happened in more cases than one as a direct result of this tax.
  In Northumberland in 1900 the price of coal at the pit-mouth was 11s. 2d. per ton; at the ascertainment in May last it was only 6s. 4d., or a drop of nearly 5s. per ton. Wages had gone down in Scotland by 25 per cent., in Durham by 30 per cent., and in Northumberland by more than 40 per cent. The restriction of the export of coal also brought about greater competition in the home market, because

  607
  coal which otherwise would have been exported was sent inland. Under ordinary conditions, 80 per cent. of the Northumberland coal was exported, and the amount by which that exportation was restricted in consequence of the export duty went to compete in markets in which other coal had previously had a clear field. Thus the tax had bad effects in both ways, and the miners in each case felt the full burden. The nation's strength and stability depended upon its coal, but if coal was nature's element, the miner was the human element, and as such he ought to be regarded in these questions of taxation. The tax had also tended to develop Continental coalfields, and thus the foolish home policy had intensified foreign competition. He was old enough to remember the Franco-German War. He knew the sudden development that took place then in the coal trade in his own county. When the war broke out the men in France and Germany were drafted from the mines, and these countries sought England for their coal supplies. He held in his hand a quotation taken from a Newcastle paper anent the present development of the German coal trade. It said—
  "There is remarkable activity in the German coalfields; exhaustive surveys are being made with a view to sinking new shafts, and experimental borings are being made."
  There had been a suggestive development in the German coalfields which arose simply and solely from the operation of this tax. He had with him a quotation from a Conservative paper of 18th April, and he was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree with him that it spoke words of truth and soberness. It said—
  "There have been many instances on Newcastle Quayside recently of losses sustained by Northern coal exporters through the coal tax The contract for 40,000 tons of coal for the Montana Iron Company, Santander, which has annually come to Durham, has been placed with a German firm. Not the slightest doubt is entertained as to the reason of this loss to the Northern coalfields. The order was given for a shilling less than the Durham tender."
  The loss of contracts here lessened the demand for men's labour. The deputation that waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer some time ago consisted of shippers, coal-owners, and miners' representatives. He knew the men who spoke for the workmen, and he felt sure that they considered they had a real
  608
  grievance in this matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to his deputation, said—
  "Other speakers have suggested that the tax falls mainly upon particular sections of those engaged in the production and export of coal, and, in particular, that it falls with very depressing effects upon the wages of the men employed in the mines. Now, if I thought that was seriously the case I should certainly admit that that was good ground for a reconsideration of our policy. But I am not by any means convinced of it, and even after the explanation which Mr. Cory put in as a postscript to the remarks of other members of the deputation I do not think that it is proved, or that it is even made probable, that this tax is responsible in any degree for the fall in prices or for the fall in wages which has taken place in the last year or two."
  He had dealt with that statement by anticipation. He had endeavoured to show that there was a direct and indirect influence arising from the operation of this tax. There was the shilling duty, and the competition with coal which otherwise would be exported. While it might be difficult to give a mathematical definition as to the amount of reduction of wages that arose directly from this coal tax, yet he thought the words of men from Wales, Scotland, and Northumberland were worthy of attention. He asked the Committee to consider the amount paid in coal tax for the past three years. From a Return issued not long ago by the right hon. Gentleman it appeared that the total for the United Kingdom for the three years was £5,322,825. Would any gentleman say, except the employers, that the payment of that sum in taxation would not interfere with the wages of the workers? Speaking for his own county, and other districts, he could say that, with slight differences, it was the price of coal that regulated the men's wages. It was axiomatic that the tax was bound to interfere with men's wages. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had defended the tax by stating that the output of coal had increased. But had it increased in proportion to the number of men? He would show, comparing 1900 with 1903, that while the output had increased the men had decreased. If they took the number of tons produced and divided it amongst the workmen employed, the result was 305 tons per man before the tax and only 289 tons last year, or a reduction of 5 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman said

  609
  that some Consuls had told him that the tax did not interfere with the foreign trade. There were more Consuls than one. Mr. Martin Cecil Gurney, the Consul-General at Marseilles, said that the tax weighed heavily on the trade in his district, and that if it were taken off it would be quite sufficient to replace British coal in a position to compete successfully with that produced abroad. There were three other Consuls all giving the like evidence. In fact the balance of evidence was all on his side. The increase arose from the bunker coal, which was below 6s. per ton. The value of small coal had been raised from 6s. 3d. to 7s., but the vendors had been compelled to sell it at 6s., in order to evade the tax.
  One other thought as to this deputation which met the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman said that the tea tax had been decided upon when all other resources on taxation had been exhausted. He, however, contended that there were other sources of taxation. He would take the coal trade, in which there were three people interested, the employer, the employee, and the royalty owner. In 1903 the royalty owners, at the royalty of 6d. per ton, had obtained £6,000,000 on the output of coal. He believed that the land and the minerals belonged to the nation; but of course that was a complicated question. But if the coal of the country was to be taxed, then the employer and the employee should not be the only persons to be taxed, and the royalty owner allowed to go scot free. He was one of those who believed that the land of this country should bear extra taxation. They should go back to first principles, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer should follow the example of the bold effort made by his great predecessor in his Budget of 1894, and place the burdens of this country on the shoulders best able to bear it. Every word he had said and every fact he had stated he believed to be true and could be borne out by experience.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONin rising to second the clause which had been so eloquently, ably, and unanswerably moved by his hon. friend, said it would be regretted by every Member of this House, that this most unfortunate hour should have been selected for this discussion.
  610
  The speech was so weighty, convincing and unanswerable that it ought to have been listened to in a House with crowded Benches and it ought to have been reported at length in all the newspapers. In the hon. Member for Mid-Durham the House had a representative of the working class of whom Members on both sides of the House were justly proud. The hon. Member had so covered the ground that it only remained for him to glance at a limited number of points upon which, perhaps, the hon. Member had not fully touched. Upon this, the great coal industry, depended the livelihood of 5,000,000 people throughout the United Kingdom. They had been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the coal tax had not proved injurious to the export trade in coal because he showed that more coal had been put on ships last year than in the previous year. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had included 5,000,000 of tons of coal exported under 6s. in value and not subject to the coal tax. He had also included 16,000,000 tons of bunker coal which bore no tax. If they compared the coal exported and subject to taxation they would find that in 1901 there were 43,329,000 tons, whilst in 1903 the quantity was only 41,660,000, a decrease of 1,660,000 tons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had quoted certain other figures showing that our exports were going up and not down. They could do a little grouping of figures which would show a very different result as far as certain countries in Europe went. In 1901 they exported to Belgium, Holland, and France 8,900,000 tons, whilst in 1903 the quantity was 7,376,000 tons, a decrease of 1,500,000 tons. If they took the figures of increase in the coal production of different countries they would find the increase in Germany last year was 9·20, in France 16·80, and in England 1·40. This coal tax violated the principle of equal incidence of taxation. They were taxed in connection with collieries in every respect the same as other great industries and in addition they had to make returns for income-tax based on five years, instead of three years or on the preceding year. Thus there was an enormous sum to be paid in the shape of income-tax beyond their real

  611
  income. That was a very heavy burden and made this coal tax still more unbearable.
  On what ground could this imposition on this great industry be defended? They were told that it was necessary in order that they should husband their coal resources. Had this tax had that effect? It had been absolutely opposite, because owing to the great fall in price they got 1s. per ton less at the pit's mouth. The result was that they could not afford to work the more expensive seams and had to work the cheaper seams in order to keep going at all. The tax was a protective duty in favour of every other coal-producing country against this country. Coal from Scotland, Northumberland, Durham, and Yorkshire was sold on the Continent in competition with coal pro-duped by Belgium, Germany, and France; the price asked by the Continental countries fixed the price the British exporter could get from the foreigner; and were the export duty abolished to-morrow the exporter would not get a penny less for his coal abroad, but he would get a shilling more at the pit-mouth. He submitted that they had a right to object to the British Government hindering and harassing one of the greatest industries in the country by the imposition of a protective tax in favour of the foreigner. It meant nothing more or less than a confiscation of £2,000,000 out of the earnings of the miners, mine-owners, and coal exporters. Eighty per cent. of the cost of coal was represented by wages, and there were 840,000 men and boys employed in the industry. If the export trade was injured, the inland trade suffered through the additional competition to which it was in consequence subjected, and thus the whole trade was affected. Those interested did not receive the sympathy to which they were entitled in the matter. Coal consumers had the idea that they had only to restrict the export of coal to reduce the price to their own advantage. Human nature being what it was, that was not surprising, but surely they might be asked to take a juster view of the situation, and consider whether it was really a sound principle that was embodied in the tax under discussion.
  One of the largest collieries in Northumberland averaged for the
  612
  first two months of this year four days a week; it exported 103,000 tons of coal; it paid export duties amounting to £3,500, with the result that that huge colliery, employing 2,500 men, was out of pocket to the extent of £1,700, whereas but for the export duty there would have been a profit of £1,800. He could give a yet stronger case from his own division. From one colliery there they exported 240,000 tons, and paid £12,000 export duty, with the result that the colliery was being worked at a loss, and the owner had decided that he would be driven to close the pit. But for this unjust imposition there would have been no necessity to consider such a step. If the tax was to be continued at all, it ought to be as an ad valorem duty. It was perfectly ridiculous that the same rate of duty should be charged on coal worth 6s. as on coal worth 12s. per ton. The rate should also be levied on the price at the pit, and not f.o.b. It paid a colliery better to sell coal at 5s. 11d. than at 6s. 10d., because on the latter price the duty of 1s. had to be paid. Rates of carriage to put coal f. o. b. varied considerably. A colliery that had to pay 2s. 7d. rate of carriage and received 6s. 1d. for its coal, actually obtained 3s. 6d., out of which is. duty had be paid, leaving 2s. 6d. for the coal at the pit; whereas another colliery producing the same class of coal, might have a sixpenny cost of carriage, and by selling the coal at 5s. 11d. would have no duty to pay, and thus make 5s. 5d. for Precisely the same class of coal. If the right hon. Gentleman would accept the suggestion that had been mad a, and put 2d. per ton on the whole coal output of the country, charging one-half to the royalty owner and one-half to the mine-owner the hardship would be much less. No hardship would be done to the royalty owner, because in the great majority of cases his royalties were fixed according to a sliding scale, so that when prices went up the royalty owner obtained enormously increased royalties, and consequently when prices went down, having shared in the increase, he ought to share in the decrease. If that could be arranged it would, at any rate, make it more equitable, but, of course, what was contended was that they could in justice demand the entire

  613
  removal of this tax, which involved a complete revolution of their fiscal system, and was really a protective tax to every other country producing coal outside the British Isles.
  They had had convincing figures given them to show what large reductions in the price of coal and in wages in every coal-producing district in the United Kingdom had taken place. He would not, therefore, labour that point, but he would give an expression of opinion as to the present position and future prospect of the coal trade. These words were uttered in a coal-exporting district by the ex-Colonial secretary—
  "You miners are only waiting to be eaten up. If you look, you will see that the production of coal in Germany, France, and America has been increasing at gigantic speed, and it is as sure as anything that in a comparatively few years they will want no more of your coal, and they will probably be exporters of coal here. What is your standby?"
  Certainly not the British Government. Instead of being their standby they bad injured them and their trade by giving a protective tariff of ls. a ton in favour of every country but their own. Why did they object to sugar bounties on the one hand and then give a bounty of Is. a ton to every nation which sold coal in competition with them? A more absolutely unjustifiable and suicidal course they could not find. He challenged the Government to mention any country in the world where they hampered their coal trade by such a mischievous tax. They had had it proved that this tax had decreased the wages of the miner and was likely to decrease them still further, and therefore, on all these grounds, he submitted to the Committee that they had made oat an absolutely unanswerable case, and in demanding the removal of this most iniquitous and unjust tax they were only seeking that measure of justice from Parliament that every section of the community had every right to demand.
  New clause (Reduction of Coal Duty)—
  "On and after the first day of August nineteen hundred and four one penny shall be substituted for one shilling as the duty on coal under Section 3 of The Finance Act, 1901." —(Mr. Join Wilson, Durham.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAMsaid that when the tax was first imposed it was generally supposed, especially by those favouring it, that it would have little effect upon our exports. The opinion was expressed that foreign counties were more or less dependent upon us for their coal supply and that consequently they would pay this tax. But, since then, they had had a very rude awakening indeed. Not only had they not been dependent upon us, but we had lost considerably in the markets which hitherto we thought we had the monoply of. Therefore, every argument that had been used against high prices and low wages hitherto, as favouring foreign competition and killing our trade, should be used with great force against this tax. America had profited to some degree as a consequence of the tax, but Germany had benefited more than any other country. Once the English contracts with France terminated, the duty became applicable, and the shipments from Rotterdam increased by leaps and hounds, cheap transit from the colliery to the port and from the port to the destination giving them such an advantage over us that for the first time in history the freights from German collieries to the markets in France were reduced the same level as those from Welsh and English ports. Consequently, the imposition of this Is. tax had given the German vendor the full benefit of that amount to be used against us in the markets that were entirely our own. It was really not until 1902 that the Westphalian Syndicate turned itself to the object of invading French ports. As soon as the Is. tax was put on, the German vendors saw their chances and they conducted their business accordingly. He found by returns supplied by the Consuls at the respective ports that the importation of German coal showed the following progressive increases: In 1901 they sent 5,000 tons; in 1902 it had increased to 242,000; and in 1903 to 630,000. It would be seen at a glance what a great advantage German exporters had over English the moment the duty was imposed. We were losing ground just as Germany was gaining.

  615
  The assertion that the tax had not made the slightest difference to the workers was altogether erroneous. Two-thirds of the South Wales output had not been affected to the same degree as other exporting districts because of the quality of their coal; the workers there had benefited from the fact that their fellowmen were murdering one another; the demand for coal for war purposes had enabled them to work a little more regularly. But the western part of South Wales had been very seriously affected. Thousands of men had been thrown out of work, and their organisation had paid thousands of pounds to assist them to live. Even the districts with the best coal had suffered with other districts a reduction of wages of over 30 per cent. since the imposition of the duty. The whole of that might not have been effected by the coal tax, but it was impossible for the competition not to be intensified by the loss of Is. per ton. As a rule the workers nominally received about 10 per cent. in the shilling so that for three years they had been losing 10 per cent. of their wages. During the past three years that shilling alone meant to every man earning 5s. a day no less than £23. That loss was directly in consequence of the tax. He hoped there would be no effort made in the face of these facts to assert that the workers of South Wales had not suffered loss on account of the coal tax. They, knew that it was impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to meet their request this year, but what they asked was that, in view of the facts stated, the imposition should be removed at the earliest possible moment.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid hon. Members had raised this question rather with a view to future consideration than with any expectation of an immediate and satisfactory answer. They had directed attention to the effect of the tax, urging that the course of trade should be carefully watched. Of course he would do that. At the present time a Royal Commission was sitting, appointed to examine a great number of questions affecting our coal industry and coal supplies, and among other matters the effect of this tax on our export trade. The Report of that Commission
  616
  would in itself provide material of great value and would require the serious attention of His Majesty's Government. Earlier in the year he received a deputation representing every interest in the coal-mining industry, and on that occasion he had thought it only courteous to give a reply in detail, and yet he had been blamed for not confining his observations to an acknowledgment of the case presented and merely pleading the financial necessities of the year. Probably hon. Members would now expect a full answer, and he could assure them that he was keeping an open ear for any new evidence and an open mind for the consideration of the Report of the Commission. The hon. Member complained that our coal trade was being destroyed and that we were being cut out of markets where we used to have a large trade. But was that true? In 1903 we exported more coal than in any previous year.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONasked if the right hon. Gentleman included the 5,000,000 tons of coal below 6s. per ton in respect of which no duty was paid?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he certainly did include both the small coal and the bunker coal. As to German competition, of course there had been a great development in the German coal trade in the last few years, but it did not begin with this tax, and it would have come just the same whether there had been a tax or not. There was no doubt that the facilities for water carriage which Westphalian coal now enjoyed enabled it to compete on more favourable terms than were possible formerly, and, further, it was shipped for the market with greater care and anxiety to meet the needs of the particular market than was common with our coal. It was graded better and put on the market with a closer standard as to quality than our own coal. But during the first six months of this year the expert of coal had risen again, compared with the same period last year. It was true that the prices were much lower, but hon. Gentlemen could not expect that high prices could be maintained from season to season. There must be a greater falling-off in prices and wages than before

  617
  prices were lowered in 1900–1901, 1902–1903. They were, in fact, lower than in any year previous to 1886, except at the beginning of 1890.
  MR. FENWICK: No, that is not so, at least in reference to my own county.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that he had not the figures for more than four months of the present year, but if they compared them with the corresponding four months of last year they would find that the export from the Channel ports showed an increase, the export from the East of Scotland showed an increase, the export from the north-eastern ports was practically unchanged, while the export from the north-western ports and the West of Scotland showed decreases. If it was true that our export trade as a whole had been larger, so also was it true that it bore a larger proportion to the total output of coal in this country than in any preceding year. It was a remarkable fact which had some bearing on this question as to whether wages had been lowered. No doubt there was a great falling-off compared with abnormal years, bat the exports had increased not only in themselves but also in proportion to the total exports of the country. He found that in the first five months of the present year we had exported to Germany more coal than in 1903 or in 1902. The same remark applied in the cases of Holland, Belgium, and Russia. In the case of France, which was said to be a vanishing market, the five months showed the figures to be almost unchanged. He did not think he need detain the Committee longer; he had put before them some of the observations which he wished to make and he asked their attention to those points, whilst he would certainly give his own attention to the points they had raised. He did not think it right whilst this question was sub judice before the Royal Commission to definitely commit the Government to any course of action for them to follow. He could not pledge himself to anything without considering the Report and the evidence laid before the Commission. Nothing he had said that day was meant to indicate any intention to close the door against new facts which might be brought before his notice, but he felt bound to call their
  618
  attention to the case as presented to him.
  MR. FENWICKsaid he could not find fault with the tone or temper with which the right hon. Gentleman had addressed himself to the consideration of the case. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the observations with which he concluded his speech would be welcomed on that side of the House and would also be welcomed by miners in the country whose wages were adversely affected by the operation of this tax. If he had to criticise some of the figures which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had placed before the Committee he begged the right hon. Gentleman to believe that he did not criticise either his arguments or his figures in any unfriendly manner. If the right hon. Gentleman was able to upset their figures they would be very & to welcome any information that he was able to give them. Before he dealt with some of the points raised by the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he thought he should like to offer his congratulations to the hon. Member for Mid-Durham for the very able and lucid way in which he had raised this question. The Committee appreciated the enormous physical as well as mental disadvantages under which his hon. friend had laboured in having to raise this question after the House had been in session for eighteen and a half hours and after the hon. Member had been engaged continuously on public duty for more than twenty-two and a half hours. Yet the Committee would agree that the vigour and eloquence with which the hon. Member presented this case for the consideration of the Committee were, under the circumstances, very creditable indeed. His hon. friend had referred to the reduction which had taken place in the wages of Northumberland miners, and he (Mr. Fenwick) interjected an observation to correct what he thought was a mistake in stating that wages had fallen 42 per cent. in Northumberland. He should explain that that fall was from the highest point to which wages had risen in the coal trade. The actual fall in wages from the time that the coal tax was imposed up to the present was 10 per cent. on the miners' wages and the fall in price from the highest point to the present was over 4s. 10d. per ton at the pit's mouth, though, since the

  619
  tax was imposed, the fall was represented by something like 2s. 4d. per ton.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite right in saying that he never had anticipated that the wages and prices would be kept up to the high level of 1900 or 1901. They knew perfectly well that from natural causes both prices and wages would fall, but they contended that the imposition of this tax accelerated that fall and accelerated the rate at which the wages had been reduced. In Northumberland wages were lower than they had been for many years past. They were not endeavouring to throw the burden upon another set; their complaint was that the other set, whoever they were, had thrown an additional burden upon them. The dislocation of trade alleged by The Times had not arisen from the action of districts like Northumberland, because they produced absolutely for a foreign market. Eighty per cent. of their sales went abroad, and did not interfere in any way with the competition in the home market. The people who, according to The Times, got the high prices were not the people who were penalised by this tax. Of all the taxes imposed by the present Government the coal tax was the least defensible. It was a tax not upon an industry as a whole, but upon a portion of an industry; it was not even upon a class, but upon a section of a class, and it was levied in such a way as to give foreign competitors a bounty in the markets where the British producer had to compete with the foreign producer. The Prime Minister justified the repeal of the corn tax on the ground that one-fourth or one-fifth of the tax was a charge on the raw material of the farmer. What was the fact in regard to the coal tax? The total yield last year was £2,303,411, of which no less than £583,383 was collected from Clyde and Tyne ports. If the Prime Minister's argument was valid in the case of the corn tax, there was infinitely more justification for claiming the repeal of the coal tax, because more than one-fourth of the total produce of the tax fell upon a small proportion of the industry.
  The right hon. Gentleman had informed the Committee that last year the exports were greater and that the number of persons employed was larger than in any previous year. That was true, but he
  620
  had left out of account that the increase was entirely due to the natural increase in the population. For the ten years prior to the tax the average annual increase in the export was 1,502,389 tons; but since the imposition of the tax the increase had been only 138,229 tons. He thought the Committee, and especially the commercial men, would be able to appreciate the position he put before them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite correct when he said that our export was greater last year than ever before, that the number of persons employed was greater than it had been in any previous year, and that the total aggregated amount of wages had been higher than at least for some considerable time, but there was the stern fact confronting him, that the normal or average annual rate of progress and development of the industry had been checked, in their judgment at least, by means of this tax to the very serious extent of nearly 1,500,000 tons per annum. He was certain that if a tax were imposed upon any other industry, say, the textile or the iron and steel industry, which had the effect of checking the normal average annual increase or development of those industries, they would have an outcry from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who were interested in those industries; and, while they allowed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly correct in saying that the exports had increased and that the number of persons employed had also increased, he had not borne in mind that the natural rate of development had not been maintained. He was perfectly sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not intend to mislead any one in putting the case before the deputation or this Committee, but from information which he (the hon. Member) had received, an impression had been created in certain quarters by the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the deputation which waited upon him in April that they could not be badly off, seeing that their exports had increased, that the number of persons employed had increased, and that the aggregate amount of wages paid I had also increased; but he thought he would see, when he examined the

  621
  facts he (the hon. Member) had brought to his notice, that in the checking of the natural development of the industry they had a grievance. He was glad to hear that he preserved a perfectly open mind on the subject and was quite prepared to be guided by the recommendations of the Royal Commission that was now considering the question of our coal supply. He was not sure that he would find a great deal of guidance from the Report and recommendations of that Commission. He believed it was quite true to say that, whilst they had taken incidentally some evidence in reference to the coal tax, the Commission did not consider this was a question that was directly referred to them.
  MR. JOHNSONsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a quotation which rather startled him. He stated that the highest point of wages was touched in 1901. This rather differed from the parts he (the hon. Member) had in his mind. So far as their trade in Durham was concerned, that was not so. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman was speaking for the whole country in 1901.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, not 1901: 1900.
  MR. JOHNSON: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I understood him to say 1901. Proceeding, he said the coal tax was one very keenly felt, at all events amongst the mining community which he had the honour to represent,' because they felt and knew that it interfered with their wages. The miners were not slack and had no desire to shirk their fair share of responsibility in paying this enormous war tax, but they did object to paying the tax two or three times over. There was a general consensus of opinion not only among the miners of the northern counties and Wales but throughout the whole of the mining districts in opposition to this tax. The miners were not disposed to tax themselves, and yet they had done so in the following manner. Year after year they had held conferences and condemned this tax; they had sent deputations to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and had.
  622
  put before him their views and indicated to him that what they were concerned with mostly was the effect that the tax had upon the workmen's wages. In 1901 they waited upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol. who was then Chancellor of the `Exchequer, and indicated to him that they did not hold a brief for the coal-owners or capitalists but they were specially and particularly representing the miners. They expressed the opinion that the owners could no doubt take care of themselves, and they put before him such facts as they could to influence his mind as to the feeling of the working miners. They clearly indicated to him that the effect would be a falling wage, and that the unanimous opinion of the miners throughout the country was that those having the larger incomes ought to be called upon to pay the larger share of taxation. The hon. Member for Mid-Durham had said it was not well to take the line of least resistance in this matter, but that would appear to be what the Government had done. He had heard workmen express the opinion time and again that if there was to be increased revenue it must come from them instead of from the large landowners and those who had large incomes, who were quite able to bear a larger portion of the burden of taxation than the workmen. The right hon. Gentleman finally based his tax on increased trade. But they had to base their case on diminished wages and diminished working time. That was the hest test upon which to try this question. With the workman it was not a question of dividend or of the balance of his banker's account. It was a question of his actual wages, his actual bread and butter, and the workman said he had been taxed sufficiently, and if increased taxation was sought it must be sought in some other direction.
  It could not be gainsaid that the coal trade had been considerably handicapped in the Continental markets through this tax. That was proved by the consular reports sent from Rotterdam and Hamburg. The Consuls of those towns who were on the spot were the best able to judge what the conditions were, and they had come to the conclusion that

  623
  the I s. per ton imposed on coal exported from this country had been a very great hindrance to our trade. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others continued to state the fact, however, that our trade was not diminishing although we had suffered considerably both in wages and in working time. While on a journey to London recently from Durham he was informed by a colliery owner that he had lost two contracts, one for 275,000 tons of coal spread over two years and another for 40,000 tons of coal. Those contracts were both lost because of the coal tax, which would not permit him to compete in the foreign market. If this tax did not handicap the coal industry then it meant that the coal-owners before the imposition of this tax were selling their commodity at 1s. a ton less than they had any reason to do. He had sufficient knowledge of the colliery owner to know that they would not sell their coal at 1s. a ton less than they could get, and he did not blame them for it. It must be perfectly plain that the 1s. a ton had to be paid by them, which meant that a competitive advantage of 1s. a ton was given to the Continental coal industry. It was patent on the face of it that if a commodity was taxed it must be at a competitive disadvantage with the commodity with which it competed which was not taxed, and he asserted that these contracts were lost simply and solely because of the tax which had been put on coal exported from this country.
  The miners were quite prepared to pay their fair share of taxation, but they objected to be taxed two or three times over. One of the ways in which they were now taxed was that the miners' associations had to provide for those out of employment. From June, 1902, to the 1st July, 1903, the society with which he was connected paid nearly £6,000 to members out of employment. That was a very great tax indeed on the miners' association, because it meant that not only were the men thrown out of employment because of the operations of this tax, but those men so thrown out had to be kept by those in work, and so they were paying a double and triple tax. It had been suggested in the course of this debate that there
  624
  might be other sources of taxation if the Government only had the courage to face them. Why did they not take a portion of the £6,000,000 royalty rent owned by a class who did nothing whatever for it, who went into no speculation, who sunk no shafts, nor took upon themselves any of the financial burdens undertaken by the coal-owners. In this way the industry was handicapped and taxed for the benefit of the income of men who did nothing to advantage the country. Why did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer get hold of some of that £6,000,000; but, after all, perhaps it was not likely that the right hon. Gentlemen or the present Government would attempt to tax their own friends, because they believed in the dictum of Artemus Ward, "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." If they wanted money they did not go to the wealthier but to the poorer classes. There was another great source of taxation in this country—the land. The land did not bear by any means its fair share of taxation, the landed proprietors of this country were shuffling from their shoulders a large burden which they were putting on the heavily taxed poor. If the Government would face this question of land taxation and would make the landowners bear their proper share of the burden of taxation the Government would receive the thanks of the whole of the working classes of this country. He hoped that these observations would not be lost upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer or on his successors but that they would seek some means by which the incidence of taxation should fall more equitably on the rich and on the poor, so that life might be made more tolerable for the latter, on whose shoulders the heavier portion of the burden now fell.
  MR. BURTstated that he was closely associated with a mining district which was very seriously affected by this tax. According to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he was keeping an open mind on the subject and was fully considering facts which had been put before him. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the coal tax had not killed export trade. Well, he (Mr. Burt) did not think that anybody had ever said that it had. But it had greatly checked exports and had

  625
  brought the increase to a standstill. The right hon. Gentleman stated that 1903 was the highest export year for coal in their records. That was true; but there were certain considerations connected with 1903 that greatly increased the export of coal during that year. There was a good deal of extra trade with France and the United States. owing to strikes of miners in these countries. To the latter country more than 1,000,000 tons of coal were sent because of the strike, and that was entirely exceptional and abnormal. If they deducted that, and if they further deducted bunker coal they found that the exports for 1903 were really considerably less than not only 1901 but a1so 1900. The right hon. Gentleman objected to 1900 being taken into comparison on the ground that it was an exceptional year, and he excluded 1901 on the same ground; so they had never had a normal year since the tax was imposed. But 1900 was the year when the tax was imposed, and the tax itself was an abnormality. In his own district of Northumberland the tax was affecting wages. What the workmen objected to was that they were not only taxed as citizens on tea, tobacco, beer, and other articles, but that they were a1so called upon to pay an entirely exceptional tax, which affected one trade only and only a portion of that trade. He was glad to know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give every consideration to the question that was put before him. Both the present Chancellor and his predecessor declared that if they believed this tax would injuriously affect the miners it would be an important consideration in dealing with the subject. It had been conclusively shown that the coal tax had a very considerable effect in diminishing wages, and that it tended to diminish the price of exported coal. He hoped circumstances would change, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have a surplus next year, and that one of the earliest things he would do would be to abolish this wholly inequitable and exceptional tax.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL BANNERMANsaid he rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the Committee to the hour of the day which the Com
  626
  mittee had now reached. They had had an interesting and temperate discussion, temperate on both sides of the House. on the coal tax, but the subject was by no means exhausted even in the most moderate interpretation of the word "exhaustion," because he would mention one particular item that up to now had not even been referred to. That was the Scotch case which had peculiar elements in it which were not represented in the speeches to whichh the House had listened. The Committee had now arrived at the hour when the ordinary business of the House of Commons, not in the House itself but e1sewhere, commenced. The Grand Committee on Trade commenced its sitting at 11.30 and had to consider the Irish Labourers Bill, a Bill which excited a great deal of feeling among Irish Members, at any rate. On that Grand Committee there ought to be eighty-three Members present. Besides that there were three Private Bill Committees, one of which sat at 11, one at 11.30, and one at 11.45, each having four Members, so that there were ninety-five Members of this House whose Parliamentary duties called them to another part of the building; and who would have to sit there in spite of the fact that they had been kept all night here. That was a very strong reason why the Committee should report Progress at this point. This particular discussion, as he had said, was not in the most moderate interpretation of the term exhausted. There were other clauses of great importance which deserved the attention of the House, as part of the general scheme of the taxation of this country, so that the Committee could not be held to have come to the end of this stage of the Finance Bill by any means. It was rather hard for these ninety-five Members who had been up all night to be transferred from one place of torture to another. He assumed a1so that at two o'clock the consideration of the Licensing Bill would come before the House, it being one of the allotted days given for the purpose. On those grounds which he had endeavoured to put as temperately as possible he thought he was justified in moving to report Progress. He had devoted himself for the greater part of the night to the discussion in the House, which had been most temperate in its character, and he hoped that the Committee would

  627
  now in the same temperate spirit come to the conclusion which he invited them to come to, which would at all events discharge them from overlapping one day's duty with another, and thus bringing Parliament into disrepute.
  Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR,who was cheered on rising, said the right hon. Gentleman had been quite accurately informed by those who, in his own words, had had the fortune to sit up all night, that their proceedings had, with some small exceptions, been conducted in a good-natured and friendly spirit. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would admit that this clause had already bee a long discussed. This part of the Budget proceedings had extended over a larger period than any Budget proceedings in his recollection. The Committee stage had lasted two days more than the Committee on the Budget in which a shilling duty on food was proposed. That proposal involved a whole set of considerations absolutely novel and of great importance. This Budget did rot involve any new principle, and the discussion they were-engaged on was one which could not at this stage modify the Budget. This clause had been discussed for more than three hours, and would again come on for discussion early in the next stage of their proceedings on the Bill. Therefore, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was hardly justified in suggesting that they should leave the debate midway and proceed to other matters. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that other duties required the attendance of a large number of Members, but in the first place the inconvenience was not so great numerically as the right hon. Gentleman supposed, for the Grand Committee had separated for the day—
  MR. JOHN ELLISsaid he might perhaps explain as Chairman of the Grand Committee that by Standing Orders it could not sit whi1st the House was sitting without leave obtained from the House. [Cries of "Order."]
  THE CHAIRMANsaid an interruption was not necessarily out of order.
  ME. A. J. BALFOURaccepted the hon. Member's explanation. and said it disposed of a large part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked to be allowed to say, without being guilty of disorder, that if Progress were reported the Speaker would return to the Chair, the Chairman would come into relations with the Speaker, and on the adjournment the Gland Committee might proceed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURrather thought the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken. A large part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument being disposed of, he hoped it would not be felt that he was making an unreasonable request in saying that they really ought to finish the discussion on the coal tax at this sitting; and, if Members thought it was a question not thoroughly disposed of, the Report stage would offer a further opportunity for discussion.
  SIR EDWARD GREYdemurred to the statement that this Budget had already taken an unduly long lime. The discussions on Budgets immediately preceding this could not be regarded as normal, as they were conducted under pressure in a time of war. A great deal of the time taken up on this Budget had been occupied with a number of detai1s as to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the first place had received imperfect information. The coal tax had been passed with little discussion in former years. Its opponents had chosen this year for bringing their ca se against it in full force, and for that they had only had three hours. Surely, considering the many aspects of the coal tax and the great strain to which the House had been subjected, it was only reasonable that Progress should be reported, especially as, if the Motion were agreed to, it would not lengthen the ultimate proceedings on the Bill.
  MR. EMMOTTquite agreed with what the Prime Minister had said about the temperateness with which their long discussion during the night had been

  629
  carried on—in fact, he did not know, but for one speech in singularly bad taste, the speech by the hon. Member for Eskdale [MINISTERIAL laughter and ironical cheers], that there was any very—[the close of the sentence was drowned by interruptions by MINISTERIALISTS and cries of "Divide."] There was no use in hon. Members crying "Divide," he was not going to be shouted down by them. The Prime Minister said the Budget in which the 1s. tax on corn was imposed involved new and novel principles whereas this Budget did not. He ventured to contest that point. They had already had a similar duty on sugar and when the Budget containing that proposal was introduced it was explained that no protection was meant. The same thing was said of this Budget and they found that protection would at any rate be carried out. The next point he wished to make was this. Was it not a farce to allot days to the Licensing Bill and then to spoil them by an all-night sitting preceding. How could they do their work properly when they had to sit up all night without getting any sleep at all and then go straight on to the consideration of the Licensing Bill. It was not treating the House fairly. The Finance Bill had always been treated somewhat exceptionally by the House. A great deal more latitude had been allowed in regard to that Bill than in regard to any other matter. But they could not discuss the Finance Bill properly in the circumstances in which they had been discussing it. Was it not a very bad example to set to the Liberal Party [Cries of "Oh, oh'"] if they ever crossed the floor of the House and had the introduction of a Finance Bill. There was no possibility of dealing with that Bill in the House of Lords. This precedent had now been set, and if the Prime Minister was going to force the Bill through was it not a very bad precedent to put into the hands of the Liberal Party and one which might be used at a moment when the Conservative Party might not like it, and be, as they might perhaps think, much to the detriment of good government. Finally what good could possibly be done by making them discuss the matter any longer now, he did not mean the Motion to report Progress, but the Finance Bill. There they had been
  630
  debating for twenty-two hours and surely it was time that their discussion might be stopped and resumed again on Friday. He was perfectly certain it would add to the good temper of all Parties it the Prime Minister could see his way to accept the Motion.
  MR. EUGENE WASONsaid he had risen half-a-dozen times in his desire to put before the Committee the views of the Scotch miners upon this tax. He had not much to say, but it was only right that the views of his constituents who were largely miners should be heard. Therefore he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to accede to the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. It would be good, not only for Members of the House but a1so for the officia1s, if Progress were now reported. If the right hon. Gentleman would consent to that course he would, for his part, promise to only occupy a very short time.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsupported the appeal. Many of those he had the honour to represent were miners and felt very strongly upon this matter. Their views ought to be heard, and therefore he hoped the Prime Minister would give way and allow this coal tax to be a little more fully discussed than it could be if they were to continue it now. He did not agree with the statement that there was no novelty in this Budget. There were some perfectly new features in it, not the least novel of which was the way in which the unclaimed dividends were being dealt with.
  MR. SHACKLETONobserved that four hours ago he endeavoured to get a word in on this question. His object then was not to make a further appeal because he thought then, and he thought now, that the appeal made by the hon. Member for Mid-Durham and his colleagues was appreciated fully by the Prime Minister. He felt that if the Prime Minister could not agree to their request it was impossible for an outside Member to make an appeal which would have any effect upon him. The Prime Minister hardly knew what he was doing just now with the

  631
  Party that was supporting him. That was his opinion. He did not think Mr. Balfour fully appreciated the work that had been going on in the last twenty-four hours—and certainly since midnight. ["Oh, oh!" and cries of "He has not been here."] He was making no charge that the Prime Minister had not given fair attention to the debate, but what he wished to point out was that this matter of the coal tax had been before the House one way or the other for six weeks, and it had compelled the attendance in London of representatives of the coal-mining industry almost weekly. It had cost a few hundred pounds for the associations to have their men there to do the work of their Members and what was the return for it? They were told that they must not have a fair opportunity. They were told that their Members should speak when they had been in the House twelve, fourteen, or sixteen hours and lay the case of the men before that Assembly when they had been attending to the debate on other matters. Who were they who were making that request?—he wanted the country to know it. Half a million of those men in districts throughout the Kingdom would remember the slight that had been done to the leaders of the miners in a matter which affected them seriously, which had been the means of reducing their wages, of curtailing their hours of employment, and which had brought continual suffering on their families. He wanted the House to realise that they would not forget that day's proceedings—that they would tell the miners of the treatment they had received at the hands of the Prime Minister, backed by his Party—yes, backed by his Party. He was glad of that cheer, it only added power to the argument. He felt certain that the day would come when Mr. Balfour would regret having treated the representatives of that industry in the manner he had done early that morning.
  MR. DALZIELconcluded that the Committee was justified in asking the right hon. Gentleman to give the reasons which justified him in this course of procedure, and for asking them to sit longer on this occasion. There was no urgency for this Bill, and the only difficulty, if this Motion were accepted, would be the absorption of
  632
  perhaps three hours some afternoon later on. Surely the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to dragoon the Committeee in this matter. No doubt the only consideration which weighed with the right hon. Gentleman was that he desired to get his Budget through, but would any Budget carried by the Government under such circumstances as these be an advantage to them in the long run? Surely some compromise might be arrived at in this matter. Let the right hon. Gentleman estimate the amount of time he would be content to give for the discussion of what remained of the Budget, and then some arrangement might perhaps be made. He, himself, represented some thousands of miners, and had received many communications from them on the subject of this tax. Their views might be right or they might be wrong, but they were certainly entitled to complain if this question was not fully and adequately discussed. The right hon. Gentleman himself had supporters who represented large mining districts, and he might appeal on their behalf a1so for some consideration in this matter. He a1so appealed on behalf of the officia1s of the House who had been on duty continuously for twenty-four hours, and he believed if the right hon. Gentleman would assent to the Motion he would greatly gain in the end.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNERsaid that during the whole of the time he had been a Member of the House of Commons, and he had been a Member for many years, he had never witnessed such a deliberate attempt as had been made this session on the part of the Opposition to make legislation impossible. He had never witnessed more scandalous obstruction.
  MR. LOUGHasked whether the hon. Member was in order in making use of such an expression.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that "scandalous" was rather a strong epithet, and he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw it.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNERsaid he would withdraw the word "scandalous." He had never witnessed such wilful and deliberate obstruction.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON,on a point of order, said he recently brought exactly the same charge against hon. Members opposite as that now made against the Members of the Opposition, and it would be in the recollection of the Chairman that on that occasion he (the Chairman) made him withdraw the phrase. He therefore asked that the hon. Member should be made to withdraw this statement, which was quite untrue.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has put himself entirely out of order by telling another hon. Member that what he said was untrue.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I withdraw that, Sir.
  THE CHAIRMAN: On the occasion referred to the hon. Member was imputing a motive which was not in order. On this occasion the hon. Gentleman was stating what he conceives to be a fact. Whether the fact is well founded or not it is not for me to say, but the word obstruction has constantly been used in debate—
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: But, Sir, "wilful and deliberate."
  THE CHAIRMAN: I say with regard to those epithets what I said with regard to the epithet "scandalous." I think they are disagreeable if not reprehensible. I do not think the hon. Member ought to use such epithets, and I hope he will withdraw them. But the word obstruction is one that has been used frequently on both sides of the House and it is not one I can ask the hon. Member to withdraw.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNERsaid he did not wish to add to the difficulty of the Chairman's task. He would content himself with the word "obstruction" and leave it to the majority of the House to decide whether what he had asserted was correct or not. When the hon. Member assumed the task of Chancellor of the Exchequer—and he supposed the hon. Member thought that time would soon come—he hoped the Unionist Party would not retaliate by following the evil example set by the Opposition in this debate. He hoped the
  634
  Prime Minister would stand firm and insist upon carrying on this stage of the Bill.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he had been in the House since the commencement of the discussion on the coal tax and he did not think the Minister in charge of the Bill would allege for one moment that a single act of obstruction, or an unnecessary speech or sentence, had been made use of in regard to this particular tax. If there had been obstruction the chief obstructionist was the hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat as was shown by the speech he had made. Up to now there had been good temper on both sides of the House, but the speech they had listened to had put an end to all good temper. Forty minutes had no w been absorbed in the discussion of this Motion, they would go to a division, and from the Government's point of view a whole hour would have been wasted in discussing whether the Committee should or should not go on with the debate. He had never known a Government to gain anything at any time by pressing a thing when the Opposition were determined to hold out. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consent to the Motion to report Progress and to bring the discussion to an end now, so that they might come to the further discussion of the subject with fresh minds.
  MR. MCCRAEsaid as one who had taken part in the debate since the House met at two o'clock on the previous day he felt he was entitled to repudiate the statement of the hon. Baronet opposite. He had no desire to ruffle anybody s susceptibilities and he was quite sure that no. one on the Treasury Bench would suggest that there had been any obstruction. Let hon. Members look through the Paper and consider how these Amendments had been debated and they a1so. would agree that there had been no obstruction. Everybody must concede tie fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown the greatest good temper and good feeling throughout the whole discussion, and it would be unfortunate if any heat and ill-feeling were now introduced into the debate. The right

  635
  hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House would lose nothing by accepting the Motion, and, therefore, he would suggest that they should now separate in good feeling with each other; that they should consider this a drawn battle and that they should resume the discussion of the coal tax under more favourable conditions.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he approached this question in a spirit of perfect calmness, having on the previous night "slept the sleep of the just." He did not quite understand the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. Did the right hon. Gentleman propose to carry this sitting over until after two o'clock if it was not finished before, because in that case he would gain nothing, because, that day being an allotted day for the discussion of the Licensing Bill, if the Committee went on with the present discussion the Licensing Bill could not come on as first order, and any discussion which took place on that Bill after the Committee had disposed of this question could not be held to be as coming within the allotted day. He thought the right hon. Gentleman, in his own interests and in the interests of Parliament, would do well under the circumstances to take the Licensing Bill at two o'clock and give some other day to that debate. The right hon. Gentleman would see that he gained no more time for himself, but, in fact, lost time by pursuing the course he was now taking.
  SIR CHRISTOPHER FURNESSsaid he wished to associate himself with the appeal made by the hon. Member for Mid-Durham. He had listened with pleasure to the remark of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was ready to consider with an open mind any fresh facts that were brought before him. For this reason he now ventured to occupy a little of the time of the House. The imposition of this coal-tax, or indeed of any tax upon an article of consumption—

  AYES

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bell, Richard

  Burt, Thomas

  Allen, Charles P.

  Boland, John

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Brigg, John

  Caldwell, James

  THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member would not be in order in discussing the tax, he must confine himself to discussing the Motion to report Progress.
  SIR CHRISTOPHER FURNESSsaid he had associated himself with the appeal of his hon. friend the Member for Mid-Durham, and he was proposing to give one or two fresh facts to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but if that were not in order he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition, and thus give him (Sir Christopher) the opportunity of bringing those fresh facts to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONasked whether the First Lord of the Treasury would state to the House the grounds for his not accepting a Motion which had the united support of the entire Opposition.
  SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Motion to report Progress, hon. Members who wished to discuss this tax would, he was quite sure, be quite willing, if the discussion was taken again on Friday, to bring the debate to a conclusion by the hour at which the House rose for luncheon. He hoped this suggestion might meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. LOUGHappealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consider this suggestion which, in his opinion, might form the basis of a compromise. Surely before the House commenced its ordinary sitting at two o'clock the right hon. Gentleman would like the place cleaned out. He put it to the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the suggestion made by his hon. friend, some compromise could not be arrived at.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 112; Noes, 195. (Division List No. 266.)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Rea, Russell

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Joicey, Sir James

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Joyce, Michael

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan,W.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Lambert, George

  Runciman, Walter

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Langley, Batty

  Russell, T. W.

  Delany, William

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Leese,Sir JosephF.(Accrington)

  Shackleton, David James

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Levy, Maurice

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Doogan, P, C.

  Lough, Thomas

  Sheehy, David

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  London, W.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Elibank, Master of

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Ellice,Capt.EC(S.Andrw'sBghs

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Emmott, Alfred

  M'Crae, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M`Hugh, Patrick A.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Thomas, DavidAlfred(Merthyr

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh,N.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Mooney, John J.

  Tully, Jasper

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Grey, Rt Hon.Sir E.(Berwick)

  Norman, Henry

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Hammond, John.

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Wi1son, Henry J.(York,W.R.)

  Harcourt, LewisV.(Rossendale

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wi1son, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Harwood, George

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Woodhouse, SirJT(Hudd'rsf'd)

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Shee, James John

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Parrott, William

  Young, Samuel

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

  Partington, Oswald

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Paulton, James Mellor

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Price, Robert John

  William M'Arthur.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Priestley, Arthur

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Co1ston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Agnew Sir Andrew Noel

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S.

  Greene, SirEW(BrySEdm'nds)

  Ark wright, John Stanhope

  Cross, Herb.Shepherd (Bolton)

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury

  Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cost, Henry John C.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Gretton, John

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Davenport., W. Bromley

  Groves, James Grimble

  Balcarres, Lord

  Denny, Colonel

  Hardy, Laurence(Kent,Ashford

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

  Dewar,SirT.R.(TowerHamlets)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Balfour, RtHnGeraldW.(Leeds

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Harris, Dr.Fredk. R.(Dulwich)

  Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor)

  Dorington, RtHon.SirJohnE.

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Beach,Rt.Hn.Sir MichaelHicks

  Doughty, Sir George

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Douglas, Rt.Hon.A.Akers

  Heath, James(Staffords.,N.W.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Bill, Charles

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Bingham, Lord

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

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

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Hope, JF(Sheffield, Brightside

  Bowles, T. Gibson(King's Lynn

  Fergusson, Rt.Hn SirJ (Manc'r

  Horner, Frederick William

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Finch, Rt.Hon. George H.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Bull, William James

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Howard, John(KentFaversham

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Howard, J.(Midd.,Tottenham)

  Campbell, J.H.M(DublinUniv.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Hozier, Hon.JamesHenryCecil

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Fison, Frederick William

  Hunt, Rowland

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Fitzroy, Hon.EdwardAlgernon

  Jeffreys,Rt.Hon.ArthurFred.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Forster, Henry William

  Kenyon, Hon.Geo.T.(Denbigh)

  Chamberlain, Rt.HnJA(Worc.

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

  Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon.Col.W.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Kerr, John

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Gardner, Ernest

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

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

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

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  638

  639

  Lawrence, SirJoseph(Monm'th

  Mount, William Arthur

  Spear, John Ward

  Lawson,JohnGrant(YorksN,R,

  Murray, RtHnAGraham(Bute

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Lees, Sir Elliott(Birkenhead)

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Nicho1son, William Graham

  Talbot, Lord E.(Chichester)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Peel, Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley

  Thompson, Dr.EC(Monagh'n N

  Long, Col.Charles W.(Evesham

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

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

  Percy, Earl

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Tuff, Charles

  Lowther, C.(Cumb., Eskdale)

  Platt-Higgins,Frederick

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Lucas, Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Valentia, Viscount

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Vincent, Col.SirCEH(Sheffield)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Purvis, Robert

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Pym, C. Guy

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und,Lyne

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  M'Iver, SirLewis(EdinburghW

  Ridley, Hon.M.W.(Stalybridge

  Williams, Colonel R.(Dorset)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Ridley, S.Forde(BethnalGreen

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wi1son, A. Stanley(York,E.R.)

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

  Robinson, Brooke

  Wi1son, John (Glasgow)

  Maxwell, WJH(Dumfriesshire)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wi1son

  Milner, RtHnSirFrederickG.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Milvain, Thomas

  Sack ville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Yerhurgh, Robert Armstrong

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Saunderson, Rt.Hn.Col.Edw.J.

  Younger, William

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott(Hants.)

  Scott, Sir S.(Marylebone, W.)

  Moore, William

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow

  Shaw-Stewart,SirH(Renfrew,E

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Smith,RtHnJ.Parker(Lanarks)

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Original Question again proposed.
  SIR JAMES JOICEYsaid he made no apology for detaining the House at this hour. because he represented a constituency largely composed of a mining population who took the deepest interest in this question, and who believed that it affected to a great extent their prosperity and the prosperity of the industry in which they were engaged. He could not understand, in the first place, how the Government could have so far forgotten their political economy as to put an export tax on anything sent out of this country. It was a well-known axiom with political economists that the very worst me ms of raising revenue that a country could adopt was an export tax. This was the only export tax they had at the present time, and in no other case should, in his opinion, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer impose a tax of this kind without giving over whelming reasons for its necessity. Where the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol imposed the tax he said he desired to raise revenue: that it would do no harm to the coal industry: that even if it did some harm to the coa industry that industry was well able to
  640
  bear it. The right hon. Gentleman a1so said that it would be a good thing to put a tax upon coal, because it would save the coal from exportation, and keep it for home consumption; but those familiar with the trade knew perfectly well that that was a fallacy; that instead of saving the coal for our home consumers the result was likely to be the absolute loss of the mineral which would otherwise have come into use for the benefit of the community. The mines in the Wansbeck Division were the oldest coal mines in the country, and could only be kept working with difficulty at the present prices, and if once it was found that they were losing money and had to be closed, then we might say good-bye to all the coal in those mines, because it was well-known that when a mine was closed the workings were apt to fall in and cover the coal seams, and in the present condition of affairs it would never pay to go to the expense of putting them into working order again. It must be remembered that it was only when one was on the fringe of a particular coal district that one could successfully compete; in any other part of the coal district the cost of carriage became so

  641
  large as to render it quite impossible to compete with any prospect of success.
  When this tax was imposed the coal trade was in an exceptional condition. He stated to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for West Bristol, at the time that it would be quite impossible to judge of the effect of this tax for certainly two or three years after its imposition. It was now perfectly clear that they had lost a considerable amount of trade, owing to the imposition of this tax, particularly with countries like Germany, Holland, France, and Belgium, to which might be added Australia, Chili, and all those countries within reach of our ships. They were a1so losing trade by the opening up of coal mines in India and in South Africa. People forgot that there was in all parts a large quantity of coal, and that it only wanted to be sought for and developed in order to compete with them. This tax was a protective tax to every country in the world producing coal in competition with them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that it was a most pernicious and unfortunate thing that the Chancellors of the Exchequer had not sufficiently encouraged trade in this country as against foreign trade; but what did the right hon. Gentleman do in this case? He gave a benefit to France in this case and had really protected France and other countries against the producer of coal in these islands. In his opinion as time went on the effect would be much more serious than it had been. During the last two years, owing to the exceptional condition of the shipping trade, which had resulted in extremely low freights, the coal producers had not lost so very much, but like the coal trade shipping was in a very bad financial condition. Shippers were losing money instead of gaining it; he doubted whether a single ship was paying its expenses, but there would come a change, and when that change came with a great rise in freights, it would result in a very much greater loss to the export coal trade of this country.
  He could not understand how any hon. Gentlemen could say that an export tax like the coal tax was not paid by this country. It was clear to him that, if they paid 1s. export duty on coa1s sent to
  642
  every country with which they competed, it had exactly the same elect as if they paid 1s. a ton more for railway carriage or for freight to the port of delivery. Therefore, in the market where the competition took place, it was perfectly clear that the one country which put an export duty of 1s. a ton on its coal must be handicapped very considerably. Supposing he sent coal to Hamburg, where he competed with Westphalian coal, and suppose that he was able to secure a market at the price of 15s. a ton, that being the price that the foreign coal producer charged,and the price they allowed him to get. If an export duty of 1s. a ton was put upon the coal he was supplying, he would have to supply it at the price of 14s. a ton excluding the max in order to compete with the foreign producer, and therefore he had to pay the tax by reducing his price in order to secure the market. If any tax reduced the price the coal producer received, it must of necessity a1so reduce the wages given to the miners. If this 1s. ton was to be paid by the foreigner, he would be the first to say, "Don't let it be 1s., let them pay 5s. or even 10s." But everybody knew and could see perfectly clearly that it was paid by the coal trade in this country.
  For the ten years ending 1900, before this export tax was imposed, our export trade in coal was increasing—it had increased 1,500,000 tons per annum; but if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer looked into the figures he would find that on the coal exported from this country since the tax had been imposed, there had been practically no increase for two or three years. No Government had a right to tax any trade in such a manner as to restrict the operations of that trade, unless they had the strongest belief, supported by the most overwhelming proof, that it was their duty to do so in the interests of the country at large. He challenged the Government to show that any argument had been brought forward, either by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer or anybody e1se, in favour of the tax which had not been destroyed again and again by the arguments brought forward to rebut it. He thought the Government had better be guided by those

  643
  engaged in the industry. In this matter the Committee had sees what had taken place with regard to the tobacco duty in consequence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepting the advice of experts at the Treasury and e1sewhere, which had proved to be absolutely wrong, and which had done an immense injury to the tobacco trade, which it would take many years to recover from. It was the same thing with regard to the export coal trade; they had seen channe1s of trade, which for the past fifty years coal-owners had worked hard to secure for themselves, stopped up by this tax and secured by foreign producers for themselves. That was a most severe loss, because it was very difficult to open again a channel of trade which had once been closed. It might have been true that German coal, as was suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had been shipped in cleaner and better condition than English coal, but the British producers had adapt themselves to the present conditions, and were putting coal upon the market in exactly the same condition as their German competitors. The right hon. Gentleman had a1so accounted for the falling off in exports, by saying that the use of machinery had substituted to a great extent small coal for large coal, which accounted for the large increase in the export of small coal. That increase was due to the facts that small coal did not pay the export tax and that Germany was able to make coke far cheaper than this country. As he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to be largely guided by the Report of the Royal Commission in this matter he would not detain the House further.
  MR. EUGENE WASONwas very glad indeed to have an opportunity of saving a few words in Committee on this all-important question. They had had speeches from hon. Members who represented the great mining constituencies in England and Wales, many of whom had themselves known what the life and the peril of a miner were, but up to the present time they had no representative from Scotland to address the Committee, although he had several times—he might say all night—
  644
  ineffectually endeavoured to catch the Chairman's eye. The hon. Member who had just addressed the House had shown pretty conclusively that, so far as this 1s. export duty on coal was concerned, it was a tax which was not paid by the foreigner, but by the producer and miner at home, and there was a unanimous consensus of feeling amongst the miners that that 1s. directly or indirectly helped to lower their wages. He represented a considerable body of miners in Scotland. A deputation had come up to see him on the matter and he had always voted, since that tax was put on by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, against it, and he would continue to do so until the end. He could assure the hon. Members from England and Wales who had spoken in that debate that so far as the Scotch miners were concerned they were determined to leave no stone unturned to get the 1s. tax removed, because they believed it was an injury to their wages. Earlier in the morning the hon. Member for Mid-Durham, in one of the most moving and eloquent speeches he had ever listened to, gave a quotation from a man who was well known on the East Coast of Scotland—Mr. Weir. He thought the hon. Member put it that the effect of this tax had been to reduce the miners wages by something like 25 per cent. But he happened to have with him the exact figure which Mr. Weir did state that tax had caused wages to fall. Mr. Weir said that so far as the Scotch miners were concerned they had suffered to the extent of at least 10 per cent. From what he knew of the mining industries in his own district while the wages were at present falling they had not got he was afraid, as yet, to the lowest point they were likely to reach because of this imposition of 1s. duty on exported coal. Mr. Weir a1so stated that this was the opinion of the whole of the Scottish miners. They were of opinion that this tax was an injury to the whole of the coal trade, injuring the wages and decreasing the trade. They saw men going about idle or only doing two days a week, and they a1so observed in some parts of Scotland that soup kitchens had to be opened in order to relieve the distress occasioned by the loss in the coal trade. Having regard to these

  645
  things it was the unanimous opinion of the Scottish miners in the East that the tax should now be removed, and he thought he might say that the same applied to the miners in South Ayrshire, a constituency which he once had the honour to represent. Miners believed that the effect of the tax had been to lower wages, and as a representative of the miners he would certainly oppose it by every means in his power.
  MR. PARROTTsaid as a representative of a mining division he wished to join his friends on that side in entering his protest against the 1s. tax on exported coal. He was very much impressed when the Deputy-Chairman ruled an hon. Gentleman out of order because he used the word "scandalous." He felt some amusement at his own thoughts then. He thought that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, along with the Prime Minister and as many of their friends as they chose to take, would go into the mining counties and explain to the miners that this tax did not affect them in the least either in trade or wages they would hear language which would cause the word "scandalous" to feel ashamed of itself for being so mild. He could not understand how Gentlemen could state earnestly and emphatically that the tax did not affect either miners or mine-owners. At the present moment the question of a 5 per cent. reduction was being discussed by nearly 400 miners in the Miners' Federation. That tax was made use of as one of the reasons for that reduction. They knew that trade was very bad, and they had hundreds and thousands of miners who were only working a few days a week and many who were not working at all. They believed, and he a1so believed, that it was largely because of this 1s. tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said some tithe ago to a deputation, which he accompanied, that if it could be proved to him that it did affect the trade he would then reconsider his decision. He had been told again and again that it did affect the trade both by the colliery proprietors and by the miners' representatives, and he thought no one in the House mould for a moment doubt the word of
  646
  the hon. Member for Morpeth, whom they knew to be a consistent, a truthful, and, as a rule, a non-exaggerating gentleman. That hon. Member had stated again and again that the tax was injurious to the trade and that the miners and mine-owners in Cumberland and the North were suffering. What more did the Chancellor of the Exchequer require? He told him from Yorkshire that the miners were suffering, and that the mine owners said that they were suffering.
  One hon. Member had stated that the miners were not opposed to the tax in the district which he represented. The miners were opposed to it and he was now speaking for the whole of Yorkshire. The coal-owners would tell the right hon. Gentleman if he asked them whether they had suffered or not. They told the miners they had suffered and that was why they wanted a reduction, and that was a1so why the question was being debated by the Miners' Federation. What more did the Chancellor of the Exchequer require? The owner of some very large collieries told him the other day that he had been in the trade from boyhood and had never known it so bad as at the present time; certain collieries that he and his partner owned were doing, worse than ever they did. No one need try to make him believe—they might try but they could never succeed—that miners who were only working two days a week did not feel the effects of that tax. It was a fact that they were very much affected and were protesting in all parts of the mining districts in the country against the tax. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer required petitions they could get them, and he was quite sure the hon. Member who represented Doncaster would find that the miners in his Division would protest by petition.
  MR. FISON: I have not the slightest doubt they will send a petition.
  MR. PARROTT: Y s, and they would remind the hon. Member of it at the next general election. He knew the Prime Minister represented a few miners in his Division, but he would be surprised after this if any miner in the country voted for a Conservative again for a long time. They had ruined the trade and were ruining the people. There were

  647
  800,000 or 900,000 people with their wives and families, which added up to millions, who were feeling this ax very seriously and he would advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow the Amendment to pass, substituting 1d. in the place of 1s. He took that opportunity of ente ing his protest against that ruinous tax on the coal trade. Why did the right hon. Gentleman not put a tax on all trades in the country? Why did he select the coal trade alone? He knew that if he put a tax on other trades there would be such an uprising in this country as had never been seen before. The miners were getting disgusted with the Conservative Party and they were swearing by all that was sacred that they would never vote for them any more.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid it was, he thought, the first time the hon. Member who had just spoken had taken part in debate. He was sure on both sides of the House they would congratulate him upon having contributed materially. He thought they would all condole with him in the very exceptional circumstances under which his first speech had had to be delivered. They would wish that the hon. Member should continue to take part in their debates, and that it would be seldom he would have to do so under such trying conditions. If anything could convince the Government and the country of the earnestness and the sincerity and the deep importance which hon. Members attached to this question it would be the force, the vigour, the knowledge and the clearness with which this debate had been pressed under such exceptional circumstances. Most of the hon. Members who had spoken—he thought it would be admitted with great ability and knowledge —against this tax, had done so after they had been at work, some of them for twenty hours and some of them even longer, and he thought everybody who had listened to the debate would agree that since they entered upon the debate on the coal tax there had been a degree of earnestness and vigour which nothing but great zeal and great sincerity could have maintained undiminished under such trying circumstances. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the fairness of whose tone a1so under trying circumstances
  648
  they all recognised, had told them that he had an open mind with regard to the future of that tax. That, he thought, was what his predecessor told them. He felt this about an open mind. It was rather like an open door. One ought to be careful of releasing their pressure for fear one should find the doors had become shut. So while they welcomed the Chancellor of the Exchequer's open mind he did not think that that was a reason for not pressing strongly upon him the arguments which had already been pressed with regard to that tax, because even if they could not have effect on the present Budget the vigour of them might at any rate do something to keep the Chancellor's mind open.
  All taxes were disagreeable but this tax was really an invidious and odious tax. It was, of course, especially disagreeable and disappointing that it should be kept on, because it was one of the taxes imposed while they were at war. It was quite true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day said he contemplated it becoming a permanent part of their system of taxation, but the general feeling of the House and the country was that if there had been no war this tax would never have come into being. There was a sense of disappointment that now the war had been so long over the tax showed no signs of being removed. They were told the tax was going to fall either on the foreigner or on the coal-owner, and there was some feeling at the time as to the miners' position. The miners were getting very high wages, the price of coal was high, and it was urged that the rest of the community had been so penalised by the high price of coal that neither the mine-owners nor the miners could be regarded as objects of sympathy if some burden fell upon them. The answer of course was that the miners were having temporary conditions of prosperity sure to be followed by a reaction. In the mining, just as in other trades, he had heard the leaders of the unions impress upon the men that in good times they ought to be provident so as to have something to fall back upon during long spel1s of bad trade. Those times were being felt now. Surely in principle an export duty was about the most vicious thing

  649
  one could impose. It must handicap them in competition, not only in the coal trade but in other trades as well. It affected the shipping trade as well as the coal trade. They could not tell how that tax in time might disturb shipping by altering the export trade. If they disturbed their export of coal they not only affected the shipping trade in that way, but they probably increased the charge upon the other cargo which was brought to this country, and in this way such a tax affected the shipping industry and those who depended upon it. He was told that last year the additional price which British ships had to pay for British coal purchased in foreign ports, being coal which had paid the export duty, amounted to no less than £275,000. The shipping industry was not prosperous at the present time, and such a charge as that pressed heavily upon the shipping interest. Then they had the effect of the tax upon different ports. In some cases coal was shipped from one port instead of from another, going in some cases to the port which entailed the shortest railway journey. That was hard lines on the port that lost the trade and a1so upon the coal trade.
  So far as the monopoly coal was concerned—the coal of special quality, of which they had a monopoly—he had always been ready to admit that that coal might perhaps bear a tax, and, if that coal was a monopoly, some of the tax would be paid by the foreigner, but that was a small proportion of the whole, the bulk of the trade being a competitive trade. It might be urged that they had coal of such a fine quality that it would be an advantage to impose a tax which would reserve that coal to their own use. That was just the class of coal which would not be retained by the tax, and if there were coal of that sort of which it was desirable for Admiralty or other purposes that they should keep a good reserve, the proper course was for the Government to purchase it and work it. As to the rest, the burden certainly did not fall upon the foreigner. The burden he believed had been coming out of wages, which had been falling heavily. Everybody admitted that the whole of the fall was not due to the tax, but could they believe that with this definite
  650
  and permanent tax upon the coal trade it would not in the long run come upon the wages? However much the tax might hit the owners and other interests, in the long run the tendency would be, where there was competition, for it to filter through to the miner. Everybody pushed off the tax if they could on to somebody e1se. The miner was at the bottom rung and could not push it off on anybody e1se, and therefore upon him it was likely to be fixed. That was why he called this an invidious tax—because it bore upon a particular class which already bore its fair proportion of the other burdens of the war. They were face to face with a fall in profits and in wages and there was no prospect at present of that tendency diminishing. If that were so the tax would be felt with a keen sense of injustice, because it fell specially upon one class of the community, and that was why he urged again that that tax of all taxes was the one which the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to remove on the first opportunity. It pressed with special injustice upon a particular class of the community and, being an export tax, it was especially vicious in principle, being certain to bear upon the shipping and other export trades.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid the case for the British coal trade had been so well put that he honed the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not think public opinion was less strong in Scotland upon that subject than in the North of England. Their arguments would be much the same as those advanced by the representatives of the North of England, but their case was an even stronger one, because their coa1s were cheaper and the duty pressed more heavily upon them than upon the English coal trade. There was only one opinion upon the subject that he had heard in Scotland, that was that all of them who had any connection with coal loft, and that the working miners lost most of all. Their exports were very large to the Eastern ports in the Baltic, and there they came into direct competition with German coal. There was no doubt that but for the abnormal development of recent years in the port coalfields there would be far greater depression

  651
  than there had been resulting from that tax, because it could not be denied from the figures and the evidence of all concerned in the trade that the 1s. tax had handicapped their export trade with the Baltic from the Scottish ports. There was one other point with regard to the effects of the tax—its influence upon shipping. The export trade in coal was so much the basis upon which a great part of their shipping trade rested as a paying enterprise, that anything which tended to discourage the export trade in coal was a discouragement to the great shipping industries of the country. It should not be assumed, as was often done, that this was merely a coal-owners, coal masters, or coal miners question. The future of the shipping industry was affected by it as much, he believed, as the coal trade itself, and the two together represented in Scotland

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dorington, Rt. Hon.Sir JohnE.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Doughty, Sir George

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Kenyon, Hon. Geo.T.(Denbigh)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hn. Col.W.

  Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.HughO.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Arrol, Sir William

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

  Lawrence, Sir Jos.(Monmouth)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fergusson, Rt.Hn.SirJ.(Mane'r

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

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

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

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.

  Fison, Frederick William

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  FitzGerald, Sir RobertPenrose

  Long, Col.CharlesW.(Evesham)

  Beach, Rt.Hn.SirMichaelHicks

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

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

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bill, Charles

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowther, C.(Cumb., Eskdale)

  Bingham, Lord

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bull, William James

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

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv.

  Green,Walford D.(Wednesbury

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  M'Iver,Sir Lewis(Edinburgh,W

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Gretton, John

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Hardy,Laurence (Kent,Ashford

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

  Milner, Rt.Hn.Sir Frederick G

  Chamberlain,Rt Hn.J.A(Worc.

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Charrington, Spncer

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

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

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Moore, William

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow

  Co1ston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Horner, Frederick William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Murray,Rt.Hn.A.Graham(Bute

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hoult, Joseph

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Howard, Jn.(Kent, Faversham

  Nicho1son, William Graham

  Denny, Colonel

  Howard, J. (Midd.,Tottenham)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hosier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Peel, Hn.Wm.Robert Wellesley

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hunt, Rowland

  Percy, Earl

  so very important a section of the national life that he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would recollect that Scotland was just as much against the tax as was public opinion in England. There was no doubt that a great deal of their competitive trade had been going to the Germans, whenever they were competing in a neutral market. He had heard the strongest opinions expressed against the tax ever since its real effects became known.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUERrose in his place, and claimed to move,. "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 173; Noes, 117. (Division List No. 267.)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Samuel,Sir HarryS.(Limehouse

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

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Saunderson, Rt.Hn.Col.Edw.J.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

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

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H.(Renfrew)

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Purvis, Robert

  Smith,HC.(North'mb.Tyneside

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Pyrn, C. Guy

  Smith,RtHn. J.Parker(Lanarks

  Wi1son, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

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

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Spear, John Ward

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wi1son

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

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

  Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Ridley, S.Forde(Bethnal Green

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Robinson, Brooke

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Younger, William

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Thompson,Dr.E.C(Monagh'n,N

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  NOES

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)

  Parrott, William

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hammond, John

  Partington, Oswald

  Allen, Charles P.

  Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Harwood, George

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Price, Robert John

  Bell, Richard

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Priestley, Arthur

  Boland, John

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

  Rea, Russell

  Brigg, John

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Reckitt, Harold John

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Burns, John

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Burt, Thomas

  Joicey, Sir James

  Runciman, Walter

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Russell, T. W.

  Caldwell, James

  Joyce, Michael

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan,W.

  Shackleton, David James

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lambert, George

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Cawley, Frederick

  Langley, Batty

  Sheehy, David

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Levy, Maurice

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Cullinan, J.

  Lloyd-George, David

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Dalziel James Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Sullivan, Donal

  Delany, William

  Lundon, W.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Thomas,DavidAlfred(Merthyr)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Tomkinson, James

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Tully, Jasper

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M`Kenna, Reginald

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Elibank, Master of

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh,N.)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Ellice,Capt.E.C(SAndrw'sBghs

  Mooney, John J.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wason,John Cathcart(Orkney)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Esmonde, 8ir Thomas

  Nolan. Joseph (Louth, South)

  Wi1son, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Norman, Henry

  Woodhouse,Sir J.T(Huddersf'd

  Fenwick, Charles

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Young, Samuel

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

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

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny'

  TELLERS FOR TILE NoEs—Mr.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  O'Dowd, John

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  William M'Arthur.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Shee, James John

  Question put accordingly, "That the clause be read a second time."

  AYES

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Brigg,,John

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Allen, Charles P.

  Bell, Richard

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Asquith,Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

  Boland, John

  Burns, John,

  The Committee divide:— Ayes, 129; Noes, 173. (Division List No. 268)

  Burt, Thomas

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Price, Robert John

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Johnson, John (Gateshead)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Caldwell, James

  Joicey, Sir James

  Rea, Russell

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Joyce, Michael

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Kennedy,Vincent P.(Cavan,W.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cantley, Henry Strother

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lambert, George

  Runciman, Walter

  Channing, Francis Al1ston

  Langley, Batty

  Russell, T. W.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Law,Hugh Alex. (Donegal,W.)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrd (Cornwall)

  Shackleton, David James

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Leese,Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Levy, Maurice

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Lloyd-George, David

  Sheehy, David

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Lough, Thomas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Delany, William

  Lundon, W.

  Smith,H. C(North'mb.Tyneside

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Donelan, Captain A.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Doogan, P. C.

  M`Hugh, Patrick A.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Kenna, Reginald

  Tennant, Harold John

  Elibank, Master of

  M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.

  Ellice,Capt E.C(SAndrw'sBghs

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh,N.)

  Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

  Mooney, John J.

  Tomkinson, James

  Emmott, Alfred

  Morgan, J Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Murphy, John

  Tully, Jasper

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Norman, Henry

  Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Norton, Capt, Cecil William

  Wason,JohnCathcart (Orkney)

  Flynn, James Christopher

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

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  Freeman-Thomas,Captain F.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wi1son, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Dowd, John

  Woodhouse,Sir J.T(Huddersf'd

  Grey, Rt. Hn Sir E. (Berwick)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Hammond John

  O'Shee, James John

  Young, Samuel

  Harcout,LewisV(Rossendale

  Parrott, William

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Partington, Oswald

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Herbert Gladstone and Mr

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

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  William M`Arthur.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  NOES

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E

  Forster, Henry William

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

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

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Co1ston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Compton, Lord Alywne

  Gardner, Ernest

  Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn. Hugh O

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Green,Walford D.(Wednesbury

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

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

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Gretton, John

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnE

  Harris, Dr. Fredk. R.(Dulwich)

  Beach, Rt.Hn.SirMichaelHicks

  Doughty, Sir George

  Harwood, George

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  Bill, Charles

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Bingham, Lord

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

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

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

  Bull, William James

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

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

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

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Campbell, J.H.M.(DublinUniv.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Hobhouse,RtHn H(Somers't,E

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

  Horner, Frederick William

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Houldsworth, Sir Win. Henry

  Cecil Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Hoult, Joseph

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Howard, Jn.(Kent, Faversham

  Chamberlain, RtHn.J.A(Worc.

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Howard, J.(Midd., Tottenham)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Hosier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  656

  657

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Moore, William

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H.(Renfrew)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthainstow)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Spear, John Ward

  Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hn. Col.W.

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

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Nicho1son, William Graham

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Thompson,Dr.E C(Monagh'n,N

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

  Peel, Ha.Wm.Robert Wellesley

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Percy, Earl

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Valentia, Viscount

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Long, Col. CharlesW.(Evesham

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

  Purvis, Robert

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Pym, C. Guy

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

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Whiteley, H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

  Wi1son, A. Stanley (York, E.R.

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Ridley, S.Forde(Bethnal Green

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Robinson, Brooke

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wi1son

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  M'Iver,Sir Lewis(Edinburgh,W

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Younger, William

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Milner, Rt.Hn.Sir Frederick G.

  Samuel, SirHarryS.(Limehouse

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Mitchell, William (Burnley)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Alexander Aclan.1-Hood and

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he desired to obtain from the Chairman an explanation of "where they stood." He submitted that they had no right to continue the sitting after 2 o'clock. The Standing Order laid it down that—
  "Unless the House otherwise order, the House shall meet every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday at 2 o'clock for an afternoon sitting and at 9 o'clock for an evening sitting."
  That was perfectly explicit—the House must meet at 2 o'clock for the afternoon sitting unless the House otherwise ordered. The only orders at present were the orders of the Government, but there was nothing in the Standing Order to say that these were to supersede the Orders of the House. He submitted as a matter of order, therefore, that the Committee had no right to proceed with the present discussion.
  AN HON. MEMBER: What about prayers?
  THE CHAIRMAN: We are still in yesterday's sitting. Until that comes to a conclusion in some way or other, I have no power to leave the Chair.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As this question has been very naturally
  658
  raised, I think it well to ask the Leader of the House, at this stage, what the intentions of the Government are with regard to the business of the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is not a point of order. [Opposition cries of "Move."]
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Then I will move that the Chairman do report Progress in order to ascertain what are the intentions of the Government with regard to the scheme of business. It is perfectly clear that matters have got into a tangle. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] Some hon. Members think they have not. I think they have. In any case, one necessary thing for us to know is what view the Government take on the matter, and in order to give them an opportunity of explaining their intentions to the House I move to report progress.
  Motion made and Question proposed. "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is perfectly true that the rather unusual, and, I may add, unexpected proceedings which have occurred since yesterday have, no doubt,

  659
  altered the programme which I originally sketched to the House as being the one most convenient for the transaction of public business. As the Chairman has pointed out, yesterday's sitting will remain, I understand, yesterday's sitting until it comes to a conclusion. It cannot now come to a conclusion at such time as will enable us to give the full sitting which I had desired to give to-day to the Licensing Bill.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Is it not au allotted day for the Licensing Bill?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will not stop to argue that now. I will argue it when we reach to-day. It would, I take it, in ordinary course, become an allotted day.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: No.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. friend says it cannot be an allotted day. But we need not dispute about it because I should certainly be very reluctant, even if I had the technical power under the closure rale which was moved in regard to the Licensing Bill, to take advantage of the transactions of the last twenty-four hours materially to shorten the time of debate which was allowed for the Report stage of the Licensing Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite think themselves rather ill-used by what has passed. I think myself rather ill-used, but I will not make any further reference to that. At all events, whether we have a grievance or not, I do not propose, whatever our technical rights may be, to ask the House to take the Licensing Bill to-day. I think probably it would be most convenient, though the notice is short, to take Colonial Supply to-morrow—by the ordinary time. The House is aware that in the previously existing state of things I proposed to have no Supply day this week, but to have two days next week. I very greatly regret that the Government have been driven out of that situation, and I think now probably the best plan would be to take Thursday for the Colonial Vote, for which, I think, the House is quite prepared. I have been long pressed about it, and I imagine that hon. Members know the case they want to bring up. In these circumstances, we shall go on, of course, with the Budget to-day and take Supply to-morrow.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANAnd what about Friday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must not be taken as pledging myself, but I think we shall take the Report of the Budget.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I wish to ask a further Question in order to clear the matter up. A good deal of conjectural misapprehension prevai1s as to the possibilities of to-day. I presume that what the right hon. Gentleman means is that to-day, so far as the House shall sit to-day, will be occupied in finishing Tuesday's sitting.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR.Yes.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANFERMAN: And that there cannot be initiated a new Wednesday sitting to-day in succession to what I may call the fag-end of Tuesday's sitting. I understand the right hon. Gentleman expects the Committee, to go on with the Budget Bill, but, of course, no, other part of the business on the Paper for Tuesday can be proceeded with now as it is after twelve o'clock at night.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he took it that the Prime Minister proposed to proceed with the Budget Bill right through to the end—with the new clauses as well as with the Amendments. Some of the new clauses were of very great importance and stood in the names of hon. Gentleman on both sides of the House. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposed to set up the evening sitting, or whether he meant to go through this business at this sitting, and not take any further business at all.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As the House will see, I have been asked a Question which can only be finally decided, I take it, by Mr. Speaker. But my own personal impression is that, under the rules of the House, when Tuesday comes to an end Wednesday begins, and that we could go on with other business at the second sitting which will begin when this sitting is over. But, as I have said, that is a question which cannot be decided by me. It is a question which must be decided by the Speaker, and by the Speaker alone.
  AN HON. MEMBER: What about Questions?
  MR. MACVEAGH: What about prayers?
  MR. A. J BALFOUR: I respectfully submit that that becomes a question of order for the Speaker rather than fir But I take it that Wednesday will not begin till after three o'clock, that is to say, after Question time. That is my view. I quite agree that the position is not without difficulty, and I may be entirely wrong.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Is there going to be a Wednesday at all?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I shall not propose to ask the House to undergo any great exertions on Wednesday. I have promised not to take the Licensing Bill, and I should not desire to take any other Bill of first-rate importance.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to go on immediately, or at nine o'clock.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: And before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, will he explain how, either immediately or at nine o'clock, he can proceed with the Orders of the Day, which are prescribed for two o'clock oil Wednesday? How can he bring into life the second portion of the sitting when the first portion has not been brought into life?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: On the question of sittings, am I not right, Sir, in saying that although one sitting may become merged in the previous sitting, as this has done, that does not in the least interfere with the sitting at nine o'clock? The right hon. Gentleman has held out expectations of this day beginning; Sir, this day can never now begin. This day continues to be yesterday evening, and when the right hon. Gentleman suggests that there is some period, which he cal1s three o'clock, when the day might begin, may I point out to him that that is an unknown hour?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, no!
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman certainly mention three o'clock.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was asked whether when Wednesday began we should begin with Questions. ["Prayers."] With regard to Questions, I said that I was not qualified to give an opinion, but that, as Wednesday would probably begin after three o'clock, Questions might not be put. But I am not the authority on the subject.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: That is the point. There is no such thing as three o'clock in the Standing Order. What, then, is to become or the Questions? The Standing Order says that Questions "shall" begin at a quarter past 2 and end at five minutes to 3 o'clock. Am I right in the belief that under the present extraordinary circumstances there can be no Questions, and that the Answers thereto will have to be circulated with the Votes?
  MR. ASQUITH: It would be well if we could arrive at some practical solution. What I am going to submit to the right hon. Gentleman is this—that the Parliamentary Wednesday is the day which begins at 2 o'clock, and that if the House has not sat at 2 o'clock on Wednesday there is no Wednesday possible at all. I do not at all agree with the hon. Member for King's Lynn that the 9 o'clock sitting is an independent sitting; it is nothing of the sort, but a mere continuation of the 2 o'clock sitting after a convenient interval.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the Standing Order he will see that there are two sittings.
  MR. ASQUITH: I have done so, and that is my construction. Then are one or two points to be settled. We want to get an authoritative ruling as to whether the Parliamentary Wednesday is possible or not, and I take it that that can only be given by Mr. Speaker in the Chair.
  MR A. J. BALFOUR: I should think that is so.
  MR. ASQUITH: I presume Mr. Speaker will resume the Chair before the conclusion of this sitting on the question that the House do now adjourn, and that will probably be the most convenient moment. But I am going to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman what I think is a more simple solution. Let us continue Tuesday's sitting until we have disposed of the only business which can be taken on a Tuesday sitting after 12 o'clock, namely, the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, for none of the other orders can be taken. Why not dispose of that, and then get rid of the question of a Wednesday sitting by taking nothing e1se at all? I understand the right hon. Gentleman does not propose to take any other serious business, and if, as I believe, the Wednesday sitting is an impossibility, he will by that means get rid of all technical difficulties.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has made a suggestion which I am sure is dictated by a desire of getting through business; and if that is the understanding generally come to—namely, that we should get this stage of the Bill—I would not press the House, which I admit must be fatigued, to take at a new sitting new business. I have already told the House that I would not in any circumstances take business of an important controversial character—I do not think that would be fair to the House, and if it would really conduce to the amenity of our feeling on the remaining new clauses of the Bill, and to the general harmony of our proceedings, I should be glad to make that concession, which I hope will be received by both sides of the House.
  MR. LOUGH: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that it might be possible to take the Report stage of the Budget on Friday; but that will not allow time for the Bill to be reprinted.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, I will consider it. I ought, by the way, to enter a caveat, which may affect the form, though not the substance, of what I have just said. I think it quite
  664
  possible that Mr. Speaker may take the view that I, with great humility, have offered to the House—namely, that in the natural and ordinary course of our Parliamentary procedure there must be a Wednesday sitting, if Wednesday still exists, when the Tuesday sitting is over; and in that case I presume Mr. Speaker will think it necessary, when this sitting comes to its natural conclusion, to take the Chair. But all that is necessary for me to say is that I will not ask the House to proceed with any Bill.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will there be the usual ceremony, prayers, etc.?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope so.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will all the ceremony take place which would accompany the ordinary beginning of a sitting at the usual hour, and then immediately after that will the House be adjourned?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course it will be understood that no objection will be offered to the Motion for the adjournment. A difficulty occurs to my mind, which is that when Mr. Speaker takes the Chair it will, evidently be after one o'clock last night, and at one o'clock at night Mr. Speaker adjourns without Question put.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid a practical difficulty, if the sitting were not avoided altogether by the plan suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, would be that they would meet without any Orders of the Day having been printed, and they would not know what was the business appointed.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid the course which the right hon. Gentleman was going to pursue would be according to the precedent of 1881, when the House met at Tuesday at four o'clock and sat till after two o'clock on Thursday. Mr. Gladstone moved the adjournment of the House on Thursday, and the Wednesday sitting was obliterated, but he reserved the power of asking the House to do more business on Tuesday's Orders, although he did not think it fair to ask the House to proceed with them.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think in substance that precedent is illuminating, but whether the change in our procedure rules since then has made any difference I do not know.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEasked what was to become of Wednesday's Questions. Would there be an instruction to carry them over to Thursday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should think that would be the convenient course, but it is one on which I can give no ruling. There are two courses, one is for Ministers to whom Questions are addressed to put their Answers on the Paper, and the other is that they should be transferred bodily to Thursday's Paper. It rests with Mr. Speaker, but I should think the House would prefer the second course.
  MR. ASQUITH: The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that there is a difficulty owing to the one o'clock rule, but I think not. The rule is that if the House is sitting at one Speaker adjourns the House Question put, unless exempted business is then under consideration. But at one o'clock exempted business was under consideration.
  SIR H. CAMP BELL-BANNERMAN: I presume we have got all the satisfaction we can. I therefore will ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LOUGHmoved a new clause dealing with the warehousing charges on tea. The object was to remit these charges, the hon. Member said. When
  666
  they were first imposed in 1850 there was some idea of service being rendered in return for them, but now there were no services rendered. So far as he knew the Customs had not themselves opened any of these warehouses. They were private property, and consequently these charges simply constituted an addition to the Customs duty. There were two clauses on the Paper—his own, and one in the name of the senior Member for Devonport, who had asked him to submit it to the House. His own suggested the abolition of the charges altogether; his hon. friend suggested merely an alteration of them. In reply to a Question he put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer he was informed that last year these charges produced £16,000. Four years ago, before the tea duty was raised, they only amounted to £10,000 or £11,000. This year there had been another increase of the tea duty and the sum of £20,000 would probably be collected. He submitted that that was not fair; on the contrary it was harsh and unjust and for this reason, that the extra amount paid would not arise from the handling of an increased quantity of tea. Less tea was handled last year than four years ago, and it certainly was not likely that more tea would be handled with the duty at 8d. than there was with the duty at 4d. The loss through the abolition of these charges would be very small indeed, and the result would probably be to increase the dealings in tea. With regard to the proposal of his hon. friend, which suggested that it was impossible to deal with tea separately, he thought it was a case of making two bites at a cherry. The whole charge, including tobacco, sugar, wines and spirits, etc. produced less than £50,000. The charges were antiquated and unjust; they were a great

  667
  imposition on trade, and instead of varying them it would be better to abolish them altogether, and he would suggest that alternative to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman who, he hoped, would make a handsome concession. He begged to move.
  New clause. (Charge on delivery of tea from warehouse.)
  "Such part of the Customs Tariff Act, 1876, as refers to a charge upon the delivery of tea from any warehouse for home consumption is hereby repealed."—(Mr. Lough.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONconfessed that he was not prepared to go so far as his hon. friend suggested in urging on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total abolition of the duties. It was only fair that certain charges should be made for services rendered, but that they should not increase proportionately with the duty, seeing that no additional service was involved.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he had had this matter under consideration and he felt some sympathy with the views that had been put forward. But he would be placed in a position of very great difficulty if he made this concession in respect of one article only. On the other hand, he felt it was an additional irritation to the trade that when the duty on an article was raised, automatically this warehousing charge was raised a1so. He was prepared to accept a new clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Devonport reducing the present warehousing charges on all goods. He had
  668
  hoped,to meet the views of the deputation which waited upon him on the subject in another way, but he found that that was not possible.
  MR. LOUGHthanked the right hon. Gentleman for the handsome concession he had made. He asked leave to withdraw his clause.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LOUGHnext moved the following clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Devonport.
  New clause. (Amendment of 39 and 40 Vic., c. 35.)
  "In lieu and instead of the additional rates provided for in The Customs Tariff Act, 1876, there shall be charged upon the delivery of the following goods from any warehouse for home consumption, in addition to the duties of Customs and any other charges thereon, for every one hundred pounds of such duties of Customs payable thereon, the rates following (that is to say):—In respect of tobacco, 1s. 3d.; in respect of other goods, 2s. 6d.; whether such tobacco or other goods shall have been removed to such warehouse under bond or not.' —(Mr. Kearley.)
  Brought up, and read the first, and second time and added to the Bill.
  MR. BUCHANANnext moved a new clause dealing with the amount of permanent annual charge for the National Debt. It was, he said, remarkable that no proposal was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget for the substantial reduction of the Debt, and particularly that part of it due to war expenditure. It was a particularly disappointing Budget, and thy might fairly have anticipated that the right hon. Gentleman entering freshly upon office would have been prepared with some scheme by which in the course of the next few years substantial inroads might be made upon

  669
  the accumulated Debt under which we laboured and particularly of that part which was incurred for the war. No doubt, however, the present state of national finance had prevented him making any substantial proposal. Last year the right hon. Member for Croydon in his Budget suggested various schemes by which within a limited number of years there might be a substantial reduction of the Debt, but they all hinged upon the anticipated receipt from the Transvaal of £30,000,000. The first instalment of that amount was not likely to be paid for some years to come, and he would like to know how far the Chancellor of the Exchequer had reconsidered the subject in view of that fact. This country ought to maintain its claim, both as a matter of justice and in order to enable Parliament to advance some scheme for the reduction of the Debt. There was a very general feeling that some immediate steps must be taken by the right hon. Gentleman to curb the ever-increasing loan expenditure in respect of naval and military works. Here was a separate field of action for the right hon. Gentleman. Some steps ought certainly to be taken by the head of the Treasury to check this constantly increasing loan expenditure. The Public Accounts Committee had made a very strong recommendation on the subject. They had reported that save for works of a very special and permanent character entailing large expenditure over a long period of years, the present system of aiding naval and military Estimates out of loan money should be discontinued, and the former system of meeting expenditure on new works out of the Estimates of the year reverted to. Referring to the Unfunded Debt, he said it stood at a higher figure than at any previous period in their history. He
  670
  hoped the right hop, Gentleman in the ensuing year Would be able to accept that recommendation in substance. In the course of the last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer had again been in the market and raised two million more Treasury bil1s, so that they had the total Unfunded Debt standing at £79,133,000. That was the highest figure in the history of the country, and he asked the Chancellor what steps he intended to take to bring about an early diminution of this amount.
  New clause (Amount of permanent annual charge for National Debt.)
  "The amount of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt during the current and every subsequent financial year shall be the sum of twenty-six million pounds, and 'twenty-six million eight hundred thousand pounds' shall he substituted for 'twenty-seven' in Section six (on of Tile Finance Act, 1903."—(Mr. Buchanan.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he quite appreciated some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, but he had unfortunately not supplied himself with such full information as he would like to have done, and he did not like to trust to his memory in the matter of figures. It was, of course, true that the amount of Treasury Bil1s outstanding at the present time was very considerable. As long as the income-tax stood at so high a figure the Treasury borrowings in the early part of the year must be considerable, and the reason was that a very large proportion of the income-tax was only paid in the last quarter of the year. With regard to the borrowings under the Military and Naval Works Acts, the

  671
  Report which had been made upon that subject by the Public Accounts Committee would have to be seriously considered by the Government. It was never intended, he believed, that these borrowings should be a permanent annual charge. They were adopted in the first instance he believed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite at a time when the need for capital expenditure was very great, and works for the Navy had not advanced in proportion to the growth of the Navy, and great arrears had to be made up. The growth of capital expenditure for the Navy and the Army had been such that it would be impossible for the country to bear the enormous burden by annual Votes. He had, however, been in communication with the spending Departments to impress upon them the need at the present time for having recourse as little as possible to borrowings for this purpose, but of course the Committee would understand, when vast contracts were entered upon, it would not be economic to stop half-way, and thus obtain no remunerative return on half-finished work. With regard to the Transvaal war contribution, it would not be in the public interest to discuss the matter in detail, but he looked forward when circumstances were favourable to receiving the promised contribution. With regard to the Sinking Fund, and the question of its adequacy or otherwise, he would like to point out that it represented nearly 1 per cent. on the interest of the Debt. He thought it was not inadequate. He had looked at the figures for 1879, 1884, 1889, 1894, 1899, and 1904, and he had found that only in 1884 and 1894 did the percentage of the Fund stand higher than at present. He quite appreciated the importance of reducing the National Debt, but at the present
  672
  time, when our burdens were so heavy, he could not have proposed the imposition of fresh taxation for the purpose of increasing the Sinking Fund.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he, too, was unprepared with figures for that discussion, which he ie9c1 hardly expected would be reached.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid he did not propose to press his clause. He thought, however, it was a question whether 1 per cent. was a fair Sinking Fund for a large Debt like ours.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYmoved a new clause relating to the exemption from income-tax in the case of unregistered friendly societies whose income was less than £160. His object was to place these societies in the position of individua1s who were aggregated together.
  New clause. (Amendment of 5 and 6 Vic., c. 35, and 59 and 60 Vic., c. 16.)
  "Section one hundred and ninety-two of the Income - Tax Act, 1842, shall read as if the words and unregistered friendly societies having an income of less than one hundred and sixty pounds a year' were inserted after the word 'corporate.'"
  "Section two of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, as extended by the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, etc., Continuance Act, 1901, which authorises certain payments to be made out of the Local Taxation Account and requires the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to pay to the Local Taxation Account, out of the proceeds of the Estate Duty derived in England from personal property, the annual sum required by that section to be paid to that account, shall cease to have effect from and after the thirty-first day of March next after the passing of this Act."—(Mr. George Whiteley.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. A. K. LOYDsaid he had intended to move the Amendment standing in his name, but as the Government, so far as the important concession which they had made went, had practically followed the words of his Amendment, he should not feel justified in detaining the Committee, after so protracted a sitting, with any controversial matters. Two things, however, he wished to have clearly understood. First, that it was not the object of the present Amendment to ask for any new privilege for unregistered societies, but only to put an end to a long-standing injustice and illegality. Secondly, it was not desired in any way to discourage registration. He desired to encourage voluntary registration in every legitimate way. He did not think it a legitimate way of encouraging registration to deprive unregistered societies of income-tax exemptions to which they were legally entitled. The clause, as accepted by the Government, was declaratory and would prevent the continuance of an illegality.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  MR. SCOTT-MONTAGUmoved a new clause (standing in the name of the hon. Member forMiddlesborough)providingthat alcohol which had been suitably denatured and rendered unpotable and was required for motive power, lighting, heating, and manufacturing purposes should be sold without payment of any duty or tax, and that absolute alcohol should a1so he exempt from duty when employed in manufacturing operations where it could be proved
  674
  to the Commissioners that denaturing agents would prevent its use. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if a Committee could not be appointed to investigate the whole subject. It would be a great advantage to the agricultural community and to manufacturers a1so.
  New clause. (Exemption from duty of alcohol used for motive power.)
  "On and after the first day of August, 1904. where it shall be proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that alcohol which has been suitably denatured and rendered unpotable is required for motive Power, lighting, heating, and manufacturing purposes, it shall be lawful to sell such sprit without payment of any duty or tax thereon. and further, subject to such regulations as the Commissioners may require for the security of the revenue, absolute alcohol shall a1so be exempt from duty when employed in manufacturing operations where it can be proved to the Commissioners that denaturing, agents would prevent its use."—(Mr. Scott-Montagu)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, end Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he could not accept the clause as it stood on the Paper, but be would accept the suggestion to have a Committee appointed to look into the matter. He was aware that a great deal of importance was attached to the question, and he agreed that the public should have an opportunity of explaining what it was they wanted as well as an opportunity of learning the facilities which the law provided—facilities which were not so well known as they ought to be. He could not undertake to deal with a point of legislation in the Finance Bill. He would be pleased to consult hon. Members interested as to the terms of reference.
  MR. BRYCEasked whether alcohol for motive power would be the only question inquired into by the Committee, or whether the inquiry would be extended to the exemption of alcohol for use in various trades.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I intended the Committee to cover both subjects.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESwarned the right hon. Gentleman against agreeing too readily to these exemptions of alcohol. Exemption of one man meant an increased burden on another. The Committee might disclose grievances, of course, but the right hon. Gentleman should not be led away to propose in his next Budget anything in the interest of the motor industries or any other industries. He did not agree with the proposal that spirits which were not drunk should be exempt any more than spirits that were drunk. He could see no greater merit in spirit used for propelling motor-cars than in spirits used for raising the spirits of Members of Parliament during a long all-night sitting.
  Clause, by leave, withdrawn
  Schedule.
  Amendments proposed—
  "In page 4, line 27, to leave out the word 'said.'"
  "In page 4, line 27, after the word provisions,' to insert the words applicable thereto.'"
  "In page 4, line 33, at end, to insert the words '(5) Notwithstanding anything in Section 1 of The Manufactured Tobacco Act, 1863, drawback on tobacco shall be allowed in respect of fractions of a pound in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of The Customs Consolidation Act, 1876.'"
  676
  "In page 4, line 36, at end, to insert the words, 'and that sub-section shall apply to stalks, shorts, and other refuse of tobacco not of the fineness of Snuff.'"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Amendments agreed to.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that, speaking on behalf of hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, he was sure they were all really very much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the very good-natured and good-humoured way in which he had carried through his Bill under what had been very trying circumstances.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I thank the Committee generally for the courteous way they have treated me during the discussions upon this Bill in Committee.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 276.]

  ADJOURNMENT.
  MR. SPEAKER: In declaring that this House now stands adjourned, I think it right to say that under the construction which I put upon the Standing Order the adjournment will stand until to-morrow.
  And, it being after One of the clock on Wednesday morning, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House, pursuant to the Standing Order, without Question put.
  Adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Four o'clock in the afternoon.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
  Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Saddleworth and Springhead Tramways Bill ought to be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed.
  Read, and agreed to.
  Rotherham Corporation Bill. The Lord BALFOUR informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn; the orders made on Tuesday last and yesterday discharged, and Bill committed.
  Clyde Navigation (Works) Bill. Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table. The orders made on the 28th and 30th of June last discharged, and Bill committed.
  London County Council (General Powers) Bill; Loch Leven Water Power Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 14th day of March last, That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall he read a second time after the 16th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a; agreed to. Bills read 2a accordingly and committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  Lytham Improvement Bill. Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  Caledonian Railway Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Glasgow and South-Western Railway Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Govan Corporation Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Canal Rates and Charges (Regents Canal) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill [H.L] Returned from the Commons agreed to.
  Leith Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  Carlisle Corporation Bill; Leyton Urban District Council Bill; Selby Urban District Council Bill; London County Council (General Powers) Bill; Loch Leven Water Power Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Vivian be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Marquess Camden; read, and agreed to.
  London County Council (General Powers) Bill; Loch Leven Water Power Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Carlisle Corporation Bill and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill and the Loch Leven Water Power Bill; read, and agreed to. All petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
  Glasgow Corporation (Tramways, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a (according to order). Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill. Amendments reported (according to order), and Bills to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill. Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 153.)

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.

  LOCH LEVEN WATER POWER BILL.
  THE ACTING CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH):My Lords, with regard to the Motion standing in my name, to dispense with the Order made on 14th March to the effect that no private Bill brought from the House of Commons should be read a second time after 16th June, I beg to say that I have examined the case for this suspension in regard to these two Bills, and I have come to the conclusion that it is fair that this indulgence should be given, as the delay has not occurred in either case through the fault of the promoters.
  Moved, "That the order made on the 14th clay of March last, That no private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 16th day of June next,' be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a."—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, agreed to. Bills Read 2a accordingly and committed: the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION.
  Regulations for evening schools, technical institutions, and schools of art and art classes (from 1st August, 1904, to 31st July, 1905).

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3223. Turkey (Palestine).
  No. 3224. Turkey (Erzeroum).

  AFRICA.
  No. 9 (1904). Return of concessions in the East Africa and Uganda Protectorates (in continuation of Africa, No. 7 (1903)); No. 10. (1904). Memorandum on the state of the African Protectorates administered under the Foreign Office; Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  RAILWAYS (PRIVATE SIDINGS) BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment. The Report of the Amendment made in Committee of the Whole House to be received on Thursday next.
  REGISTRATION OF CLUBS (IRELAND) BILL.
    DEAN FOREST BILL.
    Reported from the Standing Committee with a further Amendment to each Bill; The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House, and by the Standing Committee, to be received on Thursday next.

    THE NEW ARMY SCHEME.
    VISCOUNT HARDINGE: My Lords, I rise to ask whether His Majesty's Government will give facilities, if necessary, for further discussion on the new Army scheme before the conclusion of the present session. I am aware that the noble Lord opposite, Lord Burghclere, proposes on Thursday next to call attention to the Memorandum issued by the Secretary of State. I venture to think that most of your Lordships will agree with me that until the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War has explained to us more fully the details of the scheme it would be useless for any of us to discuss it. I have, therefore, been deputed by several other military Members of your Lordships' House to ask His Majesty's Government if they can see their way to granting this request by fixing a day later on, before the end of the session, so that we may be able to discuss this most important subject.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I confess that when I saw my noble friend's Notice on the Paper I was a little puzzled as to its precise significance, and I am not quite sure that the explanation he has given us has entirely removed the obscurity which clings to it. We are, I understand, on Thurday next, to have a debate initiated by the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite, Lord Burghclere, upon the scheme of Army reform which has been put forward by the Secretary of State for War, and I imagine that the debate,

    389
    which no doubt will be a prolonged one, will give considerable opportunity to any noble Lords who desire to offer criticisms upon my right hon. friend's proposals. But supposing that the outcome of that debate did not prove sufficient for my noble friend's purpose, I take it that there is nothing in the rules of your Lordships' House which would prevent him on any subsequent day from initiating a discussion upon any particular points with regard to which he required further information. Your Lordships' time is not so fully taken up that that is impossible, nor are the rules of the House so inelastic as to preclude a succession of military debates. Indeed, on former occasions we have often had many debates on the same project of Army reform. I think, therefore, my noble friend may rest assured that nothing is likely to happen which will prevent him and his friends from bringing before the House any matters connected with the Secretary of State's scheme which they may desire to discuss.
    EARL SPENCER:My Lords, as I heard in conversation last night a good deal on this subject, I should like to say a few words. I quite agree with what the noble Marquess has just said. On Thursday my noble friend beside me will introduce the subject by calling attention to the very useful Memorandum issued by the Secretary of State for War with regard to the reorganisation of the Army. We do not know at present how far that will lead us. I hope that we shall elicit a very full explanation on this matter from the noble Earl the Under-Secretary of State for War, and, no doubt, from the noble Marquess himself; but, until we sea how far the debate extends, it is exceedingly difficult for His Majesty's Government to say whether any further discussion will be necessary. If, however, the noble Viscount opposite finds that there are particular questions not answered, or particular points that ought to be further discussed, it will be within his power to raise those questions later on. I must say I agree with what the noble Marquess the Foreign Minister has s aid, that until we see how the debate to be initiated on Thursday proceeds it is impossible to say whether another day
    390
    will be necessary, and if it should prove necessary the noble Viscount or any other noble Lord is perfectly entitled to again raise the question.

    THE PARLIAMENTARY SESSION.
    LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I rise to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in accordance with the undertaking given on the 22nd of February last, he has taken any steps to consult the Prime Minister with reference to carrying into effect the Resolution adopted by this House last year, respecting the duration of the Parliamentary Session. The Question which I have placed on the Paper has been prompted by an invitation, expressed in almost pathetic terms, which I have received from my noble friend the Leader of your Lordships' House, inviting me, and, I presume, everybody on these Benches, to come here in August and assist him in passing the Licensing Bill, and intimating at the same time that if we fail to attend certain unfortunate consequences may ensue.
    I do not wish to say anything ill-natured, but I cannot help respectfully pointing out that if unfortunate consequences do result, it will be entirely due to the action of the Government; for, so far as I can see, there was no earthly reason why the Licensing Bill should not have been introduced in this House. The opposition to the Bill in your Lordships' House would have been, to put it mildly, quite as effective as the opposition in another place. The Bill might conceivably have been much improved, and, if it had gone down to the other House it is equally conceivable that those measures which have been taken in order to abbreviate its progress might have been rendered unnecessary. I ought to add that the only two Cabinet Ministers to whom I have made this suggestion admitted that it would have been more practicable if the Bill had been introduced in your Lordships' House, but those Ministers are not Members of this House. That is, I admit, merely a hypothesis, and I only want to discuss facts.
    The fact we have got to face is that this highly contentious measure does not appear in this House until the concluding

    391
    days of July, and cannot be seriously debated until August. I have not a lengthy experience in this House, but my experience, such as it is, is that the debating of Bills in August is more or less a farce, and this year it will be undoubtedly a farce, because it is perfectly clear that with the amount of time left at our disposal no Amendments of any importance can possibly be accepted. The Prime Minister may have some indefinite ideas upon certain subjects, but, at all events, he is very definitely convinced that Parliament ought to rise in the middle of August. I observed in The Times yesterday—and I have always found The Times a very accurate prophet so far as the Parliamentary policy of the Government is concerned—that the Prime Minister is due on August 17th to deliver an address to the British Association at Cambridge, and as in addressing so august a body as the British Association even the Prime Minister must take considerable time in which to prepare his speech, the writer deduced from these facts that the termination of the session cannot be later than 15th August.
    From the statement made just now by my noble friend the Leader of the House, one might suppose that we had ample time at our disposal. He airily suggested that any noble Lords who wished to discuss the new Army scheme or anything else would find plenty of time in which to do so before we adjourn. To me it appears that the sands in the Parliamentary hour-glass are running out very fast. There is not so very much time left. I have ascertained that there are still thirty-nine Government Bills to come up from the House of Commons, and thirteen Government Bills have gone down from this House to the House of Commons, none of which appear to have made any progress so far. Therefore, the generous margin of time to which my noble friend refers does not appear to me to exist. I presume that, in addition to these long-delayed and, no doubt, highly important matters, the military Lords will want a day or two in which to discuss the Army scheme; I gather that noble Lords on the opposite Benches are going to impeach the Leader of the House and the noble Earl the First
    392
    Lord of the Admiralty with their temerity in joining Mr. Chamberlain's association, for which. I suppose, a day or two will be required; and I presume, also, there will be various questions connected with the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office which it will be necessary to debate before we adjourn.
    All this is bad enough, but I would ask you to think how very much worse the situation would have been if a large portion of the Parliamentary cargo had not been already discharged. Almost every contentious measure, with the exception of one, has been already dropped. What, I ask, would be our position if we had still got, in addition to the measures I have indicated, to discuss such contentious Bills as the Aliens Bill, the Port of London Bill, and measures of that kind? If we liked being treated in this sort of way, if we made no objection, and if the silly, hoary superstition, which I confess I hoped I had exploded myself, that the House of Commons consists of hunting men, induced noble Lords to remain contentedly here in August, there would be nothing to be said; but, as a matter of fact, we have made our protest against the present system. I do not know why I should be modest about it. It was at my instigation that we passed a Motion last session, by a large majority, in which we expressed not merely our disapproval of sitting here in August, but our conviction that Parliament ought to rise at the beginning of July.
    I need hardly remind your Lordships that although I was temporarily successful in getting this Resolution adopted, no steps of any kind have ever been taken to carry it out. I have occasionally reminded my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that he is bound to take some notice of a Resolution passed by this House, and perhaps this afternoon I shall succeed in eliciting some information from him. After all, the noble Marquess is the strongest critic of the present arrangement, and it is only necessary for me to quote his words to show how emphatically all sensible persons must condemn the present system. The noble Marquess, in replying to me on 23rd February of this year, said—
    "I am bound to say it seems to me almost a scandal that year after year important matters

    393
    of business should be crowded before us in the dying moments of the session, when we are all of us more or less exhausted"—
    I do not pretend to be exhausted myself, but I have not the least doubt the noble Marquess is—
    "and when it is quite impossible for this House either to consider, as it should consider, the Amendments which may have been introduced in any measure in the other House of Parliament during the later stages of its progress, or even those Amendments put upon the Paper by Members of your Lordships' House. The result, I am afraid, is that a great deal of our legislative work is very badly done."
    In that observation I entirely concur, and I do not think I need add anything to the statement made by the noble Marquess. I will conclude, therefore, by asking the noble Marquess what steps he has taken in order to induce the Prime Minister to bring about a different state of things, and I would appeal to all those noble Lords who desire to retain such rights and privileges as we still possess not to cease agitating on this question until we get the change we all desire.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, my noble friend has done me the honour of quoting at length from some observations which I addressed to the House in February last, and I am bound to say that to those observations I desire to adhere. I still think it is most unfortunate that important measures so often come up to this House at a period of the session when it is not possible for your Lordships to do justice to them or to your powers of criticism and examination. That, no doubt, applies with great force to the Licensing Bill, which I presume is not likely to reach your Lordships until some time next week. But it does nor rest entirely with us to discover a remedy for this condition of things, and in the course of the interesting debates which we have had on this subject, it has, I think, been universally admitted that unless the other House of Parliament could be persuaded to see eye to eye with us upon this subject, there was no prospect of obtaining an alteration in our procedure. In compliance with my noble friend's desire, I called the attention of the Prime Minister to the Resolution of this House, of last year, and also to the discussion which took place this year. I understand from
    394
    my right hon. friend that he does not see any prospect of a change of the kind which my noble friend desires being agreed to by the House of Commons.
    LORD NEWTON: Shame!
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: There are, I understand, difficulties, the nature of which my noble friend, who has been in the House of Commons, is better able to appreciate than I am, connected with the conditions under which the financial business of Parliament—
    LORD NEWTON: Quite imaginary.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Under which the financial business of Parliament is transacted, and I also gather from the Prime Minister that it is his impression that if this House were to meet in the month of November it would probably end in our sitting continuously until the month of July following. There are, moreover, two objections raised to the proposal of my noble friend, and, I think raised by persons who have a special right to be heard upon this subject. One of them is that an autumn session would very greatly interfere with the conduct of public business in the offices and departments of the State. All of those who have held office know that the autumn months are those in which the greater part of the business of the coming session is prepared, without those interruptions which are inseparable from a session of Parliament. That is an objection which is strongly felt in many quarters, and which will, I have no doubt, alway be pressed; and then there is, besides, the other objection, namely, that if we have an autumn session there is always a chance that we shall have not only the autumn session, with all its inconveniences, but also a summer session not much shorter than the session which at present is usual. Those two objections prevail widely, and I think my noble friend will have to educate public opinion a good deal more before he succeeds in entirely overcoming them. At any rate, as I said at first, the question is one which concerns both Houses of Parliament, and I certainly have seen no signs of a disposition on the part of the other House

    395
    to share the view which is so strongly entertained and so eloquently urged by my noble friend.

    FREIGHTS TO SOUTH AFRICA.
    EARL GREYrose to move for a Return showing the quantities and description of manufactured goods exported from New York to South Africa during the two years ending 30th June, 1904, and the freight charged; also the freight charged on similar goods exported from the United Kingdom to South Africa. He said: My Lords, I do not think that any apology is required from me for again endeavouring to draw the attention of your Lordships' House to the great and growing injury caused to British trade by the action of British steamship companies in giving preferential rates to American shippers trading with South Africa. Although New York is over 600 miles further from South African ports than are the ports of the United Kingdom, the British steamship companies are carrying American cargoes to-day, and have done for some time past, at less than half the rates charged on similar articles consigned to South Africa from ports in the United Kingdom with the obvious result that trade which, under fair and equal conditions, would belong to the United Kingdom is being actually driven to America.
    The noble Duke the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies remarked last week that it was difficult to make any accurate comparison between American and English freights, because the classification was different. It is true that the British steamship companies, for some reason best known to themselves, classify goods from America under three heads, and goods which they ship from England under five heads. I do not understand why the Conference lines should not establish identical classification for British and American goods, as recommended by Mr. Henry Birchenough; but I understand still less why anyone who is in earnest in an endeavour to arrive at the truth cannot ascertain the rates charged on similar articles consigned to South Africa from American and British ports.
    396
    I have in my hand the manifest of a steamer which sailed for South Africa from New York last May. This manifest contains the description and quantities of the cargo carried and the freight charged. It is a confidential document, and I am not permitted to quote the name of the steamer, but I am permitted to hand the manifest to my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, and I have no doubt he will diligently examine it. The noble Duke will see, on referring to it, the freight charged on manufactured goods from New York, and he will be able to ascertain, as I have ascertained, the class in which each article is placed in the English classification, and the freight charged from England. Such a procedure will show that the freight charge to Port Elizabeth is at the rate of 15s. per ton on nearly all articles from New York, and at rates varying from 22s. 6d. to 42s. 6d. per ton on similar articles from England. For example, 15s. is the rate on glass from New York, whilst the rate on glass from England is 31s. 3d., or 42s. 6d. if the glass is plate glass, in which case it comes under the rate charged for all articles in Class 1. Churns, horseshoes, brooms, hardware, ploughs, and agricultural implements are all charged 15s. per ton from New York, whilst 31s. 3d. per ton, or more than double, is charged from England. Leather, bicycles, and boots, which are all charged at the rate of 15s. a ton from New York, are charged at the rate of 42s. 6d. from England; and barbed wire, which goes at the rate of 15s. per ton from New York, is charged 22s. 6d. per ton from England.
    This great disparity in freights has been the subject of anxious inquiry by various Chambers of Commerce in this country. The Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, in their report this month, point out the rates charged on articles manufactured in their district. They call attention to the fact that whilst the English rate to Cape Town and Algoa Bay on iron bedsteads, bolts and nuts, iron chains, general hardware, tinware, and tools is 31s. 3d. per ton, the American rates to Cape Town and Algoa Bay are only 15s.; and the same class of goods going from English ports to Natal and East London have to pay a rate of

    397
    40s. and 38s. 9d., whilst the rates are only 17s. 6d. from New York. Therefore, in regard to all these classes of manufactured articles, the American manufacturer has the great advantage of being able to secure the transit of his goods at less than half the freight which has to be paid by the manufacturer sending goods from this country.
    I do not think my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies can have been aware of this difference when this subject was last debated in your Lordships' House, or otherwise he would not have cast doubt upon the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, that this difference in rate provided any ground for legitimate complaint. It was impossible for the noble Duke to deny that there had been a considerable increase in the total value of exports from New York to British South Africa. The figures I have obtained from the Board of Trade prove that. I find that the total value of exports (domestic and foreign) from New York to British South Africa for the year ended 30th June, 1901, was £2,498,397, and for the year ended 30th June,1903, £4,732,517; in other words, in two years the export trade from New York to South Africa has increased twofold. The noble Duke suggested that this might be a great advantage to the consumer in South Africa. He assumed that the increase was mainly in foodstuffs and did not consist of articles which could be sent from this country; but this manifest, which I will hand to the noble Duke, will show that a very large number of manufactured goods do find their way from New York to South African ports.
    In order to verify the returns in the case of one steamer. I have obtained the Customs return, showing the value of the articles exported from New York to South Africa in another steamer, which sailed from New York last month. I hope I shall not be told by His Majesty's Government that it is impossible to obtain these figures. I have obtained them with little trouble, and I therefore assume that His Majesty's Government, with the powers that they command, can also obtain them. I find from this return that out of the total value of cargo shipped by this steamer, amounting to £85,930,
    398
    almost one-third, namely £26,415, represented American manufactured goods. I will not go through the complete list, but the goods comprised furniture, windmills and parts, pumping machinery, barbed wire, etc., paint, oil, nails, curtains, table covers, clocks, candles, agricultural implements, ironmongery, household utensils, tools, etc. I may be informed that the bulk is not large, but His Majesty Government will discover, on looking into this matter, that the proportion of general merchandise to food stuffs in cargoes shipped from New York to South Africa is steadily increasing. I am not able on this occasion to quote figures to establish that point, but His Majesty's Government will be easily able to ascertain the truth of the statement I make.
    Now, what is the result of these preferential rates given to American shippers over British manufacturers? As might be expected, the result is to give a great stimulus to American trade, and the American manufacturer under the advantage which he enjoys has been able to introduce into the South African market American manufactures which would not otherwise have found their way there, at least for some considerable time. A difference in freight of over fifteen shillings a ton is naturally quite enough to determine the destination of many orders. My noble friend the Under-Secretary of State said last week that Americans are very clever traders. I hope he will ponder over that statement. I am informed that the Steel Trust—as we all know, a most enterprising corporation—is endeavouring to capture the whole of the iron and steel trade to Brazil. They have approached steamship companies with the request that they may be granted a rate half-a-crown a ton below that charged on iron and steel products coming from Germany and England, and it is their belief that if they can get that advantage they will be able to capture the whole of the iron and steel trade of the Brazils. Now, if an advantage of half-a-crown is sufficient to divert trade from England to America, it is a fortiori obvious that a difference of 15s. a ton in favour of the American manufacturer must tend to kill our own industries.

    399
    I would point out to His Majesty's Government that we have had ample warning of this danger. There was a most interesting Report by Mr. Benjamin Morgan, who was appointed Special Commissioner to report on the engineering trades of South Africa. Mr. Morgan went out in 1902, and, in the Report which he presented, he stated—
    "If certain goods can be obtained in England, America, and Germany at even prices any difference in freight would settle where the order would go. The difference in freight charges alone was practically a profit. Store merchants everywhere looked through their stock sheets and completed their stocks with American goods, particulary in hardware lines and agricultural machinery. I was informed that one merchant ordered 1,000 stoves, another 3,000 ploughs, and so on, as a result of this difference in freight."
    In another portion of his Report Mr. Morgan said—
    "The difference prevailing in freights from New York and London respectively to South Africa was the cause of a number of large orders going to America every year."
    He quoted a typical instance given to him by one of the largest firms of engineers and machinery merchants in South Africa.
    "A short time ago a certain firm invited tenders for 700 tons of steel. Our tender was second. The American firm who secured the order paid 15s. a ton less in freight than we This was more than the difference between our prices."
    The warning given by Mr. Morgan was confirmed the following year by Mr. Birchenough, who, with the view of enabling the British public to understand what effect the preferential rates to the American shipper had on British trade, pointed out in his Report, dated August last year, that the Scotch "Dover" stove was 2s. 6d. to 3s. cheaper than the American stove free on board, but landed in South Africa the American stove became the cheaper of the two. About five stoves go to the ton, and Mr. Birchenough pointed out that the freight from Great Britain was 32s. 6d. per ton, or, say, 6s. 6d. per stove, whilst the freight from New York was 10s. per ton. or 2s. per stove. The difference against the Scotch stove was, therefore, 4s. 6d., which made its landed cost in South Africa from 1s. to 1s. 6d. higher than that of the American stove, in spite of its lower free-on-board cost of from 2s. 6d. to 3s.
    400
    Mr. Birchenough said that so long as the 10s. rate lasted merchants were tempted not only to fill up their stocks of heavy articles, such as agricultural implements, fencing wire, machinery, etc., but to make up cargoes with any articles which seemed likely to sell. Mr. Birch-enough summed up the whole situation in these words—
    "No single circumstance has proved so favourable to the rapid growth of American trade with South Africa as these low freights, and we owe them to the action of British shipping companies."
    I hope, my Lords, that I have established the fact that there is an important difference to the advantage of the American shipper, and that that preference does tend to affect most injuriously the interests of British traders.
    In the Yorkshire Post last week I found an advertisement of the Prince Line, which has regular sailings from New York to South Africa. There are quoted the prices charged from New York—viz., to Cape Town and Port Elizabeth, 15s.; East London and Durban, 17s. 6d.; and Delagoa Bay, 22s. 6d., and the advertisement goes on to say—
    "As most of the Prince Line South African steamers proceed from the United Kingdom to New York to load for South Africa, they are prepared to carry, in steamers thus proceeding, a limited quantity of cargo at above rates from the United Kingdom to South Africa, via New York, without transhipment."
    That shows that under the present rates operating from New York British shipowners wishing to do trade with South Africa find it profitable to cross the Atlantic and then take a journey which is longer by 600 miles than the journey from British ports to South Africa. It is to the advantage of British shippers to send their goods viâ New York to South Africa, although it is a distance of 600 miles further.
    The Chambers of Commerce are beginning to inquire seriously into the position, and I hope His Majesty's Government will not put us off with statements that it is difficult to obtain these figures, but that they will seriously consider the position, with a view to suing how far they can protect British industry, which ought to be their first care. The cause of this injurious preference which the American shipowners enjoy is the additional 10 per

    401
    cent. levied by the Conference lines on goods from this country, which is remitted if the shipper has not shipped any cargo by competing lines in the interval. The rebate system and its accompanying penalties are illegal in the United States, and I ask the House to consider whether this is not the secret of the whole position. The American Government regard this system which operates so injuriously to the British trader as a direct restraint of trade, and the result of their legislative action has been to make it impossible for the rebate system to be established on goods shipped from New York to South Africa. I believe that to be the cause of the preference.
    Now, what is the result of the preference? The result certainly is to send to America trade which properly belongs, under fair and equal conditions, to this country. I do not think it matters so much to the manufacturer. He can, if he likes, set up his works in the United States, in order that he may enjoy the advantage of cheaper freights; but the British workman is put out of employment and has a legitimate cause of complaint against His Majesty's Government. The noble Duke, at the close of his speech the other day, pointed out that the question of getting a better rate for the public was entirely outside the province of the Crown Agents. It was, he said, a matter which the Government alone could undertake or examine, and it was very doubtful whether it would be wise for His Majesty's Government to do so. South Africa has given us a 25 per cent. preference on our goods, and I believe the Government are to blame for allowing this rebate system to continue on the export of goods from England, with the result that we lose the whole benefit of that 25 per cent. preference, and are driving trade to America which ought to belong to England.
    The Natal and Cape Governments, so we are informed by the noble Duke, have convened a conference to look into this question of rates. They will, however, look into it from the point of view of the consumer. The noble Duke said—
    "Until we know what the result of the conference is, until we are informed of the wishes and views of the people of South Africa themselves upon this subject, it would be premature
    402
    for His Majesty's Government to offer any opinion upon such a difficult and complicated matter."
    I say it is the duty of His Majesty's Government to look after the interests of British workmen and British manufacturers. There is a remedy which I have often been told is impossible for His Majesty's Government to apply, but I contend that it is within the power of the Government to effect a combination of shippers. There ought to be very little difficulty, if His Majesty's Government would co-operate with the Administrations in Natal, the Transvaal, the Orange River Colony, Cape Colony, and Rhodesiain forming an independent shipping combination, which would enable them to secure, not only for themselves, but for the public, the advantage of the cheap rates which American shippers now enjoy from New York and other American ports. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
    Moved, "For a Return showing the quantities and description of manufactured goods exported from New York to South Africa during the two years ending 30th June, 1904, and the freight charged; also the freight charged on similar goods exported from the United Kingdom to South Africa."—(Earl, Grey.)
    Lofty WOLVERTON: MY Lords, in answer to my noble friend, I have to state that the Board of Trade can give the quantities of the principal classes of manufactured goods exported from the United States of America to South Africa in the years mentioned, but I regret to say that the Department have no official figures dealing with the freights asked for in the Motion, and I fear that a Return of the exports without the freight figures would be of little service to the noble Lord. As the noble Lord is aware, freights are not fixed within maximum powers as rates are fixed for the carriage of goods by railway. They vary with the circumstances of the trade, and are difficult of ascertainment. I shall, however, be happy to discuss with the noble Lord the question whether any figures can be supplied for the purposes of the Return which would be useful to him.
    EARL GREY:I understand the noble Lord to say that he can give official figures showing the value of the exports?
    LORD WOLVERTON: Yes.
    EARL GREY: Perhaps he will give us a Return to that effect.
    LORD WOLVERTON: Yes; I can promise that; but I cannot give official freights.
    EARL GREY: Although the (noble Lord cannot give us all the official freights, it must surely be within the power of the Government to obtain from shipping companies the rates that have been charged.
    LORD WOLVERTON: The Board of Trade are unable to give official figures as regards freights. They might be misleading.
    EARL GREY: I accept the noble Lord's kind invitation to talk the matter over with him; but if the result of our conversation does not convince me that the Government are in earnest in putting an end to the pernicious practice which is driving trade from this country to America, I hope I may have the opportunity of taking such further action as the rules of the House allow.
    THE EARL of ROSEBERY: Are we to understand that it is impossible for the Board of Trade to obtain these figures? I should have thought there would have been no special difficulty in doing so; and, as an illustration of the new policy of maintaining the Empire by differential tariffs, it would have been rather instructive.
    THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I understood my noble friend to say that there were no official figures available of the kind the noble Earl desired, and, the noble Earl's counter suggestion was that figures might be obtained from private sources. That suggestion I understood the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade to be unable to accept on the spur of the moment, but
    404
    he indicated his desire to confer with the noble Earl and to meet his views as far as possible.
    Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
    House adjourned at twenty minutes past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.